 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Number
editI would like to suggest this article default to the number 3. I would think most people who search for '3' would be looking for the number rather than the year.12.26.68.146 15:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
- And I would like to suggest that you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) and reconsider. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 21:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It is also incorrect to place Jesus's birth on year 1 but not also put it on year 3 (the other option) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.178.145 (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I tried searching for ":3" and got here! This should not happen. Colons should be included in SEARCHES. Yes, I hit the SEARCH button, and it took me to a page. :| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.233.213 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Policy you cited is incorrect. It is commonly accepted that all dates in the common era less than 1000 has to have the suffix "AD" attached. This is to prevent confusion between 360 (degree of arc) and 360 A.D..
- Wikipedia policies are all fine and well, but we must keep in mind that those policies are made by fallible creatures, so we must always tend towards common sense.
- So let's use common sense. If I wanted to find out, for instance, how we got the etymology of three, I would call up Wikipedia and type "3" in the search engine. On the other hand, if I wanted to know what happened when Jesus was about 8 years old, I would instead type "3 AD" in the search engine. That is common sense.LutherVinci (talk) 21:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Even if were the convention that this article should normally be referred to as 3 AD (which it isn't, although there is some support in the last week), it doesn't mean the article name shouldn't be 3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Some articles have multiple names. Ancestry of Jesus and Genealogy of Jesus, for instance. Or Carthage and Carthaginians. You would not expect the article to read "Carthaginians" when it is really about Carthage. So why call this article "3" when it is really about "In the third year of our Lord"? LutherVinci (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please read our policy on redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see that on Wikipedia the ultimate comeback is simply, "Just read the relevant policy yourself." Well, I did read the policy and it clearly states that links should be redirected to more RELEVANT articles, that focuses on the PRIMARY TOPIC. "3" is not relevant, "3 AD" is.LutherVinci (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is an established convention, noted in places such as WP:MOSDATE, that years should be the undisambiguated article, rather than numbers. If you want to reverse that, please try to get consensus at WP:NUMBERS, WP:YEARS, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, at the very least. You would then need to modify all links in Wikipedia which lead to an unadorned year number to point to ''yyyy'' AD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you even read the policies you cite? They clearly states, "Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it" Period. If you would like to reverse the policy, then you would require a condenses at WP:MOSDATE (all your other links redirect there) at the very least. As for the fact that every article about years AD are all numbered the same way, I am not scared off by thinking I'll have to correct them myself, I am sure that when the wake up and read the pollicy the articles will fix themselves. But just in case I will speak to the WikiProject you cited. So far you've cited a new policy each time, are there any more you want attempt? LutherVinci (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Nothing you've said in previous paragraphs is consistent with the policy you've now correctly quoted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- I quote again, "do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it" If, for instance, the article was about the year 1968, titling it 1968 without AD would be okay because there is no ambiguity; everyone assumes that 1968 refers to the year because that is the way the number is most commonly used. On the other hand, this article about the year 3 cannot be titled 3 because the year would be ambiguous without AD. Hence the quoted policy.
- That was for the second policy you cited. The first, and only other one, states that all redirections must funnel towards the primary topic. In this case, the primary topic on 3 is 3 (number). You must understand that the very policies you cite, without properly quoting them or referencing them, agree that the naming system for this article is incorrect.LutherVinci (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
- Exactly. Nothing you've said in previous paragraphs is consistent with the policy you've now correctly quoted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:00, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- Do you even read the policies you cite? They clearly states, "Do not use CE or AD unless the date or century would be ambiguous without it" Period. If you would like to reverse the policy, then you would require a condenses at WP:MOSDATE (all your other links redirect there) at the very least. As for the fact that every article about years AD are all numbered the same way, I am not scared off by thinking I'll have to correct them myself, I am sure that when the wake up and read the pollicy the articles will fix themselves. But just in case I will speak to the WikiProject you cited. So far you've cited a new policy each time, are there any more you want attempt? LutherVinci (talk) 01:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
- There is an established convention, noted in places such as WP:MOSDATE, that years should be the undisambiguated article, rather than numbers. If you want to reverse that, please try to get consensus at WP:NUMBERS, WP:YEARS, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, at the very least. You would then need to modify all links in Wikipedia which lead to an unadorned year number to point to ''yyyy'' AD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- I see that on Wikipedia the ultimate comeback is simply, "Just read the relevant policy yourself." Well, I did read the policy and it clearly states that links should be redirected to more RELEVANT articles, that focuses on the PRIMARY TOPIC. "3" is not relevant, "3 AD" is.LutherVinci (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
- Please read our policy on redirects. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Some articles have multiple names. Ancestry of Jesus and Genealogy of Jesus, for instance. Or Carthage and Carthaginians. You would not expect the article to read "Carthaginians" when it is really about Carthage. So why call this article "3" when it is really about "In the third year of our Lord"? LutherVinci (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- Nonsense. Even if were the convention that this article should normally be referred to as 3 AD (which it isn't, although there is some support in the last week), it doesn't mean the article name shouldn't be 3. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
- The Policy you cited is incorrect. It is commonly accepted that all dates in the common era less than 1000 has to have the suffix "AD" attached. This is to prevent confusion between 360 (degree of arc) and 360 A.D..