This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
AD 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
As this discussion is reaching the one-month point, and I don't see a clear consensus emerging, I'm presenting my analysis and proposing some limited changes, so all the time invested in this isn't wasted by a result of closing the whole thing down with "no consensus". As with the extended debate over what the primary topic for New York is, observe from Talk:New York#Cleanup project progress that despite the fact that there isn't consensus on the larger issue, behind the scenes progress is being made on link disambiguation, and thousands of links intended for the city have been fixed to point to New York City.
I think this proposal is problematic because:
We already have one ambiguous number, as the year 0 never happened. Let's follow that model for the years 1 – 9. Just some observations: we have an article about −1, the number, as years aren't written using minus signs. However, −2 redirects to the positive number and −3 was deleted. -1 using a hyphen redirects to −1 using a Unicode minus sign. We don't go very deep into negative territory with notable numbers, and −1 is the only number which is a primary topic.
0 (year) is an article which legitimately uses the parenthetical "(year)" for disambiguation because it is about the year 0 in all calendar systems, not just Anno Domini (or Common Era). As that article says, All eras used with Hindu and Buddhist calendars, such as the Saka era or the Kali Yuga, begin with the year 0.
I've started work on this by taking a look at what links to 1 through 9.
Retargeting 1 to One (disambiguation) will ensure better control over WP:OVERLINKs to everyday numbers, e.g. this edit and this edit, as several editors work to disambiguate links to disambiguation pages.
Also links to years intended to link to the number, e.g. this edit. These fixes support the argument that there is no primary topic for these digits.
There are relatively few links to the years 1 – 10. Removing pipes, e.g. [[1|AD 1]]
→ [[AD 1]]
(see
here,
here and
here) should be the obvious solution. Editors are already pointing to
AD 1 as the preferred way to indicate "year 1", by actually showing that form to readers, even while piping directly to
1.
Let's move forward with this. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
[[1|AD 1]]
→ [[AD 1]]
can be done now as it breaks nothing. But whilst I personally support the AD 1 format, I don't think we've established a consensus for it. Would it be better to wait, so we only do the job once if an alternative such as 1 CE is chosen?[[1]]
I see several that are simply because their documentation is. I'll change the documentation to not link to low-numbered years.
wbm1058 (
talk)
13:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Millennium: | 1st millennium |
---|---|
Centuries: | |
Decades: | |
Years: |
Millennium: | 1st millennium |
---|---|
Centuries: | |
Decades: | |
Years: |
< 10
to a bigger number to expand direct linking beyond
AD 9)< 10
to a bigger number to expand direct linking beyond
AD 9)Looking for opinions on how to proceed. Personally I would be content to just stop at AD 9. Note that {{ Year nav}} has long shown "AD" years, but only as far as AD 15 (see the two templates on the right). So we are on solid ground going at least as far as AD 9. – wbm1058 ( talk) 02:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
One of the move preparation edits I made has been reverted. See this diff. Fyrael, you are invited to join the discussion. wbm1058 ( talk) 10:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a good rationale for why low-numbered years are ambiguous without the "AD"... we might describe the lifespan of a person as (b. 25 BC, d. 8)... so is that 8 BC or AD 8? Either would be reasonably possible, so making the date of death unambiguous by stating "AD 8" is good here. Doing this for the first 100 years makes sense from the standpoint of a human lifespan, as very few people who died in 100 would have been born BC – especially in those days when the average human lifespan was much shorter.
OK, I'm going to boldly move 1, and revert myself if I see any problems. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I just made another fix, this one in Template:Year category ( diff). The lead on Category:1 now says "Articles and events specifically related to the year AD 1." – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Two more templates have been patched, {{ Birth year category header}} and {{ Death year category header}} ( diff). As with {{ Events by year for decade}}, this fix only supports years 1–9, and an additional patch will be needed to support AD 10 and beyond. This patch fixed the leads in Category:1 births and Category:1 deaths. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
We are down to 876 pages that link to 1:
Looks like I'm done with that. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
[[2]]
. I
corrected that to link to [[List of Harvey Beaks episodes|2]]
. The "2" refers to the two seasons of
Harvey Beaks that have aired. If [[2]]
is a disambiguation, that editor may get a
disambiguation link notification delivered to their talk page by a bot, and hopefully at least some editors receiving these notices actually act on them. I see this sort of thing a lot now, while I'm looking for it.
wbm1058 (
talk)
17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)...except for the loose ends discussed above. I suppose people may be looking for a more formal close at this point. To summarize where we are at:
That's as far as I'm willing to boldly go with this.
I suggest that any uninvolved closer may safely find that there is a de facto consensus for what I've done. Whether they find there's a consensus to do more than this is of course their decision to make.
Perhaps a new RfC, or maybe a Requested move, where voters may evaluate the current configuration and !vote on whether to keep it or not, is in order. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the lead should include CE, so I just made an edit to do that (
diff). Just because we're settling on AD for the title doesn't mean we need to overemphasize it in the article body. Also noting that while AD 1 and 1 AD are somewhat interchangeable, that doesn't seem to be the case for
1 CE (
CE 1,
CE 2,
CE 3 are red). I also observe that while the primary topic for
AD is
Anno Domini,
CE is a disambiguation page with
Common Era buried down in the "Other uses" section. It's not necessary to disambiguate "1" in "Year 1 of the
Julian calendar" because "
Julian calendar" disambiguates "1", but nonetheless helpful to include the commonly used alternate forms AD 1 and 1 CE in the lead. But in a nod to those who preferred "(year)" on the grounds that we could avoid deciding between AD and CE, I think it might be good to avoid using either where the context is clear. Not to deprecate
Andy M. Wang's work on
Module:Year in other calendars to display AD notation for years 1–9, but I don't think
Template:Year in other calendars necessarily needed to be changed. The infobox identifies the
Gregorian calendar, so as "Gregorian calendar" serves to disambiguate "1", adding either "AD" or "CE" to that is unnecessarily redundant. You could think of "AD" and "CE" as alternate shorthand for either "Julian calendar" or "Gregorian calendar".
wbm1058 (
talk)
01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The title of the infobox we're concerned about, "AD 1 in other calendars", is generated by {{ M1 year in topic}}, which in turn calls {{ Year in other calendars}}. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Year in other calendars#Confusing box title and contents and linked to this discussion. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC), revised 16:57 UT.
It is great that the articles from 1 to 9 are now AD 1 to AD 9. However, I am against having 0 to 9 be disambiguations. The whole purpose of this RFC was to have the articles from 1 to 100 be about numbers. Therefore, having 0 to 9 as disambiguations would defeat the purpose of the RFC. Please make 0 to 9 be about numbers. Good job on AD 1 to AD 9. This should be extended to 100. Thanks! Timo 3 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
No need for a new round of ridiculous primarytopic grabs. I'd make other numbers like 0, if anything, but the number of links to be fixed probably makes this prohibitive."
@ Agtx: As the closer of the first RfC, could you comment on what has transpired since, and whether you think we are on a good path. Given that nobody has shown up yet to close the second RfC, and there's no telling how much longer it might be before someone does. Thanks, wbm1058 ( talk) 19:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
So the closers moved this despite my proposal making that an amendment to this RfC. I'm concerned with link disambiguation and overlinking to numbers.
I think many of these may need disambiguation. Links should be to Zero (number) to confirm that the number is indeed intended, and so links to Zero that should be linking to Zero (American band) are found and fixed. Bad links will throw our pageview stats off. Along these lines, I made this edit to Template:Integers to clear the "link fog". That makes what links here (mainspace, hide redirects) clear so that it can be patrolled. That's a solution I implemented for templates linking to New York. wbm1058 ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
We have ~170 links to zero -- I'm ging to take a closer look at these. wbm1058 ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we should consider #Why change the number article names? some more. This makes internal link management easier. Unless people are dead set against seeing (number) in article titles, in which case we may have to settle for the "New York kludge". wbm1058 ( talk) 18:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
New York is a special case, because that title is occupied by an article about a topic (NY state) which is not the title's primary topic (there isn't one) nor even the candidate with most hits (New York City). So, busy editors wanting a link to the city just type New York and accidentally link to the state article. We have a similar case for 10, 11, etc. where it's easy to link to AD 10 when the integer 10 was intended. 0 is different, because most links to 0 really do mean the number. It's like any other article with a disambiguation page. For example, Chicago could mean lots of things, and I expect a small minority of links to Chicago should point somewhere else like Chicago (play), but usually it has the obvious meaning. 0 is like Chicago; 10 is like New York. 1 to 9 used to be like New York but are now halfway to Chicago. Certes ( talk) 20:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Categories were briefly discussed in the section #Prep work for AD 1–9 is complete. We should have a plan before we jump into any changes. From Category:Integers, I see that we just have Category:0 (number) through Category:4 (number), then there's nothing else until Category:100 (number). Since there's no year 0 Category:0 is clear, but then we still have the years at Category:1, Category:2, Category:3, ... Category:9. If we move categories we will need to coordinate that with some corresponding template changes. If we just leave the categories as-is, that will make this easier to implement. The RfC didn't really address the issue of whether to make any category changes or not. I've seen some recent arguments in favor of consistency, and leaving categories alone will leave them consistent with plain numbers always being years. Regarding consistency for articles, that went out the window when we decided not to have plain-number articles always be about years; if consistency was primary we should not have even gone there. Good luck with getting a consensus that the number 2016 is primary topic and not the year. wbm1058 ( talk) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the category tree for events happening in the first century AD, it looks more productive to remove all year-level categories and move affected articles to the relevant decades categories. The conclusion of the discussion on Roman Empire establishments pushes in this direction per WP:SMALLCAT, and the same principles can be applied to births, deaths and other year-related categories. By this logic we should even remove the individual year categories, because they are mostly empty shells for sparsely populated sub-categories which will get merged into decades. See for example Category:15, Category:45 or Category:85. Let's go for a clean break! Implementation contributors @ Wbm58, Certes, R'n'B, Andy M. Wang, Jc3s5h, SmokeyJoe, Fyrael, Georgia guy, and GeoffreyT2000: Agree? — JFG talk 21:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Any errors on my opinion only witness the authenticity. Also i want ti remind you one thing: the ISO 8601 uses the prolepric gregorian calendar which means that the first day of 1582 for example would be considered to be friday instead of monday (but in fact it was monday). So in the article it starts with the statement about the saturday. And there is no citation. Olab2000 ( talk) 07:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently editing year articles such as
102 to add a hatnote link to
102 (number) etc. I'm skipping pages such as
101 where
101 (disambiguation) exists, because {{
Year dab}} links the dab automatically, and the dab in turn links to
101 (number) etc. {{
Year dab|N}} used to link to N (number) automatically, but this had to change because it was generating useless links such as
1423 (number) where redirects exist. (It was
decided not to delete those redirects.) I'm slowly working upwards, currently at
150. It's a manual process because a few of the numbers deserved their own new dab pages rather than a simple link. I'll leave
10 to
99 alone for the moment, in case those pages and/or their numeric partners move.
Certes (
talk)
15:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Now that the RfC on naming has been closed in favour of the "AD 1" format, it's time to get cracking with the rest of the moves from 10… 100 to AD 10… AD 100. To get a feel for the impact, I have just moved AD 10. A lot of work to correct pointers was easily automated with AWB; some links were wrongly pointing to the year instead of the number.
I have also moved Category:1… Category:10 to Category:AD 1… Category:AD 10. This involved, for each year:
After all the moves are complete, we will need to:
More comments welcome.— JFG talk 04:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Update {{ BDYearsInDecade}} which is used in categories– finally Done wbm1058 ( talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Would it be useful to create a trivial subtemplate such as {{ Max AD Year}} which simply evaluates to 9 (or is it 10?) and can be changed quickly to 100 later? It would also provide a "global variable" which could be changed again later with minimal effort. Certes ( talk) 00:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of good ideas above but they're in the order we thought of them, per talk page etiquette. Do we need a WP:something/subpage where we can rearrange the tasks more logically, unencumbered by signatures, or at least split them into pre-move, move and post-move work? Certes ( talk) 00:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I just moved the AD 10–19 decade to the new format. Tweaked a few things along the way:
Comments welcome. — JFG talk 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The denomination AD 33 for this year…) and adjust the categories at the bottom. Please use the same edit notices for consistency and information to other editors about the RfC decision.
[[Category:Years|0030]]
, this is a step in planning the move to decades granularity for the first century. Must include the actual year in 0033 format. Keep going and ping me when you reach 39! —
JFG
talk
14:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)@ JFG: 41 still needs to move. Are we ready for me to prepare 50-59 (or perhaps 50-99 or 50-100) for moving yet? Certes ( talk) 11:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
As of 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC), the remaining tasks are:
<onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>
from all year articles. This was used by transclusions into the decades articles but now only adds spurious blank space. A bot run might be in order, as this applies to hundreds, possibly thousands of pages (includes all BC years that have an article apparently). See
example diff at AD 44 and layout result in the
40s decade, compare with the look of untouched
50s.Because very few people are listed as born or dead each year, and some of them are duplicated manually in decades articles, I am experimenting with transclusion of the Births and Deaths sections of year articles into decades, similarly to what we have in place for Events. See how it looks on the 0s decade. If there is approval, I will build a template that can be applied to all decades where it makes sense, i.e. probably the whole BC era and the first few centuries AD. — JFG talk 22:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that the year articles have been moved, we still have to decide what to do with articles bearing the plain number title ( 1… 100). The initial RfC said those titles should point to the numbers per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, however there were dissenting voices saying that a lot of those numbers are unremarkable and therefore the main title should contain the disambiguation page instead. For now, the status is:
A further complication comes from the fact that a lot of number articles are in fact structured as dab pages already, for example:
Personally I would pick the dab page as priority for the main title (as was done for 2 to 9 already), and migrate the dab entries from number pages to dab pages, keeping only the mathematical properties in the number pages. Before acting, we need to build a consensus for this. Let's discuss! — JFG talk 18:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of the number pages up to 100 have the weird situation that even though someone who types in "74" is probably looking for the number and not the year, there really isn't that much to say about the number. Already many of these are indiscriminate, irrelevant examples. But there is no clear cutoff. For example, there is a lot to say about 60, but not very much to say about 59 or 61. Much of this is related to mathematical significance and how connected all these things are, instead of how many sequences a number appears in. An answer of 248 would usually be much more significant than one of 247, but even so 248 is kind of notable only for a single event (being the order of E8). So I think the cutoff between number pages and disambiguation pages might even be much lower. I think that the first 20 numbers should definitely have their own articles, but after that they could be the disambiguation pages that they frankly are right now, perhaps grouped by tens, with the exception of numbers like 24 which are outstandingly notable. Double sharp ( talk) 09:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
77 was the shirt number of John Q. Sportsballer. (I'm happy to help sort them out, but I don't think we yet have consensus as to what we should keep.) Certes ( talk) 12:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
1 to 100 should be about numbers because that was the whole purpose of this RFC. See Talk:AD 1#0 to 9 should be about numbers instead of disambiguations. It was great to move the year articles. However, the reason we moved the years was so we could move the numbers. Therefore, we should move the number articles. Timo 3 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted this edit by 213.104.32.79. The changes in order between numerals and letters for AD and AUC were not consistent with the article title, prior use in the article, and the meaning of AUC: "754 since the foundation of the City" flows a little better than "since the foundation of the City 754". However, I left the change of one isolated "BCE" to "BC".
The changed version of this paragraph:
The Julian calendar, which replaced the Roman Republican calendar in 45 BC, was not correctly administered after Caesar's death in 44 BC but may be the calendar used by Rome in AD 1.
was not correct. AD 1 of the Julian calendar is the year that was observed in Rome, not withstanding any difficulty modern historians may have in determining exactly what absolute days were included in that year. See Proleptic Julian Calendar. Jc3s5h ( talk) 01:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
When will the number pages from 11 (number) to 100 (number) be moved? 11 (number) should be moved to 11, 12 (number) should be moved to 12, ..., and 100 (number) should be moved to 100. Timo 3 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
52 is the number of cards in a standard deck? I think it makes sense to keep those at the number article. Dab pages should only have entries about things that are called by this number. We don't call a card deck a "52", so that's just a use, but 52 Pickup is the name a card game, so it belongs in the dab page (unless it gets deleted per WP:PTM). Makes sense? — JFG talk 22:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency, and clarity to readers, I suggest the following, given a number article 29 (number) and a dab page 29 for each number:
29 is a Perrin numberin 29 (number)#Properties
29 is the atomic number of copperin 29 (number)#Uses
29 (album) is the eigth studio album by Ryan Adamsshould be in 29, not in 29 (number)
Under that scheme, a typical number article such as 29 (number) would have sections "Properties" (just the math stuff), "Uses" (perhaps subdivided into Science, Geography, Culture, etc.) and "Things named 29" pointing to the relevant dab pages (e.g. 29, A29, B29, C29, D29, K29, M29 et al. + All pages with titles beginning with 29).
This will help sort the entries that have been randomly thrown into the number articles over the years. Note that astronomy objects such as M29 and NGC 29 would go to the dab page or be removed entirely per WP:PTM. Do you think we can start moving stuff or we need a new RfC? I would advocate the wbm1058 approach: start moving things cautiously and consider an RfC if we encounter significant opposition. — JFG talk 22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done 11 through 100 are all disambiguation pages now. Anyone can sort out Properties, Uses and Names to the best places, as desired. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Is {{ Year dab}} still appropriate for the header of AD 11, etc.? If so, do we want the change I've prepared in {{ Year dab/sandbox}} to remove the (disambiguation) qualifier? See {{ Year dab/testcases}} for the difference. Note that the link should still go via the redirect to avoid spurious link-to-dab reports. Certes ( talk) 13:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
After being busy elsewhere, I've finally started cleaning up the dabs. Hopefully the renaming will deter some of the less helpful edits to the number articles, so they can also be tidied as the next step.
Several titles ( examples) redirect to the number pages. I understand why they didn't redirect to 11 etc. when it was a year article, but should some of them now redirect to the dab? If our logic above suggests that there's no primary topic for 11 then that may also apply to Eleven and XI. Certes ( talk) 11:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The above phrase is part of the paragraph transcluded by the template "Year article header|1". However, with no year zero, there are only nine "0s" at the beginning of the calendar, which do not constitute "a decade", and the article on "0s" states that "The 0s, covers the first nine years of the Anno Domini era". Blurryman ( talk) 00:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
From the introduction: ""It was a common year starting on Saturday or Sunday..."
If we don't know what weekday AD 1 began on, then we don't know whether today is a Tuesday or a Wednesday. No?
But I'm pretty sure it's a Tuesday; that's the day on today's paper... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 ( talk) 00:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It was also Tuesday the first day of the first year. Look the argument XV of Dionysius Exiguus Olab2000 ( talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
AD 1 is the first year of the Common Era, first Millennium, and first century. It had started from January 1, 1 AD to December 31, 1 AD.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
108.41.200.94 ( talk) 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Why did those get pulled? There doesn't seem to have been any discussion about it. — LlywelynII 23:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune between 1979 and 1999, but Pluto was also closer to the sun than Neptune in the year 1AD. Ar Colorado ( talk) 15:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I did not use a source for this, but instead calculated the numbers in my head. This is my own orbital calculation. Assuming Pluto's orbit around the sun is 248 years long and is inside the orbit of Neptune for 20 years in a single revolution, this would have happened between 6 BC and 15 AD (and no, there was no year zero). Ar Colorado ( talk) 19:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
AD 1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
As this discussion is reaching the one-month point, and I don't see a clear consensus emerging, I'm presenting my analysis and proposing some limited changes, so all the time invested in this isn't wasted by a result of closing the whole thing down with "no consensus". As with the extended debate over what the primary topic for New York is, observe from Talk:New York#Cleanup project progress that despite the fact that there isn't consensus on the larger issue, behind the scenes progress is being made on link disambiguation, and thousands of links intended for the city have been fixed to point to New York City.
I think this proposal is problematic because:
We already have one ambiguous number, as the year 0 never happened. Let's follow that model for the years 1 – 9. Just some observations: we have an article about −1, the number, as years aren't written using minus signs. However, −2 redirects to the positive number and −3 was deleted. -1 using a hyphen redirects to −1 using a Unicode minus sign. We don't go very deep into negative territory with notable numbers, and −1 is the only number which is a primary topic.
0 (year) is an article which legitimately uses the parenthetical "(year)" for disambiguation because it is about the year 0 in all calendar systems, not just Anno Domini (or Common Era). As that article says, All eras used with Hindu and Buddhist calendars, such as the Saka era or the Kali Yuga, begin with the year 0.
I've started work on this by taking a look at what links to 1 through 9.
Retargeting 1 to One (disambiguation) will ensure better control over WP:OVERLINKs to everyday numbers, e.g. this edit and this edit, as several editors work to disambiguate links to disambiguation pages.
Also links to years intended to link to the number, e.g. this edit. These fixes support the argument that there is no primary topic for these digits.
There are relatively few links to the years 1 – 10. Removing pipes, e.g. [[1|AD 1]]
→ [[AD 1]]
(see
here,
here and
here) should be the obvious solution. Editors are already pointing to
AD 1 as the preferred way to indicate "year 1", by actually showing that form to readers, even while piping directly to
1.
Let's move forward with this. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
[[1|AD 1]]
→ [[AD 1]]
can be done now as it breaks nothing. But whilst I personally support the AD 1 format, I don't think we've established a consensus for it. Would it be better to wait, so we only do the job once if an alternative such as 1 CE is chosen?[[1]]
I see several that are simply because their documentation is. I'll change the documentation to not link to low-numbered years.
wbm1058 (
talk)
13:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)Millennium: | 1st millennium |
---|---|
Centuries: | |
Decades: | |
Years: |
Millennium: | 1st millennium |
---|---|
Centuries: | |
Decades: | |
Years: |
< 10
to a bigger number to expand direct linking beyond
AD 9)< 10
to a bigger number to expand direct linking beyond
AD 9)Looking for opinions on how to proceed. Personally I would be content to just stop at AD 9. Note that {{ Year nav}} has long shown "AD" years, but only as far as AD 15 (see the two templates on the right). So we are on solid ground going at least as far as AD 9. – wbm1058 ( talk) 02:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
One of the move preparation edits I made has been reverted. See this diff. Fyrael, you are invited to join the discussion. wbm1058 ( talk) 10:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a good rationale for why low-numbered years are ambiguous without the "AD"... we might describe the lifespan of a person as (b. 25 BC, d. 8)... so is that 8 BC or AD 8? Either would be reasonably possible, so making the date of death unambiguous by stating "AD 8" is good here. Doing this for the first 100 years makes sense from the standpoint of a human lifespan, as very few people who died in 100 would have been born BC – especially in those days when the average human lifespan was much shorter.
OK, I'm going to boldly move 1, and revert myself if I see any problems. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I just made another fix, this one in Template:Year category ( diff). The lead on Category:1 now says "Articles and events specifically related to the year AD 1." – wbm1058 ( talk) 18:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Two more templates have been patched, {{ Birth year category header}} and {{ Death year category header}} ( diff). As with {{ Events by year for decade}}, this fix only supports years 1–9, and an additional patch will be needed to support AD 10 and beyond. This patch fixed the leads in Category:1 births and Category:1 deaths. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
We are down to 876 pages that link to 1:
Looks like I'm done with that. wbm1058 ( talk) 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
[[2]]
. I
corrected that to link to [[List of Harvey Beaks episodes|2]]
. The "2" refers to the two seasons of
Harvey Beaks that have aired. If [[2]]
is a disambiguation, that editor may get a
disambiguation link notification delivered to their talk page by a bot, and hopefully at least some editors receiving these notices actually act on them. I see this sort of thing a lot now, while I'm looking for it.
wbm1058 (
talk)
17:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)...except for the loose ends discussed above. I suppose people may be looking for a more formal close at this point. To summarize where we are at:
That's as far as I'm willing to boldly go with this.
I suggest that any uninvolved closer may safely find that there is a de facto consensus for what I've done. Whether they find there's a consensus to do more than this is of course their decision to make.
Perhaps a new RfC, or maybe a Requested move, where voters may evaluate the current configuration and !vote on whether to keep it or not, is in order. – wbm1058 ( talk) 15:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I think the lead should include CE, so I just made an edit to do that (
diff). Just because we're settling on AD for the title doesn't mean we need to overemphasize it in the article body. Also noting that while AD 1 and 1 AD are somewhat interchangeable, that doesn't seem to be the case for
1 CE (
CE 1,
CE 2,
CE 3 are red). I also observe that while the primary topic for
AD is
Anno Domini,
CE is a disambiguation page with
Common Era buried down in the "Other uses" section. It's not necessary to disambiguate "1" in "Year 1 of the
Julian calendar" because "
Julian calendar" disambiguates "1", but nonetheless helpful to include the commonly used alternate forms AD 1 and 1 CE in the lead. But in a nod to those who preferred "(year)" on the grounds that we could avoid deciding between AD and CE, I think it might be good to avoid using either where the context is clear. Not to deprecate
Andy M. Wang's work on
Module:Year in other calendars to display AD notation for years 1–9, but I don't think
Template:Year in other calendars necessarily needed to be changed. The infobox identifies the
Gregorian calendar, so as "Gregorian calendar" serves to disambiguate "1", adding either "AD" or "CE" to that is unnecessarily redundant. You could think of "AD" and "CE" as alternate shorthand for either "Julian calendar" or "Gregorian calendar".
wbm1058 (
talk)
01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The title of the infobox we're concerned about, "AD 1 in other calendars", is generated by {{ M1 year in topic}}, which in turn calls {{ Year in other calendars}}. I have started a discussion at Template talk:Year in other calendars#Confusing box title and contents and linked to this discussion. Jc3s5h ( talk) 16:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC), revised 16:57 UT.
It is great that the articles from 1 to 9 are now AD 1 to AD 9. However, I am against having 0 to 9 be disambiguations. The whole purpose of this RFC was to have the articles from 1 to 100 be about numbers. Therefore, having 0 to 9 as disambiguations would defeat the purpose of the RFC. Please make 0 to 9 be about numbers. Good job on AD 1 to AD 9. This should be extended to 100. Thanks! Timo 3 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
No need for a new round of ridiculous primarytopic grabs. I'd make other numbers like 0, if anything, but the number of links to be fixed probably makes this prohibitive."
@ Agtx: As the closer of the first RfC, could you comment on what has transpired since, and whether you think we are on a good path. Given that nobody has shown up yet to close the second RfC, and there's no telling how much longer it might be before someone does. Thanks, wbm1058 ( talk) 19:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
So the closers moved this despite my proposal making that an amendment to this RfC. I'm concerned with link disambiguation and overlinking to numbers.
I think many of these may need disambiguation. Links should be to Zero (number) to confirm that the number is indeed intended, and so links to Zero that should be linking to Zero (American band) are found and fixed. Bad links will throw our pageview stats off. Along these lines, I made this edit to Template:Integers to clear the "link fog". That makes what links here (mainspace, hide redirects) clear so that it can be patrolled. That's a solution I implemented for templates linking to New York. wbm1058 ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
We have ~170 links to zero -- I'm ging to take a closer look at these. wbm1058 ( talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
I think we should consider #Why change the number article names? some more. This makes internal link management easier. Unless people are dead set against seeing (number) in article titles, in which case we may have to settle for the "New York kludge". wbm1058 ( talk) 18:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
New York is a special case, because that title is occupied by an article about a topic (NY state) which is not the title's primary topic (there isn't one) nor even the candidate with most hits (New York City). So, busy editors wanting a link to the city just type New York and accidentally link to the state article. We have a similar case for 10, 11, etc. where it's easy to link to AD 10 when the integer 10 was intended. 0 is different, because most links to 0 really do mean the number. It's like any other article with a disambiguation page. For example, Chicago could mean lots of things, and I expect a small minority of links to Chicago should point somewhere else like Chicago (play), but usually it has the obvious meaning. 0 is like Chicago; 10 is like New York. 1 to 9 used to be like New York but are now halfway to Chicago. Certes ( talk) 20:00, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Categories were briefly discussed in the section #Prep work for AD 1–9 is complete. We should have a plan before we jump into any changes. From Category:Integers, I see that we just have Category:0 (number) through Category:4 (number), then there's nothing else until Category:100 (number). Since there's no year 0 Category:0 is clear, but then we still have the years at Category:1, Category:2, Category:3, ... Category:9. If we move categories we will need to coordinate that with some corresponding template changes. If we just leave the categories as-is, that will make this easier to implement. The RfC didn't really address the issue of whether to make any category changes or not. I've seen some recent arguments in favor of consistency, and leaving categories alone will leave them consistent with plain numbers always being years. Regarding consistency for articles, that went out the window when we decided not to have plain-number articles always be about years; if consistency was primary we should not have even gone there. Good luck with getting a consensus that the number 2016 is primary topic and not the year. wbm1058 ( talk) 00:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the category tree for events happening in the first century AD, it looks more productive to remove all year-level categories and move affected articles to the relevant decades categories. The conclusion of the discussion on Roman Empire establishments pushes in this direction per WP:SMALLCAT, and the same principles can be applied to births, deaths and other year-related categories. By this logic we should even remove the individual year categories, because they are mostly empty shells for sparsely populated sub-categories which will get merged into decades. See for example Category:15, Category:45 or Category:85. Let's go for a clean break! Implementation contributors @ Wbm58, Certes, R'n'B, Andy M. Wang, Jc3s5h, SmokeyJoe, Fyrael, Georgia guy, and GeoffreyT2000: Agree? — JFG talk 21:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Any errors on my opinion only witness the authenticity. Also i want ti remind you one thing: the ISO 8601 uses the prolepric gregorian calendar which means that the first day of 1582 for example would be considered to be friday instead of monday (but in fact it was monday). So in the article it starts with the statement about the saturday. And there is no citation. Olab2000 ( talk) 07:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm currently editing year articles such as
102 to add a hatnote link to
102 (number) etc. I'm skipping pages such as
101 where
101 (disambiguation) exists, because {{
Year dab}} links the dab automatically, and the dab in turn links to
101 (number) etc. {{
Year dab|N}} used to link to N (number) automatically, but this had to change because it was generating useless links such as
1423 (number) where redirects exist. (It was
decided not to delete those redirects.) I'm slowly working upwards, currently at
150. It's a manual process because a few of the numbers deserved their own new dab pages rather than a simple link. I'll leave
10 to
99 alone for the moment, in case those pages and/or their numeric partners move.
Certes (
talk)
15:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Now that the RfC on naming has been closed in favour of the "AD 1" format, it's time to get cracking with the rest of the moves from 10… 100 to AD 10… AD 100. To get a feel for the impact, I have just moved AD 10. A lot of work to correct pointers was easily automated with AWB; some links were wrongly pointing to the year instead of the number.
I have also moved Category:1… Category:10 to Category:AD 1… Category:AD 10. This involved, for each year:
After all the moves are complete, we will need to:
More comments welcome.— JFG talk 04:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Update {{ BDYearsInDecade}} which is used in categories– finally Done wbm1058 ( talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Would it be useful to create a trivial subtemplate such as {{ Max AD Year}} which simply evaluates to 9 (or is it 10?) and can be changed quickly to 100 later? It would also provide a "global variable" which could be changed again later with minimal effort. Certes ( talk) 00:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of good ideas above but they're in the order we thought of them, per talk page etiquette. Do we need a WP:something/subpage where we can rearrange the tasks more logically, unencumbered by signatures, or at least split them into pre-move, move and post-move work? Certes ( talk) 00:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I just moved the AD 10–19 decade to the new format. Tweaked a few things along the way:
Comments welcome. — JFG talk 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The denomination AD 33 for this year…) and adjust the categories at the bottom. Please use the same edit notices for consistency and information to other editors about the RfC decision.
[[Category:Years|0030]]
, this is a step in planning the move to decades granularity for the first century. Must include the actual year in 0033 format. Keep going and ping me when you reach 39! —
JFG
talk
14:53, 5 January 2017 (UTC)@ JFG: 41 still needs to move. Are we ready for me to prepare 50-59 (or perhaps 50-99 or 50-100) for moving yet? Certes ( talk) 11:18, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
As of 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC), the remaining tasks are:
<onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>
from all year articles. This was used by transclusions into the decades articles but now only adds spurious blank space. A bot run might be in order, as this applies to hundreds, possibly thousands of pages (includes all BC years that have an article apparently). See
example diff at AD 44 and layout result in the
40s decade, compare with the look of untouched
50s.Because very few people are listed as born or dead each year, and some of them are duplicated manually in decades articles, I am experimenting with transclusion of the Births and Deaths sections of year articles into decades, similarly to what we have in place for Events. See how it looks on the 0s decade. If there is approval, I will build a template that can be applied to all decades where it makes sense, i.e. probably the whole BC era and the first few centuries AD. — JFG talk 22:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Now that the year articles have been moved, we still have to decide what to do with articles bearing the plain number title ( 1… 100). The initial RfC said those titles should point to the numbers per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, however there were dissenting voices saying that a lot of those numbers are unremarkable and therefore the main title should contain the disambiguation page instead. For now, the status is:
A further complication comes from the fact that a lot of number articles are in fact structured as dab pages already, for example:
Personally I would pick the dab page as priority for the main title (as was done for 2 to 9 already), and migrate the dab entries from number pages to dab pages, keeping only the mathematical properties in the number pages. Before acting, we need to build a consensus for this. Let's discuss! — JFG talk 18:19, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Most of the number pages up to 100 have the weird situation that even though someone who types in "74" is probably looking for the number and not the year, there really isn't that much to say about the number. Already many of these are indiscriminate, irrelevant examples. But there is no clear cutoff. For example, there is a lot to say about 60, but not very much to say about 59 or 61. Much of this is related to mathematical significance and how connected all these things are, instead of how many sequences a number appears in. An answer of 248 would usually be much more significant than one of 247, but even so 248 is kind of notable only for a single event (being the order of E8). So I think the cutoff between number pages and disambiguation pages might even be much lower. I think that the first 20 numbers should definitely have their own articles, but after that they could be the disambiguation pages that they frankly are right now, perhaps grouped by tens, with the exception of numbers like 24 which are outstandingly notable. Double sharp ( talk) 09:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
77 was the shirt number of John Q. Sportsballer. (I'm happy to help sort them out, but I don't think we yet have consensus as to what we should keep.) Certes ( talk) 12:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
1 to 100 should be about numbers because that was the whole purpose of this RFC. See Talk:AD 1#0 to 9 should be about numbers instead of disambiguations. It was great to move the year articles. However, the reason we moved the years was so we could move the numbers. Therefore, we should move the number articles. Timo 3 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I reverted this edit by 213.104.32.79. The changes in order between numerals and letters for AD and AUC were not consistent with the article title, prior use in the article, and the meaning of AUC: "754 since the foundation of the City" flows a little better than "since the foundation of the City 754". However, I left the change of one isolated "BCE" to "BC".
The changed version of this paragraph:
The Julian calendar, which replaced the Roman Republican calendar in 45 BC, was not correctly administered after Caesar's death in 44 BC but may be the calendar used by Rome in AD 1.
was not correct. AD 1 of the Julian calendar is the year that was observed in Rome, not withstanding any difficulty modern historians may have in determining exactly what absolute days were included in that year. See Proleptic Julian Calendar. Jc3s5h ( talk) 01:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
When will the number pages from 11 (number) to 100 (number) be moved? 11 (number) should be moved to 11, 12 (number) should be moved to 12, ..., and 100 (number) should be moved to 100. Timo 3 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
52 is the number of cards in a standard deck? I think it makes sense to keep those at the number article. Dab pages should only have entries about things that are called by this number. We don't call a card deck a "52", so that's just a use, but 52 Pickup is the name a card game, so it belongs in the dab page (unless it gets deleted per WP:PTM). Makes sense? — JFG talk 22:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
For the sake of consistency, and clarity to readers, I suggest the following, given a number article 29 (number) and a dab page 29 for each number:
29 is a Perrin numberin 29 (number)#Properties
29 is the atomic number of copperin 29 (number)#Uses
29 (album) is the eigth studio album by Ryan Adamsshould be in 29, not in 29 (number)
Under that scheme, a typical number article such as 29 (number) would have sections "Properties" (just the math stuff), "Uses" (perhaps subdivided into Science, Geography, Culture, etc.) and "Things named 29" pointing to the relevant dab pages (e.g. 29, A29, B29, C29, D29, K29, M29 et al. + All pages with titles beginning with 29).
This will help sort the entries that have been randomly thrown into the number articles over the years. Note that astronomy objects such as M29 and NGC 29 would go to the dab page or be removed entirely per WP:PTM. Do you think we can start moving stuff or we need a new RfC? I would advocate the wbm1058 approach: start moving things cautiously and consider an RfC if we encounter significant opposition. — JFG talk 22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Done 11 through 100 are all disambiguation pages now. Anyone can sort out Properties, Uses and Names to the best places, as desired. – wbm1058 ( talk) 19:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Is {{ Year dab}} still appropriate for the header of AD 11, etc.? If so, do we want the change I've prepared in {{ Year dab/sandbox}} to remove the (disambiguation) qualifier? See {{ Year dab/testcases}} for the difference. Note that the link should still go via the redirect to avoid spurious link-to-dab reports. Certes ( talk) 13:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
After being busy elsewhere, I've finally started cleaning up the dabs. Hopefully the renaming will deter some of the less helpful edits to the number articles, so they can also be tidied as the next step.
Several titles ( examples) redirect to the number pages. I understand why they didn't redirect to 11 etc. when it was a year article, but should some of them now redirect to the dab? If our logic above suggests that there's no primary topic for 11 then that may also apply to Eleven and XI. Certes ( talk) 11:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
The above phrase is part of the paragraph transcluded by the template "Year article header|1". However, with no year zero, there are only nine "0s" at the beginning of the calendar, which do not constitute "a decade", and the article on "0s" states that "The 0s, covers the first nine years of the Anno Domini era". Blurryman ( talk) 00:31, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
From the introduction: ""It was a common year starting on Saturday or Sunday..."
If we don't know what weekday AD 1 began on, then we don't know whether today is a Tuesday or a Wednesday. No?
But I'm pretty sure it's a Tuesday; that's the day on today's paper... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 ( talk) 00:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
It was also Tuesday the first day of the first year. Look the argument XV of Dionysius Exiguus Olab2000 ( talk) 21:59, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
AD 1 is the first year of the Common Era, first Millennium, and first century. It had started from January 1, 1 AD to December 31, 1 AD.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
108.41.200.94 ( talk) 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Why did those get pulled? There doesn't seem to have been any discussion about it. — LlywelynII 23:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune between 1979 and 1999, but Pluto was also closer to the sun than Neptune in the year 1AD. Ar Colorado ( talk) 15:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
I did not use a source for this, but instead calculated the numbers in my head. This is my own orbital calculation. Assuming Pluto's orbit around the sun is 248 years long and is inside the orbit of Neptune for 20 years in a single revolution, this would have happened between 6 BC and 15 AD (and no, there was no year zero). Ar Colorado ( talk) 19:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)