Talk:300 (number)

	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.NumbersWikipedia:WikiProject NumbersTemplate:WikiProject NumbersNumbers articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Mathematics

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics 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.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's priority scale.

Untitled

In accordance with a sensible procedure practiced by User:GUI11man, the articles for the numbers 301 to 399 will be 'grown' here in the article on 300 until they are big enough to merit their own articles. Once that happens, a new page is created for the number in question, linking back to this page, and this page is changed to indicate that the number now has its own article. User:PrimeFan

Please could you put the 'and's in as discussed elsewhere -- Tarquin 20:33, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I would only be too happy to do it, but others have already started to do it for me (look at 360). The discussion on this issue is spread out all over the place. I would like to gather it all at Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers. For the time being I really would rather not worry about it. If I write the article on 400, I will make the stubs on 401 to 499 shorter by excluding the spelled out form of those numbers, therefore bypassing the issue altogether until the stubs grow to merit their own articles.

The work on these number articles is a noble effort and I don't want to see that effort disrupted by this issue over one word. PrimeFan 17:27, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

That wuold be me. i also did 301 to 313, but i got tired after that. i say let's not worry about this until the stubs grow to article size. -- Anonymous User

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.173.151 (talk) 22:55, 2004 January 29 (UTC)

"and"s done. I'v wirtten 384 if anyobe's interested. Rich Farmbrough 13:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like this redirection to 300. It took me some time to find out that 2*2*3*5*5 was not the factorisation of 315, which I was mislead to believe when I looked up that number. I did not notice the redirection (how could I have guessed!), and just went straight to the info box. It would be better with a red (and motivating) blink link than this cheating, or eventually, if an intermediate solution really is called for (which in my opinion it isn't), it should be to a separate page 300-399, with some common and motivating text, or whatever. Trondtr 15:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

300 comic book

It's nice to learn about a comic book titled 300, but it should not be the first thing in this article about the number. Disambiguation items should be the first thing in a number article only if the other possible use of the title is very well known, which is not the case here. So I moved the comic book item into the Other fields section. PrimeFan 20:28, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On this page is a disaster. And why are the numbers listed by their English text. It does not make sense. Cleanup tag added. -- Egil 09:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clumping...

361 (number) redirects here? What's going on? Blueaster 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) So does 362... Something fishy is going on... I think all of the number's in the 300's redirect to 300... It might have been a popular movie, but not enough to warrent EVERY 300 number to redirect away from the proper page... 70.177.108.78 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not because of the movie. It's because I don't think those numbers are not considered important enough to have their own articles (prove me wrong if you can, please). Try 360, that should have its own article. PrimeFan 23:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is interestingly the name of a certain console! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.226.82 (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So 99 articles have been lost because someone decided it was a wise idea to clump the numbers together with just one little mathematical side-note about each one. This is a growing and unwelcome trend in Wikipedia ever since all the trivia sections were cut from popular culture articles for being "non-encyclopaedic". Wikipedia is popular, precisely because it is more than a conventional encyclopaedia and I am always in favour of too much info rather than too little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmackematix (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nine of them currently have their own article in Category:Integers. Most of the others I examined never had an article but were created as redirects to 300. The few I found with former articles had very little content, for example 314. You are free to create articles satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (numbers). PrimeHunter (talk) 02:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some other former articles: 321, 330 (more content; was [1] when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/330 (number) started), 364, 366,

Disambiguation and Other uses

i would like to clean up this and other number articles, putting the Other uses info in a disambiguation page, with a DABlink at the top of the page linking to the disambig page, and maybe a few other extremely significant cases. It seems this is WP policy to do so, but a lot of number pages are a mishmosh of nonmathematical info. is this simply because no one wants to bother (its a lot of work), or is there significant interest in having Other uses on the number page? i dont want to step on toes. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

303

I think it would be worth adding a link to the Roland 303 in the header, but I don't want to step on anyone's land by unilaterally deciding to add it myself. It's a pretty darned relevant thing though, and it's referred to by enthusiasts as just 'a 303' -- in fact it took me a couple seconds to remember that it was a Roland TB-303, so I think it's possible that somebody else could come across wikipedia trying to find out about a 303 and would appreciate a link. Anyways, cheers :) ralian (talk) 07:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article 303 has a hatnote saying:

For the number 303, see 303 (number). For other uses, see 303 (disambiguation).

The latter includes the entry "The Roland TB-303". This is sufficient for people looking for that. The hatnotes at top of 300 (number) are there because there is no corresponding disambiguation page for those numbers: 335 (disambiguation), 340 (disambiguation), 350 (disambiguation), 356 (disambiguation), 390 (disambiguation), 391 (disambiguation). We shouldn't create a humongous hatnote for everything with a number from 301 to 399. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fatboy slim has a song named Everybody Needs a 303, so it is clear that just 303 is used by itself in musical context. I fully agree there ought to be a note about this. Preferably on a separate 303 (number) page, similar to what is already done for 313. Hlovdal (talk) 19:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture

The factoid about severus snape on 394 is valuable and notable as at the top of the page it has about sparta 300 so why cant there be other trivia it also has about 386 being something about pokemon Beandy9 (talk) 18:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC) moved from Talk: 300(number). Achowat (talk) [reply]

The word "factoid" is correct; it's not a fact, nor is it notable. I'll look at 386. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:30, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HTTP Status Codes

Should these pages (300 (number) and 400 (number)) really show all of the HTTP status codes? While there are some common ones such as 301, 304, 307 and 404, I think most of them are quite obscure and uncommon (e.g. 305 and 402). --Crashie (talk) 23:49, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should these 00s pages systematically have links to (number) and (disambiguation) pages?

Ten of the numbers from 301-399 have their own pages, and 25 have disambiguation pages. The only way to find which do, though, is to click on the corresponding links in the integer template at the bottom, or to visit the Category:Integers or the Category:Lists of ambiguous numbers. Readers interested in particular numbers may find it handy to have links to the (number) page for a number, or the (disambiguation) page, if no number page exists. (If both exist, the (number) page should have a link to the (disambiguation) page.) We could provide links to those pages here, either through "see..." as exists for 311 and 313; or by turning the sub-section heading into a wikilink, as here:

311

311: a prime number, see 311 (number).

While the use of wikilinks is more subtle, I'd think a moderately experienced Wikipedia user would notice that some of the numbers are in linkless black while others are in blue, and would figure out the distinction. If these wikilinks were created, the "see..." as in the above example could of course be removed, and it may be an opportunity to drop some of the material that more properly belongs in disambiguation pages for the corresponding numbers. What do people think?

Also, numbers for which there is not a (number) page currently redirect to here, even if there is a disambiguation page. I get the mathematical purity of that, but I bet most Wikipedia users searching for a number or clicking on a link for a number would rather end up at the (disambiguation) page for that number, if that's all that exists. The few people who do want the number specifically could always click on the (number) link on the disambiguation page. That said, under the current regime, those links would be circular unless they were hard-linked to the 00s page for that number. Jbening (talk) 19:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

9-queens problem

"369 = 3² × 41, it is the magic constant of the 9 × 9 normal magic square and n-queens problem for n = 9" — really? According to Eight queens puzzle#Counting solutions that is true for 352 rather than 369. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 14 April 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for a mass move, but the general idea of using list-based titles seems to be pretty well received. Determining on an article-by-article basis whether to split or move (cf. Certes's May 9 comment) may be more likely to gain consensus; this could be discussed at WikiProject Numbers and/or on each article's talk page. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

300 (number) → 300-399 (numbers)
400 (number) → 400-499 (numbers)
500 (number) → 500-599 (numbers)
600 (number) → 600-699 (numbers)
700 (number) → 700-799 (numbers)
800 (number) → 800-899 (numbers)
900 (number) → 900-999 (numbers)
1000 (number) → 1000-1999 (numbers)
2000 (number) → 2000-2999 (numbers)
3000 (number) → 3000-3999 (numbers)
4000 (number) → 4000-4999 (numbers)
5000 (number) → 5000-5999 (numbers)
6000 (number) → 6000-6999 (numbers)
7000 (number) → 7000-7999 (numbers)
8000 (number) → 8000-8999 (numbers)
9000 (number) → 9000-9999 (numbers)
10,000 → 10,000-19,999
20,000 → 20,000-29,999
30,000 → 30,000-39,999
40,000 → 40,000-49,999
50,000 → 50,000-59,999
60,000 → 60,000-69,999
70,000 → 70,000-79,999
80,000 → 80,000-89,999
90,000 → 90,000-99,999
100,000 → 100,000-999,999
1,000,000 → 1,000,000-9,999,999
10,000,000 → 10,000,000-99,999,999
100,000,000 → 100,000,000-999,999,999
1,000,000,000 → 1,000,000,000-9,999,999,999

– The majority of the contents of these articles talk about the range of numbers, not just the number in particular. Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose ~~for now~~ the original proposal (amended after I !voted), but support in principle. Many number articles do cover ranges, there are some good ideas here and a similar proposal might find consensus. However, there are a few details which could be improved. More conventional titles might be something like List of numbers (300–399), etc., (with en dash rather than hyphen-minus). We consistently use commas in numbers with five or more digits, so 10000 is a redirect and it is 10,000 which might be moved. (Exceptionally, 20000 and 50000 are disambiguation pages, with 20,000 and 50,000 respectively listed as one of their entries.) Certes (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll fix your comments on the title. If others agree I really don't care what dash/hyphen we use @Certes Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:04, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Me Da Wikipedian: Dash and hyphen are two distinct punctuation marks, and only one of them is correct, see MOS:RANGE and MOS:NUMRANGE. — kashmīrī ^TALK 00:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Even in article titles? I would have thought that hyphens being easier to type should count for something (article titles may be typed into a search box, for example).~~ Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC) Actually I can see we would deal with this using redirects per WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure we need redirects. We routinely use dashes in titles, and only rarely we create redirects from hyphenated spelling. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle The point you raise is valid, but the proposed solution is not. For one, 300-399 is not ambiguous, so there is no need for the ambiguator "(numbers)". More importantly, the articles are not about the ranges, they are about the numbers contained in them. The ranges are chosen for convenience, not because they are themselves of note. Therefore, all articles should be named List of numbers in the range X-Y, as per Dhrm as proposed by Certes: List of numbers (X–Y). Paradoctor (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC) ; modified 20:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I really don't care about te specific, my main point is that is more of a range than a single number. Let's see which of the like 5 variations on that gains consensus@Paradoctor Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLUD: It is not necessary or desirable to reply to every comment in a discussion. Not saying you intended to bludgeon, just informing you that it is ok to trust the process. Paradoctor (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the statement that "300-399 is not ambiguous"; it is ambiguous with the century covering the years 300-399, which is nearly identical to the 4th century (and likely to be confused with it). BD2412 T 03:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about : 4000 (number) → Numbers in the range 4000-4999 ? Dhrm77 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NCSPLITLIST, "List of" is the preferred style. Paradoctor (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I would prefer the phrasing "Numbers in the range X-Y" is because "list of number (X-Y)" seems to me to imply that ALL numbers X to Y would be listed... which is obviously not the case, most of the time. In other words, exhaustivity is more implied with the word 'list' than without (IMO). Dhrm77 (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. We can do both: "List of numbers in the range X–Y". Adresses the issue and conforms to NCLIST. Updating my !vote accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"in the range" seems superfluous. There are plenty of lists such as List of 1. FC Kaiserslautern players which don't attempt to be exhaustive but list only the notable members of the category. Some articles already have section headings such as Selected numbers in the range 4001–4999. That should be enough to clarify (for the hard of thinking) that 4001's absence implies not that it has been abolished but merely that we consider it unremarkable. We can add a preamble in the lead if further explanation is needed. Certes (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't call people stupid because they have a different point of view.

The very fact that the single level 2 section containing the list needs an explanatory headings points to the article title not being precise enough. Paradoctor (talk) 23:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise if I was inappropriately flippant. Some readers are naïve (as am I at times) and they deserve our help. I just wasn't sure that "in the range" clearly conveys the message we're trying to get across, which I think is "some but not all of". Certes (talk) 01:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem: "List of select numbers in the range X–Y". Paradoctor (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may also be worth noting List of numbers, which for obvious reasons leaves quite a lot of numbers out. We may want consistency between that title and the one being discussed here. Certes (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, shouldn't this conversation be moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Numbers ? Dhrm77 (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have been notified, twice, of this discussion, so I think due diligence has been done. Paradoctor (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. Move discussions should take place on talk pages and not on project pages. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 18:36, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Certes. --SHB2000 (talk) 07:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning oppose, so long as there are specific noteworthy characteristics of individual numbers like 300. For example, why would it make sense for 301 (number) and 302 (number) to be articles, but not 300 (number)? BD2412 T 03:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could still have separate articles for particularly notable individual numbers. List of numbers (300–399) would look a lot like the "Integers from 301 to 399" section currently on 300 (number), but the entry for 300 could have a link to its main article. I happen to think that numbers like 301 (number) don't need their own article and would more usefully be 5 bullet points under the heading of 301 on List of numbers (300–399) - but that is a separate issue. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. I do think the status quo is suboptimal and that it's right to workshop alternatives. I would prefer List of numbers (X–Y) as it's concise and I don't think there's a strong implication that a list of things has to include all such things. It seems like we should think of List of numbers as the top-level article for all number articles. Individual numbers and number ranges and number types can then be broken out into separate articles as appropriate. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 08:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope List of numbers (X–Y) is still a possible title. We use this format widely for incomplete lists such as List of Jupiter trojans (Greek camp) (1–100000), which has fewer than 100,000 entries, and List of bisexual people (A–F), which omits many non-notable bisexuals. Certes (talk) 15:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The articles currently have an infobox and a section on the whole number itself, making it difficult to repurpose them as lists. But I am supportive of opening a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers, since the scope of this refactor goes beyond what an RM can handle. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several of the pages listed should be split rather than moved. For example, 1000 (number) is performing two roles: describing the number 1000, which is clearly notable enough for its own article, and briefly summarising the properties of 1001–1999. Burying the extensive description of 1000 in a list, even with a redirect to section from the current title, seems inadequate. Other candidates for splitting include 300 and 1,000,000. Certes (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think this may be an example of WP:TRAINWRECK which some pages are consistent for one layout, others another layout, and a certain amount are possible candidates of splitting as mentioned above. In addition to all pages from 300 to 9000, including these numbers, they're probably fail MOS:DASH regarding the proposed destinations and looking at some of the articles, they use the longer dash than the length this nomination was used. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.