The number of moons of the planet Uranus
Removed this 'fact' because the current article on Uranus mentions 27 moons. It is silly to include information that is likely to change. The 'fact' soon becomes a counterfactual maintenance problem.
I understand that Wikipedia should not give free advertisement to for-profit corporations. However, I do think that Century 21 is worth mentioning in this article. But I won't revert Anonymous User. Perhaps someone can think of a way to mention Century 21 without advertising it. PrimeFan 23:20, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Take a look at my recent addition, which also includes Century 21 Exposition (the 1962 World's Fair). I'd suggest that it's reasonable to mention a company whose name is a famous use of such a word or phrase, just like Apple Computer is mentioned under apple, without really being an advertisement. If someone wants to create a scholarly page on Century 21 Real Estate, like one might find for Ford Motor Company, IBM, or McDonald's, they can add a link here, but I've left it off so as not to give it undue emphasis. Perhaps this is a decent compromise? -- Jeff Q 02:30, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Speaking just for myself, I think that your edit is a decent compromise. PrimeFan 22:06, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I'm not entirely certain what the standard is for dealing with short "number" articles like 021. My guess is that it should be merged here, or possibly to an area code page somewhere. Does anyone else know? --Elonka 02:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- If there's a page for Tehran area codes, this tidbit should definitely go there. Either way (and assuming there are no disagreements on the notability of the rapper Hich Kas), it wouldn't hurt for the article on the integer 21 to mention this provided it's clear that the digit string is "021" and not just "21". PrimeFan 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I added the current notable players wearing 21 in the MLB and NFL. The counter from the user who reverted it was 'are any of these jerseys retired?'. My response, which could not adequately be explained using the edit box, is this: Out of the 15 players who are mentioned prior to my edit, Deion Sanders, Tim Duncan, Peter Forsberg, Tiki Barber, and LaDainian Tomlinson, which comprise 1/3 of the list, do not have their numbers retired. Plus, I'm not sure about the footballers on here because I haven't heard of them in the US. If you make the argument that some of these five above players are still active, such as Tim Duncan, then it is hard to argue that Kevin Garnett is not also a Hall of Famer. However, he was not mentioned. The user who reverted it took little time to examine my edits. The term 'Hall of Famer' was used with caps, without caps, with hyphens and caps, without both, etc., all throughout the article. I made all of the references similar, and grouped the names by sport and then by position. The number 21 is a well-liked number, as evidenced by all of the players who are wearing it. I know a lot about sports, and I'll explain why those names deserve mention. (Besides, aren't encyclopedias supposed to promote further research, ie looking up why these players are special?). Charles Woodson won a Heisman. Sammy Sosa has 600 home runs. Sweeney is one of the best pinch-hitters in MLB history. Delgado has 426 homers. The All-Stars other than the above include: Dmitri Young, Frank Gore, DeAngelo Hall, Chris McAlister [one of the NFL's best DB's in the game today], Bob Sanders, Nnamdi Asomugha, and of course Kevin Garnett. Marquis is having a really good season this year. The rest of the players are either premier players at their positions (recent seasons with 6+ interceptions in a season, for example), picked in the early part of the first round of the NFL Draft recently, or have been selected in the top two rounds of the NFL Draft and played up to their draft status. Besides, when was the last time a number not being retired [they are all active players, after all], meant they weren't worthy of mention? Nobody has a list this organized and thorough on the internet that I have seen. Why not let it be Wikipedia? You need to recognize worthwhile contributions when you see them, and not revert them just because the players don't have a ton of buzz surrounding them yet (and I'm talking about the guys who play in the shadow of somebody else, not the All-Stars/Pro-Bowlers and the guys with 600 home runs). If you like, you can seperate it into sub-sections with the ones with retired numbers, and those who are still active. 220.127.116.11 00:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Dispute location note
Addition on 99 to the 99th power preferred to be discussed at 99 (number). At 12 (number), I have noted a discussion is in progress elsewhere (see its talk page). A recent, relevant, edit at century is also on the table.Julzes (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Maximum age shown in the article picture is "21+"
- "related, I suppose, but there has no evicence presented that the Age of consent is ever 21)"
I would like to point out that in the picture shown in the Age of consent article (Law section) the maximum age shown is "21+". I don't think is a matter of "evidence" but a matter of roughly considering globally 21 years of age as a maximum age for the so called "age of consent". I am not seeing any "violet" (21+) countries or areas but only "purple" (only married) ones. Anyway I am inviting to discuss this change. Thanks. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- Cite error: The named reference
waiteswas invoked but never defined (see the help page).