Talk:47

Visit the 47 project, an effort to list and find citations for every conceivable reference to the 47 phenomenon in Star Trek.

Keep?

Based on the apparent intentions of the outline, I really don't think it's a good idea to compile a list of 47's on Memory Alpha. There's already a couple of websites out there that do that. It would be much, much more useful if we could write an article about the origins and significance of the number 47 in Star Trek. A list isn't all that useful, especially for something as trivial as most of the instances of 47. Know what I mean? -- Dan Carlson 06:15, 27 Jan 2004 (PST)

I think that making a list isn't that far out of the way, but I would suggest that we add a short discription of how the number was used in the episode in question. -- Redge 12:46, 7 Jul 2004 (CEST)

Presently, I would even go as far as saying that when this article is complete, it deserves to be featured. -- Redge | Talk 23:09, 20 Aug 2004 (CEST)

If you guys really think that we must have a page listing appearances of the number 47 (which probably would count for just about every episode), then at least put them on a separate page, like List of 47 appearances or something like that. I'm still not convinced that a list is a good thing to have, but I won't stop you guys.... -- Dan Carlson | Talk 18:46, Sep 10, 2004 (CEST)

Hey, the link to the "Sev Trek Cartoon: The Number 47" requires a subscription to access. Does anyone have an archived copy of this cartoon? I would like to see it. —Shawn81 21:51, 1 Sep 2005 (UTC)

47? I would venture to say that 23 is more common throughout TNG and DS9... --Isha.

Producers have stated, however, that the 47 references were put there deliberately. Mr.gn

UPDATES

As of this morning, the Sev Trek cartoon requires no registration (for me, using Firefox).

The 47 references page seems to be the concatenated list discussed earlier. If MA has something like the Categories: feature of Wikipedia, then tagging all episode sitings with the Category would make that Category page a self-updating listing. Just a thought.... -- Kojirovance 14:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, a year+ old discussion above there.  :)

The 47 references wouldn't work as a category listing, since that page explicitly sets out each of the particular references, whether as a quote or otherwise. Making it a category would simply list articles that have a 47 reference, forcing the reading to read the article and hunt for that reference therein. -- Sulfur 17:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

All I know is that without a substantial list of examples directly lifted or referenced, or described precisely within Star Trek episodes this entry is more than slightly useless. --Blue Spider 18:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that this discussion is more than a year old, right? --OuroborosCobra ^talk 18:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:47 references

I have been aware of the "47" phenomenon for quite sometime, but I am not entirely sure what it is all about. Is there some sort of explaination for this phenomenon than can be posted to the article to reinforce why this list exists? --Gvsualan 23:14, 12 Dec 2004 (CET)

Follow the link on the list back to 47. Or just click right there. --Steve 23:20, 12 Dec 2004 (CET)

Yeah, but y'all should really include that info -- even if only abbreviated -- in this article. Keep in mind that every article, in and of itself, should seem whole and coherent. Without the explanation, this article seems like half conspiracy ranting, half get-a-life obsessiveness.

Can someone explain why there are references to 74 listed? It's not really 47. Skold 13:50, 27 Dec 2005 (UTC)

I think that the thinking behind them is that they are a version of 47 like apartment 4G (see Voyager season 2 examples) Mr.gn 22:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Citationless episodes

There's really no point to listing an episode without a particular citation. "Angel One" (for example) may indeed contain a reference to 47 but to find it one still has to watch the entire episode. In fact, the real concern is whether all the citation-less episodes listed really contain 47 in the first place. Spartacus 03:28, 7 Jan 2005 (CET)

I for one don't mind watching Star Trek episodes again. So far I've re-watched on DVD all DS9 episodes up to Season 6, Disc 3. So if you want to delete citationless DS9 episodes prior to that, you'll get no argument from me. But for the rest of the season, and Season 7, please give me some time. If I find a 47 in the episode, I will add it to the article. ShutterBugTrekker 17:54, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Questionable References - Discussion

I hesitate to put this one in: in "Far Beyond the Stars", it looks like the restaurant Kassidy is a waitress at is No. 674 streetname? ShutterBugTrekker 17:54, 23 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Other questionable references include : Many references to 74 and not 47 - for example TNG Season 1 Episode 15 - "11001001" where the USS Enterprise-D docks at Starbase 74. Is there any reason why 74 is also being treated as special too or is this simply because it is 47 backwards? I also just watched "Our Man Bashir" and noticed a section where the numbers 22 and 25 are mentioned within seconds of each other - 22+25=47. How far do we take the whole 47 thing? Personally I put things like 22 and 25 down to coincidence - but 74 does appear almost as often as 47 and is probably worth including. Any ideas? DarkAlpha 18:31, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

I think 74 should not be in here. Any other opinions? Astrochicken 18:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. 74 is not 47. I think only instances of 47 should be noted, and even then ones that are obvious. Unless someone tied to the franchise has explicitly said, for instance, that the 22 + 25 thing is in fact a reference to the 47 running gag, it should be left out.

-- Thylacine 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

74 is 47 switched around, and I believe in most cases when 47 is shown that it was intentionally meant as a reference to 47. (I seem to recall the "Cause and Effect" reference to 17.4 days was a 47 in-joke.) --From Andoria with Love 09:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand that it might seem that way, but do we know for sure? As yet, I've only heard confirmation that "47" was the in-joke, not "74" or some numbers added together or anything else.

I'm not trying to be a putz, here. I'm just concerned that if there's no citable evidence of someone tied to the franchise stating explicitly that "74," the numbers added together, or whatever else, it shouldn't be listed. Ron Moore, in one of the numerous interviews captured as .txt files, has said that "47" is the in-joke. He didn't say that "74" was. I'm not saying that, ultimately, they aren't, but with Memory Alpha's adherence to fact, shouldn't such a thing be cited somewhere?

-- Thylacine 02:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

VfD for 47 references

Do we really need this? To me it seems like its redundant to other articles and just a waste of time. Also, why do we have refrences to the number 47, but not anything else? In order to keep this sort of page we would need a list for every number. I don't think anyone searching the database will want to know the refrences for the number 47. Delete Tobyk777 15:58, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Oppose deletion, keep the article -- the number 47 has been noted by many production staff members as having been deliberately inserted into episode dialogue and graphics -- this site is here to track data and information about Star Trek, this is information about Star Trek, deleting it wouldf be against the entire purpose of our site. If you read 47 and 47 references you could plainly comprehend the meaning -- its listed right there in the article text and there are links to other websites where 47 references are listed, there are also official recognitions of this number and its references on the official site, StarTrek.com -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 16:03, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an older page with a valid reason for existence. Please see the article on 47 to learn why (or even Google 47 and Star Trek), and again, always check "what links here" before nominating for deletion. -- SmokeDetector47^{| TALK} 16:06, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Also, the Wikipedia article for 47 links here, saying something like "if you want a full list, memory alpha is attempting to..." Everyone associates Star Trek with 47, just look how long the list is! (if this particular argument sounds weak, I also whole-heartedly agree with the previous 2)- AJHalliwell 16:15, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Uh!? Going mad? Do some research before nominating something... keep --Porthos 17:07, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• This is silly. Star Trek has nothing to do with the number 47. So what, it appears randomly in diolouge a few time. The wikipedia article on it, (which I just read is just as silly) The number 47 is not a cult, or a literary tool. k Its a number, nothing more. I've seen almost every episode of Trek and I have never noticed 47 appearing more often than any other number. If anything the number 19 appears quite a bit. So does 5, and so does every number. Tobyk777 18:44, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • Toby, i think that it is silly that you are trying to delete a page that a lot of archivists (including myself) have put work into and are obviously quite proud of.
  • Joe Menosky and Rick Berman have both publicly admitted and commented that the occurrences of the number 47 were intentionally added to the episodes. No one has ever claimed that for 19 or 5. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk 19:56, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Keep--BC19 19:06, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Tobyk, these constant requests for deletion of valid articles is really growing tiresome. Before placing a page for deletion, could you please do a little research? Thanks. :) --From Andoria with Love 19:59, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

  Can we take this off the deletion page now? --From Andoria with Love 19:59, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• If you guys really think that this should stay then keep it, but it just seems wired to have an article on a number. And to adress the issue that I am constantly nominating articles, I'm not. How many of the 9 articles here have I nominated, just 1, just 1. You call that constantly nominating. It's not trisome at all. This is the first article I have put up for deletion in the last month.

Also, I don't random delete what you call Valid articles I have given a reason for deleting every one, and the majority have been deleted Plus, it's not like I'm the only one who nomiates stuff that gets shot down. Just becuase I disagree with all of you on this doesn't mean that i'm tiresome or a vandal, In fact I have contributed to more than 100 articles and made 15 new ones here on MA. So really stop complaining about me, i'm just trying to help MA. Tobyk777 21:44, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

My apologies, I think I got your additions on this page confused with your nominations on the featured articles page. However, there was that time you nominated the Pna:Incomplete template... ;) --From Andoria with Love 23:13, 3 Sep 2005 (UTC)

• Apology When I first saw this page I assumed it was created by a vandal. I didn't realize that people thought it was a ligitamate page. Tobyk777 21:32, 4 Sep 2005 (UTC)
  • And legitimate, also. -- Captain Mike K. Bartel^talk
• Archived. Toby, How can you think this article is created by a vandal when it was created by one of our co-founders and has 115 edits, thus far?? Also, not to take sides (and personal feelings aside) Shran is correct you do make numerous requests to delete valid articles, many of which I've removed from here because they were clearly cited and or clearly valued pages-- including Template:Pna-inaccurate. As far as your statement: "I have put up for deletion in the last month", you did add the valid page here roughly last week (again Template:Pna-inaccurate) as well as several the weeks before which I am not about to list. You clearly need not be shooting from the hip around here, and utilizing your resources better, including article histories, the what links here, Google, talk pages and so forth. --Alan del Beccio 18:10, 5 Sep 2005 (UTC)
• Merge? Might it be an idea to merge the 47 and 47 references pages? This would lessen the 'waste' that the 47 page could appear to users. However, doing so would require quite a bit of cleaning up of links. --Everchanging02 07:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Formatting

Hi!

I think I've become a bit of a 47-Hunter (already found 7 or 8!) but I'd quiet like to tidy the page up a bit and change the formatting. If I do this and somebody else decides that my changes are not so great, is this easy to change back or should I keep a backup copy of the page as it originally was before I do this?

Thanks for any advice. I'm new to the wiki-idea but enjoying myself so far :)

Hi there User:DarkAlpha, I'm no expert around here, but I'm sure that every change made to any article can be reverted through the History, so no worries about keeping your own backup. Also, you may want to write some general information on the formatting changes you wish to make, just to avoid all your hard work possibly being reverted later on. Generally, as long as they are consistent with the styles of other pages here at MA, it should be fine. Perhaps you're thinking about organizing the TV series' references by season?

One last tip: adding ~~~~ to the end of your comments in talk pages will automatically generate your username and a timestamp; pretty useful to keep track of who says what. :) -Intricated 03:33, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was planning - infact I've done it and saved it as a text file. Didn't want to apply the changes until I was sure I wasn't causing any lasting damage lol. I just find the page a little hard to read in places, especially where the descriptions of the references span a number of lines. Thanks for the advice. Very much appreciated -DarkAlpha 15:57, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Even spammers can't cause lasting damage, because we have History. If you click on the history tab you can see all the edits done to an article every version is saved, If you click on the date of the revision you'll be viewing that version of the article, so if someone complains about your new structure you can revert it from that version. Just click edit while on that version and save it, and it will replace all previous edits.--TOSrules 16:58, 14 Jan 2006 (UTC)

To be nailled down

The following were found on Wikipedia and need to be confirmed.

• Voyager's registration number is NCC-74656, and warp factor 7 is 656 times the speed of light; substituting the 7 in for 656 would thus yield NCC-747.
• In one episode of Voyager, a character refers to an event that happened on Earth in the year 2209, which is 47 squared.
• In "Non Sequitur", an episode of that series, Harry Kim lives in apartment 4-G, G being the seventh letter of the alphabet. The intentionality of this reference to 47 was confirmed by Brannon Braga, the writer of that episode DarkAlpha 07:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  • If the first is true, considering that 74 is currently accepted on this page, you wouldn't even need to substitute - 74656 would be simply 47 backwards with the maximum warp multiplication factor. -71.29.182.38 16:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC) (Yeah, I'll create an account sometime)

Seasons

I felt the need to discuss this here, lest it come back to haunt us:

Though certainly a coincidence, all of the live action Star Trek TV series have run for either four or seven seasons.

Oh boy. Let us see now. TOS was 3 seasons. TAS was 2 seasons (if you count the last few episodes as their own season). TNG was 7 seasons. DS9 was 7 seasons. VOY was 7 seasons. ENT was 4 seasons. So, basically, we have 3 series with 7 season, nothing wrong there. Then we have 3 series that are not 7 seasons. Still nothing wrong. Here is the problem, 2 out of 3 of those series aren't 4 seasons. Whoops. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 14:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that was misworded and meant the "live-action spin-offs" (TNG- 7, DS9- 7, VOY- 7, and ENT- 4). Even so, I don't think it's notable, even if that's what it meant. Unless, we think the big executive producers and CEOs and studio presidents are in on the joke.--Tim Thomason 06:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

If anything, it's just another excuse for writers, crew, and fans to hold the number in superstitious esteem. -71.29.182.38 16:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

2-digit analysis

I've hated this article for some time now, so I had DYKBot run an analysis of all MA data to see how common this really was and here are the results.

$text =~ s/(\d(?=(\d)))/{$seq{"$1$2"}++; $1;}/ge;

1. '19' => 25294,
2. '23' => 22098,
3. '00' => 14671,
4. '20' => 12396,
5. '37' => 12007,
6. '01' => 11897,
7. '70' => 10504,
8. '22' => 9592,
9. '17' => 9265,
10. '99' => 8885,
11. '15' => 7680,
12. '36' => 7149,
13. '21' => 6794,
14. '98' => 5573,
15. '50' => 4833,
16. '26' => 4731,
17. '96' => 4652,
18. '97' => 4343,
19. '10' => 4322,
20. '24' => 4033,
21. '67' => 3450,
22. '74' => 3403,
23. '95' => 3134,
24. '71' => 3068,
25. '12' => 3046,
26. '11' => 3000,
27. '69' => 2868,
28. '05' => 2744,
29. '68' => 2704,
30. '93' => 2684,
31. '75' => 2671,
32. '94' => 2586,
33. '73' => 2521,
34. '02' => 2511,
35. '66' => 2465,
36. '72' => 2449,
37. '25' => 2304,
38. '18' => 2290,
39. '16' => 2264,
40. '60' => 2241,
41. '06' => 2188,
42. '13' => 2168,
43. '47' => 2109,*
44. '14' => 2091,
45. '30' => 2070,
46. '28' => 2056,
47. '03' => 2034,
48. '54' => 1973,
49. '64' => 1943,
50. '04' => 1914,
51. '65' => 1906,
52. '27' => 1881,
53. '92' => 1869,
54. '29' => 1865,
55. '31' => 1855,
56. '90' => 1822,
57. '51' => 1791,
58. '52' => 1755,
59. '80' => 1720,
60. '42' => 1658,
61. '35' => 1644,
62. '91' => 1616,
63. '40' => 1611,
64. '53' => 1608,
65. '76' => 1454,
66. '89' => 1386,
67. '55' => 1382,
68. '32' => 1382,
69. '34' => 1369,
70. '77' => 1291,
71. '63' => 1261,
72. '07' => 1253,
73. '86' => 1243,
74. '85' => 1219,
75. '59' => 1208,
76. '84' => 1186,
77. '87' => 1166,
78. '79' => 1165,
79. '88' => 1119,
80. '33' => 1101,
81. '61' => 1092,
82. '56' => 1060,
83. '45' => 1039,
84. '39' => 1022,
85. '43' => 1017
86. '44' => 996,
87. '46' => 995,
88. '09' => 987,
89. '78' => 987,
90. '58' => 978,
91. '08' => 962,
92. '48' => 918,
93. '41' => 913,
94. '82' => 897,
95. '57' => 884,
96. '83' => 883,
97. '62' => 879,
98. '49' => 861,
99. '38' => 839,
100. '81' => 778,

So, can we now stop linking every "47" on MA to this stupid article? Half of these are a probably a coincidence. The normal 47 article is enough to cover the real, provable, phenomenon, we dont need this thing. --Bp 05:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what this data represents, but I have some problems with your conclusions. Many of those numbers may be deceptive. "19", for example, could pop up from production dates, most of which will be 19XX. Besides, unlike all of these other numbers, we have production sources saying that 47 is important, and we do not for the other numbers. I therefore do not see the problem in listing the known 47s here. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 05:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well then, I'll try to be more clear. Yes, I understand that 19 is going to be the most common because of dates, as well as 23xx, but my point is that 47 isnt even close to the top. There is a real phenomenon that is described quite adequately at the article named "47", however, this does not mean that all "47" all over the site are specifically put there, or that any 47 that was found anywhere in Trek was a "47" reference as described by the 47 phenomenon. It is just as likely a coincidence as is any other 2-digit sequence. We can't know that these referrences are truly that intentional phenomenon. This article is 90% speculation. It should be deleted, and all the "47"s that are linked to it from every sequence on MA. The real article, 47. should be kept, as it is a real, provable, sourcable phenomenon. This 47 references list is rubbish. We may as well make an article about the Bible Code. --Bp 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Then why aren't you nominating it for deletion? I have a feeling it would fail any such nomination, but if that is your goal, any discussion here is purely academic unless it happens there. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I thought I would give a real "47" enthusiast a chance to talk about this before nominating it. There are too many rubber stamp Pfd voters to do that before there is a real consensus. Btw, do you have anything important to say? Or are you just trying to get that reidiculous bloated sig on the page as often as you can and obfuscate the real discussion with meaningless code lines? --Bp 06:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have anymore Memory Alpha policies you feel like breaking, or should I just go to an admin with this one? As for these numbers, I would point out that one of the first things any good statistics teacher will tell the class is that you can make the numbers say whatever you want. Assuming that most 47 references are intentional, one would actually expect it to be pretty low on the list of most used numbers. They very well might avoid having it happen by random, and only use it when they mean to. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 06:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

"Assuming that..." and "They very well might..." are not reasons to include anything. If there are provably intentional references, from special features or something, then they can be listed on 47. The rest should be dumped and unlinked. That was Tim's idea on IRC, which I think is a good solution. --Bp 06:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, too tired to re-edit in time) I'm too tired to deal with either the reidiculous bloated sig, or the reidiculous personal attacks, or the reidiculous statistics, or the reidiculous admin shout-out. This is all too reidiculous to me. I suggested on the chatroom that we should try to merge 47 references with 47 and limit the references to confirmed references (by DVD commentary, or magazine, or whatever). As this was just a minor suggestion, I'm not putting the merge template on there and will either leave that up to someone else, or change my mind come tomorrow morning. OuroborosCobra: Nice sig, by the way.--Tim Thomason 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Real World?

Is this a real world topic, as it discusses Joe M. and Rick B.? Adding the real world template until someone tells me (again) that I don't get the POV of MA. ;) -- Kojirovance 02:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that it's a good call about it. After all, the reference page is a real world one. :) -- Sulfur 03:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

47 References

Who deleted 47 references? 71.202.76.140 15:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It was removed based on the discussion here. It can be found in the history of the 47 page, but cannot be brought back without a consensus to do so. --From Andoria with Love 20:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I miss it Igotbit 02:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good thing someone saved the history. TribbleFurSuit 12:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

References on episode pages

I wasn't too sure after reading this, so I'll ask- what's the policy on 47 references in the episode articles? I was going to remove the two recent additions by an anon on the "Future's End" and "Future's End, Part II" as mere trivia, but then I saw this page.--31dot 18:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed such a reference from "The Begotten" just a moment ago. If this was against policy, please revert it. --31dot 20:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Alias? uncited? relevant?

Can we get rid of the Alias statement? It's not cited, probably made-up, and even if it were verifiable and verified, it's still not Star Trek. "The number also seems to have some kind of significance to the writers and producers of the ABC series Alias (created and produced by J.J. Abrams), where it occurs almost as regularly as it does in Star Trek." --TribbleFurSuit 02:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can. And I did. The only Trek connection is Abrams, and unless a citation shows up with someone claiming Star Trek was why he liked the 47's, I see no reason to put it back in.--Tim Thomason 03:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

haha

In my city, Space Channel is channel 47, and thats the only place i've been watching trek for years, not really relevant to anything, but its funny, and pretty cool. 24.222.170.175 17:35, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's not relevant to anything, then it shouldn't be on an article talk page.--31dot 19:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Its relevant, it does have something to do with the article, but it is just pure coincidence. What city? Lordvoid 03:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply having "47" does not make it relevant to the article, no. --OuroborosCobra ^talk 04:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I have 47 Trek DVDs and 47 TOS Pez dispensers. doesne't matter. :)— Vince47 05:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

GOD created 47 a billion years ago why isnt that in the article 76.247.46.8 05:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

47 References in STO

Since it was mention in the article, I thought I'd point out that Club 47 on Sol Shipyard wasn't the only 47 in STO, I've also come across:

Feline Supplement 74 (a type of loot based off Data's cat Spots favorite cat food), 47 is the number of new inhabited planets found in the last year according to Commander Jenna Romain on Memory Alpha, Takanian Syndrome was first diagnosed 47.6 years ago according to Vulcan Capt. Saalar in the Street Sweeper mission which is part of the episode Task Force Hippocrates.

Steelabjur 23:23, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Since STO is not canon, we probably should not be documenting every supposed "47" reference. Memory Beta can do that. Even with canon stuff we only document those for which there is direct evidence.--31dot 23:59, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Simliar to 47

I've just finished watching TNG, DS9 and Voyager in a month long marathon (Don't ask, had the time), anyway, i've noticed something that appears almost as frequently (if not moreso) then 47 in the star trek series, "21-Alpha", usually used as a designation for a location on a ship, but there's been attack patterns, flight squadrons, planetary coordinates, etc... Lots of references to 21-Alpha, mostly as "Section 21-Alpha". Is this of note? either here or somewhere else? - 121.44.177.185 14:56, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Reinstatement

I vote reinstatement of a list of references to 47 in Star Trek. Votes? Captain Ingold Talk 16:28, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

I vote no, however if it is restored we should limit it to specific, clear, citeable references, and exclude ones which require extensive thought/calculation, and ones which are not cited as deliberate references.--31dot 17:41, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm also voting no right now, under our current reference policies. The entire reference list in question was included in the 47 project, and so far only one reference has been cited. - Archduk3 19:06, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

I vote to not vote if we have something much better - a clear content policy stating what should or shouldn't be part of our articles. Either make sure that content follows that policy, or try to change the policy - let's not circumvent it with a majority vote. -- Cid Highwind 22:34, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree.--31dot 22:41, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the exclusion of a list of 47s is stupid! I read (as in "red" - i.e., past tense) one reason for it: that there's other lists on the Net about these references. Why should that stop us?! We have other lists - such as the captain's logs and Star Trek parodies and pop culture references that are likely also available on the Net. (I know for a fact that captain's logs are, as I designed such a site!) MA devotes numerous pages to both of those examples, so of course it seems blatantly ridiculous to exclude a similar listing of 47s here. --Defiant 12:13, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the issue is completely whether or not to mention them(though some might not wish to), but the question is the criteria for such a page and finding citations for each reference. Archduk is attempting to do just that at his above linked project page.--31dot 13:08, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Very cool! :) And he's making a good "attempt," I think. I'm pleased we're not outright dismissing the thought of listing the 47s and I don't mind so much about the details; you got my main point. That's good enough for me! :) --Defiant 14:38, August 8, 2010 (UTC)

Archduk's page is awesome enough for me; guess my proposal's been outvoted with myself on the "against" side. :) Captain Ingold Talk 16:30, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

From that listing, though, I'd probably vote to remove the production section at the bottom (it's too broad and you could essentially play "6 degrees of separation" on numbers from (virtually) any episode; ever watched Lost?!) as well as the references to 74 (as opposed to 47). The references to 74 could either be discarded completely, or listed separately under an appropriate heading. --Defiant 18:09, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

List?

Mybe we could try to make a list of all references to the number 47 in the series? 92.239.195.86 18:39, March 1, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to try reading this page first, as there might be something relevant to your question placed in a predominant location. ;p - Archduk3 20:21, March 1, 2013 (UTC)