Talk:1337

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.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages 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.

Leet

1337 - See Leet

Why do Do I see this number everywhere??? Does it have some kind of meaning?-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.28.139 (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC) It means leet like the opposite of bein a n00b-— Preceding unsigned comment added by Kc2017kc (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, see Leet. -- Lenoxus 18:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Years' War

Hahaha, wow. I just saw a link to here from Hundred Years' War (it started in 1337), and I thought to myself, "Oh my god, I have got to check that article's history." Thanks to, it seems like, TheMidnighters, and all who've faithfully kept reverting in spite of the constant flood of retards to this unfortunate year's article. --Karch 08:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)--User:Chaos Chaos[reply]

Please, we call them "Life-acquisitionally challenged". ---Uagehry456|Talk_{JordanhillVote} 00:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we use the most common English term on Wikipedia. "Retard" fits the bill perfectly! Skinsmoke (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

I think this page should be protected due to high amounts of vandalism.--Megaman en m (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1337 → 1337 (year) —

First off, props to the people who have put in a lot of work to keep this page vandalism-free. However, I believe that at least as many people who search for 1337 want the article on leetspeak as want information about the year. Therefore, I propose that this page be moved to 1337 (year) and 1337 be turned into a disambiguation page. Truthfulcynic (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose No evidence produced that the "leetspeak" version is the prime topic. I suspect most people would think of the year, but am prepared to be convinced by any evidence produced. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The sitting of year articles at bare numbers has always been a bad idea. A number is a number, let dab pages occupy all those locations; though there is also the issue of bias in choosing "year" (or no dab) in favoring the Christian Georgian calendar without suitable disambiguator. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 21:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is an argument for moving all years, not one in isolation. It would be better discussed as an amendment to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), which states By convention, an article name that is a number (in Arabic numerals) represents a calendar year in the Common Era. Such articles give an overview, in the form of a list, of the major events that took place (or are planned to take place) in that year. In general the use of number-only page names should only be used for "Year in Review" entries, and continues So, if some numbers, that don't indicate a year, have a specific meaning, an additional qualifier or disambiguation technique is needed. It is quite clear that this proposal runs directly against the naming convention. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Google search for 1337 finds Leet as the top result, not 1337. Also, I just cannot imagine more people are curious what happened in 1337 than what "1337" is. In response to the previous poster, I'd argue that "1337" does have a specific meaning (being "leet"), even though it's not about the number as such but rather the "word". --Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Oppose as per the arguments below. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 11:43, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply We don't disagree that 1337 has a specific meaning in addition to the year. The naming convention covers this, and states that any article on that specific meaning would need an additional qualifier in its title. In this case there isn't an article, and so a hatnote should suffice. The naming convention doesn't allow for anything but the year to be considered the prime topic. Skinsmoke (talk) 22:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Misread the policy, definitely needs to be changed. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, traffic stats clearly show that those who are looking for the article are finding it: June leet stats, June 1337 stats. If we had thousands of people coming here each day to this page, that would be out of the ordinary and could indicate that they are looking for something else, but clearly they aren't. 200 hits a day is not reason enough to move a page that corresponds with something and make it a disambig page instead. The hatnote is more than sufficient and if everyone is looking for leet, as per the move argument, then making this a disambig page where they have to scroll through to find the link offers no advantage and in fact is more confusing than the current hatnote.--Terrillja _talk 01:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hatnote is sufficient. Disambig pages when there are only two options are basically pointless, so long as hatnotes are used. Also, 1337 isn't even the main term for leet, just an alternate way of writing it. Ocaasi (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In this instance, I favor consistency with other year articles. The "leet" interpretation is widespread but a disambiguation page helps no one. Powers ^T 13:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would conclude from the traffic stats (which, I might add, I think should be more publically available since I had no idea they existed) that since the primary way of finding Wikipedia articles is really through an external search engine, people do seem to be getting the article they want, which makes the move unnecessary. While I disagree with the policy (which I rather stupidly forgot to look for) on the grounds that numbers are mathematical entities with unlimited possible interpretations, because there is an established policy it needs to be followed. However, I would argue that the last sentance posted here out of the policy is poorly worded and should be rephrased to avoid exactly this type of question arising again in the future. Truthfulcynic (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.234.180 (talk) [reply]
Support more on principle - the linkage of years is an encyclopaedic abomination anyway. And I just came here in search for an article about Leet. For the time being I'll help myself with a redirection 1337 (slang term), but Id also support that move Wefa (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2010 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date unknown

~~There is a section heading of 'date unknown', plus a subheading in births and deaths marked 'date unknown'. This is confusing to say the least. Does it mean "circa this year" or something else?~~ Manning (talk) 05:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh, it means exact date within the year is unknown. More coffee please. Manning (talk) 05:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leet?

Doesn't 1337 mean Elite? 96.241.24.97 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]