Talk:AD 911

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

Modifications[edit]

I disagree with modifications made by MyRedDice to 911 and Nine-eleven. Please explain your reasoning for deleting this information, in Talk:911 and Talk:Nine-eleven. I consider this sort of information important and relevant, especially the reference to 9 - 1 - 1 on this page and the usage of Nine-eleven on that page. While I agree that the Nine-eleven page is a disambiguation page, the phrase is also in common use in the environment where I work and is part of the emergency services culture, even if it is not in general usage. I believe it needs a little explanation here, rather than being buried deep in other bigger articles. I will put back the deleted text if no explanation is forthcoming, after say after 24 hours. Please tell me why I should not do this. kiwiinapanic 12:41 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Duplicate[edit]

I just thought it wasn't necessary to duplicate the list of links now in nine-eleven here as well... Though perhaps the disambig block should be at the top? Martin

I have put the following text at the top of the page to clarify page intent and direct people to the pages they might want to look at - is this an OK way to do things?kiwiinapanic 12:57 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)

Important Note: This entry deals with the Year 911, not the emergency telephone number 9-1-1.

Year / Number / Disambiguation[edit]

I'm not sure where to ask this, but I just happened to be here. Is there a better place to ask this?

I've been looking at a few numbers and the categorisation isn't standardised. I assume there are supposed to be three articles on each number (below 2006 at least); disambiguation, number and year. But they don't always exist all three and the number version is often used as a disambiguation page. And there isn't always a disambiguation link at the top. Are there rules for this? And, more importantly, can a robot be used for it? Fixing this for all numbers by hand would be a bit too much.

Also, the year-version is not, say '911 (year)' but just '911'. Wouldn't it make more sense to make it '911 (year)'. Or '911 ad' because negative years have something similar, like '100 bc' (911 bc redirects). I suppose the reason lies in years like 1955 because it isn't customary to write 1955 ad. And then there's the religious connotation, but 100 bc has that too. Or what about '-100'? As a notation for the year, but it's also a number. There's no article/stub on that. DirkvdM 08:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move[edit]

911 to 911 (year). Someone coming here might expect to get information about the emergency telephone number rather than the year. StarTrek 21:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose. Wikipedia's rule is that for numbers with at most 4 digits, the year is to have no word suffix. Georgia guy 21:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Georgia guy above. We have a clear standard that numbers with 4 digits or less refer to the year. There's an obvious link to 911 (disambiguation) for visitors wanting to read up on other articles. └ UkPaolo/talk┐ 22:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as above. Disambiguation link is prominent and clear. Pissant 23:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oppose. What about 999 and all the other emergency telephone numbers? Keep it simple --Philip Baird Shearer 23:43, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. 911 is the emergency telephone number in America and Canada and people from those countries might expect to get information about the emergency number when they type it in. StarTrek 23:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Emergency number added to dab header; now it can be found in seconds. Not worth shredding the date system and links. Septentrionalis 02:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

requested move (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 00:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users who type "911" into the search box are more likely to be looking for the emergency number than for the date. It would appear that WP:IAR may be more important than the need to maintain uniformity. I request that 911 redirect to 911 (disambiguation) (or to 9-1-1), and the current page be renamed to 911 (year); likewise, 112 and 999 should be disambiguation pages. I am also opening a discussion here. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that makes complete sense. I support this move all the way ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Before the page is moved, please make sure that the Wikipedia policy about numbers and dates is changed, otherwise, you will break it. /Ludde23 Talk Contrib 17:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and the other eight emergency number proposals (it should be nine, in Australia we use 000). Perhaps we need a disclaimer saying Wikipedia is not a telephone book (even for emergency numbers). Otherwise, this seems likely to become a perennial proposal. Andrewa (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ie read that vote as Oppose all now that the multimove templates are set up. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also point out that, if a person needs an emergency number and knows it, they aren't going to type it into Wikipedia, they'll type it into their 'phone! I guess there's a chance that an overseas traveller might type in their local number which they know, hoping to get to a table of emergency numbers... but they're far more likely to type emergency or help or ambulance or fire IMO. Andrewa (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose all (should have had a common section). Also note that this breaks the year templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the procedure described at Wikipedia:requested moves#Moving several pages at once should have been followed. Perhaps it's not too late, there seem no other discussion sections yet so I'll put the multimove templates at the other talk pages. Andrewa (talk) 00:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It turns out that this procedure had been followed, but the multimove boxes had been removed for some reason... the nominator and I have both politely asked the contributor who did this for an explanation, but none is forthcoming as yet. Andrewa (talk) 07:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...and they have apologised. For my part I also apologise to the proposer for not checking more carefully what was going on (and it would also have saved me some work if I'd just reverted to the notices they'd already set up, oh well). Andrewa (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done... At least I've done Talk:101, Talk:102, Talk:103, Talk:112, Talk:119, Talk:120 and Talk:122 and another anon (possibly still the proposer of course) has subst-ed and modified the template to Talk:999. Andrewa (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that all the articles that are bare numbers should be dab pages, and everything else should be parenthetically disambiguated... so... 911 is a dab, 911 AD/911 CE, 911 (number), 911 (telephone number), etc. 911 (year) would be a page relating various calendrical systems where the years actually reached that number. 70.55.84.228 (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
May I make a suggestion? First let me point something out - the articles in that vicinity could be as follows:
Uh, that's oddly inconsistent, don't you think? Maybe it would be a good idea to keep 911 as the year, which seems to follow the current naming standard. Hatnotes make it very clear right at the top of the page where to go for the other main uses of "911".
Just a thought.
I hope it helps.
The Transhumanist 14:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from nom.): My preferred choice is for 911 to redirect → 911 (disambiguation); having 911 redirect → 9-1-1 is a second-choice. Also I have posted a link from Wikipedia:village pump (proposals) both to Wikipedia talk:naming conventions#numbers and dates and to here. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. That's why we have a dab header, redirecting to 9-1-1. The attacks are another claimant. Making a dab page is a second choice, since it inconveniences those readers who come here through a date link. 20:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Every other plain-numeric title on Wikipedia is about the year. Why should 911 be any different just because it's an American phone number? JIP | Talk 20:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note:
      1. most of the discussion above concerns a proposed multiple move affecting nearly all emergency telephone numbers, not just this one
      2. this appears to be intended to test a proposed change in policy, which could result in many more moves. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: initially, I only wanted to move 911. However, the rejection of this proposal the first time around was based on policy, and so I thought that policy would have to be amended. And as for moving all the other articles, this is solely in the interests of countering geographic bias. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. As often stated, all four-digit or less numbers automatically link to years, and to change a handful of those to emergency phone numbers would cause massive needless confusion. All we have to do is on each article (e.g. 911) (about the year) provide a dab template linking to (e.g. 911 (emergency number)). And that's that. Wilhelm meis (talk) 04:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 24 April 2017[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Moved per consensus that the year is not the primary topic in this instance. I have updated links where possible, but many generated by templates still remain and are now incorrect. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC) It's complicated - see below for further comments — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; the year is clearly not the primary topic for "911" due to the existence of the emergency number and terrorist attacks. This move has previously been rejected for being against policy, but that policy changed and now there are many cases of number pages being disambiguation pages (such as 11, 42, et cetera). So there is no reason not to make 911 a disambiguation page. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 17:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per all previous discussion. Policy having changed seems a bad change. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The relevant policy change was developed in August 2016 at Talk:AD_1/Archive_1#RFC:_Should_articles_.221.22_to_.22100.22_be_about_numbers_instead_of_years.3F. Consensus was reached that the pages between 1 and 10 should have the number as the primary topic, and those between 11 and 100 should be disambiguation pages. This has been extensively debated. For a strong argument against moving this article, I think you should either try to argue that the policy relating to the article 911 should be different from the policy relating to the articles between 11 and 100, or open an RfC to try to overturn the 2016 consensus.
      Without doing either of those things, your Oppose vote doesn't seem very convincing in my opinion. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support primary topic is the emergency number, not the year. 911 should be a disambiguation page. Fish567 (talk) 13:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Primary topic is certainly not the year. PizzaLuvver (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per In ictu oculi. Srnec (talk) 22:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom per common sense. How many readers are actually looking for the year when they enter '911'? The average for this page in the last 20 days is just over 150, and reading the page I just don't see why 150 new people would want to view it on a daily basis. Both the emergency number and the 2001 attacks are likely far and away the primaries for this number. Randy Kryn 14:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as even now several links to 911 are for the emergency service. Will always be so. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Most people typing in 911 are not looking for the year. Voortle (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support year is definitely not primary. Laurdecl talk 07:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reconsideration[edit]

The closer clearly misread the policy change. Consensus was reached that the pages between 1 and 10 should have the number as the primary topic, and those between 11 and 100 should be disambiguation pages, and that 101 through (at least) 999 should remain years, with no exceptions (as noted by at least 3 contributors to the discussion). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the move were within policy, it should be reverted until the template masters are given a reasonable time to fix (or delete) the templates. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have been asked to reconsider my close above in light of relevant policy, the RfC from October 2016, and the desire to maintain consistency in this area. It is possible that the local discussion here should not outweigh a broader consensus established elsewhere. I will be doing further reading today and will make a further statement. I would also welcome comments from anyone else on this issue. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:54, 8 May 2017‎ (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the 2016 RfC related to the articles 1-100 only and so is fairly irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant naming convention is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) which states:

By convention, an article name that is a number in Arabic numerals represents a calendar year in the Common Era, up till several decades in the future. Such articles give an overview, in the form of a list, of the major events that took place (or are planned to take place) in that year. In general the use of number-only page names should only be used for "Year in Review" entries.

This part of the guideline has barely changed since it was created by Francis Schonken twelve years ago. So it is probably not right that a discussion of 9 editors in 2017 should override such a long-standing convention involving thousands of articles.

I note that two similar proposals to move this article were roundly defeated in 2006 and 2008. There is also the technical issue of modifying the templates so that they do not produce incorrect links. In light of all this it is probably better to move this article back and preserve the status quo. If any editors involved in the above discussion strongly disagree then I suppose we could open a move review to get the opinions of others. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat, In ictu oculi, Fish567, PizzaLuvver, Srnec, Randy Kryn, Hyperbolick, Voortle, and Laurdecl: — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest that this is an exception to that decision, as 911, as both the emergency number and the common name of the 2001 attack, stands out in the number set of 101-999 to such a degree that using it instead for the year would be the encyclopedic equivalent of the wrong wine served with a fine dinner. Randy Kryn 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If technical problems can't be overcome, move back I suppose. But better to overcome. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is an awkward situation. I'm not sure whether the 2016 RfC explicitly excluded articles greater than 100 from being moved and explicitly stated that the previous policy was still in force for those articles, or whether it's a grey area where precedent from the RfC could be argued to apply here. Also, there are of course the technical issues. What I would suggest is:
Partial procedural reversal of move– namely, move 911 back to 911 (disambiguation); redirect 911 to AD 911 but do not move this AD 911 article back to 911. This is to fix the technical issues, and is the same setup used at the articles between 27 and 99, where the consensus (making those articles disambiguation pages and moving the year articles to the AD xx format) has currently only partially been implemented while the technical issues are being resolved.
Then, open an RfC with the goal being to clarify/change current policy such that the new policy is: Articles between 101 and 2999 should generally be about the year, but in some cases may be disambiguation pages instead, if local consensus determines that the year is not the primary topic for that particular number.
And finally, if that RfC passes, it may be a good idea to create a Category:Articles between 101 and 2999 which are not year articles (which would contain the sole member 911) to make the technical work easier.
In hindsight, maybe I should have created an RfC rather than an RM in the first place. Sorry about that. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 16:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are sensible suggestions and I have moved 911 back to 911 (disambiguation) and redirected 911 to this article accordingly. If the RfC is to take place, then I suggest somewhere central like Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) (and advertised on a village pump) rather than here. It is possible that this discussion will conclude that articles 101-999 should be for years without exception, in which case I would move this article back to 911. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The 2016 RfC was held at what is now Talk:AD 1, but it was advertised on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) (and maybe the village pump too; I don't know about that). But if you think it would be better to hold this RfC in a different place rather than this talk page, then that's okay too. Regardless, we definitely need an RfC to clear up the situation– we've now had a local consensus in favor of moving, in probable conflict with policy, but the policy isn't clear anyway. The policy given at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)#Articles on years, articles on numbers, article names containing non-date numbers is from before the 2016 RfC and needs updating. I've started drafting a possible replacement version here.
So, shall I start this RfC, or does someone else want to? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 23:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As the RfC was never begun I have moved the article back to the status quo for consistency with other articles. This can be reviewed if consensus changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do not request anymore moves to this article.[edit]

I have enough. We know the year 911 is Not the primary topic to this article, but the policies said that articles 1 - 10 should lead to the number, 11 - 100 should lead to a disambiguation, while 101 - 999 should lead to the year. This is why we have a dab link. However, I believe we should move the notification to the top of the article instead of below the templates, so users will find the correct links easily. 9-1-1 should stay as 9-1-1, done.

We've already got to much discussions about the move, and I feel like we should be reading the policies more.

Please do not argue here. This is just a reminder. I know I'm not a leader or an admin or anything, but I'm here to tell you not to request anymore moves involving disambiguation. Prodigy55 (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018[edit]

Grammar request: in the line currently reading "King Louis IV (the Child), the last ruler of the Carolingian Dynasty, dies at Frankfurt am Main after a 11-year reign." It should read AN 11-year reign, rather than A 11-year reign. Lady Ruby Tuesday (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jiten talk contribs 11:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:911 (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 July 2019[edit]

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

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clearly in favor of the proposed move, and it is reasonably in accordance with various other pages listed at "AD [year]" titles. bd2412 T 03:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

911 (year) → AD 911 – Per the multiple comments at Talk:911#Requested_move_19_June_2019, WP:CONSISTENCY with years AD 1 to AD 100, and that 911 BCE existed, leaving "year" as ambiguous. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 02:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging people from the previous discussion: @Crouch, Swale:, @Interstellarity:, @Tbhotch:, @Tbsock:, @Randy Kryn:, @Netoholic:, @Colin M:, @Certes:, @Hansen Sebastian:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Narky Blert:, @Shhhnotsoloud:, @Bkonrad:, @King of Hearts:, @JHunterJ:, @Steel1943:, @JFG:, @CookieMonster755:.
  • Support. I complained about that to the previous RM closer, but, in spite of a number of bad closes he's done, he doesn't want to reconsider. I was considering requesting a review, as I still don't think the closer considered the arguments for leaving it in place, but this would produce an acceptable result. I've patched the article so (at least some of) the sidebar templates display correctly, but that wouldn't have been necessary if the article had been placed at AD 911 in the first place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At least someone corrected the links to 911 to point to the new article. I suggest that we correct all links to 911 (year) to point to AD 911, regardless of whether this move is made. 911 (year) is wrong, in most contexts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, I disambiguated the links that I could, there are 9 left from the {{Year nav}} (including 1 from 911 (year). Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and my arguments in the previous discussion, I was going to make this specific request myself but its already here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and comments. The move discussed above seems to have been well thought out, discussed, and appropriately closed per primary topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Arthur Rubin: if the article is moved to AD 911 would that fix the problems you're talking about? if so do you think we could ask this to be speedily moved at WP:RMT especially since the proposed title appears to follow the pattern of years that do require disambiguation. On the other hand if the patching up fixes it for now then there's no problem with leaving this RM to expire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Crouch, Swale, My patch fixes those problems I've seen, it may break other functions of {{M1 year in topic}}, but it doesn't do so visibly, so it would only disturb people who read the year article and follow links in the first sidebar. I don't consider myself a template guru, but I don't think there is any other collateral damage. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per COMMONNAME. Contrary to the 1 to 100 years, nobody says "AD 911" in normal speech. So that's a poor comparison above. We just had a move request on this and it was settled on 911 (year) which is a good title. Leave it be.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "911 (year)" is NOT a good title, for reasons presented in the bulk reassignment of 1 through 100. 911 (Julian year) would be an acceptable disambiguation, although we would still have to patch all the templates, including the one(s) mentioned above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In this range, years are not usually described as "AD". The AD is assumed, and it is only BC years that are clarified. -- Netoholic @ 02:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. Marcnut1996 (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – (year) is incomplete disambiguation as it doesn't specifiy the calendar (see calendar era). We generally avoid putting primary topics on incompletely disambiguated titles, e,g, Thriller (album) redirects to Thriller (Michael Jackson album). From a technical standpoint, this will be a bit easier on the template editors who struggle to maintain a substantial set of math-based templates that perform calculations based on the assumption that year articles are primary topics for the bare numbers, amid the increasing calls for more exceptions to the original naming convention. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:39, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not incomplete disambiguation, because nobody would ever write "911" on its own if they meant 911 BC. That's not a contender for the name, so 911 (year) is unambiguous. 5 (year), 2019 (year) etc. already redirect to their AD equivalents so it's established that those are valid names. And harming reader experience by moving to a less recognizable name, just to help template editors, is a poor justification for that IMHO. The current name is clear and obvious, unlike AD 911,which is a construct not actually used in some countries.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:27, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that I don't think that "AD" is used much (I don't know for sure since nobody really talks much about years over 1000 years ago) but my "support" was largely for consistency and the concerns about the templates etc. Now if we can get the templates sorted and we agree that other 3 digit years get "(year)" (like 999, 112, 420 etc) then I'd withdraw my support. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This edit, which restored a more limited hatnote after the longer, pre-move hatnote was removed, belies the idea that "(year)" is totally unambiguous. wbm1058 (talk) 13:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- should every single year then be moved like this? Should we move it to AD 1000? Or should it be CE 1000? -- Rockstonetalk to me! 06:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    No "AD" is only being proposed when its needed for disambiguation per WP:NATURAL. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Although it may be rhetorical, that is a good question. Clearly 2019 should not be moved because the year is the primary topic but there is a case for moving several, and possibly all, three-digit years. Certes (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. AD 911 is unambiguous, concise and consistent with AD 1 to AD 100. Having established that the year is not the primary topic for its most common name (simply "911"), our next choice is natural disambiguation. Certes (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per comment above mine. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 16:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ambiguous disambiguation is no disambiguation at all. Red Slash 18:59, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Solidly reasoned nomination. Current title is wrong, proposed title conforms to our practices. Srnec (talk) 20:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D, WP:NATURAL, Amakuru and Netoholic. The notion that the year 911 is ambiguous with 911 BCE (a topic so obscure it's a redirect to 910s BC, a dwarf article with just a few words about 911 BCE) is technically correct but practically silly. 911 does need to be disambiguated from other topics much more likely to be sought by anyone searching with "911", and the current disambiguator, (year), does that splendidly. We do prefer natural disambiguation when it's available; but here's the thing about that: it needs to be natural, and "AD 911" is not natural. The ngrams show that "year 911" and especially "in 911" are far more commonly used than "AD 911" or "911 AD" in books. And here is a link showing a typical reference to the year: "Thus from this takeover of the kingdom of Lotharingia in 911, the scribes of Charles the Simple's writing office styled him 'king of the Franks', perhaps to claim that he, and not the king of the Germans, was the true successor of Charlemagne.. In this case, year in parentheses is the more appropriate disambiguation. Executing the proposed move would incorrectly imply that AD 911 is the common way to refer to this year; it is not. Let us not be misleading to our readers. --В²C ☎ 17:34, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't think the current title is a huge problem, but why not be consistent with, say, AD 41 and AD 67? —  AjaxSmack  00:54, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 17 February 2021[edit]

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) — Paper9oll (📣 • 📝) 16:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]


AD 911 → 911 AD – From a google search and google trends, it seems like generally the spellings of the AD before the year and after the year are about equally common- 43,800 results for "AD 911" versus 41,800 results for "911 AD" - and thus when places taking their guidance from wikipedia are excluded, having the AD second is likely more popular. In addition, having the "AD" second and the year first is a more natural spelling given people are likely to think of a year as simply being the number, with AD being used just to distinguish it from other things. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can I suggest a wider discussion like those at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB maybe at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates) since this change would affect many if we move others to be contestant with 911. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Traditionally, the grammatically correct way is with the "AD" placed before the number. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving. To me it is quite natural that the year goes after the AD. Other Wikipedia articles about "Anno Domini" years also seem to have standardised on putting AD before the year number. The AD is an abbreviation for Anno Domini, which is Latin for "in the year of the Lord" or "in the year of our Lord", depending on which document you are reading. I think comparing the results of Google searches for the comparative usage of a couple of particular strings as an argument biased with recentism thinking. It ignores the much longer history of the phrase of Anno Domini or "in the year of our/the Lord <year>" used on many pre-electronic documents. Arguing that putting the year first is more natural only holds water if one thinks of the AD as a unit of measure rather than an abbreviation for a descriptive phrase. Then the grammar rule makes sense. I could apply a similar argument for placing the currency symbol after a sum of money, but the convention is that a currency symbol goes before the value, even though one says the currency unit after the sum of money. These are the traditional conventions of English that people should follow, although I would agree that some people don't. We currently have a convention that AD goes before the year in all Anno Domini (AD) year articles, so rather than moving one year article in isolation, I would like to see the convention changed if there is a significant consensus, say 80% or more, that AD should always go after the year in all cases, not just in this exceptional case. The traditional rules of grammar and English usage do change over time, so I am looking for a solid evidence that the underlying English usage conventions have changed on placement of AD from before to after the year. The argument for moving this page alone, doesn't really cut it, especially when much of the same ground was covered when the page was moved here less than 2 years ago. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 11:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The traditional order is to suffix with BC, but prefix with AD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose moving 911 in isolation, for consistency. Moving all the years called AD n would require discussion in a more appropriate forum, and I'd be inclined to oppose for the reasons set out above. AD n is more grammatical, we decided on it after recent thorough discussion, and I see no new evidence for changing. Certes (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Certes, I'm not really that much of a historian but I agree with Necrothesp that usually BC are suffixed while AD are prefixed, I'm not sure WP:NATURAL is satisfied but there seems to be consensus for this. Maybe the OP's results are perhaps because when the AD if used as an independent modifier rather than part of the name its more common to put it after that when its used as natural disambiguation? Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:AD_911&oldid=1197142820"