Talk:AD 911

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Year / Number / Disambiguation 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: If technical problems can't be overcome, move back I suppose. But better to overcome. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 24 April 2017 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: If technical problems can't be overcome, move back I suppose. But better to overcome. Hyperbolick (talk) 15:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reconsideration

message: 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)
thread_title:  Do not request anymore moves to this article. 

message: 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)
replies: text: Done Jiten talk contribs 11:35, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: :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)
replies: text: AD 911 →  – 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)
thread_title:  Requested move 17 February 2021