Wikipedia talk:Million pool

Any opinions about a poll similar to this, only instead of involving when Wikipedia reaches a specified number of articles, it focuses on how many articles Wikipedia has by a given anniversary, such as Quadrennial pool talking about how many articles Wikipedia reaches by its 4th anniversary (See List of anniversary names for a list of anniversary names.) Wikipedia's quadrennial is coming up soon and I'm estimating about 450,000 articles. 66.32.255.227 01:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's fourth birthday is a little too close to have a good solid pool for. It's only 7ish weeks away, and you have to allow at least two for guessing. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 16:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: on the upcoming anniversiary we announce the competition, (perhaps with foundation backing, to make a big thing about our 5th anni), giving people a month to guess on english and project-wide counts of articles at the time of our fifth anniversiary in 2006. &#9999; Sverdrup 19:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please don't protect this page
There's no trophy. Per Protection policy, the page:

Vacuum c 02:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * is not a high-visibility page
 * does not contain the site's logo
 * is not a key copyright or license page
 * is not a press release
 * is not a system administration page
 * is not in the MediaWiki namespace
 * is not a user page or subpage thereof
 * is not the target of an edit war
 * is not the target of persistent vandalism
 * is not the victim of a bug in the MediaWiki software

Wiki1M on the Foresight Exchange
It may be of interest to some people that someone has created a scaled Foresight Exchange claim on the matter. It's at http://ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=WIKI1M - RedWordSmith 01:07, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Questionable and repeated guesses
Right now, we've got two guesses for "never", two for "midnight of never", one with a variable, and at duplicates on March 15, 2006; June 25, 2006; and June 30, 2006. For the regular duplicates, I suppose contacting the later of the entrants to have them change their guess is best, but what do we do about the others? Is it really fair to allow the "one year after 500k" guess? And if it never happens, which of the four "win"? -- Cyrius|&#9998; 22:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * My Comments
 * The 'never' votes should have clarification requested from the voteres - for instances as 'Wikipedia will go bust before 1G article', 'The project will be renamed before 1G articles' or similar. If they do not provide clarification then it doesn't really matter... no body really wins. :(
 * For duplicates I would suggest requesting a change of vote, and indicating at the top of the main page that only one vote per diem is allowed. If they choose not to change vote, then whomever votes first should be considered to have won.
 * I would allow the variable vote, subject to the voter adding a clarification on what he wishes to happen should it fall upon the same day as that of another voter. --Neo 23:44, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've asked the people with outright duplicate guesses to change them or ask the earlier person to do so. This leaves some problems with people guessing specific times. That should have been disallowed from the start, but it seems to be explicitly allowed. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:48, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I just don't see the problem with duplicate votes. Since the prize is "eternal fame", is this poll really being taken that seriously? And if it is, this creates a problem for later voters of having all of the "good days" taken. In my case (sharing June 30, 2006 with User:Neutrality) I don't care if I'm not the "official" winner, this is just my honest guess. -- Scott ei&#960;  03:59, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The game's just for fun, but it'd be nice to be able to say there's a winner. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:39, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course, even if it is just for fun and we should all lighten up about it. Duplicates can be very simply handled with the first person choosing the date "winning" and the second being second place. If you didn't vote early enough to get your day, you get second. :) - Taxman 19:24, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

The never people (myself included) can't win since we'd need to wait forver to prove we were right. It's not an issue. This link is Broken 05:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Further pools
I don't suppose there's any real need for Ten-million pool, Twenty-million pool, Fifty-million pool, Hundred-million pool etc., in the near future? No, I didn't think so. &mdash; J I P | Talk 11:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * After less than a year, there is now a ten-million pool. For a twenty-million pool, I think we should wait until Wikipedia reaches 2,000,000 articles before we can have one. Georgia guy 00:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Unoffical Pool
Poll closed so make your "unofficial" guesses here.


 * Feb 5th 2006 -- sid007 20:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Feb 15th, 2006 - Since this pool closed en.wiki has been on an average 6.3% monthly growth rate. The growth rate has been amazingly consistent in the 6% area for quite a while and if it continues, Feb is the date. My pessimistic Aug bet was based on that 6% slowing to 4 or 5% if I recall correctly, based on running out of topics to write about, but clearly that has been unfounded so far. - Taxman Talk 17:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * April 3 2006 Ashibaka tock 22:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * March 2, 2006 Acetic Acid 11:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * March 2, 2006 07:35 AM UTC. I win! =) J I P  | Talk 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2006 Mar 02 04:55 UTC — Yaohua2000 19:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Lines?
Should there be lines in the pool indicating the current date, to mark failed guesses, like there was in the 666,666th pool? &mdash; J I P  | Talk 08:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I WP:BOLDly removed them because I thought it was silly to edit the page 150+ times to move the line every day or every few. Anyone can look at their calendar and know what date it is and what votes no longer have a chance of being correct. That said, if you feel strongly about it, I can put up with the irritation :) - Taxman Talk 15:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

My entry was removed
I was just looking through this to remember what date I had placed my entry and noticed it had been removed for whatever reason!

As you can see, my initial edit is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Million_pool&oldid=9388186

And this is the edit where my name was removed, for whatever reason: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Million_pool&oldid=9388287

Since the date I had initially chosen (July 24, 2006) has since been taken, I have added my name to the closest available spot, which is July 26, 2006. I hope this doesn't cause a problem, even though voting is technically closed. --Comics 01:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Folks, we approach 900,600
Considering I'm seeing an article creation rate of about 1 every 3 seconds, I unofficially [as far as the pool is concerned] predict January 8, 2006 as the date when we see 1mill articles. &mdash; Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  03:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Or the 30th &mdash; Ilyan e  p   (Talk)  03:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Category pools
Wikipedia has less than 80,000 articles to go before it reaches this exciting number. However, I want to see if anyone can propose a count for Wikipedia's number of categories, so that we can have category pools as well starting when Wikipedia reaches a million articles. Any opinions?? Georgia guy 00:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Getting closer
A quick calculation based on a constant growth assumption since the 900,000 article milistone on January 4 puts the millionth article at March 1. Since the article growth has always been exponential, the millionth article will probably be reached before that - a wild guess not based on calculations says 20 February? Thue | talk 22:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, as of this typing we have 951,605 articles. That's within 50,000 of 1,000,000...  at this rate it could be either, neither (before), or between!  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  01:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

953,933
At 953,933 on February 4, I will say based on my own wild calculations, we will hit by the 25th. Kaiser matias 19:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well... if we are at 981,535 during the very exact moment of the time 20:12 on the day Sunday, February 19 2006 (UTC), which is when I placed the comment that you are looking at now, it definitely looks like we will have indeed broken the million barrier by then. (Oh my, we're within 20,000 already!) -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * With some luck, the Million articles will be my 25th birthday present on the 27th. --Mkill 12:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * 989,091 as of this writing. Kaiser matias 22:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now it's 989,629. I think you may be right on there (if counting up from what I reported four days ago on the 19th -- the 27th is four days from now!  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Growth rate
It seems like Wikipedia took four years to reach half a million articles, and is taking another year to reach another half a million. This means that Wikipedia's growth rate has roughly quadrupled. So let's see some predictions: Looks like the last few predictions are way off, though. J I P | Talk 08:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 1 million articles: March 17th, 2006
 * 2 million articles: June 17th, 2006 (after a quarter of a year)
 * 4 million articles: July 9th, 2006 (after 22 days)
 * 8 million articles: July 14th, 2006 12:00 UTC (after 5.5 days)
 * 16 million articles: July 15th, 2006 21:00 UTC (after 1 day 9 hours)
 * 32 million articles: July 16th, 2006 05:15 UTC (after 8 hours 15 minutes)
 * 64 million articles: July 16th, 2006 07:19 UTC (after 2 hours 4 minutes)
 * 128 million articles: July 16th, 2006 07:50 UTC (after 31 minutes)
 * 256 million articles: July 16th, 2006 07:57:45 UTC (after 7 minutes 45 seconds)
 * 512 million articles: July 16th, 2006 07:59:41 UTC (after 1 minute 56 seconds)
 * 1024 million articles: July 16th, 2006 08:00:10 UTC (after 29 seconds)
 * 2048 million articles: July 16th, 2006 08:00:17 (after 7 seconds)
 * 4096 million articles: July 16th, 2006 08:00:19 (after 2 seconds)
 * All but the couple of first predictions are complete nonsense. Going by this logic, the timestamps of the predictions asymptotically approach July 16th, 2006 08:00:20, which means that no matter how high the number of articles in the prediction is, the timestamp isn't going to be after that date. So once July 16th, 2006 08:00:20 comes, Wikipedia's size will be infinite. J I P  | Talk 15:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes...yessss that's exactly the plan! MUOHAHAHAHA! &mdash; Ilyan  e  p  (Talk)  00:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Something tells me all of these will be wrong... -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  02:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it's all wrong because it confuses doubling time (nearly constant growth rate) with quadrupling growth rates. I'd like to think JIP knew that. - Taxman Talk 21:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The growth rate is probably logistic, which approximates exponential growth at first.the1physicist 01:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What to do yet??
Any opinions on what pools to open when Wikipedia reaches the day of its millionth article?? Georgia guy 00:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The Two-million pool will close that day, so maybe we can open a Ten-million pool. J I P  | Talk 09:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We're almost there!
We have less than 10,000 articles to go when we get to this exciting number! It should probably reach this exciting number within a week! Georgia guy 17:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If anyone is interested in having a press release, there's not much time left to whip one out. There's nothing so far. While I think it might be nice to have one, I think we'll get a fair amount of press either way. - Taxman Talk 18:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a Meta version of it -- but still nothing on this wiki. -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * We now have less than 1000 articles to go! My current prediction sets the date at March 2, 07:35 AM UTC. This means that by the time I have bothered to get out of bed and access the Internet tomorrow morning, the milestone will already have passed. Of course our friends over there in the bison country can have lunch and dinner, and settle down to watch the TV with their family at leisure, because it'll still be afternoon/evening on March 1 for them. J I P  | Talk 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like we now have 999,885 articles. Yes, that's right, 999,885.  That is well within 500 articles of The Big One, and we are extremely close to being within 100.  I think we will hit it within about an hour or so (counting from this comment.  And I think I will be on the site then.  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  22:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User count
Does anybody think that the number of registered users might reach the million-mark before the total number of articles gets there? Defrosted 03:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to think that will be the case... according to the auto-stats from Wikiside, the rate of new users is BEYOND double that of the new articles rate (which is slowing down...) -- by 51. Of course, use its info with caution -- it has had its million article countdown hover just below or above 5 for far more than that amount of days.  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  03:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. Maybe this will be an "achievement" that English Wikipedia will quietly notch up amid all the fanfare building up to the advent of the millionth article.  Will there be any special prizes for the owner of the millionth account? Defrosted 03:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It depends on what the user will actually be. For all we know, it could be someone who will just get blocked indefinitely on the spot due to username.  However, if someone else thinks there should be prizes, I'm cool with it.  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  20:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Registered users now outnumber articles... perhaps award something extra if the millionth Wikipedian to sign up also creates the millionth article. Defrosted 08:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Special:Statistics reports now that we have 999,194 users! Considering the amount of articles is 996,284 at 23:20 on February 27, 2006, this can only mean that the Millionth Account&trade; will happen before The Millionth Article&trade; of Wikipedia&reg;.  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  23:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect statement of rules
I dispute the following statement: "Entries that were for days before 2006 February 25 (UTC) are considered to be outdated and have lost." The competition isn't to place a guess as closely _after_ the the target is reached, but to be as close as possible. For example, say the target is met on March 2. The winner in that case would be the person who guessed March 1. Since the next guess is March 6, March 1 will be closest. Entries do not expire as soon as the date has passed.

I believe that this was established in the first version of the page (which I created):


 * The person who comes closest to the actual date is the winner (of eternal fame). The current number of articles in the English Wikipedia: 991,506.
 * To enter the contest, enter your name under the appropriate month header below (create it if it doesn't exist), along with the date you predict. 12.00 UTC (noon) of each day is assumed, unless an exact time is specified (in UTC).

Note that I'm much more likely to lose due to this clarification. :-P. &mdash; David Remahl 04:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've corrected the statement to "It is currently 2006 February 26 (UTC). Guesses for prior dates are still eligible to win if a later guess isn't closer to the actual date than the earlier date."  I think I placed the incorrect statement there (this was a successor to the old double bar line, which, in a way, was equally rule-violating).  I'm going to make a modification to the other pools similarly (although the two-million pool will have the one that is here commented out, with it's own closing imminent).  -- WC  Quidditch   &#9742;   &#9998;  16:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Super! &mdash; David Remahl 18:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Had the rules not been fixed, User:Chmod007 would have won the pool he created himself. Now it's going to be User:Anr. J I P  | Talk 15:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Winner prediction
My current prediction places the million articles milestone on March 3, early morning UTC. This means that User:Anr will be the one winning this pool. J I P | Talk 17:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Now my current prediction places the milestone on March 2, at about 10:05 in the morning UTC. User:Anr will still be the winner. J I P  | Talk 06:24, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone change this!
1,000,157! We exceeded 1,000,000! Looks like is winner! Someone modify to signify this! -- WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)