Talk:3 (number)
|
|
| This article is part of WikiProject Numbers, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use resource about numbers. Suggestions for improving multiple articles on numbers and related subjects should go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. |
The "third smallest prime number" seems to imply that 1 is prime. By convention, the lowest prime is generally considered to be 2, making 3 the second prime number.
- Not just consistency - by mathematical definition, one is not prime since it has only one divisor as opposed to two. Radiant_* 08:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- One may easily define primes in such a way that 1 is included (e.g. defining prime as incomposite). Many elementary math teachers are unsure which definition is the right one (including or excluding 1). Some ancient Greeks apparently considered neither 1 nor 2 to be primes. So, yes, it's a matter of convention, and yes, the convention today is that 1 is not a prime - however, neither is it composite.--Niels Ø 09:00, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Are 3 (band) and Three (band) different entities? AxelBoldt 01:59, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- 3 (band) is from 3 and there it didn't say more about it ;-)
- According to [1] (http://www.robertberry.com/three/three.htm), just 3 (band is probably sufficient.¨
- --User:Docu
| Contents |
Stuff for Wiktionary
I think most of the content under the headers Groups of Three and In Chemistry ought to be moved to Wiktionary, since it's merely a list of words beginning "tri-" and the like. PrimeFan 22:00, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- If they get too large, we could split them off, similar to List of famous pairs. I'm sure Wiktionary might want a copy too. -- User:Docu
Prefixes for 3
I suggest something must be modified about prefixes for 3. See Talk:Tri- for details. 66.245.127.59 22:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Requested move
3 → AD 3 and 3 (number) → 3 – {This actually sounds more natural with numbers under 100; does anyone ever say "This happened in 3"?? Georgia guy 13:23, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose --Philip Baird Shearer 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- On grounds of consistency, oppose the move. It has been generally established that ### refers to a year, and ### (number) refers to a number. Radiant_* 08:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose this would be contrary to a well-established convention and make this year inconsistant with all others. Jonathunder 18:36, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)
- Oppose. - Jshadias 13:51, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Support. There are far more links to the number than the year. Fredrik | talk 16:53, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oppose. This is a big change that affects anyone editing articles on the first decade of the common era. It should be discussed and agreed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) first.
- Qualified support - It's true that there are far more links to each digit than to the respective years. I agree that this should be discussed at the MoS first. I don't think we should make one or the other the bare page; and certainly don't think we need to tackle the "3 AD" vs. "AD 3" vs. "AD is a criminal imposition of Christianity on my religion-neutral reading experience!" . Instead, I propose
- a) 3 (year) as the page for the year content, matching other disambiguation titles (since this *is* about disambiguation)
- b) having 3 redirect to 3 (year), for the sake of supporting auto-year-formatting
- c) making the links to the number (and the dab page, if there is a separate one) clear ata the top of the year article.
- see my proposal on the style guide talk page. +sj +
Discussion of suggested move
All the other digits are in the format "n (number)": Template:Numbers (digits) change all (which would be a VERY BIG project) or none.
- Certainly it would mean changing them all. It's not such a big project; and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers team is fairly active. +sj + 20:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
BTW are you familiar that using a "|" within a link eg [[3 (number)|]] it comes out as 3 not as 3 (number)? -- Philip Baird Shearer 21:27, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course it's all or none, so in the following, "3" could be replaced by any of the numbers 1-99. For consistency, I think it is reasonable to leave the number articles where they are (i.e. 3 (number)), but I agree that one rarely would refer to year 3 simply as "3" (where as year 2005 naturally could be referred to as "2005"). I think it would make sense either to move the year articles to 3 (year), making the article named just 3 a disambiguation page, or (probably a better idea:) to have a standardized text highlighted on top of all these pages, something like
- This article is about the year 3 AD - for other uses of the number 3, see 3 (number).
I have checked some of the pages in question (i.e. 1-99), and they already have a reference to 3 (number) (or equivalently), but it would be neater if the text also clarified what the 3 article itself is about. --Niels Ø 07:44, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)
Decision
Template:Notmoved Not a chance that we should move one and not the rest - therefore this is the incorrect place to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 12:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The right place to discuss this is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Rename articles in first decade of the common era?. Gdr 14:27, 2005 Apr 29 (UTC)
disambiguation
a lot of the information under "in other fields" should be moved to 3(disambiguation) page. some already has,such as three stooges.This information does not belong in a page refering to the number 3 in itself.