Talk:AD 1

message: The title of the infobox we're concerned about, "AD 1 in other calendars", is generated by , which in turn calls . 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)
replies: text: – 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)
thread_title: Template used on this page requires revision

message: 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.
* Zero
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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  OK, we've reduced the # of links by about 50, and it looks pretty clean now. wbm1058 (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

text: Halfway from New York City to Chicago would be around the Ohio-Pennsylvania border. Georgia guy (talk) 20:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  0 (zero) 

message: 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  Agree? — JFG talk 21:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  As long as there is a :Category:AD 1, AD 1 should be a member of that category. Heck, it's the  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)
thread_title:  Proposal: keep only decades categories for the AD 1…AD 100 period 

message: 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  links the dab automatically, and the dab in turn links to 101 (number) etc.   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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks for your hard work! I just hope we get an RfC closer soon… — JFG talk 10:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links from years to numbers 

message: 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  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  for decades 0s…90s
* Didn't update  yet, that one is rather complex and can wait until we're further along
::Now , improved the markup and simplified the transclusion logic along the way. — JFG talk 17:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Applied same logic to . — JFG talk 17:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  AD 11 to AD 19 moved 

message: * Move or edit number-related hatnotes on 20, 24, 40. Certes (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor details

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Great idea, and I found a way to program that. Take a look. — JFG talk 21:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Now moved the code to generic template  which uses in turn  and . Applied to 0s and 40s for a start. — JFG talk 00:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Transclusion of births and deaths by year on decades pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 100 has become a redlink, so it looks as if they're on the move now. Certes (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

text: It looks as if 11-22 and 100 have moved.  The rest of the moves will need an admin.  may be able to help further. Certes (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I agree. These pages should definitely be moved. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no consensus for this. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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. ? 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: OK, we can do that. Bobby Jacobs (talk) 12:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 29 should be about a number. Why were the pages from 11 to 100 not moved? Timo3 20:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thank you, .  I'm happy to help with the final clean-up after the weekend.  Does anyone have further comments on '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)

text: Great job, thanks! Sorry I can't help much these days. — JFG talk 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

text: I think you can remove the  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)

text: Even the years AD 1–9 too. wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

text: , thanks for the advice. Certes (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I've worked on eleven through fourteen. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  11 to 100 

message: 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:
* Properties of a number go to the number page, e.g.  in 29 (number)#Properties
* Uses of a number go to the number page, e.g.  in 29 (number)#Uses
* Names of things matching a number go to the dab page, e.g.  should be in 29, not in 29 (number)
Under that scheme, a typical number article such as 29 (number) would have sections "Properties" (just the math stuff), "Uses" (perhaps subdivided into Science, Geography, Culture, etc.) and "Things named 29" pointing to the relevant dab pages (e.g. 29, A29, B29, C29, D29, K29, M29 et al. + ).
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  approach: start moving things cautiously and consider an RfC if we encounter significant opposition. — JFG talk 22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 29 should be about a number. Why were the pages from 11 to 100 not moved? Timo3 20:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thank you, .  I'm happy to help with the final clean-up after the weekend.  Does anyone have further comments on '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)

text: Great job, thanks! Sorry I can't help much these days. — JFG talk 21:13, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed classification rules 

message: Is  still appropriate for the header of AD 11, etc.?  If so, do we want the change I've prepared in  to remove the (disambiguation) qualifier?  See  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)
replies: text: I think you can remove the  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)

text: Even the years AD 1–9 too. wbm1058 (talk) 21:57, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

text: , thanks for the advice. Certes (talk) 23:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:Year dab

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. I've worked on eleven through fourteen. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects: Eleven, etc.

message: 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)
replies: text: Good catch.  It was a  which I've now undone. Certes (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the 2nd year of the 0s decade" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AD 1 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: What is your source? --Blurryman (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: See WP:NOR. --Blurryman (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluto was closer to the sun than Neptune in 1 AD