Talk:101

Comments

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Who_Is_America%3F#Episodes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:B40:2258:9C3E:564A:9F0:56F (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 September 2019

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

The result of the move request was: Moved — Amakuru (talk) 09:55, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

101 (disambiguation) → 101
101 → AD 101

– No primary topic for "101" per views [[1]]. The year article gets 459 views but the number (the original meaning and arguably more primary by PT#2) gets 3,261, the topic gets 3,748 and the album gets 3,034. Of just the sample of topics the year gets less that 1 in 25 of the views and there are other uses on the DAB plus some of the views for the year were probably for the other uses since 102 only gets 212 views meaning the year probably gets less than 1 in 50 of the views, clearly not primary. A Google search (from England) returns only the Police phone number on the 1st page of results. A Google Images search returns mixed results but none appear to be for the year. A Google Books search also doesn't appear to show anything for the year. A site:wikipedia.org 101 search returns the police number then the topic, then the number and then the year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support Clearly far from primary with respect to usage, and has no better claim to long-term significance than the number. Colin M (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
strongly Support per nom. There is no primary topic for "101". Move disambiguation page to basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of previous similar discussions: @Ceyockey, JFG, Steel1943, No Great Shaker, Certes, Red Slash, Arthur Rubin, Amakuru, Carn, Gonnym, Netoholic, Hansen Sebastian, Narky Blert, Shhhnotsoloud, Bkonrad, King of Hearts, JHunterJ, CookieMonster755, Dicklyon, Power~enwiki, Randy Kryn, and Rreagan007:. Crouch, Swale and Colin M have already weighed in. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I can't see a primary topic here, and if there is one then it's not the year. To be honest I'd probably support a similar proposal for most three-digit numbers, even where most editors wouldn't, but 101's several specific meanings give it a stronger case for a dab than most. The move would no longer cause template issues – 100s (decade) etc. now update automatically – but we should check that no category naming will break. Certes (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per my previous argument that no three-digit number should have a primarytopic claim; or 101 CE or Year 101 or anything less ambiguous. And fix Category:101 similarly. It would also be good to have a category such Category:Three-digit years or perhaps Category:CE years or Category:AD years so we could look and see how they are named. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dicklyon (talk • contribs) 21:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, two large year categories: titled something like "Category:BC years"/"Category:BCE years" and the other "Category:AD years"/"Category:CE years", would be so beneficial. If there was a concern about "those categories would be too large and they can just go into subcategories", then things like Category:Living people (with every living person with a Wikipedia article) would be a good example of how it would help even if subcategories exist. Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. What happened in AD 101? 4 events, 1 birth and 4 deaths, for several of which the precise year is uncertain (a pleasantly peaceful year, compared with many others). The year is not WP:PTOPIC, unless there are no other non-trivial meanings – but there are.

Compare 911, which has at least two topics of major importance besides the year. The discussion at Talk:911#Requested move 19 June 2019 concluded that there was no PTOPIC. IMO that is likely to be the case whenever a three-digit number relates both to a year and to another topic with serious coverage. This is one such.

What serves our readers best? Firstly, getting them efficiently to the right article. Seocndly (and a very poor second), getting them there in the minimum number of clicks. Narky Blert (talk) 22:30, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above and my aunt, Cruella de Vil. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Makes total sense, and thanks Certes for having addressed the technical issues, now allowing the fate of any 3-digit title to be decided independently. — JFG ^talk 09:08, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all numbers below 1000 should not be years -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 09:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Independently of the move, I have purged this dab page of many partial matches. — JFG ^talk 09:18, 27 September 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.