Talk:Quadrillion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconNumbers
WikiProject iconThis redirect 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.
WikiProject iconMeasurement Unassessed (defunct)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Measurement, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please see my discussion of Names for Large Numbers. -- Stephen001

That page cannot be found[edit]

I clicked on the above link and it says that it doesn't exist.

Trillion[edit]

This article uses Trillion twice, and means different values each time!!! This is inconsistent and must be corrected. Ian Cairns 01:57, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Did you remember...[edit]

...when Wikipedia had articles for larger numbers?? Now they survive as re-directs to Names of large numbers after a time on Vfd. Any discussion on what to do with this article?? 66.245.89.130 02:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Fixed[edit]

The article has a table of contents now, so I removed the stub tag. It's not a stub anymore! We can leave it be now.Scythe33

Merging this article with names of large numbers[edit]

Do you support or oppose merging this with names of large numbers?

Contradiction[edit]

This article states that the traditional British definition of a quadrillion is , whereas the Names of large numbers page states . Following the logic of the old system this page seems to be at fault, but with no references I am reluctant to change the page. Can someone with more knowledge on the matter check which is correct? RossMM 23:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, so I changed the page. I checked it against the Oxford English Dictionary to be sure. Thanks. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clearing that up. RossMM 16:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Article Used to be Large - What Happened to It?[edit]

What happened to this article that now consists of basically 2 sentences? It used to be an extensive article... Did the Wikipedia reductionists show up again? Stevenmitchell (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No citations[edit]

The stub article makes some bold claims without citation. What are the numbers of English speakers using the different definitions proffered? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.208.49.21 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

short scale countries[edit]

All English speaking countries use the short scale. "Short scale countries" is a weird phrase that tells the reader nothing. Also definitions in wikipedia are always the English definition unless otherwise noted. Bhny (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]