Jump to content

Talk:500

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I'm missing the term "500 free" at the 500 enumeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achim~dewiki (talkcontribs) 06:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2 December 2019

[edit]
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: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]



– No clear primary topic, the AD year gets 1,276 views (but probably largely inflated since most 3 digit years appear to get less than 200 views) while the card game gets 10,487, the number gets 3,903 (the original meaning and arguably more primary by PT#2), the BC year gets 1,055 and the ball game gets 808 [[1]]. A large number of other articles linked on the DAB page [[2]] shows some getting far more like Bluetooth getting 97,790, Fortune 500 getting 57,575 and Fortune Global 500 getting 49,862, while they are probably not likely to be searched with "500" considering how many there are and their views even if a very small fraction used just "500" to get to them they would alone (ignoring the full matches) still displace the year. I'm not sure how many of those titles should be removed or moved to the see also but indeed we can't declare the AD year to be primary even still. A Google search returns several different topic, none being the AD year, most of the Image results are for Fiat 500. A Google Books search does return 2 results for the AD year though 1 is in the middle of the 1st page of results and the other is the last. A site:wikipedia.org 500 returns the number, then the card game and then the AD year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose a vote of thanks to Crouch, Swale for putting in the donkeywork on 3-digit numbers. It has revealed inconsistencies in the current approach, and may lead to a WP:CONSENSUS in this area which is better than the existing one (such as it is). Narky Blert (talk)
Barnstars are thataway. — JFG talk 12:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.