Talk:138 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Numbers
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numbers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Numbers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 


from Vfd[edit]

On 16 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/138 (number) for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 01:15, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Reflections[edit]

I originated this article as a juvenile joke (despite my age). Original contents:

138 is the natural number following 137 and preceding 139.
138 is the smallest integer not having it's own article in the English Wikipedia. ...Oups...

Within a week, this resulted in a fairly substantial article. I might be tempted to repeat the joke on the next "missing" articles in the integer sequence (139 (number), 143 (number), 146 (number), 148 (number), 149 (number)...). At a rate of one per week, we'd soon get to 200. But I won't - after all, the joke is not THAT fun...--Niels Ø 08:39, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

  • http://www.ngcic.org/
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-23 17:08:25, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In IC 1337 on 2011-04-24 04:34:10, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-23 02:06:58, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 10 (number) on 2011-05-31 22:27:07, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 11 (number) on 2011-06-01 02:53:15, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 138 (number) on 2011-06-01 14:55:19, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)