Talk:73 (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.


There is only one entry under "in popular culture", but many of the listings under "in other fields" are pop-culture-related. Should they be moved? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Who really cares? What would moving them do for the world? Anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2013 (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!

    • 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'
    • In 48 (number) on 2011-06-19 14:01:14, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'
    • In 52 (number) on 2011-06-19 20:05:38, Socket Error: 'getaddrinfo failed'

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:04, 19 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) 21:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

'The rhythmic clapping at sporting events that precedes “Let’s Go!”'[edit]

This statement is incorrect. The actual rhythmic sequence is: -- ..- ...- .- which in Morse Code spells MUVA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference to Big Bang Theory's Sheldon's reference unimportant?[edit]

I edited and removed the [importance?] item assuming that it was in there accidentally (by intertia, who knows).

It was reinserted claiming that he still questions the importance.

I'm quite puzzled by this --- how can someone question the importance of factually correct information about the number 73 in an encyclopedia entry about the number 73?

The page's purpose is to provide facts and information about the number 73, not about judgment or qualifications about that information.

Almost every single Wikipedia page about a number has a section "In popular culture" or "In film and TV" or "In other fields" that include popular culture and TV among others. The page on 7 mentions the Star Trek Voyager character Seven of Nine; the page on 2 mentions the fictional character Number Two; the page on 42, well, one could almost say that it is about Douglas Adams' Hitchhicker's Guide to the Galaxy reference to 42.

Why would a reference to a TV episode about a ranting on the perfection of the number 73 (with solid and factually correct arguments) be considered of questionable importance?

Can we please agree on leaving that piece of information and removing the questioning of its importance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal-linux (talkcontribs) 23:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Not unless there is an external third-party discussion of the use of "73" on the show, and its importance. Character names (No. 2, No. 6, Agent 86, Agent 99, 007, etc.) can be easily documented. "42" in Hitchhiker's Guide is also an internet meme, and there is an much discussion, not just in the context of the radio novels/movies/radio plays/tatoos/stained glass windows[notes 1].... I'm not really happy with "47" in Star Trek, but there are apparently are external sources. I've removed the references to the 6 "magic" numbers in "Lost", as 6 out of 108 is not all that rare. Do you see any inconsistency in my arguments? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't necessarily see inconsistency --- I just do not agree with your point. Is this your opinion, or is it a clearly stated rule in the Wikipedia guidelines? I do not remember any such rule. The types of rules I remember are: avoid "opinion" or "point of view" statements, avoid non-verifiable information, etc. Verifiable does not mean verifiable through contents on the Internet --- many references on Wikipedia pages are to textbooks; they're still verifiable.
In a page about a number, we want factual information about that number, regardless of whether or not people have discussed about it. From the point of view of an encyclopedia, some obscure fact should be every bit as important as some fact that everybody knows --- in fact, if anything, obscure facts (as in, those on which there are no discussions around) should be more important than the facts that people talk about! It's an encyclopedia, after all !!
My view is that unless you show me some official Wikipedia guidelines stating what you say above (or that the entire community of watchers confirm it), I will continue to insist that this reference to 73 should be in, and its importance should not be questioned. (added by: Cal-linux, 2014-09-14 --- I thought I was logged in, but my IP showed up; hopefully it is removed now?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal-linux (talkcontribs)
There is one principle that you have not considered, that of verifiability. That requires that there been some source for the importance (not just the prevalence) of 73; if there are other numbers of importance in The Big Bang Theory, that reduces the importance to this article. Specific related guidelines include WP:NUM#Numbers in fiction:

In general, the number needs to be conspicuous and important to the story to be worth mentioning in the number articles. Appearing in the title is often a guarantee of conspicuousness and importance.

I can't find a specific guideline requiring the importance to be sourced, other that WP:V and WP:OR. That it is conspicuous might be observable from the actual show, but ....
Others at WT:NUM might have further comments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually, verifiability to me is the main "non-issue" here --- what can be unverifiable about something that has been broadcast in TV and later published in DVD/Bluray format as well as all sorts of streaming, from illegal downloads to Netflix and the like? That's precisely why I started my complaint about the issue of importance saying that this is "factually correct information related to the number 73".
As for the guideline you point out --- this reference passes that, I belive with flying colors; the scriptwriters of the show seem to have specifically waited for episode 73 of the show to include this ranting. The ranting goes on for a while. Also, the fact that in numerous episodes after that one sees Sheldon wearing the T-shirt with 73 on it. It's not like the episode is about this fact; but it is a very prominent sketch of the episode (well, at least for those of us who can understand math and numbers :-) )
Either way, I think we can can this discussion, provided that you agree that these external sources pass your test: (notice that there are 48 comments in it!) (270 comments) (though this is a blog from someone --- which could potentially make this qualify as original research, though it is not that someone the one editing this page ---, there is a discussion about it, which is what you seemed to look for?) (interestingly, in this one someone mentions that Jim Parsons (the actor that plays Sheldon) was born in 1973! :-) )
So, can we now agree on removing the item questioning the importance of this reference?
Cal-linux (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I haven't checked Youtube, but all the others (including IMDB) are personal blogs. IMDB is not a "personal" blog, but trivia is sourced only to the person adding it. If any of those sources have editorial review, I might reconsider, depending on the degree of editorial review and of verification of importance. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Smut", by Tom Lehrer
It is relevant because all of the reasons given for the importance of 73 have their own Wikipedia articles. The joke itself was well researched and referenced. MMetro (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
The joke is not referenced. Yet. Nor does it seem important. Nor does it seem to be in Big Bang Theory; if it were sufficiently important to be in 73 (number), it should be there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)