Googology Wiki
Googology Wiki

Unsourced artices

Please stop to repeat to create articles without valid sources. Please read the site policy. Thank you. p-adic 23:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Message from Noogai93

Can you make these three numbers? They are the three following numbers: novamegillion, yolopalillion, and yersohotillion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noogai93 (talkcontribs)

Hidden numbers talk

A technical talk on the site. Click here to visit the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noogai93 (talkcontribs)


You write "equivalent" when you define a number. However, a number is not a logical formula. Therefore "equivalent" is inappropriate. and it should be "equal", shouldn't it?

p-adic 22:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


Can you edit the tetration level? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noogai93 (talkcontribs)


Can you do the missing numbers: termabotillion, terminalillion, novopastillion, betabotillion, netipotillion, traxillion, taxiyootillion, supanovillion, dupasupamegamillillion, and multiversillion please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noogai93 (talkcontribs)

Yes Noogai, just that there has to be sources! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trakaplex (talkcontribs)

About the contillion category

It looks like there are other -contillions coined by Jonathan Bowers and Sbiis Saibian. Can I add the other -contillion numbers into the category?

This includes:

  1. Triacontillion
  2. Tetracontillion
  3. Pentacontillion
  4. Hexacontillion
  5. Heptacontillion
  6. Octacontillion
  7. Ennacontillion, etc.

ARsygo (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)


When you upload a non-text material, please add the precise licensing status. It is required by FANDOM, and it important because we had massive suspected uploads by vandalists. I add the deletion tag until you add the licensing status. Thank you.

p-adic 00:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Unformalised numbers

You know that you are using an ill-defined operator ↓↓, and hence your numbers with ↓↓ are ill-defined. When you create an article on an unformalised number, could you clarify the ill-definedness in the article? For example, since you just write that the number is tier googol or more, a reader might misunderstand as if it were well-defined. Thank you.

p-adic 03:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not trakaplex, but maybe he is referring to Down-arrow notation A Hippopotatomus (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I and Trakaplex are certain that it is irrelevant. Anyway, thank you.
p-adic 00:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


Please check the following two talk pages, and fix the issues:

  1. Talk:Zeptingenfisintocto-
  2. Template talk:Trakaplex's Rare Prefixes

Thank you!

p-adic 22:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Did you see the message that left by the user, and also, can you fix the template by removing red links or add the <!-- --> to the red links, so that if the link is made, you can remove the <!-- -->, actually. Thank you! ARsygo (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, since the user is still keeping the unsorced contents, I guess that the user has not noticed the comments. What shall we do? If the user will not notice them, the user might continue to create new articles containing unsourced descriptions. One possible solution is to simply delete all the articles recently created by the user. (It can be immediately done by using an admin tool.) Then the user might notice the change, and the comments here. After that, if the user agrees with the suggestion here, then you can revert the deletion in order to let the user to fix issues.
p-adic 13:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)