Talk:AD 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status of the discussion, and suggestion for limited implementation[edit]

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:

  • It proposes changing the primary topic for numbers under 100 overnight. It's troublesome to change from one primary topic directly to another unrelated topic without going through at least some minimal transition period where there is no primary topic, which allows for link disambiguation. Otherwise we will have many links pointing to the new primary topic which are intended for the former.
  • It tries to do too much, too soon. I suggest taking the baby step of just making the digits 0 – 9 ambiguous, and see how that works when implemented. Perhaps a bit later we can stretch into the teens, if that goes well.

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)[reply]

Theose are all noble ideas and I'm also keen to press ahead but I would add a few thoughts.
  1. Changing 1-9 now and 10-99 later sounds like more work, especially for the template gurus.
  2. Year 0 is a special case which I hope we can ignore, as it only affects years well away from AD 1 (e.g. 3102 BC in the Hindu case).
  3. Changing [[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?
  4. BD2412 and others have done sterling work on links to New York and may be able to advise on the best way to go about things, especially if partial automation would be helpful. It's not as easy as it looks - I tried to help with New York but achieved very little.
- Certes (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058, JFG, and Certes: No, I don't think I'm personally okay with this alternative. As I read it, don't think consensus emerged (take with a grain of salt, I'm heavily involved), which means that ~200 pages are not moved, a dozen or so templates (some still to be tracked down) are not all of a sudden complicated with conditional logic, and WP:NCNUM and MOS:NUM are not updated. It's unclear to me if we want a formal closure here, but if it happens in favor of a specific option (enough for guidelines to be updated too), the moves really should not proceed until templates are sufficiently prepared for the change. And if this kind of closure happens, and since I have been against the moves, would it be all right if I personally drop this and relieve myself of the responsibility of updating year nav/dab templates which I might have implied during these few months? Sorry, not having a day of clarity. I think the types of dabs that can be done shouldn't be controversial. Some of the dabs suggested could make sense to wait for a closure, after some more thought, as there are implications for WP:NCNUM and MOS:NUM
Another logistical thing. Please note the move form if you go to Special:MovePage/1. At the bottom of the form, it lists a number of talk page subpages. It is a recent feature of the software (1.28 wmf23) to list these here for general context, but please keep in mind that not all of these pages (like Talk:1/3–2/3 conjecture) are actually subpages of "Talk:1". If a page like "1" is to be moved, the relevant subpages should be tracked down individually. — Andy W. (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC) amended 16:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was momentarily taken aback after seeing 154 subpages of this talk page. Obviously we would leave the box for moving all subpages unchecked. It shouldn't be hard to locate the archives and manually just move them only. I just deleted Talk:1/0 (web comic). wbm1058 (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not anxious for a quick formal closure, and would be happy to see this remain open for a while longer. I'm not sure how big the issue with templates is. I'm taking a short break, and may come back in a few days to continue the "slightly under the radar" process of "creeping implementation" by making bold but hopefully not controversial edits like those I've already given examples of above. This sort of groundwork should be done in any event. I'm going on the assumption that the consensus is trending towards "AD 1" and that changes will be least controversial the closer they are to the non-existent "year 0". wbm1058 (talk) 16:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm back working on this now. I've cleaned up bad links starting with year 1 and have finished up to year 25 (e.g. diff and diff).
Looking at the templates linking to [[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)[reply]
I'm working on fixing {{Decades and years}}. That's proving to be a time-consuming project. See Template talk:Decades and years and Template:Decades and years/testcases for the gory details. wbm1058 (talk) 00:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There have been some comments about the year 0 never happening, or "Year 0 is a special case which I hope we can ignore." I don't agree that "0" isn't a legitimate name for the year in which an annular eclipse of the sun occurred on 14 December and covered part of Antartica.Five Millennium Cannon of Solar Eclipses plate 239. Whether others agree or not, this wouldn't be the correct page to discuss the issue, so if it ever becomes a point of contention, the discussion about the year 0 on this talk page should be ignored and a fresh discussion should start on an appropriate talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Year 0 never happened. So NASA (at https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEcat5/SE-0099-0000.html) have defined a new date format, ±YYYY, no AD/BC/CE/BCE, in which all years before 1 AD are 1 higher than in standard formats. "-0099 to 0000 ( 100 BCE to 1 BCE )" There still was no "Year 0", if you want to use NASA year dating, you have to call it 0000, and it is 1 BC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think anyone editing pages about years near 1, or years BC, should read Astronomical year numbering. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I feel that 0 (year) is a good title, and (year) is good for disambiguation of that special case, but it is not so good for disambiguation of other years. I've been doing quite a bit of editing of the surrounding years and the form predominantly used by other editors is AD 1 or sometimes 1 AD. 1 CE is used some as well, but not as much. wbm1058 (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did Fred Espenak invent astronomical numbering in 2008? It is definitely advantageous with respect to "calendrical calculations", but I don't think the encylcopedia is ready for its adoption. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, Jacques Cassini invented it in 1740. I wouldn't suggest it for general use in Wikipedia, but it could be used in direct quotes, in tables where readers might be expected use the tabulated data in calculations, or articles about systems where it is used, such as ISO 8601. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prep work for AD 1–9 is complete[edit]

Millennium: 1st millennium
Centuries:
Decades:
Years:
Millennium: 1st millennium
Centuries:
Decades:
Years:
  • Template:Decades and years had longstanding issues fixed; details at Template talk:Decades and years (see Template:Decades and years/testcases)
  • This edit to Template:Events by year for decade made it link directly to AD 1 through AD 9 (upgrading this to link to AD 10 and beyond is going to be trickier than changing a single number)
  • This edit to Template:Drep makes Template:Year nav link directly to AD 1 through AD 9 (again just change < 10 to a bigger number to expand direct linking beyond AD 9)
  • Those three templates appear to be the only ones effecting this date range that needed to be changed. We may find additional templates needing changes if we expand the "AD" range to more years; I'm not sure of that)
  • I've made several links in mainspace to link directly to AD 1 through AD 9 (mostly years that people were born or died)
  • Pages 1 through 9 are thus ready to move (check "what links here")
  • My preference remains to move the respective disambiguation pages to the base titles. This is an ambiguous range between the smaller -1, where the number is primary, 0, where there is no primary topic, and 10, where the year for now remains the primary topic. I've found too many cases of links to single digits that shouldn't have been made; these are better patrolled if the title is a disambiguation page
  • Nobody has objected to any of my edits so far, and I've even gotten a couple of "thanks" for them
  • Just changing the first nine years has been a lot of work. Changing up to 90 more years will be a lot more work... lots of birth, death and events dates to fix, I'm sure. But the hardest template work may have already been done

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)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Well I gotta say that looks pretty good :) There've been some follow-up posts at the ANRFC listing already, and I think it could be worth noting the effort for ~10 pages for general awareness. Do we (I suppose I mean you) know for sure the scope of template changes at this point? (including these? of those, {{Year dab}} might be the most visible one?) Pinging JFG — Andy W. (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Oh, I see. AD 9 has one of those {{Year dab}} hatnotes. The thing is, once this has moved from 9 to AD 9 it has been naturally disambiguated, so the hatnote isn't necessary any more, or if someone thinks we still need some kind of hatnote, just use one of the standard ones. {{Year dab}} use can be restricted to titles that remain at the base number, i.e. where the year is still the primary topic for the number. wbm1058 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: Ahh I see. I was initially thinking that a hatnote with conditional logic would be more robust to handle lack-of-awareness good-faith cut-paste moves, but I see what you're saying. Side note: good news. {{M1 year in topic}} is now "AD n"-ready via an update to Template:M1YearInTopic (no calendar) and and update to Module:Year in other calendars. — Andy W. (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that my radar didn't detect Template:M1 year in topic because that doesn't link to 1. That template links to Category:1. Is moving categories part of the scope of this? That hasn't really been discussed or made clear, has it?
Also noting that, for the first decades of centuries, the article is at 100s (decade), but the corresponding category is Category:100s, without the parenthetical (decade). – wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Because {{M1 year in topic}} uses {{PAGENAME}} to determine the category to link to, you strip off the "AD " from the page name so the template still links to Category:1, and not to Category:AD 1. Good catch! wbm1058 (talk) 14:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seems completely fine to me. There was just no rationale given in the edit summary that would lead me to this. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:18, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So the only editor to revert me so far, accepted my edit once the rationale was explained. I'm trying to give more detailed rationales with links, at least in my more major changes...
My changes have not been controversial, so far. wbm1058 (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now applied title change to lead sections of AD 1 to AD 9. Also activated Andy M. Wang's extension of Module:Year in other calendars to display AD notation for years 1–9 already moved, pending RFC closure about years 1–100. — JFG talk 23:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Wbm1058: Thanks for your work. I have now clarified the heavily-nested code for {{dr-make}} and added support on {{drep}} for a "p" option to display "AD" as a prefix instead of suffix. Made that the default for years 1-100; the threshold can be easily changed depending on RfC closure. Looks pretty good on {{Year nav}} so far. Hope this helps. — JFG talk 12:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your changes look good. wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are down to 876 pages that link to 1:

  • the hatnote on AD 1
  • 130 in Talk:
  • 227 in User:
  • 350 in User talk:
  • 115 in Wikipedia:
  • 43 in Wikipedia talk:
  • 7 in Template talk:
  • 2 in MediaWiki talk:
  • 1 in Module talk:

Looks like I'm done with that. wbm1058 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I changed a few leftover articles. Wbm1058, are you ready to do anything to the year articles 2 to 9?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Georgia guy, they're on my agenda. Thanks for helping out. There's a reason I left those edits undone: Don't pipe links, unless formatting requires it, per WP:DDD. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wbm1058, I guess your next step is to move all year articles 2 to 9 to the similar AD 2 to AD 9, and then re-direct 1 to 1 (number) and similar edits. Any corrections?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will move 2 – 9 to AD 2 – AD 9 soon, unless someone objects. I've been proceeding boldly here, and will pause if there are any issues. My intent is to make the single digits disambiguation pages, though that may only be an intermediate step. At that point I think I will be done here, at least for a while. If another admin closes this, determining that the consensus is to make the numbers primary, thus moving 1 (number) to 1, etc. I will accept their determination of consensus, but I'm not in favor of that, for reasons I've already stated above. If we proceed with 10–99, there are at least three templates that still need changes to support that, as I've noted above. I think it's a good idea to pause first, to let 1–9 settle in, and wait to see if there are any unforeseen issues with the changes so far. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Wbm1058 is doing well, given the difficult circumstances. Difficult due to the age and lengthiness of this, and the likelihood that there is no one technically UNINVOLVED who could find the energy to process it all. I agree that there is a rough consensus in support of the move to AD 1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a recent example to show you why I'm so opposed to making the numbers primary topics. With this 17 November 2016 edit, an editor added a link to [[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)[reply]
I was sailing smoothly until I ran into AD 6. There, I discovered Category:6 establishments by country and its sub-category Category:6 establishments in the Roman Empire, which have both been up for deletion since 8 June 2016‎. These categories have only one member, Judea (Roman province). The discussion is still ongoing at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 8 § Roman Empire establishments (1st century and earlier), well it was active as recently as ten days ago. Category:6 establishments by country transcludes {{Estcatbycountry}}, which you can see is reporting an error. I also see from "what transcludes here" that Category:6 establishments by country is the only category transcluding this template. This is not to be confused with, though I confess I temporarily did confuse it with, the very similarly named {{EstcatCountry}} that its subcategory Category:6 establishments in the Roman Empire transcludes. Now, if I haven't lost you yet, I now direct your attention to {{Estcatbyyear}}, a modified copy of {{Estcatbycountry}}, created 15 February 2016,‎ per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 6. I'm wondering why the heck those Romans founded Judea in 6 CE? They're causing us all this trouble. Couln't they have waited until 10 to found that province? So, as these categories are up for deletion, I'll leave fixing those templates as an exercise for those promoting the inclusion of the categories, should they be kept. Moving onward, steering clear of those stormy seas... wbm1058 (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've sorted out {{Estcatbyyear}} and modified Category:6 establishments by country to use it. Estcatbycountry is still broken but now unused, so can probably go to TfD when the dust settles. I've prepared a similar change in {{EstcatCountry/sandbox}} but will pause there before wrecking the thousands of pages that use it. This template seems to have more similarly named rivals with identical aims than the Judean Popular People's Front... Certes (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See Template:EstcatCountry/testcases. You fixed the expression error, but it's still linking to [[6]] instead of [[AD 6]] – wbm1058 (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, good point. Fixed. Should we promote this from Sandbox or consult more widely first? Certes (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike most of the other templates I've updated to support this change, this template doesn't support BC years. But it doesn't seem to be used BC and there is at least one parallel-universe template {{estcatBC}} designed to work in BC only. So I'm assuming that we don't need to fix this to support BC years. wbm1058 (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've promoted your sandbox changes to the live template. It checked out OK with my test cases, but I didn't give it a more thorough review, as it's not worth my time. wbm1058 (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone else wants to fix Template:Establishments in decade, which isn't working correctly on Category:0s establishments.
Also Template:Discat, which isn't working correctly on Category:9 disestablishments. I'm getting weary of this. wbm1058 (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note at Categories for discussion regarding this issue. Maybe someone there will fix it. wbm1058 (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed Template:Establishments in decade and Template:Discat, which also wasn't working correctly on the 9 link for Category:10 disestablishments. I'd welcome a reivew of my changes. In view of the subject matter, maybe the next enhancement should be to support Roman numerals... Certes (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Reviewed — JFG talk 23:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Limited implementation is pretty much done...[edit]

...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:

  • −1, the number, is the primary topic
  • 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 is an ambiguous range, and thus these are disambiguation pages
  • 10 and above remain years AD, as they have always been

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)[reply]

@Wbm1058: One more thing you should do is to delete the redirect from Talk:1/Archive 1, because 1 now redirects to One (disambiguation), but Talk:One (disambiguation)/Archive 1 does not exist. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. That's the only page of 1 through 9 that had any archives, and it only had one. wbm1058 (talk) 21:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, wbm1058, thanks again! A key benefit of your boldness is that it vindicates the position that updating templates and articles towards the proposed move wasn't an inextricable task, and doing it even allowed to improve some elements along the way. Now the remaining open questions are:
  1. Should this work be extended to the 1–100 range as proposed or limited to 1–9 as you implemented?
  2. Should the bare number titles be about the numbers as proposed, disambigs as you implemented, or remain about AD years?
Those two questions should be answered by the closer; I don't see the need for a new RfC at this point. — JFG talk 21:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AD, CE and (year) revisited[edit]

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)[reply]

The article seems to imply that 1 AD is only a year in the Julian calendar, and can't be a year in the proleptic Gregorian calendar. Although either the Julian calendar or the proleptic Julian calendar is usually used for years in that neighborhood, the Gregorian calendar is used occasionally. Certainly, the Julian calendar can be used with year numbering systems other than AD, such as the system of naming years after the Roman consuls. Of course, applying AD to years in that neighborhood is proleptic, since the AD year naming system wasn't invented until 525. In view of these complexities, I find wbm1058's comment of 01:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC) impossible to interpret. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title of the infobox, "AD 1 in other calendars", is confusing. Because of the word "other", and because the infobox contains entries for both the Julian and Gregorian calendars, it implies the article is about AD 1 in some calendar that is neither Julian nor Gregorian. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're more knowledgeable about calendars than me. It's only recently that, through these recent discussions, I became aware of the concept of the proleptic Julian calendar. Oh, I see, the Julian calendar took effect in 45 BC, so some form of that calendar was in effect that year. Now I'm just looking at this concept that they didn't number their years at all, but rather named them after the "consul of the year". It would be like having the "Year of Barack Obama" and the "Year of Donald Trump" – and presidents would only serve for a single year. So if this "AD numbering system" didn't take effect until 500 years later, then isn't saying that it's year 1 of the Julian calendar misleading? It's really year 1, retroactively, of the system started 500 years later. So, Julian calendar is more a method of determining the number of days in a year, and how to make leap-year adjustments, than a method of identifying years for historians? wbm1058 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There are two different calendar concepts here, I think, and it's too easy to get confused... on the one hand, you have Roman → Julian → Gregorian as their methods of fine-tuning the precise length of a year evolved. That's interesting, but the method used for determining the length of a year doesn't seem particularly germane to keeping track of different years over time. More relevant, is that at the time they used a regnal year system for naming years, and only later did they actually switch to a numbering system. The lines for "Gregorian" and Julian" in the infobox should be changed to Anno Domini/ Common Era, and the title should be changed to "1 in various calendars". Review history of calendars. wbm1058 (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We had a discussion earlier about how when they switched from Julian to Gregorian they skipped several days. It's silly to have separate line items in the infobox for Gregorian and Julian because they are always the same year... at most they differ by a matter of a couple weeks or so, unless you extrapolate them to extremely old history that predates both. wbm1058 (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lead should say that they used the Julian calendar at the time, but it is not year 1 of the Julian calendar, but rather the 46th year that they used the Julian calendar and year 1 of the Anno Domini/Common Era numbering system. Thanks Jc3s5h for setting us straight on this. wbm1058 (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calendar era is the concept here. Year 1 of the AD calendar era (year numbering system). Not year 1 of the Julian calendar. Or of the Era of Martyrs. wbm1058 (talk) 03:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Correction (text struck through above): The lines for "Gregorian" and Julian" in the infobox should be removed, and the title should be: AD 1 in other calendar eras. Julian calendar and Gregorian calendar are both calendars (they are each listed in the list of calendars, along with their variants. Indeed, the Gregorian calendar is Julian-derived, so could loosely be thought of as a variant of the Julian calendar. Anno Domini is not a calendar, it is a calendar era. Indeed, the term "Anno Domini" is not even mentioned in the list of calendars article, other than in the {{Calendars}} navbox at the bottom, where it's listed as a system for year naming and numbering.
Most calendars in wide use appear to use some relatively minor variant of twelve months of 30 or 31 days, but they all define a year as approximately one rotation of the earth around the sun. The historical Haab' calendar is more different: The Haab' comprises eighteen months of twenty days each, plus an additional period of five days ("nameless days") at the end of the year. But as long as its total length is 365–366 days, it could be mapped to other calendar eras. I'm not aware of any calendars that define a year as significantly more than 366 or less than 365 days. But if one calendar starts their year sometime in winter and another starts their year in summer, then a particular year in one calendar era would map to portions of two different consecutive years in another calendar era. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussions:
So, calendar era or calendar epoch? What's the difference? I see, an epoch is an instant in time chosen as the origin of a particular calendar era. So, AD 1 is the epoch or reference date for the AD calendar era. wbm1058 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You nailed it wbm1058! The article Epoch (reference date) reminds me of one of my earliest edits on Wikipedia… — JFG talk 18:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template used on this page requires revision[edit]

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.[reply]

 Partly done – Title changed and link added. Suggestion to remove Gregorian and Julian calendars from box needs more discussion. — JFG talk 11:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0 to 9 should be about numbers instead of disambiguations.[edit]

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! Timo3 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we take page views into consideration when determining primary topics over at WP:RM, and I'm surprised not to see that here, though I may have missed it. Anyhow, some examples:
Since the year has been off the PT for over 10 days, this picture should be clearer...
  • 6 Number 904, Year 15
  • 9 Number 562, Year 20
So the numbers are ringing the bell on page views. Any argument for years at this level will need to be based on "long-term encyclopedic significance" or other criteria of that sort
Let's see how far this page-view dominance extends...
  • 74 Number 73, Year 13 ... I'm surprised the gap is still this much, though they are converging
  • 98 Number 42, Year 24
  • 112 Year 51, Number 16
So by this, it seems the decision to stop at 100 was a good choice. wbm1058 (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Current situation is stable, though perhaps temporary. We should wait for guidance from a closing statement by an uninvolved administrator. — JFG talk 08:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We should consider 0 and 100 specially. If the number one is the primary topic for 1 then the number zero is probably the primary topic for 0, but we came here to discuss moving year articles 1 to 100 and need to be clear about whether 0 is now included. I'd support moving 0 because the number wins the view count by 2,467 views to 9, but technically it's out of scope. Also, are we agreed whether 100 should move like 99 or remain like 101? Technically, I think having it remain would simplify templates etc. Certes (talk) 09:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was pretty obvious that the article titles "1"..."9" should be renamed "AD 1"..."AD 9". It's less obvious what the article title "0" would be renamed. "Year 0" might not come to mind to a reader who was looking for the topic; after all, that's not how one would usually write it. Also, this is probably the wrong talk page to discuss it. Jc3s5h (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title 0 is definitely out of scope of this RfC which was about articles representing years. An hypothetical "year 0" was never at page title "0". Whether title "0" should remain a disambig or host the article about number 0 is a potential discussion on Talk:0. — JFG talk 13:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It feels awkward to me to leave 0 as an ambiguous island surrounded by primary topic numbers. There have been two previous proposals in this regard:
* Talk:0 (year)#Requested move – an August 2013 request to make 0 (year) the primary topic was a nonstarter and was closed with unanimous opposition.
* Talk:0 (number)#Requested move 24 April 2016 – a request to make 0 (number) the PT was closed as not moved. The leading rationale in opposition was "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."
This should be revisited. The result of another week-long RM here should provide clarity to the larger request-for-comment. If we can't get consensus to move 0, I think that's problematic. 0 should be easier to make the number primary, given that the "year" has such a weak claim on the title. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The status of "0" should surely be discussed again, but imho only after the present RfC about "1"–"100" is formally concluded. I don't think it would be productive to re-ignite the two failed debates on "0" before that. On the contrary, if "1" to "9" become the number articles, moving "0" will be a no-brainer. If they remain disambigs, then a separate discussion could still occur at Talk:0. — JFG talk 15:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're afraid of. The first debate is moot and has zero chance of re-igniting anything. I checked the participants in the second debate who opposed making zero the number primary topic, and not one of them has opposed your RfC. Of the ones who are recently active and have voted here, all have voted in support and some even suggested extending it beyond 100. It seems an oversight to have left 0 (number) out of this, and we should generally favor widening the scope of discussions, to avoid later cries about "limited consensus". Either moving "0" is already a no-brainer, in which case it can already be considered part of this proposal, or if not, we shouldn't come to a consensus here that makes the fate of 0 (number) a "no-brainer" or a "done deal" before that debate has even started. Leaving the status of 0 (number) in doubt makes it harder to determine the consensus for the RfC. wbm1058 (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: Fair point, and I'm personally in favor of having "0" be the number article. I'm just saying such a move would be out of process at the moment. Maybe I'm being extra cautious because I've been editing too much in politics lately… — JFG talk 19:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, I'm not sure what process rules we would be breaking here, but I think it's time to agree to a little bit of WP:IAR. Initiate an RM over at Talk:0 (number) since the April 2016 request there has established this as "potentially controversial". Frame it as an amendment to this RFC. If it runs for a week over there then we've given proper notification to the page. Consensus in that discussion adds 0 (number) to the list of pages to be moved here, and we can make that contingent on the RfC here moving at minimum the adjacent page 1 (number) to 1. That should cover it, and is probably overcompensating a bit on the side of caution. wbm1058 (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: I would agree to your proposed steps at Talk:0 (number). Indeed a properly-framed move request may yet get approved even before this RfC is formally closed. — JFG talk 21:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done See Talk:0 (number)#Requested move 4 December 2016. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY and settled now! — JFG talk 22:49, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sure, I'll have a look. I've intentionally avoided commenting on this page (or really following this discussion) to avoid any appearance of involvement. Do folks want me to close the discussion, or just give some thoughts on progress? I don't want to monopolize the topic if you decide you want a different closer, but I'm happy to do it if asked. agtx 06:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Agtx: Your opinion is most welcome in the discussion but I believe we need a fully uninvolved closer here. Given the lack of response to the close request of November 7, I have pinged Oshwah a few days ago; he is currently considering whether to take on the task. — JFG talk 12:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think SmokeyJoe made a good point when he opined about "no one technically UNINVOLVED who could find the energy to process it all", which is why I pinged Agtx as they have a head start on this. Anyone else needs to go way back to the beginning and read the first RfC as well as this one. So I guess you have a right to a veto here – I don't know whether there is any policy on these matters – thus I welcome Agtx's comments and recommendations as potentially valuable input to a potential closer. Your choice of closer is interesting and unexpected, given that they specialize in patrolling vandalism. Though I wrote a lengthy comment in opposition to their RfA, I've no objection to their closing this. I think as we've let this drift for a longer period of time, closing it becomes easier... in contrast to the "New York battles", this page has been pretty drama-free of late – nobody's come here to scream about the direction that we've been drifting. wbm1058 (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The lack of drama is indeed refreshing; and the lack of negative reactions to your bold implementation is another positive sign. It was not obvious at first, which I why I took care to craft the initial RfC in a very directive manner with limited scope. I did expect more infighting about year naming but seeing limited support for CE (and some strong opposition to it), I switched my preference from (year) to AD. I didn't pick Oshwah for a particular reason, he just happened to be one of the extra volunteers to adjudicate the New York wars, so he was on my radar as an all-around helpful and extremely civil admin. I was not aware of your or anybody else's opposition to his RfA as I don't follow these matters; thanks for the transparency. — JFG talk 21:02, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0 (zero)[edit]

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)[reply]

We have ~170 links to zero -- I'm ging to take a closer look at these. wbm1058 (talk) 17:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, you would think it should be a small minority, but I've been finding a surprising variety to fix. You found some too, thanks for helping. wbm1058 (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked through the articles linking to zero, except those with mathematical titles. (If integer mentions Zero (Indian band) then I'll have missed it.) It's amazing how many people and places were the first to invent the concept of zero and give it a name. Certes (talk) 00:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we've reduced the # of links by about 50, and it looks pretty clean now. wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Halfway from New York City to Chicago would be around the Ohio-Pennsylvania border. Georgia guy (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This one is unique because, just as the Gregorian AD calendar has no year 0, some old numbering systems had no concept of the number zero. wbm1058 (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Categories[edit]

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)[reply]

Category names should mirror page names, i.e. Category:1…Category:100 (if they exist) about numbers, higher ones about years. Categories about early years should move to Category:AD 1 or whichever name ends up approved. — JFG talk 06:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What about categories like Category:8 by continent, Category:8 in Europe, etc.? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These are very sparsely populated; I would recommend deleting them and keeping just the "1st century in Europe" categories. — JFG talk 15:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would put them up for deletion, as the tree has more categories than articles. AD 100 would be a special case but fortunately we only have Category:100, Category:100 births and Category:100 deaths. List of potentially unwanted categories:
I count a total of nine distinct articles in that lot, and one non-year subcategory (Category:Xin dynasty‎ within Category:9 in China). Certes (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great! That's a mandate to move all year categories to a granularity of decades, at least for the period AD 1…AD 100 that we are now implementing. — JFG talk 20:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: keep only decades categories for the AD 1…AD 100 period[edit]

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)[reply]

  • Raise category issues at WP:CfD, and ping me from the discussion there please. Categories come with unexpected cans of worms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC). But to your question, you think Category:38 is too small and want to upmerge to decades. No real objection, but I think the better desired outcome is Wikipedia:Dynamic categorization. i.e. at Category:30s, there should be options to dynamically upmerge everything from one level below, and and option to upmerge from every level below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This would kill Category:Years. That may be a good thing, but it should be considered. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there is a Category:AD 1, AD 1 should be a member of that category. Heck, it's the {{cat main}} of the category! We shouldn't create a special doughnut hole for 1–100 while 669 BC is still in Category:669 BC. This all needs to have some consensus at categories for discussion, I'd think. Then such a project might start with consolidating 700 years of BC history. I'm going to reverse the removal of the year articles from their own category. wbm1058 (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Links from years to numbers[edit]

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)[reply]

That's 100 to 259 done. Higher numbers are generally grouped, e.g. 260 (number) briefly covers 260-269 and 261 (number) is a redirect to it, so probably not worth linking. 10 to 99 may need attention depending how the above RM concludes. For example, there should be an easier navigation path than 13→13 (disambiguation)→Number 13 (disambiguation) (buried in See also)→13 (number). Time to pause, I think. Certes (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your hard work! I just hope we get an RfC closer soon… — JFG talk 10:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-RfC tasks[edit]

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:

  • Checking which pages were in those categories and applying the name change there (with AWB).
  • Tweaking templates {{birthyr}} and {{deathyr}} to accommodate these name changes; getting them ready to switch to 1…100 instead of 1…10
  • Moving "Category:n births" and "Category:n deaths" to "Category:AD n births" and "Category:AD n deaths"
  • Updating {{CatPair}} pointers to previous and next years in each year category page
  • Invoking {{M1YearInTopic (no calendar)}} (in "Category:AD n") with "AD n" instead of "n"

After all the moves are complete, we will need to:

  • Edit Template:Drep to change the upper limit of AD display to 100 instead of 10
 Done, no need to wait, redirects work and display is clean. — JFG talk 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More comments welcome.— JFG talk 04:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update {{BDYearsInDecade}} which is used in categories – finally  Done wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we confirm that 100 is moving, rather than just 10-99? I agree that the primary topic of 100 isn't the year, but moving it complicates infoboxes listing the 100s (AD 100-199) etc. On the other hand, it sounds as if in some cases this is no harder: just code "<= 100" rather than "<= 99". Certes (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Templates I've fiddled with, to be added to the list of things that may need to change when moving 10-100:
Certes (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should save 100 to be among the last things to deal with. Slowly working up from 10 seems the best approach to me. wbm1058 (talk) 16:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two classes of change: things to repeat 91 times on 91 pages (ideally in an automated way) and things to do once (e.g. change <10 to <=100 in a template). We need to consider whether to do each one-off change before or after the repeated changes, so that links etc. continue to work during the changeover. Generally I think yearish things change before (because they'll still work while AD 11 is a redirect) and numberish things change after (because they'll still work when 11 (number) becomes a redirect). I'm sure the experience with AD 1-9 will be valuable here. Certes (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done and documented. — JFG talk 15:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only partly done. I just finished fixing the loose ends. wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall exactly what the problem with this was, as I found it to be working OK; the template page itself just didn't look pretty, so I cleaned it up and enhanced the documentation. wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Template:Years in century/row fixed for the first decade. wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Template:BDYearsInDecade fixed for the first decade. wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This one was just throwing a red flag because of its default settings, which I changed. I don't think there's any more related stuff to fix, unless categories such as Category:6 establishments are moved to Category:AD 6 establishments. I think that cat's fine where it is. wbm1058 (talk) 22:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, that broke a lot of uses. Turns out this template, which is transcluded 94K times, is first used in Category:23 by country, Category:23 by continent, Category:28 by country. So, as long as we stop moving categories at Category:AD 10 we're still good. This template is broken for Category:AD 10 and below, but I suppose we don't need to fix it until someone wants to use it for a year < AD 20. – wbm1058 (talk) 05:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we're still good as long as Category:10 by continent doesn't become Category:AD 10 by continent. But the template itself was linking to Category:10, so I set it to default to the second decade to avoid making that link show up in "what links here". wbm1058 (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Category:6, Category:7, etc. are not empty. Some consideration needs to be given to the subcategories of these categories that are auto-populated by templates. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 11:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@R'n'B: Thanks for the notice. I have looked at those categories; they are now only populated by sub-categories such as Category:6 in the Roman Empire which in turn are very sparsely populated (2 articles for year AD 6, one article each for years 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, 28, 38, then roughly one article per year in the following decades). I would recommend deleting them all and keeping only the decades categories such as Category:30s in the Roman Empire, which provide a more appropriate level of granularity for the events documented in that period of history. I also noted some historical inconsistencies, for example Category:50s in Italy which should really be Category:50s in the Roman Empire, as Italy didn't exist then… We should notify editors of Portal:Ancient Rome for comments. — JFG talk 15:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, that would bring more trouble. From experience, it's easier and safer to see clearly which limits are coded in various templates, each of them using appropriate tricks depending on the limit and the desired results. Now the AD limit is clearly set at 100 per RfC closure and we won't have to move the goalposts in a long time, hopefully! (which would require consensus-building and careful analysis anyway) — JFG talk 04:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The move tasks are rather straightforward by now. The work on categories is more complex and can be open to debate, so it deserves a separate section. — JFG talk 04:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I just moved the AD 10–19 decade to the new format. Tweaked a few things along the way:

  • Removed the "year in topic" sidebar which was mostly pointing to red links
  • Switched to AD format up to 100 for the "Years in various calendars" sidebar
  • Adjusted sidebar {{Year nav}} to display AD up to 10 for all years and up to 100 for the middle year only (otherwise the repetition bludgeons the line)
  • Experimented with skipping the year-level categories which are mostly empty, and placing each year in its decade category instead: compare Category:10s with Category:20s for results
  • Applied new format to {{Decadebox}} for decades 0s…90s
  • Didn't update {{Events by year for decade}} yet, that one is rather complex and can wait until we're further along
Now  Done, improved the markup and simplified the transclusion logic along the way. — JFG talk 17:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Applied same logic to {{Events by year for decade BC}}. — JFG talk 17:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments welcome. — JFG talk 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further progress[edit]

Thanks JFG! How can we best help out without getting in your way? Certes (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a pretty solid process to execute the move and fix incoming links wiki-wide by now, so I'd rather do this myself. You can help in two ways:
  1. Take a decade such as 30…39 and apply the standard changes to year lead section and categories, using for example this diff on AD 22 as a template. There are usually four things to touch: replace {{M1 year in topic}} with {{Year in other calendars}}, replace "Year 33" with "AD 33" in the lead, mention AD where the notation is explained (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.
  2. Standardize the top section of disambig pages such as 32 (disambiguation), following example diff on 24 (disambiguation). You might need to clean up the dab page while you're there.
Those actions can be conducted before the page move, then ping me and I'll process the moves + fix incoming links. Thanks! — JFG talk 14:10, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: Thanks for the advice. I've edited 30 and 30 (disambiguation) (though it really needs a visit from Dabfix). I'll repeat these edits on 31-39 now. I also fixed a few incoming links to 30 before getting your message. I think the only controversial edits are to the formatting at November 8#Births etc. but I see you made similar changes and I agree it's the least bad solution. Comments welcome. Certes (talk) 14:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: Looks great, thanks. You forgot to add the [[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)[reply]
@JFG:31-39 done (in the limited sense described above), with a big thank-you to the authors of JWB. Certes (talk) 15:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm set up to do 40-49. I don't want to jump the gun but just let me know if and when we're ready to start. I've also tidied up the very few remaining links to 30-39. Certes (talk) 16:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: One more decade would be nice to have today, but I won't have time for more than that. — JFG talk 16:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG:40-49 now edited. Certes (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All moved except 44 which is move-protected. Waiting for unprotection by admin. — JFG talk 20:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look at incoming links for 50-100 and edited away "The show had 77 episodes" etc. I think everything that's left is a year. Certes (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@Certes: Strange I had skipped it. Now done, thanks for the notice. You can go ahead and prepare 50–99, I'll move them tomorrow. — JFG talk 14:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
50-99 prepared. I've not edited 100 or 100 (disambiguation). Certes (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Year moves AD 1 to AD 100 completed[edit]

Thanks and well done JFG! For consistency, should we change AD 100 and 100 (disambiguation)? Specifically:
  1. replace {{M1 year in topic}} by {{Year in other calendars}}
    No, because AD 100 is the beginning of the 100s (decade), so we would keep yearly birth and death categories from that point on, which are linked from this box.
  2. add 100 to Category:Years|0100
    No, it's already part of Category:Years by way of Category:AD 100
  3. bring the dab header into line with 10-99
    Looks like that's already done.
"What links here" is reporting that 380s links to 96, and a couple of pages link to 100, but I think it just needs time to catch up. Certes (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a transclusion from 385, it will catch up soon. — JFG talk 18:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TODO list[edit]

As of 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC), the remaining tasks are:

  • Removing now-superfluous <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.
 Done – For years AD 1 to AD 100. — JFG talk 22:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly transclude births and deaths from year pages to decade pages
Experimental transclusion applied to the 0s decade, see below, comments welcome. — JFG talk 22:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – Quality control done, transclusions of births and deaths applied to decades 0s to 90s. This process should also apply to prior and later decades, until we reach a period of history with many recorded births and deaths by year. — JFG talk 22:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Applying {{Decade category header}} to all decade categories (already done from Category:0s to 390s and from 1600s to 2090s)
  • Merging individual year and "events in year" categories into decades
  • Fixing category templates pertaining to such merged categories
  • Discussing whether plain number articles should be about the number or should remain disambiguation pages (that looks unclear from RfC closures)
Started new section below to discuss
Suggest to merge them, keeping only mathematical properties on the number page (see discussion below) — JFG talk 18:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minor details[edit]

Transclusion of births and deaths by year on decades pages[edit]

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)[reply]

Thanks, that's a big improvement! Is it possible to suppress the AD y heading and its "This section is empty" tag for years with no notable births/deaths? Certes (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: Great idea, and I found a way to program that. Take a look. — JFG talk 21:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well done JFG, that's clearly the way forward unless anyone can think of a reason not to roll it out to other decades. Certes (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now moved the code to generic template {{Births and deaths by year for decade}} which uses in turn {{Transclude births}} and {{Transclude deaths}}. Applied to 0s and 40s for a start. — JFG talk 00:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Test period elapsed; discussion of layout concluded. Births and deaths by year for decades 0s to 90s are now automagically transcluded from individual year pages. — JFG talk 22:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Number articles or dab pages?[edit]

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:

  • 1 is the article about number 1
  • 2 to 9 are the disambiguation pages, with a standard format putting the numbers and the years at the top of the page
  • 10 to 100 redirect to the AD 10…AD 100 year articles but all incoming links have been made explicit to the year pages, so we are free to use those plain titles for either the numbers or the dab pages.

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)[reply]

I would certainly put properties of the integer on a separate page from non-mathematical meanings such as 10 (film). That leaves a lot of content where the count of something just happens to match the number after which the page is named, e.g.
I think the latter type of entry can be selectively culled.
Which page should live at 10? It's unfortunate that we can't judge on page views due to the variety of content on each page. In my opinion the integer is the primary topic, but it's less clear for higher numbers which are less notable. Certes (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the brief discussion at Talk:2 (number)#Anything to wait for before a page move and the section below that. So, right now we have the numbers −1, 0 and 1 as primary topics. This covers the concepts of negative numbers, nothing (three-valued logic and balanced ternary systems) and binary numbers. I think it's arbitrary to have a hard transition where the number is the primary topic for one number, and then with the very next number, suddenly the year becomes the primary topic. A grey transition zone where neither is primary seems a good idea to me. We can debate where the edge of the transition zone should be. I think for a number to be primary topic we should have a sufficient amount of valid, encyclopedic content about the number. There may be a reasonable basis for going as far as 9 because there is content about the glyph. Note we have articles about A through Z. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I support that the transition should start at 101, but I don't know where it can end. I support its end should definitely not be higher than 1491, because 1492 marks the beginning of American history. Prior to 1492, history was a Europe-Asia-Africa only thing, and it's very outside-America-centric. Georgia guy (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That is inappropriate. We have agreed, for the moment, that years <= 100 are not the primary topic. You will get little agreement for later years, because we haven't fixed all the incoming links, yet, and many would want to wait to see how much work was required before agreeing for more. The question here is which numbers from 2 through 100 are the primary topic, and which will become disambiguation pages (and what to do with the existing number disambiguation pages). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought we had agreed that the numbers were not to moved in until at least 90 days after the templates were tested; whether 1-100 were to be left as redirects or disambiguation pages was left open, but I think they should all be disambiguation pages for at least 90 days after the cleanup here is completed. (I think 180 days would be better, but the cleanup seems to be going surprisingly well.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And how many of the 90 days are remaining?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The 90 days haven't started. It was to start when all the year articles were moved and incoming links and templates fixed. The incoming links are (approximately) fixed only up to 59, and categories partially fixed only up to 11 (when I checked, a little after my post above). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    JFG fixed incoming links up to and including 100 a few hours ago. If you find any links from article space to bare numbers 10 to 100, please fix them or report them here. Certes (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the template changes aren't being actively tested at the moment, because they can't be released until 10 stops being a redirect to AD 10 and becomes either an article about an integer or a disambiguation page. Certes (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I was about to comment that I was wrong, and incoming links up to 99 were checked. ("100" seems ambiguous.) But the year templates, especially those pointing to or adding categories, have not really been checked. If we're satisfied that all existing templates, including inactive ones, point to the correct year article, we might proceed to replace the raw numbers with disambiguation pages, and then wait at least 90 days before moving numbers in. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certes Which templates are you referring to? Wbm58 and myself have done a lot of testing on many year-related templates, so that they use the new convention consistently. There remains some work to do in categories, but that is contingent on the separate proposal to group events by decades for that time period. — JFG talk 00:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The one I use, which needs to be fixed, is {{L3d}} and subtemplates, probably only {{Ld2}}. I mentioned it in one of these these discussions. We need to delete or fix all templates which are likely to reference a year, and test those not deleted, before any small numbers (other than 0 or −1) are moved in place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We missed that one because it's not used anywhere in mainspace, or doesn't show up anywhere on "what links here". How do you use it? Is it useful to anyone else? Can you fix that one yourself? wbm1058 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Arthur Rubin: Apparently this string of templates were last updated in 2009, are not used in article or category space, and could be deleted. However I see that you are using {{L2d}} in your user space, probably as a handy reference to 21st-century years. I would advise that you replace it with {{Decades and years}} which does exactly what you need and is fully compatible with the RfC outcome. — JFG talk 11:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the number-related templates, which must still link to 10 (number) etc. at this stage. I agree that the year-related templates have already changed and, with the minor exceptions of L3d/Ld2, everything seems to be working well. Certes (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I don't see any issue with number-related templates, because they already point to the disambiguated titles like "10 (number)". If number articles are made primary and accordingly retitled to "10", then any template pointing to 10 (number) will still work via the redirect and can stay in place per WP:NOTBROKEN. If we choose to keep dab pages at the raw titles, then the number-pointing templates don't need to be touched either. — JFG talk 11:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There's an advantage to having links which say "I did mean the number" rather than wondering whether the year was intended. Certes (talk) 11:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I found a few very minor exceptions, which have no effect on article space. I'm happy to change these myself if they need to change, but it's probably not worth the risk and disruption.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Certes (talk • contribs) 11:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up Template:Cat dec nav. It's only used for software between the 1940s and the present. The template works fine as long as nobody tries to use it for decades before 110. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur Rubin I don't think we need to wait much. Indeed all incoming links to bare numbers from 1 to 100 have been disambiguated by now; we are free to proceed. However choosing what to do is a prerequisite. I'm thinking of a proposal which I would probably submit over the week-end. — JFG talk 00:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You've misspelled my username three times now; the red-link Wbm58 doesn't ping me, but I check in periodically anyway. Can you put up a trial balloon for your proposal here, before you officially submit it? Thanks. wbm1058 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: Sorry about that. Lucky I didn't try wbmAD58 — JFG talk 10:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And yes, I will definitely list my proposal here first. — JFG talk 11:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems unambiguous to me. The RfC closed saying that the numbers should be made primary, so they should be made primary. Isn't not doing so an end run around it? Pppery 02:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was that low numbers 1–100 are primary vs low years 1–100. Now when we look at the actual articles that could replace years at the 1–100 titles, we notice that many number articles are really mostly about disambiguation on many uses of that number, and tend to duplicate partly what is on the dab pages when they exist. So when asking about the primary topic, there is no straightforward answer applicable to all titles 1–100. — JFG talk 20:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

24 is also unusual because 24 (TV series) is so popular. More generally, the decision may be influenced by what the number article will contain. At the moment, most are a blend of mathematical properties of the integer, duplication of the disambiguation page, other useful entries[clarification needed] and cruft such as 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)[reply]

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. Timo3 16:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did we reach a conclusion there? I support your view, especially if the material other than maths and disambiguation remains in the number article, but I don't think it was formally closed as being a consensus. Certes (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see a consensus that the year articles should be moved, just a strong (but not super-) majority. But the closer sees consensus. Perhaps we should ping the closers to see if they see a consensus that the numbers should (eventually) be moved. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I will help. What else needs to be fixed? Timo3 13:05, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of edit by User:213.104.32.79[edit]

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)[reply]

"AUC" comes before the number because it does not translate as "since the foundation of the City". If you read the Roman authors (e.g. here [1]) you will see it's a contraction of anno urbis conditae, which translates as "in the year of the having - been - founded city". It is on all fours with "AD", which is a contraction of anno domini, which translates as "in the year of the Lord". As the one precedes the number so must the other.
The text "replaced the Roman Republican calendar" is spot on. Any calendar being used at Rome is by definition the Roman calendar. To say the Julian calendar replaced the Roman calendar is an oxymoron. Mommsen says the calendar in use in AD 1 was perverziert. If it was perverziert then it couldn't be the Julian calendar. The Julian calendar didn't resume until AD 4. It wasn't a leap year (the previous leap year having been 9 BC) and it was during AD 4 that the calendar began to run as Caesar had intended it to run. Under his scheme there was to be a leap year in 41 BC and every fourth year thereafter, making thirteen by AD 8. Under Augustus' correction scheme the leap years ran 42 BC, 39 BC, 36 BC, 33 BC, 30 BC, 27 BC, 24 BC, 21 BC, 18 BC, 15 BC, 12 BC, 9 BC, AD 8 (making thirteen). Because one extra leap day remained to be accounted for AD 1 in Rome actually began on a Sunday. 84.9.195.22 (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mommsen would be which German historian? wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I believe you're referring to the author of History of Rome. wbm1058 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What does perverziert mean? A perverse variant of the Julian calendar? The Julian reform set the lengths of the months to their modern values, and I don't think there's any debate over whether that aspect of the Julian reform was in use in AD 1. The only debate is over the use of "Julian" leap years. wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Duden doesn't have the word, which is close to proof that it doesn't exist. It may be a misprint for pervertiert, which has the expected meaning.[2] Certes (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me the calendar actually observed in Rome after 45 BC was the Julian calendar, even though it didn't quite follow the leap year rules. A calendar in which one starts at some event with a known Julian calendar date and applies the rules backward from that point is the proleptic Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:10, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11 to 100[edit]

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. Timo3 11:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

100 has become a redlink, so it looks as if they're on the move now. Certes (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timo3: It looks as if 11-22 and 100 have moved. The rest of the moves will need an admin. Wbm1058 may be able to help further. Certes (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. These pages should definitely be moved. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for this. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following this since I got 1–9 (numbers) moved to the primary topic. I agree that 1–100 should be about the numbers. If this isn't possible, we need to finish DABing the articles; for some reason 11–29 are disambiguation pages and 30–99 are redirects to the years. Laurdecl talk 07:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this is a lower priority for me. I'm up to 29 now. Nothing is actually broken the way things are now. Higher priority for me is fixing {{error}} transclusions, incorrect hatnotes, disambiguation pages with links, and linked misspellings, among other things. Every now and then I do a few more. Eventually, we'll get to 100 I suppose. wbm1058 (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just did 30. As I'm making the final sweep of these, I check for and fix any links that still need to be corrected, particularly in portal and other lesser namespaces: diff, diff and diff. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058, Laurdecl, Certes, Timo3, and Bobby Jacobs: Would we have local consensus that titles 1…10 hold number articles (done), 11…100 would hold dab pages (in progress) and 101…2099 hold years (unchanged)? It's true that the original RfC didn't clearly specify what to do with titles 1…100 after years are moved to AD 1…AD 100. Some pages still have a mix of number properties and dab entries, e.g. 52 (disambiguation) and 52 (number), I suppose we can fix that as we go. Where do we put uses of each number, e.g. 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)[reply]
That works for me and I'm happy to help out. Personally I'd make 11…100 the number articles, but I'll happily compromise on dabs as a big improvement over the myth that AD 11 is the primary topic of 11. Certes (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not even a question of "compromise" because the move request from 11 (number) to 11 was soundly rejected. No point pushing this further. — JFG talk 00:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we can do that. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed classification rules[edit]

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:

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)[reply]

That sounds very reasonable. It may even be worth seeking consensus to enshrine it somewhere like WP:NUMBER to encourage things to stay that way. As a relevant note to other editors, JFG and I are pruning sports sections as discussed at Talk:1#Retired Player Numbers. Certes (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
29 should be about a number. Why were the pages from 11 to 100 not moved? Timo3 20:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because Talk:11 (number)#Requested move 6 May 2017 decided not to move them. We have still achieved a lot by getting AD 29 moved away from 29. Certes (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 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)[reply]

Thank you, Wbm1058. I'm happy to help with the final clean-up after the weekend. Does anyone have further comments on JFG's suggestions above? I think there is plenty of trival cruft to remove from many number pages, but this can be a separate exercise later. Certes (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, thanks! Sorry I can't help much these days. — JFG talk 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Year dab[edit]

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)[reply]

I think you can remove the {{Year dab}} hatnotes from AD 11 – AD 100. I thought about doing it, but I guess it's not a super priority for me. – wbm1058 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even the years AD 1–9 too. wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks for the advice. Certes (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects: Eleven, etc.[edit]

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)[reply]

Agreed. I've worked on eleven through fourteen. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"the 2nd year of the 0s decade"[edit]

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)[reply]

Good catch. It was a recent anonymous addition which I've now undone. Certes (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know what day of the week it is?[edit]

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)[reply]

Some areas started AD 1 on a Saturday. Other areas started the next day and their dates were one day behind. The difference was resolved in AD 4, when only the first group had a leap year. That's a simplification; full details are in Julian calendar#Leap year error. Certes (talk) 09:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Scholars believe that some of the arguments added to Dionysius Exiguus' Easter tables were not written by Dionysius but instead were added by anonymous scribes (nothing written by Dionysius' own hand survives). This argument XV obviously contains at least 1 error.
It states "From 25 March to 25 December there are 271 days". That's wrong. By modern counting there are 275 days, or if you do inclusive counting like the Romans, 276 days. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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. 

108.41.200.94 (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olympiad[edit]

Why did those get pulled? There doesn't seem to have been any discussion about it. — LlywelynII 23:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune in 1 AD[edit]

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)[reply]

What is your source? --Blurryman (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming it's true, this event would cover several years and not be specific to 1 AD, so this particular year article may not be the best place to mention it. It would have had no impact on world history, because Pluto had not yet been discovered. Certes (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

See WP:NOR. --Blurryman (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AD_1&oldid=1197142354"