Talk:3

Cenocracy??

A google search of "cenocracy" doesn't seem to come up with anything. Can someone cite a source for the cenocracy explanation offered in the last bullet of "Politics"? 96.235.179.6 (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just about to ask the same thing Blah42b10 (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The word "Cenocracy" is abbreviated from "Ceno-democracy". Cenocracy means "New Peoples Government". It first appeared on a double-side colored poster providing hundreds of examples of "threes". (I think there are about 2,000 copies left.) The word was coined from Herb Buckland's political philosophy that refers to a government that truly is Of, By, and For the people. Present forms of Democracy, Socialism, Communism, etc., are variations of social governing policies that do not permit the people to actually be in charge of (what is supposed to be) THEIR government on a day to day basis. Representative government models as presently practiced do not generally permit the people to vote directly on issues concerning everyone. Present efforts to remedy this situation through forms of referendum voting fall far short of the Cenocratic ideal where the people themselves have their own legislative branch that has power, through the people, to dominate the legislative, judicial, and executive processes, if need be.

Initial explanation garnered from an old web-page:

Cenocracy is a word that was coined to represent the idea of considering the need to look beyond the views of present-day Democracy for the sake of developing a form of social self-governance that will assist in improving our lives as well as encourage the growth of humanity as a species, whose biological, physical, and mental attributes adapt to environmental changes to a degree that some observers label as subtle indications of an ongoing evolutionary process. However, there are others who would prefer to interpret such adaptations to environmental circumstances as representations of a Divine guidance from Heaven and still others prefer to approach the matter from a view of proportionality that may or may not include the idea of dismissing all present-day views, instead of choosing to combine ideas from both Science and Religion. In any respect, all three groups can and do recognize the need for attempting to improve present circumstances, even though they may prefer alternative approaches.

In coining the word Cenocracy, I was searching for some measure of linguistic symbolism that might help in providing a simple mental picture of needed social change that not only conveyed a description of improvement beyond the present circumstances of Democracy, but also expressed some degree of overlap with present and past efforts at designing the best form of social self-governance. I sought out a label that would not appear too foreign to the general public's sensibilities so as to avoid creating the possibility of a negative attitude towards an alternative idea.

Cenocracy is being presented in a slightly larger explanatory format on a poster entitled "Declaration For Greater Independence" to be published (hopefully) sometime in (April? May? June?) 2010. The problems being encountered consist of finding a suitable creative graphic artist to help with the watermarks, drop caps, etc., getting various writers to provide their comments, and finding a printer to print a single large poster at a reasonable price. Imagine having to pay $13,000 for 5,000 copies of a (roughly) 5 feet by six feet double-sided four-color poster! Imagine also talking to various people on the street, etc., who say they have a lot to say about the government but when given the chance to do so, they slither away. (Unless they are making money at providing their opinion.) No less, there are not as many courageous John Hancock's around as one might first suppose.

Update: June 16, 2010

The printing of the poster is delayed due to the running of a contest to find a suitable logo design that will also be used for a web page and T-shirts.

Herb Buckland may be contacted: via e-mail... herbobuckland@hotmail.com or postal mail... PO Box 25872, Salt Lake City, Ut. 84125 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.153.227 (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Three world views

According to alan watts, the buddhist philospher, there are three great world views: Western, or life as a machine, chinese, or life as an organism or Inidian, or life as a drama. Should we add this?

Done. The Tetrast (talk) 16:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. 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.

This is odd

Surely there should be some mention that 3 is odd. Or the first odd prime. Or Something.

I think there should be some mention of how... there's this natural tendency to make the number of something three. Whenever you're making a point, it sounds best to make three of them.. and other instances like that... and 'counting to three' and such.

Yes, entirely. To some degree this is a systemic cultural preference: three is favoured in most European cultures, for instance, whereas some Native American traditions (e.g. the Lakota?) prefer four and use it in many contexts analogous to our three (IIRC). I'm not quite sure what to say about this, though. I'll add something on counting to three. 4pq1injbok 05:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Past Present and Future

Three divisions of time

Time is an illusion. As is everything else... Also if you take any line and pick an arbitrary point on it you create three divisions.198.240.130.75 (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Pi

Should there be some mention of the false proofs (or wrong assumption) that 3 is Pi? Well, the ratio of a sircumference to diameter.

three

Just remember: "stoppest thou not at two, and if thou should count onward to three, proceedeth thou not onward to four." Monty python's rules for the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. --DanielCD 22:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

fairy tales

three good fairies, three wishes, three days to guess rumpelstiltskins name, three bears, three blind mice, etc... Look up: The Number Three In Fairytales by Herb O. Buckland for a more in-depth discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.152.28 (talk) 21:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Threesome

I changed the definition of a threesome from "one man and two women" to "three people", as I think it's more correct. You can definitely have a threesome between two men and a woman, or three men, etc. I didn't think anyone would object, but just in case, I'm explaining it here. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 21:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings

I removed The Lord of the Rings from the trilogy part because it is not a trilogy. It happened to be released in three books but that is not the way it is written nor Tolkien's wish. It is to be considered as one book of 6 separate books.

Fair use rationale for Image:SicilyFlag.gif

Image:SicilyFlag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Three laws of robotics

Add a mention of science fiction ...? This is a pretty widely quoted and understood term. PennaBoy 21:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Pound Symbol

When I type shift + 3 I get #, which is called the pound symbol. This is typical of all US keyboards. Yes, I know the symbol is different in the UK, but it has the same name and same key. how should this be dealt with? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure its the pound symbol on the phone, on a keyboard it is the number symbol, either way, I fail to see what that has to do with with the number three. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 06:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Religion and myth

The religions and myth part is a little over done. Half of it is the Greek version followed by the Roman version, wouldn't it be easier to to list Zeus, Jupiter, Poseidon, Neptune, Hades and Pluto together? In addition to that, theres nothing noteworthy or religious about a trident, even a God's trident, having three points, infact, I think thats what TRIdent means. The weapon and its characteristics are not unique to him, they probably have more to do with a fishing spear being more effective with more prongs, so Retiarius can't even definitively be said to be related to Neptune. Additionally, those three were not Gods of Heaven, Earth and the Underworld, but of Heaven (or Air if you take a Classical Elemental look), Water and Earth, the elements in which they primarily dwelt as was decided after Zeus beat his father. Hades had as much control over the metals hidden in the earth as he did over the dead (if not more, less rules with shinies, a lot of rules with the uglies). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 06:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Colon Three

How can this page not have a mention of :3 ? (Colon Three)

Also, notice at the top of the page it says "Talk:3"

As well, notice how it was last edited (as of this date) at 9:34, and as I type this message it is 11:34 pacific time 24.129.237.34 (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Well, since English is my 4th language, how is three supposed to be pronounced? I keep saying it as "free". Dumb question, I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.73.226 (talk) 06:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"Three" is often difficult for those who have native languages other than English (I'm not sure what other languages use the "Th" sound, if any). Put your tongue just under your top front teeth (it should stick out in front just a little) and then blow and say "ree" after that (as in free), TH+Ree = three. Hope this helps! 24.129.233.22 (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds really complicated -- well my native languages are Romanian and Hungarian: which 'cause the problem. Is there an IPA for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.158.75.97 (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/three. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The IPA character for "th" sound is ð 24.129.232.215 (talk) 07:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That is the voiced "th", as in "these". The voiceless "th", as in "three", is þ. --bonadea contributions talk 09:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

For voiceless th, IPA uses the Greek theta θ and not the Icelandic and Old/Middle English thorn þ. þ (which comes from a rune) is used for the voiceless th in Icelandic and in modern renderings of Old and Middle English; likewise ð ("eth") is used for the voiced th in both cases. Old and Middle English texts actually used thorn (þ) and eth (ð) for both voiced and voiceless th; there wasn't a strictly observed rule about which symbolized which. The Tetrast (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

On the bus home from town just now I suddenly realised I'd put a thorn and not a theta. You are of course completely right - I must have suffered a brainfart. --bonadea contributions talk 15:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

That's okay. Since the return of ð and þ to the English alphabet is self-evidently the supreme object of desire, an honest mistake that leads to discussion of them is a special bragging right and feather in your cap and lucky like a four-leaf clover. The Tetrast (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Anthropology

The Anthropology section has far too much detail, which as it it says is from a discredited theory. How about this be spun off to a separate article with just a short sentence to link it on? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

serious style issue

the majority of this article needs a complete rewrite. most of this shit is either irrelevant or misplaced (this is 3 (number), not List of shit that occurs in threes. People who do not understand the difference should read the Law of Fives (five times) and consult their pineal gland.) and the rest can be much better summarized in an actual paragraph or two. Yes, the number 3 (like just about every small number) is featured prominently in both nature and cultural ideas and themes. let's find some good citations for the existence of this phenomenon and leave it at that, or create articles for specific concepts of trinity. lists are for list articles. i checked the wikipedia articles for some random philosophers in that list and their "Philosophical Distinctions" are not mentioned at all, which seems odd because that's where they belong (with sources of course). i have plenty of 3-way philosophies (not to mention my philosophy on the threeway) but this is about the number three and why people go retarded over it. and no more tildes. they look horrible. X \' Z Z \' (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The editors here, at whom you're cursing, have been happy with the tildes, they're quite convenient.[YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG - X] You haven't looked very hard for sources in the philosophical articles. If you think that this article should be generally confined to the number 3 in mathematics, then you should advocate changing the article name to "3 (mathematics)". There is no reason that common triads shouldn't be placed here. The Tetrast (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

You, Sir, are an idiot. A number IS a mathematical concept. 3 the number is an abstract entity, and the primary objective encyclopedic information about three the number is mathematical in nature. The same goes for any and all numbers. Secondly, common is common, not 'lets scrape up anything we can, especially from our favorite philosophers which noone cares about'. Furthermore, there is still no excuse for the shit structure. You want to write about how people tend to invent concepts in groups of three, WONDERFUL, but before you bust a nut all over your keyboard put at least some effort and write an actual article, don't just spit out a list with 4-5 entries per philosopher with bad style and think you're improving this wiki. (THE USE OF THE TILDE IN THIS ARTICLE IS WRONG. GO READ A MANUAL OF STYLE. NOBODY USES TILDES LIKE THAT EXCEPT 14-YEAR-OLD GIRLS.) When I look at the table, it seems that whoever wrote it made the entries fit with the idea of "triads". For example Marx's three "-isms". If I went to a philosophy professor and asked "What were Karl Marx's three isms?", or asked an evolutionary biologist about Darwin's "essentials of biological evolution", would you be willing to bet money that their answers would match this article exactly, and if so then how much? Why don't you take a look at 12 (number), which WikiProject Numbers identifies as their "flagship article". See how succinct it is? See how it doesn't go off the deep end? See how it actually tries to keep things relevant. I'm not denying that three is a number which people psychologically find appealing for classifications and divisions, but making a list of every such "triad" is not relevant to three the number. Have you even looked at this page? It clearly states that number articles should FIRST focus on the mathematical properties (again: number. number. NUM-BERRRRRR. Get it into your thick head.), and SECOND on extramathematical properties, starting with "# Most universal and eternal" Is the fact that there are three basic subatomic particles universal? Probably (Well, actually it can be argued that the atom is divided into two parts - nucleus and electron shell, but I can argue with myself all day) Is saying that time is divided into 3 parts, past/present/future, universal and eternal? Well, I would say that any linear dimension can be divided into a point and everything to the left and right of it, and we don't really understand time well enough to make such bold statements and call them facts, but this at least on the level of "absolute truth" to >99% human perception. (if you ask me there is no past, preset, or future, but i've been spending the last 3 months figuring out how to perceive time non-linearly) Are C S Pierce's "three normatives" a universal and eternal extramathematical property of the number 3? NO. It is a school of thought and has absolutely nothing to do with this article. You want to write about philosophical groupings of threes? Make a section, write a brief summary about how philosophers and mystics and religions have focused on the concept of triads and trinities. Link some other articles that are more relevant to that particular topic, and leave it at that. This:

Charles Peirce's 3 semiotic elements: Sign (representamen)~ Object~ Interpretant

Charles Peirce's 3 categories: Quality of feeling~ Reaction/resistance~ Representation

Charles Peirce's 3 universes of experience: Ideas~ Brute fact~ Habit (habit-taking)

Charles Peirce's 3 orders of philosophy: Phenomenology~ Normative Sciences~ Metaphysics

Charles Peirce's 3 normatives: The good (esthetic)~ The right (ethical)~ The true (logical)

Charles Peirce's 3 grades of conceptual clearness: By familiarity~ Of definition's parts~ Of conceivable practical consequences

Charles Peirce's 3 modes of evolution: Fortuitous variation~ Mechanical necessity~ Creative love

Can be easily reduced to "Charles Peirce was one of the many philosophers who used the number three in his classification schemes", whereas all the details, with their awful style and cryptic meanings can go on his page which I'm sure you're very close to. X \' Z Z \' (talk) 11:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

What I've thought is, that the article could use some judicious pruning [HAHAHAHAHAHA! -X], e.g., the "Cenocracy" thing. But your edits are tending now to scorched earth. I noticed that User:Arthur Rubin wanted to keep such threes here as "Reading, 'Riting, and 'Rithmetic" and he is a mathematician. [BFD, I'm a priest and a docktor. The "3 R's" are purely an American concept (and probably the reason our schools are such shit). Compare to Sworn testimony, which is criticized for being only relevant to the UK -X] The article should be convenient to the general reader. [Trust me, as a general reader I did not find your 3-page list of philosophical windbags "convenient" -X] If somebody wants to know about prominent 3s [Such as Maurice Merleau-Ponty's 3 categories? Give me a fucking break -X], what wiki would they look at? Well, this one, of course. You think that there should be spinoff articles instead on some sort of thematic grounds (a lot of it isn't really about the number 3 -- in your opinion). But there is no reason to break the wiki up into specialized wikis unless it becomes too long. The Tetrast (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The main thing about the title "3 (number)" is that it distinguishes it from "3" which is the year 3, and there is no reason to get all caught up in the idea that "number" there makes it just a mathematical topic. [YOU ARE AN IDIOT -X] But, if I'm right, [You're not -X] then why aren't the titles the other way around? Why not "Year 3" or "3 (year)" for the year wiki, while giving the simple title "3" to this wiki? [Oh my god, are you confusing the word 'wiki' with the word 'article'? -X] Convenience of wiki links. There will be a lot more links to year wikis, and as long as the year wikis' titles are simply numbers, it is much simpler to link to them from other wikis. The Tetrast (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC).

At this point, though I'm not finished yet, I've added footnotes for many of the "Philosophy" threes which don't appear in linked wikis - more footnotes were needed than I had thought, but still many of the three-way distinctions do appear in linked wikis. No, I don't feel like editing linked wikis to include the threes. Somebody else can do that if they feel it important. The Tetrast (talk) 00:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC).

At this (later) point I have to admit that a lot more footnotes are needed than I thought. The threes that I added were for Peirce, and those were all in the wikis. I think that the reason that I thought that many threes were in linked wikis is that, some time ago, I checked many of the threes that I found already in philosophy section of the "3 (number)" wiki, and found confirmation on the Internet but didn't add footnotes (though I'm a massive footnoter in the wikis that I usually edit), and later forgot that I hadn't found the 3s in wikis. I wish I had added the footnotes then, this is kind of tedious. Oh well. The Tetrast (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC).

I've been looking at some of your footnotes as well. So you scrape some shit out of a "Pocket" book, that's fine. But as I mentioned above, three is a number which tends to be used a lot because of the psychological implications. For instance, a classic marketing trick is preceding what you want people to think with the word "but". The MLK passage is a classic use of opposing a perceived duality with a third option so as to set it apart from the two. Again, I feel that it would be more meaningful, relevant, and useful for the general reader to focus more on how people use three to prove a point than write out every single point ever made using the number three. and that's my point. X \' Z Z \' (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

3 - Britney Spears' single

In the past several days entries for the Britney Spears song "3" have been added to this page 3 times. I've deleted them twice thinking this is simply WP:spam (effectively advertising this single). There is an article about this song, see 3 (song). Anyone have any opinions about whether it's appropriate for an entry here? -- Rick Block (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for following 2 and preceding 4

No clear sources are given for this statement. Please do so.

New posts are made at the bottom of talk pages; and please sign your post with four tildes (~). No citations are required for the statement in your post. Thanks Tiderolls 04:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Marx's 3 isms

Please just get rid of that. It has no real meaning and is incorrect. Marx did not have some doctrine of "3 isms".--jenlight (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't seem right, so I deleted it. Deleted the "Woodrow Wilson's 3 isms" line as well - "Colonialism. Racism. Anti-communism." since I found those three things ascribed to him by some historian, but he's not generally known for having or practicing only those three ideas. The Tetrast (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC).

Citation for bad luck's coming in 3s

In an edit I wrote in the edit line, "Added citation about bad luck's coming in threes". Imagine that. Actually, I added a citation about the belief that bad luck comes in threes! Anyway, the section on luck needs some references. I have found a bit of evidence, but not a reference, that among Vietnamese it's considered bad luck to have three in a photo. If anybody can provide a reference on the Vietnamese belief, it would be much appreciated. The Tetrast (talk) 03:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC).

enough of this fucking shit already

this page is a disgraceful example of why pedowikia is a turpid pile of jimbo wales' spooge. it is bloated with irrelevant information of marginal value or importance. the NUMBER three has nothing to do with almost everything listed outside of the first sections on its mathematical properties and history of the glyph. i'm not saying that there should not be a page that lists 500 "notable things that can be grouped in threes". by all means, make such a page. i will start it off with places you can rape a woman: VAGINA, MOUTH, ASS. but something like this DOES NOT BELONG here. IT DOES NOT BELONG. IT DOES NOT BELONG. look at the page for 2 (number). No seriously, open it in new tab. DO IT. look at how the HALF OF THE PAGE is devoted JUST to the mathematics. I'm not saying the rest of the page is perfect. there are probably some things i would change, but it's not the piece of fucking shit that this page is. seriously guys. the current revision of 2 (number) as of right now is 18727 bytes. the current revision of this page is 48734 bytes. THAT'S 30K BYTES MORE. WTF YOU PEOPLE. SERIOUSLY. WTF. i swear to fucking christ i am going to prune this thing with a chainsaw until it's down to under 20k, and if whoever it is who wrote practically every single fucking useless list item (OH I KNOW WHO YOU ARE YOU TILDE-SUCKING FAGGOT) has an issue with it they can go blow themselves. SHIT LIKE THIS DOES NOT BELONG IN MY WIKIPEDIA. I'll take my case up with jimbo if i have to (assuming that fat fuck ever takes a break from receiving facials from 12-year-old boys)X \' Z Z \' (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)