Talk:911

What to disambiguate

There is so much 9/11 crap that it doesn't make sense to have them all listed. Just the main reference to the actual attacks is sufficient. Disambiguate other 911 references from the 9/11 attacks but no need for each thing on 9/11 attacks.--Tbeatty 01:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

events on this page not connected to the phrase 911

911 (disambiguation), there is absolutely no reason that I can see for the three dates to be listed which aren't connected in any way to the number 911. There is a link on that disambiguation page to the date page which lists all of the events that occured on that day anyway.

I propose to remove attica prison, Chilean coup and s11. Grumpyyoungman01 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, they were there when I reformatted the page but there's no need for them to stay. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tasks

Format the titles correctly
Do not obscure article titles with pipe links
Move the things more likely to be known as 911 before things less likely
Move things that have 911 in their title but aren't known as 911 to See also
Don't use section breaks for short lists
Remove entirely things that happened to happen on Sept 11 or Nov 9 but aren't referred to as 911 from the list

-- JHunterJ (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose adding a link

I propose to add: Next Generation 9-1-1 - the new U.S. 9-1-1 infrastructure standard. Comments? NextGen911 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:AD 911 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 June 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move as proposed. While there are some reasonable opposition arguments, they are clearly in the minority, and there is a strong consensus that there is no primary topic for 911. In particular, consensus is that consistency is outweighed by [lack of] primary topic for this particular number which is perhaps unique in having multiple so widely known and very commonly used topics associated with it. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:15, 5 July 2019 (UTC) Updated for clarity. --В²C ☎ 00:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

911 (disambiguation) → 911
911 → 911 (year)

– There is no clear primary topic over 911 (number), the source of the name of the year, the telephone number 9-1-1 (which the article says is sometimes written at "911") and the September 11 attacks. The year article has 2,584 views but 911 (Law & Order: Special Victims Unit) has 2,305 (nearly as many though lacking PT#2), 911 (English group) has 2,044 (nearly as many but again lacking PT#2), the number has 1,156 (but probably has a stronger claim for PT#2) and the wrestler has 1,141. The telephone number has 15,196 but its not clear how often that is called "911" though, 9-1-1 (TV series) has 70,548 views and September 11 attacks has 260,849 though probably not a major contender for "911" [[1]]. A Google search for 911 returns 9-1-1 (TV series) first then 911 (disambiguation) (which is telling that Google thinks that the DAB is likely not the year). A Google Image search returns mainly results for cars and there are similar results for a Google Book search. A site:wikipedia.org 911 returns the TV series, then the DAB page then the telephone number, then the year. In conclusion its clear that the year isn't primary by PT#1 and the number has a better claim for PT#2. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Interstellarity T 🌟 14:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, unless something similar to the case of 1 to 99 happens, this should remain being the status quo, otherwise 1989 is to be moved because 1989 (Taylor Swift album) receives 5× more views than the year. Tbsock (Tbhotch away) (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But 911 is closer to the case of 1 and 99 than 1989 due to the fact that the only other uses of 1989 are songs/albums that lack long-term significance (the number 1989 presumably doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (numbers)). Its quite clear in this case that neither criteria is met here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that if you want to open the window to move years solely because of WP:RECENTISM (obvious following case: 420), at least discuss this the same way 1-99 were discussed, through RFC and not by a random RM. Tbsock (Tbhotch away) (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
420 should probably be changed to but primary topics are generally considered on a case by case basis and the attacks were well over 10 years ago. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found it: Talk:911#Reconsideration. For the record, there have been 3 failed RMs (the last one took place in 2017). That sets a precedent (WP:TITLECHANGES: " "Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title." and "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia.") and it requires a new RFC, not a RM. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Now to get back to that 420 suggestion... Randy Kryn (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The calendar year is definitely not the primary meaning compared to so many other strong alternatives. -- Netoholic @ 23:38, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is not above broad consensus/policies and guidelines. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 00:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the reasons that 1–100 were made number articles or dab pages, rather than years, apply to 911. In this case, we would be wildly going against the WP:CRITERIA to have the primary topic of 911 be about the calendar year when the term is associated so strongly with other usages. I am quite comfortable with this page being an exception to a wider rule - we can even list it as an exception on WP:NCNUM. -- Netoholic @ 04:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Consensus, which you apparently ignored: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a [discussion] cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." From WP:NCNUM#Articles on years, articles on numbers, article names containing non-date numbers: "By community consensus, an article name that is a number in Arabic numerals 101 and above represents a calendar year in the Common Era, up till several decades in the future." I don't know if I'm not being clear enough, but regardless how many supports this RM gets, a few people "supporting" an RM cannot override community and broader consensus.

Further, WP:CRITERIA says: "Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' title" and "These should be seen as goals, not as rules." (emphases mine) © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 12:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is the last listed CRITERIA for a reason. In exceptional circumstances which warrant an exception to one of our naming conventions (as it the case here), CONSISTENCY is superseded by other needs. The term "911" is neither recognizable nor natural in referring to the calendar year because there are other topics like the emergency service and terrorist attacks which are far more likely to be sought by searchers.

Also, where exactly is the community consensus regarding primary topics 101 and above? The naming convention states it, but doesn't link to any discussion about those. The referenced RFC only covers 1-100. -- Netoholic @ 12:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, as the close of the linked community consensus states "There is no consensus as to any numbers other than 1-100" (closed 26 December, 2016). Was there an earlier or later RfC which addressed and resolved that the numbers from 101 to "several decades in the future" would also solely pertain to calendar years? Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is where the mistaken language was entered into the guideline. There doesn't seem to be community consensus for numbers above 100, and that language should probably be made clear in the guideline. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, discussion, and the apparently long-standing incorrect language in the relevant guideline which seems to have mistakenly capped RM discussions for numbers between 101 and approximately 2050. The year 911 receives an average of 123 hits per day, where 910 receives 15 and 912, eight. A clear case where the disamb page should be primary. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a really good observation. Strong evidence that ~90% of the time we send someone to this article, it's not what they're looking for. Colin M (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very interesting indeed, the vast majority of readers get to our articles by means other than searching so the fact that this one gets over 10x the views of 912 is very strong evidence that a large majority are landing here incorrectly (unlike many other questionable PTs[2][3][4][5]) since I expect that over 90% (Station1 thinks its more like 95%) of readers get to the articles by means other than searching. Based on this we could easily be sending more like 99% of searchers onto the wrong article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems sensible to treat all numbers from 101 to (say) 999 consistently rather than making 911 an exception. Titles 1 to 100 led to year articles until discussions in 2016 and changes in 2017. I oppose treating 911 specially, but I would welcome a wider discussion on treating 101–999 like 11–100 [abc=dab, AD abc=year, abc (number)=maths or redirect to a00 (number)] rather than like 2019 etc. Certes (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As of now, though, there is no guideline concerning those numbers (the inaccurate language may still be up, I haven't looked). There are very few numbers which should go to their disambg page, and these should ideally be individually discussed in RMs. Even with consistency, there should be common sense exceptions (as called for in the template which leads off every guideline). The excessive page views for 911 compared with the adjoining years shows that something other than the year is being searched for. Very few common sense exceptions will clear the bar in the number range 101-2050, but they should probably and fairly be discussed individually and decided on merit. Past discussions to redirect 911 seem to favor its move as an obvious exception, but were hindered by a misreading of the RfC close. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question: does anyone seriously think that the primary topic for, say, 123 is the year AD 123? Certes (talk) 09:26, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is some argument to be made for making a wider range of small numbers dab pages. But if that discussion is going to happen, it should be somewhere else, because it involves very different considerations. I think it absolutely makes sense to treat 911 as an exception, because the circumstances around it are exceptional. Unlike 908, 909, 910, or 912, etc. 911 commonly refers to a topic (or 2, or 3) that lots of readers are interested in - many more than want to read about the year or the number. Uniformly applying a rule can become a problem if the facts of each case differ substantially - see Procrustes, who was a jerk that no-one liked. Colin M (talk) 20:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - To be consistent with other numbers without a qualifier, 911 should remain as a year (i.e. 911 AD). Hansen Sebastian^Talk 05:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This one requires disambiguation so we can't be consistent, consistency doesn't override WP:PRIMARYTOPIC just like Mercury and Georgia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose For consistency, and, possibly more important, local watchlists using Special:RecentChangesLinked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There is a very close parallel in 999 and 999 (emergency telephone number). (Not being American, it had to be explained to me why the attacks happened on 11 September, an apparently random date.) Narky Blert (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You gave no reason for your opposition. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As someone in England even I would expect the phone number and attacks to be contenders here and Narky Blert surely the 999 example is a bad precedent, see views since I thought you generally expect a domination of around 10 to 1. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There's a precedent at 999. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no precedent at 999, see the talk page. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sort of precedent in that 999 is about AD 999 despite the fact that 999 (number) and 999 (emergency telephone number) prevent the year from being its primary topic. Rather than treating 911 as exceptional, perhaps we should question whether year articles should remain exempt from WP:ATDAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Certes (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the year 999 remains primary it does so on an ILIKEIT reason, which is fine as far as it goes. But as mentioned above, the guideline language referring to numbers 101-2050 is inaccurate and likely based on an editor not reading the last line of the linked closing. The only question there is what to change that language to, or to just remove the paragraph about 101 and above entirely (which seems the more accurate option). If someone wants to RM 999 it should be decided on its own merits, which would likely go to the 999 disambg page as primary, and not on a misread but clear closing. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments based on an incorrect guideline need to be discounted accordingly, while I support consistency and I see where the opposers are coming from, I don't see any basis on how the current setup benefits our readers/editors or is based on policy. Why send readers typing "911" into the search box onto the year article when we know from the evidence cited by me and Randy Kryn that that's probably not what they're looking for? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If moved, and as noted in some comments, it should be moved to AD 911 and not 911 (year) as consistent and unambiguous with other years (AD 1-AD 100, as 911 BC existed). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 15:53, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised how many people have argued that its primary on the basis of consistency alone, WP:PRECISION provides that disambiguation is clearly needed here. The fact that similar pages don't require disambiguation is not a strong reason to not disambiguate this especially when its clear that this is far from the primary topic. The RFC was over numbers 1-100 and There is no consensus as to any numbers other than 1-100 so the guideline seems to be erroneous. Even if it wasn't it can't override cases where topics other than years and numbers are contenders for a title which is clearly the case here. If we had a rule of disambiguate by consistency we would have things "all villages in Somerset are at the base name" or "all American actors born in 1983 are at the base name". We disambiguate for technical reasons and it is needed here. I hope the closer takes into account this rather than just counting !votes because its clearly been shown that the year is definitely not the primary topic and none of the opposers have shown otherwise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the year is definitely not the primary topic. However, for reasons which I have never supported or understood, years are special and break our normal rules. The argument that 911 should not be about the year applies equally to other numbers. Certes (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It could apply to cases when both the year and number are notable but it seems that many 3 digit numbers aren't notable (take 729 for example) so the only topic there is the year, similarly for 2019 even if the number was notable I still think its likely that the year would be primary and in the year 911 the year would probably have been primary but definitely not currently, in 2019. The reason why its been argued that all 3 digit numbers should be about the year is probably because many of them are primary but those such as 911, 999 and 420 clearly aren't. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The evidence is pretty convincing that there is no primary topic (and that is most certainly is not the year). While consistency can be a factor to consider in ceteris paribus situations, that is not the case here. older ≠ wiser 14:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, reluctantly, with the modification that the year be moved to AD 911 for consistency with AD 1 to AD 100. Treating 911 specially is not the right way to solve this problem, but the proposed move seems less bad than the status quo. However, beware that moving this page safely will be a major operation, as it will require adding special case coding to a shedload of templates and modules such as {{Events by year for decade}}. Similar changes for AD 1 to 100 took several weeks to design, code, test and release. Certes (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with using AD 911 instead for consistency but I'd note that the template changes will also be needed for 999 and 420 and any others that also require disambiguation. I'd also be fine with continuing to allow the base name to redirect to the disambiguated title until the links/templates etc are fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to add another caveat to that support: someone must be willing and able to mend the templates that this move will break. (I hoped to help but I'll be offline when the relisted RM closes.) Certes (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have thought long and hard about numbers at the 1-100 RfC, and my conclusion is that WP:CONSISTENCY trumps everything else in the case of numbers. Our rule is that numbers 101 and larger refer to years - no exceptions. Any attempt to change this must go through a new RfC to overturn the status quo at WP:NCNUM. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think no RFC is needed. The RFC on the numbers 1-100 was closed with the note "There is no consensus as to any numbers other than 1-100", so the note at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on years, articles on numbers, article names containing non-date numbers is incorrect. WP:CONSISTENCY should not trump everything else; the consistency there is about determining article titles, before determining whether ambiguous titles need qualifiers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
NCNUM has existed as an accepted guideline well before that RfC, with the agreement that all positive numbers (less than five digits, at least) refer to years. That RfC achieved consensus to change that for 1-100, but no consensus to change that for anything higher. Hence the consensus remains that 101+ are years. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:25, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, NCNUM is "a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." There were notes above that some RFC had already been had that nailed down the application to all years 101-999 as inviolably at the base name, which I can find no evidence of, and which the naming convention mistakenly claimed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why years are special is that they are widely linked and used in templates, which may depend on them being a numerical value. If this discussion were to end in a consensus to move, it definitely cannot be implemented right away; a lot of things would be broken. Why not open an RfC to see 1) whether to allow numbers to not be years; 2) if so, which numbers to make exceptions for; and 3) if so, what technical work needs to be done? This way the technical work would only need to be done once. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are they widely linked? At the time I'm writing this, I count about 30 mainspace links to 911 (I think this should include transcluded templates that link to it, right?). And ~5 of them are actually in error, and should have been linking to 9-1-1 or 9-1-1 (TV series). Colin M (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just fixed those 6 incorrect links. The fact that incorrect linkings like those keep popping up says a lot. Paintspot Infez (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This may be one of the few instances where a reader searching up a multi-digit number and arriving a "year" article is a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also support moving the "year" article to either 911 AD or AD 911, depending on consensus since that disambiguation is more WP:NATURAL. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The template enhancements which would be needed to keep year links functional after the proposed move are being discussed at WT:WikiProject Years#Year template. Certes (talk) 18:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support I find the argument in Crouch, Swale's nom that there is no WP:PTOPIC here very convincing. I think you would need a really good reason to promote an article to PTOPIC when it doesn't actually satisfy the criteria at WP:PTOPIC. I find 'consistency in naming' to be a weak reason. There's much more negative utility in sending a reader to the wrong place than there is in showing the reader a title that's inconsistent with the titles of similar pages (what reader would even notice, other than wikidorks like us?). Remember that the WP:CRITERIA should be seen as goals, not as rules. We're constantly having to make trade-offs among them. Violating WP:PTOPIC in exchange for WP:CONSISTENCY is a terrible trade. Colin M (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what would happen if all towns in England that have a district named after them with a population of 50,000 or more must be at the base name regardless. What would we do with Boston then? Indeed the RFC and consistency appears to be over if years should take precedence over each other, not other unrelated topics. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This case and similar ones should be addressed via a generic RfC on natural numbers above 100. — JFG ^talk 21:16, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as mentioned above, you should probably CHANGE THE REQUEST to "AD 911", for consistency with AD 1 to AD 100 (and that there's another year, 911 BC). Paintspot Infez (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paintspot: you're not restricted to supporting or opposing the precise destination, if you indeed think that the year should be moved (which I assume you do given that you don't generally support having questionably PTs) but to AD 911 (which as noted I agree with) you can say "Support but move to AD 911". Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ per the sake of consistency and strong established consensus regarding number articles. This is why we have disambiguation, so when readers find a page they didn't intend, they can find the correct one by going to the disambiguation page. I would argue that the year 911 is not the primary topic for the base title, there really isn't any other primary topic, either. 911 could easily refer to the emergency telephone number in the North American Numbering Plan or the September 11, 2001 attacks. I would recommend a disambiguation page be at the base. CookieMonster755 ✉ 23:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I sound drunk. My comment above sounds like I support, because I do. The two main issues here is oppose due to consistency but support due to there being no primary topic. From what I am reading here, most editors in this discussion can come to a consensus that there is no primary topic for 911. It could refer to the year, the emergency telephone number or the September 11 attacks. On the other hand, those who oppose only oppose due to consistency with other year articles over the number 100. The question is, which one holds more weight and is more based in guidelines? I think it is the former, so I change to support. Support per BREAKALLRULES. There is no primary topic. CookieMonster755 ✉ 23:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support there are several articles that could be the primary topic such as 9-11, the number and 9/11 (for example, I came to this page expecting 9-1-1 to be the primary topic). – BrandonXLF (t@lk)

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

Hiding meta-discussion, which will now be in the appropriate area

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is an absurd closure. If it is to be moved, it should be AD 911. Where can I appeal the closure; I can't find the appropriate forum. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Arthur Rubin: See WP:MR. Steel1943 (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should we make an RFC for years 101-999?

Since the discussion on the year 911 not being primary just closed as support, I feel like there should be an RFC discussion had about the other year articles in the range of 101-999. (I know some agree that 999, and maybe even 420, should be decided on their own merit. Hmmm, what do you all think?) Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people from the previous discussion: @Crouch, Swale:, @Interstellarity:, @Tbhotch:, @Tbsock:, @Randy Kryn:, @Netoholic:, @Colin M:, @Certes:, @Hansen Sebastian:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Narky Blert:, @Shhhnotsoloud:, @Bkonrad:, @King of Hearts:, @JHunterJ:, @Steel1943:, @JFG:, @CookieMonster755:.

Since 911 was moved maybe someone should just go ahead and nominate the two other obvious choices. There aren't many more which would obtain move approval. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than two other difficult cases. 616 and 666 spring to mind. Narky Blert (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. We don't want these kind of decisions to be driven by luck of the draw, simply due to who happened to show up at an RM / each individual closer's whims. For the sake of consistency, we need to ensure that anything we disambiguate is actually more ambiguous than anything we keep as the year. An RfC should be conducted to decide on the list of exceptions, and then there should be a moratorium on individual year/number RMs unless based on new information introduced since the conclusion of the RfC. (edit conflict) Sort of like how the AP Stylebook list of cities which are exempt from the City, State requirement per WP:USPLACE has survived over the years. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support the idea of a WP:RFC for this range of numbers. It could result in a general guideline with explained exceptions, to replace picking off and arguing about numbers piecemeal. I can't think offhand of any four-figure number which would need special treatment (not even Ramanujan's number). Narky Blert (talk)
Support; at least we should make an attempt to remove the absurd name 911 (year). Wikipedia:WikiProject Years and Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers should also be informed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh I don't see why this can't be handled via individual Requested Moves. The number of 'interesting' numbers in this range is pretty small. Also, creating some new guideline around this feels like WP:CREEP. The guidance at WP:PTOPIC is perfectly sufficient. Colin M (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Meh (Oppose) per Colin. The 911 page was moved because the year is not the primary topic, per sources. Requested moves would be the place for any other year suggestions, and few would actually be approved. And agree that AD911 would be the logical place for the year name as it would differentiate from 911 BC. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To @Randy Kryn:, @Arthur Rubin:, etc - a discussion has been started at Talk:911 (year)#Requested move 8 July 2019 to move it to AD 911, for consistency with the other pages. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Colin. WP:BROADCONSENSUS was already skipped, why should now be important? © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 02:23, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thoughts - we could either do an RfC on people's opinions on the 101-999 year range (staying or moving), OR we could possibly do an RfC just to decide which years are exceptions to the existing rule. (...I'm thinking 999, 123, 420, 616, and 666?... Maybe even 365, 255/256?...) Or we could just do individual Requested Moves. Not sure. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd RM the obvious ones (by obvious I mean those who really, really are strongly associated to other things like 123 to counting, 360 to circles and Xbox, 420 to marijuana, 666 to 666 (number), 777 to other uses and [[112}] and 999 to the emergency number). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 03:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it might be helpful but I think the guidelines at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC might do, I have often sought to clarify PT so that we're consistent in how we disambiguate things (per King of Hearts) but I'm not sure what it would get. I think the general rule would be that if the other topics are only "popular culture" topics and the number its self isn't notable then the year will likely be primary like 1989. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I often see references to the events of AD 1989. For dates in living memory, and perhaps as far back as 1066, the year is a clear primary topic. I can't remember ever having an interest in the years AD 911, AD 420 or AD 256. When readers type in a three-digit number, they are rarely seeking the year. Certes (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Years seem to be exempt from the usual article title rules: until 2016, AD 1 occupied the title 1. That convention may have been appropriate when Wikipedia habitually linked years (Smith died in 1970) but it's time to question whether the primary topic of "123" really is an ancient year. Certes (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RFC. Per WP:NOTBURO The 911 move was made, and nobody has challenged it, so the "rule" that three digit numbers must be years is already dead. Just go ahead and start RMs for any other examples that may be of note. — Amakuru (talk) 06:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point! it was apparently never a rule anyway but I do indeed think we need to wait until we have consensus on if we use "AD Foo" or "Foo (year)" and have fixed the templates if the latter is used. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge 9/11 (disambiguation)

MERGED

— JFG ^talk 22:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Seems close enough to merge. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these are separate; most things can be referred to as one or the other without much overlap. Peter James (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Think people don’t make that distinction in many uses. The year 911 is often spoken just like the date 9/11. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose merge~~ Neutral. 9/11 and 911 are separate terms, which mean different things. Each disambig page serves readers best on its own without cluttering it up with entries from the other. — Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to neutral following request on my talk page just now. I'm still not particularly keen on this, as I think it's to satisfy an edge case and long disambiguation pages on disparate topics are not IMHO ideal for reader navigation. But there are some reasonable arguments made below, so in the interests of consensus I'll not hold this up! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: Amakuru is right, but we should also consider how the number divides in the reader's mind. Generally 9/11 (disambiguation) is about nine-eleven and 911 about nine-one-one but there are exceptions: Porsche 911 and perhaps AD 911 are written without punctuation but pronounced nine-eleven. Certes (talk) 09:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No objections from me either, as there's a clear support consensus from editors who also know what they're talking about. Certes (talk) 11:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, readers looking for 9/11 will search within 911, and then won't read deep enough into the disamb. page to find what they are seeking. At a minimum the 9/11 link with descriptor should be in the lede. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, or failing that, adding a link to 9/11 (i.e. September 11 attacks) at the top of 911 in the "usually refers to" section. It seems plausible that a user would search for "911" looking for information about the terrorist attacks. Right now, they would need to scroll down to the bottom of 911, click the link to 9/11 (disambiguation), and then click the link to 9/11, which is a lot of indirection. Colin M (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Punctuation makes no difference, especially as some entries in 9/11 (disambiguation) have yet another punctuation: 9-11 (Noam Chomsky) and 9.11 (album). Also support adding September 11 attacks to the top section of the merged dab page. — JFG ^talk 18:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support punctuation shouldn't matter for disambiguating a three number sequence as readers looking for one may wind up at the other. Wug·a·po·des 21:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with the other support !votes, and have nothing to add to those arguments and proposals. Narky Blert (talk) 17:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.