This is a pool for predicting the date at which the number of articles (as defined by the official article count presented on the Special:statistics) in the English Wikipedia reaches 110,000,000,000 (one hundred and ten billion). The person who comes closest to the actual date is the winner (of fame lasting one hundred ten billion years). The current number of articles in the English Wikipedia is 6,771,221. It may be a while.

This page contains material that is kept because it is considered humorous. Such material is not meant to be taken seriously.

The pool will be closed for entries on the day that the English Wikipedia reaches 100,000,000,000 (one hundred billion), so be sure to place your guess before that date. The pool opened shortly after the 500,000th article was created.

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). Changing the prediction is allowed up until the date the pool closes. This page is for guesses with a specified day, month or year. To make a guess with no specified year, go to #Guesses with unspecified year.

For other non-serious pools, see Wikipedia:Millionth topic pool, Wikipedia:Two-millionth topic pool, Wikipedia:Last topic pool, and Wikipedia:500th language pool.

• There is no such number as "eleventy billion". Georgia guy 22:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes there is: eleventy = 110; billion = 1,000,000,000. So ${\displaystyle eleventy\;billion=eleventy\times billion=110\times 1,000,000,000=110,000,000,000}$ Guanaco 22:42, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, there isn't!! It's called One hundred and ten billion. End of story. --Shultz 05:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Definitely no such thing, see Merriam-Webster if you disagree. -JKD

Perhaps you should consult Wikipedia? Surprisingly enough, eleventy does exist. Modest Genius ^talk 03:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, that is a fictional numbering system. -- Tckma 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The article specifies it was invented by him, not that it was fictional. And even if it is, so what? Modest Genius ^talk 19:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• We'll cease to be called Wikipedia long before this happens. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:44, 2005 Mar 27 (UTC)
  • We'll cease to be called anything long before this happens. BrokenSegue 03:06, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. Humanity may well cease to exist before this happens. Alex.tan 17:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • FIE! They will call it GOD when it reaches eleventy billion! -insert maniacal laughter here- Cernen 11:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • nah. God only has nine billion names. At eleventy-billion, Wikipedia will be much more powerful. Grutness...wha? 12:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
• Just like my vote on the 5,000,000 pool: the heat death of the sun will occur before this point.  ALKIVAR™ 20:23, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Tomorrow. -- Terabyte 08:56, Today (UTC)

• Long after we suffer the end of the world.--207.200.116.202 23:45, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Just like my vote on the five million pool: When boys start being named Sarah. HellRaiser 04:45, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• That's not even a real number! --Alex Trebek 02:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yet! --Keanu Reeves 02:51, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes it ruddy well is! Everyone's been saying its not, but ${\displaystyle eleventy\;billion=eleventy\times billion=110\times 1,000,000,000=110,000,000,000}$ eleventy = 110. See LotR. --Mark J 17:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't think so. It's One-hundred-ten-billion.
        • I don't think so. It's One hundred and ten billion :) UrbaneLegend 13:50, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
          • I don't think so. You should have learned in grade school that you never use "and" within a number, except to differentiate between the integer part and the decimal part. "One hundred and ten billion" equates to either ${\displaystyle 100+10,000,000,000=10,000,000,100}$ (sum) or 100 and 10,000,000,000 (two separate numbers) or ${\displaystyle 100\;AND\;10,000,000,000=0}$ (Algebraic logical operator). One-hundred-ten-billion is correct, One-hundred and ten-billion is not. Sorry. Dansiman 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
            • And you should have learned in grade school that there are countries outside the USA. Heavens, it's even in American_and_British_English_differences#Numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.34.60.42 (talk • contribs)
              • I was not aware of this. I apologize if I have offended anyone. Dansiman 03:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've never heard eleventy billion used, but the explanation seems plausible. It's unlikely there will ever be eleventy billion people. It could happen if we live in multiple solar systems, but relativistic physics would indicate an interstellar Wiki would be very slow and cumbersome. Granted that most topics are likely not people, but still it seems unlikely you could have more topics then there are people. So never.--T. Anthony 15:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Hah! None of you voting for 'Never' will win the pool! ;) Leffa 03:39, 12 December 2499 (UTC)

• • Unless like whats going to happen,one of three things happen. One, a all powerful virus wipes out all computers like the one I'm working on.(Don't worry, its a family project that my grandfather started.)Two, some mad-man destroys the earth. Just like what my brother is working on. Or three, both.
  • Nice guys finish last. ^_^ Cernen 11:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Nobody else'll win either, if we're right. :) I vote never because humanity will be so insane by the time it comes near there that any intelligent admins will be deleting 258,848,338 articles per day. - ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 17:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think we'll ever reach the number. Wouldn't a more interesting pool be to guess what topic the eleventy-billionth page will be? michaelritchie200 (UTC)

• Everyone will have chips implanted in their brains which will link them to a global consciousness and information will become immediately accessible. Thus, Wikipedia will become obsolete. Grandmasterka 03:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
  • So... When humans become a hive mind organism? Eggmanpuyo (UTC)
  • Obsolete? Are you kidding? Wikipedia will be that immediately accessible consciousness and information! Hail Wikipedia. jοτομικρόν | Talk 18:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

• Probobly never, because the Internet will be destroyed by robots looking for Al Gore, and directed to the Internet by W to make Democrats look bad....Dumb jackass
  • Mwah--72.49.52.246 01:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• For the record, there is an existing precedent for the number eleventy. From the Lord of the Rings series, the setting near the beginning of the first book was Bilbo Baggins' eleventy-first (111) birthday. So, yes, eleventy-billion is a number. Dansiman 20:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia will hit eleventy billion on the same day that Apple buys out Microsoft, and Linus Torvalds becomes the CEO of said company. ModusOperandi 04:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that the day Duke Nukem Forever comes out on the Infinium Phantom box? Niffux 08:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• January 1 of the year Infinity. Wikipikarefulgenschu 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• Never -- Wikipedia will only get as big as 2 million before it collapses (see below) --Jonathan ^talk 12:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• I want a cookie! Oh...sorry...it just kind of slipped out there...~ Porphyric Hemophiliac § 02:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• January 1. An awkward wormhole or time-warp will have catapulted us backward in time by then, owing to people messing with time travel - forcing us to live out the rest of our days as cavemen and orang-utan herders.

That won't stop us from continuing Wikipedia with sticks, leaves and old banana-skins, though. Nothing can stop human endeavour. That's really my guess. I'll be dead long before then (or should it be after then?) anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

PS. Can you inscribe something on my gravestone? Carry it back in time with you please. Hope this doesn't count as vandalism. Mark J 10:04, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree, but for different reasons. We won't be catapulted back in time, however, so many years will pass before this event that time will actually suffer a 128-bit overflow and revert to 4.5 billion years BC again. We might hit eleventy billion by the fourth time January 320,000BC passes, and most likely because we just miss it by one article after the third passing so Jimbo the -470th locks Wikipedia entirely until it comes about again. The Polish Wikipedians begin a universal revolution when they realise that at the moment it was locked for what was to be 9 billion years, someone had moved Gdansk back to Danzig. Chris talk back 02:10, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  • What a brilliant little story!
    • HAH. Agreed. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is my favorite story (See above ^) so I'll vote that and split the profits. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense! Being catapuled back to 320,000 BC would not result in us living as cavemen and orang-utan herders. Only the cavemen and orang-utan herders live like cavemen and orang-utan herders. We, on the other hand, would still have all our technology, and even if the technology was destroyed we'd make it all over again. --Jonathan ^{talk / my pool guess} 12:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, 42 B.C. I'm surprised this wasn't on here. :-P - Anchor_THE

• March 1 - Rolled a dice and it decided that this is when it would happen. I think it's broken. --Ben davison 11:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

• π(pi)

3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510 58209 74944 59230 78164 06286 20899 86280 34826 34211 70679... - so the year 3 at that fraction of the year. It makes sense if you assume that time is eliptical.

• The 32nd day of the 13th month. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 19:43, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Beware the ides of Smarch! -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:16, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb 1, as in Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb11116. The article will be List of common Swedish first names beginning with Brfxxccxxmnpcccclllmmnprxvclmnckssqlbb, ending with 11116, and pronounced like "Albin" (chronological by date of first use) --Ravi12346 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• July 17. Time travel will have been invented by then. Xezbeth 19:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

• February 30. This day actually existed in Sweden; click on the link to learn more. --Ravi12346 00:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

September 416500, 1993. Radiant_>|< 13:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• January 16, definitely. ✏ OvenFresh² 20:16, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Cheat! ;) Proto 12:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Today is Hune 25, 2005. I win, you lost. SYSS Mouse 18:08, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're laughing now, but when 2007 comes the date won't be reliable to use at all... ~ Ghelæ ^talk_contribs 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

• A 2007 section will solve that problem... --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

No using {{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, please --WikiSlasher 10:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, it seems like this one was a failed prediction... Pie3141527182 02:12, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

• May. By then the schoolcruft stormtroopers will have had their way, and so by definition if every school deserves an article, someone will make an article on every church, restaurant, pub, street, duckpond, tree, stream, cloud, person, dog, supermarket and blade of grass in the world, to prove their WP:POINT. Proto 12:49, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And squirrel colony. Those are notable too. Sango123 July 5, 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Every dog? Just what we need... Crufts-cruft. Grutness...wha? 12:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

• September 9. 09:09:09am. KevinHook 6:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• May 5. 05:01:40am. Now this might appear as just another wild guess at first, but in fact it isn't! I've calculated an exponential function from the number of articles in the english version of Wikipedia based on the counts the last 5 years. The function is: f(x)=82.382*9.4843543^x. Where x is number of years since 2001. If my calculations are correct, we will se this the 110000000000th article at the precise moment written above. Exilibur 17:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm with Exilibur on this one, because this way it really could come true, and I'd be alive to see it.  :) --AndreniW 02:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Damn I WAS GONNA USE AN EXPONENTIAL FUNCTION >:| don't worry I'll input my entry next year when we have more data :P --WikiSlasher 10:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• July 17. I just have a feeling. Staxringold 12:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• October 17. I say October 17, because that's how long it will take me to create 109,998,985,569 articles if I start now and work hard (and factor in other people's articles). Yay! ToldYouSo
• December 21. (Well, something big will happen that day.) The Wookieepedian 12:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• December 22. Due to a server outage on December 20, and ensuing chaos, it will take the 179 volunteer sysadmins 34 hours to restore and synchronize the 17 central database clusters. The network of p2p Wikipedians will have a variety of independent calculations suggesting when the eleventy-billionth article might or might not have been written, and we will never know for certain; when the machines come back on, before the last sysadmin ascends, it may be verified that we have at least eleventy-billion-and-one distinct articles in the core index. +sj + 21:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• May 2. You know it, I know it. Sdedeo (tips) 01:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• October 14. Gut feeling.Diablo-D3 02:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• December 1. Some ten years (and a little bit more) from now. Niffux 08:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• August 17. Whereupon Wikipedia's vision will become perfect. Matt Yeager 07:06, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• June 9. 2020 vision in sight. Astroguy2 14:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• July 1. Assuming a doubling time of 11 months, and that Wikipedia will reach 1,000,000 in mid-February 2006, Wikipedia will reach eleventy-billion after 15.35 years and 16.75 doublings. --Carnildo 20:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• July 11. This is based on simple math that Wikipedia multiplies in size by 1.002 every day. I have no life. Jared 12:11, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

• August 20, "20/20/2020". +sj + 21:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • uh, why did you put this in 2021 then?
    • Because 20/20/2020 is August, 2021?

• September 1 - Kevin Baas^talk 23:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• October 31 Fiberter 00:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

• February 22 (22/2/22) - Ek7 21:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• July 5th --164.58.48.9 08:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• August 28th. Assuming wikipedia doubles in size every year, it will happen sometime in 2022. August 28th is a lucky day for me. Pellaken 07:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • August 28th, at 12:00:01 UTC. I'm also good at the Price Is Right. parkerjones

• January 1. No, I don't know why. --Wcquidditch | Talk 14:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• sometime in 2023 - ok let say wikipedia will double in size every year:
  • 2003 1/8 million - 2004 1/4 million
  • 2005 1/2 million - 2006 1 million
  • 2007 2 million - 2008 4 million
  • 2009 8 million - 2010 16 million
  • 2011 32 million - 2012 64 million
  • 2013 128 million - 2014 256 million
  • 2015 512 million - 2016 1024 million (about 1 billion)
  • 2017 2 billion - 2018 4 billion
  • 2019 8 billion <-- more than the number of earth pepole(maybe robots or aliens will write the articles)
  • 2020 16 billion - 2021 32 billion
  • 2022 64 billion - 2023 128 billion (close to Eleventy-billion number)

• August 17--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 11:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

February 2 - When they invent salmon flavored Pop Tarts! --HurricaneJeanne 00:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• On November 19 of 2026, when an article added on Proper punctuation of words describing Pokemon transsexual acts causes the size of Wikipedia to exceed the size of the web itself. This virtual paradox causes the universe to collapse into Wiki-singularity, thus making the number of articles infinite. --A D Monroe III 4 July 2005 00:08 (UTC)

• November 1 of Year CE Twenty-Twenty-Seven. →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 01:32, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

• October 7 - For my 40th birthday, I shall ask each resident of Earth to create at least 3 articles about how much they love me. Of course, this will be done via hypno-broadcast. Ryan 07:27, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

• January 1 of Year CE Twenty-Twenteen. Hmib 02:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Anytime that year - The Singularity will make this happen, enough said. Read the article if you want to know why.

(Hint: The Singularity will lightningly open doors to interstellar space travel so new discoveries will give us more article material.) --Shultz 05:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• May 18, 2033, at 09:33, soon after the election of Anthony Ivanoff as the President of the United States. --Anthony Ivanoff 10:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Umm, Mr. Russkie? You know that those born in foreign lands cannot run for president? --Shultz III 08:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you thought about the 28th Amendment of 2020? Who knows what the US Constitution might say in a few decades time.-gadfium 08:09, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• April 30th, 2036, at 6:21 PM. --Monk of the highest order 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• January 1, ten years after Great Anglo-American War. --LW 15:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• January 19 at 3:14:08. There's no connection between the number of articles and that problem, but I thought it was a cool time to set the prediction at. The number of articles will exceed eleventy-billion as self-replicating nanobots all start submitting vanity articles on themselves far faster than vfd can cope with.-gadfium 20:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Nanobot vanity. That's the best one yet. I declare you the pre-winner. Nickptar 00:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
• January 19 at 3:14:09. The number of language editions of Wikipedia will exceed eleventy-billion as said nanobots each create their own ideal language, and translate all existing articles to that language.-gadfium 23:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Not to mention that it'll have editionized all alien languages found throughout this galaxy. The Singularity will have made interstellar space travel possible much sooner than you think! Oh, on MY SISTER'S 43RD BIRTHDAY??? Well, wish her a happy birthday at [email protected] at that date. She might not use it by then, but ReturnPath ought to take care of it for you. --Shultz 06:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• May 2. We will have indexed every people that ever lived on Earth and therefore be well beyond that number. --Astrowob 20:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Deletionists would never let that happen; Wikipedia is not an index of people. We'd delete just about everybody for non-notability, and then *a certain user other than me* will write eleventy billion articles about Ashlee Simpson. I'll agree with May 2, though. It's as good a date as any. --Idont Havaname 15:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• September 3. A week after my 47th birthday. --Wombat2 14:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• October 8. When I turn 50. Scott Gall 07:43, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

• 17 November]. When I turn 50. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 07:01, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• May 9. Seems like a good date. Mr Bound 03:28, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
• December 25--Acebrock 07:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• April 12. The year that I invent DOS+. Esteffect 02:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
• July 8. My birthday. Year chosen randomly --Neo3DGfx 07:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• March 22 I should be dead by then --SeanMcG 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• Sometime in April, 2063, the Vulcans will download their version of Wikipedia, pushing the number of articles to just over eleventy-billion. (I wonder how many articles the Borg have?) Marky1981 17:21, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Irrelevant. The Borg wouldn't add their information to Wikipedia, they'd add Wikipedia to their own databases, which would crash when one of the billion school stubs causes stack corruption, leading to the universe's second ever case of death by Pokemon (the first being during a tournament on Vega 4, when an ill-advised player insisted his Pepsimon trumped all, and accidentally ingested three of the many Pan-Galactic Gargleblasters thrown at it). Chris talk back 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

• August 5, 2065 (or sometime in that month). --Ted87 01:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• 30 May - 17 years after my death and my brother's 100th birthyear anniversary (I'm older than he is). Tim Sailor 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

• October 25. According to the growth rate model I normally use, the guess would be somewhere around the year 604700. I don't know if the human race as we know it will be around then, so I'm going for my 100th birthday. — JIP | Talk 08:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• December 18 - Theshibboleth 07:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• October 22. Won't matter much though, since the next day almost all live on the planet will get wiped out by nukes. --Misza13 ^(Talk) 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• May 19 Earth time. The article will be typed from a planet orbiting Alpha Centauri. Surturz 04:05, 02/03/2006 (UTC)

• November 24. Good notion, JIP. I'll bet on MY hundredth birthday (if I'm around then.) [[User:NazismIsntCool|Nazism isn't cool]] 07:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• December 2. Fred-Chess 13:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• March 14. My 100th birthday. I'll be here, don't worry.

• July. If I'm not around then and I win, please etch it on my gravestone. Barely There 12:10, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'll go near this guys guess, November 29th. Homestarmy 02:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• June 30. The day I turn one-hundred. Remember to shower my gravestone with lots of ones and zeroes. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

• December 31, 2099 Juppiter 05:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• February 29. Some bright spark will try to add an entry (and a talk page) for every member of the human race.--Fangz 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Now you're getting silly. We all know there will be no 29 February 2100! jguk 14:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

• Right after war begins. Andre (talk) 02:02, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • What you say! --A D Monroe III 03:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • All your article are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction. (NOT A VOTE) Ghost Freeman ^{T | E} / _{C | D} 19:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
    • What you say? Somebody set up us the I think this is the year. Anchor_THE
      • Move Zig! - Kookykman|(t)e

• June 24. Give me a century, and we'll see. — Sverdrup 00:25, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• 16 July, at 21:06:42 precisely. --Deathphoenix 20:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

• 16 July, at 21:06:45 precisely. Deathphoenix: unfortunately, you are off by three seconds, although most of your calculations are sound. I believe -- although I could be wrong as my sliderule has a smudge beside the six which always throws me off (it makes it look like an eight) -- anyway I believe you made a carrying error. Check your work, second column, third row. See it now? Pesky, huh? Anyway, good work nonetheless. Cheers, michaelb 00:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• April 22, which is Earth Day and my birthday. I'll probably be dead though, so give the honor to my great-great-grandchildren. --Berney 21:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• April 1. Guanaco 20:52, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• April 5 1231 UTC --Clawed 05:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) (I might be dead by then so please etch something onto my gravestone If I win)

• 29 February Feb. 29th? Hey, it could happen. Razer64 00:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now you're getting silly. We all know there will be no 29 February 2200! Mark J 14:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • What?? NOOOOOOOOO!!! Razer64 01:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

• 22 February (2-22-2222 22:22 CST)

Hey, it COULD happen right then and there. Assuming nanotechnology guarantees my (clinical) immortality, I'll probably be living on the Exameter Road by then. (Not a ringworld, but a STRINGworld. A world that looks like a road from a distance, as it's a line that goes through space. Light years upon light years of space.) An artificial superstructure that this proposed superworld is would be made possible by the Technological Singularity, reached approximately 200 years previous. --Shultz 04:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

• December 12, 2499, when the Zerg invade.... bob rulz 12:01, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Lost Season 1854

Yes its the final season, it really has managed to drag on this long and everybody who saw the first season are now dead and never get to see then end, in fact like chinese whispers even the writers have kinda trailed off the plot. Now there have been so many characters and episode lists that we have reached eleventy billion.--Childzy 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• If man were still alive. --Golbez 02:09, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • I already did that joke. -- Cyrius|✎ 03:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
• January 17 - if man is still alive, and if woman can survive, of course. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"God creates dinosaurs. God destroys dinosaurs. God creates man. Man destroys God. Dinosaurs eat man--" "Woman inherits the earth!" From Jurassic Park. Dralwik 00:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• January 1. Jet Engines 18:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

May 6. Current number of articles Falphin 21:32, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• September 9. My 1000th birthday... Jeremias Weinrich 14:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• December 31 - the precise moment Philip Fry becomes unfrozen. ;) Columbia 21:02, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

• June 6th - on the second National Day of Slayer, 6/6/06. Foolish Child 09:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

• July 6 - approximately ${\displaystyle \pi \times 1000}$ A.D. --antilived ^{trash vandal results} 11:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

sept. 26 - anon

August 22nd 01:33 GMT David 14:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Right around the birthday of Sonic the Hedgehog. The exact date will probably be on Dexday, Wordus 27 (I don't know what that means yet, but my sources tell me that that by the 33rd century, we won't be naming days and months after astrological signs and Roman emperors and gods. Nyh 10:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• 4 February, being the real 4/2/4242. Chris talk back 02:28, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
• April 2. 4/2/4242. Get it? I'm a riot. <_< -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 09:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lol Bawolff 23:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

• March 15. The 5000 year anniversary of Julius Caesar's assassination. Mikker ^(...) 03:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Except that there was no year zero... --Ravi12346 00:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

RIGHT. Nice one... I certainly need to do some work on this then. Mikker ^(...) 00:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• January 1 5000 at 00:01 — Sintonak.X 15:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• Leap September 17+13i in the Black Hole Year, where i² = -1. KittySaturn 13:52, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• July 4 Just before X-Day Mikeee 00:02, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

• January 3. The sand monsters of Sigma VII will complete humanity's work, just three years after eating the last one.

• 42 Septober. \Mike(z) 07:38, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Februrary 31 IAMTHEEGGMAN (talk) 17:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Based on my own projections. --Wooty Woot? contribs 05:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

It stands for Magic. Any Harry Potter fans will know what I'm talking about.

Ebb

• March 15 -- 24.199.216.91 04:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Procty
• August 27 -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• October 12 -- 124.168.67.249 09:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

October 23, 2:05 PM, 28.282948929991314159265358979 seconds 1 million every 2 years. --12345_lewis

I chose the year 271,828 by assuming that Wikipedia will eventually grow at the rate of 500,000 articles per year. Divide eleventy billion by that, and you get 220,000. For humor purposes, I converted this number to 100,000 times e (mathematical constant). Heck, it's probably off by orders of magnitude anyway. YechielMan 23:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

428,899 CE--probably on a Thursday. Biglin 18:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• one steady million of articles every five years. dab (ᛏ) 12:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

• 25 December -- Long after Homo Sapiens has stopped being the dominant species on Earth, and we are ruled by an intelligent race of rabbits (but long before McFly release a decent record). I worked out the year using the Windows Calculator and thought of the date as a nice Wikipedia Christmas present. Funnily enough, we'll find that most of the articles are based around the amusing acts of Homer Simpson in the 100 billion or so Simpsons episodes, or whatever his equivalent is at that time, and the rest will be about how rock music killed hip-hop as the rabbits have far superior musical tastes ;-). Andrew 12:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

• The year is surely obvious, the only question is the date. For that, I must resort to scientific analysis, which states that May 2 is the most likely. Pedriana 17:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
• No, it shall be on the 62nd of March. I don't know how, but it will. [user:elliottume2005] 17:17, January 10, 2006

• You are both wrong. It shall be the Bananath of June. Duh. Ebb

• October 1, undeniably. I have used the google calculator. --Amanaplanacanalpanama 08:35, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Jarvooliat 9, Month of the High Stile, Tyviatte 4441, Day of the Renditorive Hippopotamus - Weirdguy 02:09, 21 Jan 2001 (UTC)
  • You certainly are a weird guy. Mark J 16:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Unreasonableness the Ninetieth. --Welly20 14:52, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

When this intry moves more than three spaces down, if ever. JTTyler 05:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

• Very clever!! --Mark J 16:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

In 2001, Larry Sanger optimistically predicted that, if Wikipedia kept growing at the pace it was going back then (1,000 articles per month), there would be as many as 84,000 articles by 2007. Larry founded/co-founded/got coffee for the founder of Wikipedia (depending who you ask), so he should know/co-know/spill hot liquids on a man who knows what he's talking about. Thus, using his estimates, I believe it will occur in the year 9,168,667.6666667, or, rounding off, September. JDoorjam Talk 02:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

42.23 seconds past the 16th minute past the 15th hour of the 8th day of the 4th month.

• We have an article for the year 1000000000000, so something must happen then. --A D Monroe III 19:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Drat. That article got deleted. Maybe I'll change to the year 46664. --A D Monroe III 22:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Wait! We have an article on the year AD 9814072356 which survived AfD! Yes, the mid 98,140,724th century would be just about right. --A D Monroe III 01:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

• 11 December Duh, the Eleventy-billionth article will be on December 11 ("eleventy" = "eleven-D" = "11 D" = "11 December") of the year 110,000,000,000. I did the math. McKay 07:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

• December 4 --65.167.69.124 23:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

That's funny, I tried setting my system clock to that date and strange things happened... gadfium 04:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The day of the year 292,277,026,596 problem. Hot water heater 17:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• February 28 - Howard the Duck 07:09, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

• July 14 A googolplexian years in the future. Who is your daddy? 18:19, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

• June 23 A googoltriplex years in the future. - Cort5433 20:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Then why not 10^10^10^10^100 + 2006? --Ravi12346 00:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

• March 18, 2 googleplexianflexibolic-googleplexianflexibolicated-to-the-googleplexianflexibolic-th Big Beaver number (the biggest finite number ever typed at this time) - anyone for breaking the number record again? Ziqidel 00:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

• What does RPT mean? Oh and I see your [2x10^10^10^10^10^10^100]^^[RPT]th BB and raise you a (BB(BB(BB(BB(9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9^9))))!!!!)! (the exclamation marks are for factorials) originally I was going to use the superscript thing for the exponents but by the sixth 9 it no longer looked like a 9. --WikiSlasher 06:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

November 6th to be exact.

For guesses on when Wikipedia's 110,000,000,000th article will appear without a specified year.