Talk:300

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years 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.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anybody want to temporarily set the 300 movie as the link and move the year to disambiguation? I would assume most people who go to this page in the next couple of months will be looking for the movie, not the year.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.97.197.19 (talk • contribs).

I think that's a bad idea. The year is clearly the more important subject in the long run.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal to have Wiki search 300 linked to the 300 disambiguation. Simply put, the movie 300, the graphic novel of the same name or the number 300 may turn out to be more important then the year 300 AD. And frankly, there is no major event in history that relates specifically to 300 AD. Finally, doing a Google search on this date / time on the term "300" [1], the first 100 results of 308,000,000 webpags deal with the movie 300. These facts support directing a Wikipedia search on 300 to the 300 disambiguation is more proper then the year 300 AD. Jvsett 23:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree! Sigh! Whenever will you people learn? If you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) you'll see that articles whose names consist of digits are reserved for the years. This is Wikipedia policy and until that has been changed, you can't just move those pages about as you see fit. If you were to move this page to, say 300 (year) or 300 AD, you would have to do so with all the 2000+ year articles that already do exist. What's so difficult about understanding the dab link on top: For other uses, see...? Secondly, what's so difficult about the move article being at 300 (movie)? I'm sorry if I seem angry or rude, but these kinds of discussions are getting a bit dull and boring. /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 09:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludde23 - There is nothing in the policy that you cite that is at issue with argument that searching for the term 300 should link to year 300 and not the disambiguation 300. The policy you cite only deals with linking years, not movie title. In fact, the policy states "New contributors are reminded that clear, informative and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting." So please, bear with us. For your information, the legal name of the movie is 300, not Three Hundred or some other form of writing 300 such as 300 the movie. This was a purposefully choice by the movie makers for there own reasons. People who search for the term "300," at this time seem more interested in finding the film 300 not the year 300. Therefore, Wikipedia should reflect the desire for people to find this information.Jvsett 16:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry for my rude remarks. The page I meant to show was Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Numbers_and_dates. Secondly, I think that there should be links on top of the 300 page, such as This article is about the year 300 AD. For other uses, see 300 (number). For the film with this title, se 300 (film). However, there are other people, who think there shouldn't. So, after I once again have tried to apologize (and hoped that I am forgiven), my opinion in i nutshell is:

The article 300 should be about the year 300 AD, according to Wikipedia policy.
On this page, there should be links to 300 (film) and 300 (comic book) etc.

/Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 18:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ludde23 - No offense was taken on my part. Adding the 300 movie link makes since to me. However, I think this issue reflects a larger issue - that being when there are other popular references to a number (such as Seven, 69, 300, 666, 911, 1984, 2001, etc), a person's search goes automatically to the year. If they are not searching for the year, then that person must go to the disambiguation page and then finally to the other page they want. Perhaps Wikipedia has already addressed this issue and it was determine that it was better in the long run to have it always go to year; but it seems to me it is just effective to go to a disambiguation page in certain select cases (where there is "significant" (whatever that is determined might mean) other references other than the year). Unfortunately I am not sure where to post this problem if it actually exists. Yours -Jvsett 07:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers like this are reserved for the year. There is a disambiguation page for other uses. There isn't any need to further accomodate readers looking for the film by including an extra link on this page (and not, say 300 BC); the film just isn't prominent enough in the long run to justify it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that instead of including a special link to the movie, in addition to the disambiguation page, there should just be a special link to an article about the battle itself, probably with a very brief note explaining that this battle is the basis for a couple of movies and a graphic novel.--Peter Knutsen 19:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ludde23 and Cuchullain 300 should link to the year. Ryan4314 22:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys sure the American Lion became extinct as recently as 300? I was under the impression that american lions had been extinct since ancient times (at least 10,000 years ago). The Wikipedia article on the american lion does not say it went extinct this recently. It says its extinction was a result of the Holocene extinction event which was at the start of the holocene not 1700 years ago. And im pretty sure native americans didn't coexist with the american lion for 9,000 years. I think this needs to be changed.

It says Armenia, not America.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]