Talk:300 (number)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Numbers
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.

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

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

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).

300 comic book[edit]

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)


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... 17:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

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 (talkcontribs) 01:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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)
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[edit]

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)


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)

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)

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)

Did you read my post above? 303 has a hatnote to 303 (disambiguation) which links the Roland TB-303, so there is no need for a hatnote at top of 300 (number). Imagine what a humongous hatnote we could get if we started duplicating everything at pages like 302 (disambiguation), 303 (disambiguation), 304 (disambiguation), 305 (disambiguation), 306 (disambiguation), 307 (disambiguation), 308 (disambiguation), 310 (disambiguation), 312 (disambiguation), 314 (disambiguation), 316 (disambiguation), 322 (disambiguation), 323 (disambiguation), 336 (disambiguation), 380 (disambiguation). None of these have a corresponding "3xx (number)" article. You are free to create a new article at 303 (number). See Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pop Culture[edit]

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)

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)

HTTP Status Codes[edit]

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)

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

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: 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)

9-queens problem[edit]

"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)