Talk:2 (disambiguation)

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages

Dear Colleagues,

There is an ongoing discussion on the organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages.

Your comments would be much appreciated!! Please see and participate in:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers#Organization of number pages

Thank you for your participation!

Cheers,

PolarYukon (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 5 February 2017

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: all moved, except One (disambiguation) which there was no consensus for and will require a separate discussion. For the rest, there is a clear consensus that the numbers 2–9 are considered the primary topics. Obviously any number 10 or greater will need a new RM discuss their primary topic-ness. Jenks24 (talk) 09:56, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2 → 2 (disambiguation)
2 (number) → 2
3 → 3 (disambiguation)
3 (number) → 3
One (disambiguation) → 1 (disambiguation)
4 → 4 (disambiguation)
4 (number) → 4
5 → 5 (disambiguation)
5 (number) → 5
6 → 6 (disambiguation)
6 (number) → 6
7 → 7 (disambiguation)
7 (number) → 7
8 → 8 (disambiguation)
8 (number) → 8
9 → 9 (disambiguation)
9 (number) → 9

– Clear primary topic by far. 0 and 1 are already about the number. The base numbers of most of the world's number system are what readers are looking for when they search "2". (please move in listing order) Laurdecl ^talk 03:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Lacking evidence of "what readers are looking for", the disambig page still seems like the best idea. Dicklyon (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~oppose and speedy close~~ Support (see below), per the very recent much broader RfCs on this, (see Talk:AD 1/Archive 1).--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 09:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support the time for those other RFCs is over and they have been implemented. This is now the next stage. I have checked that there are no dab links to 2 that should not be there. IT is time for "2" to be about the number, a clear primary topic. I have also checked (and fixed a couple) of incoming links too all from 2 to 9, and they are now all sorted out. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. I vaguely recalled the recent page moves, checked the history of this page for the move which linked to Talk:AD 1, and looking at that thought the move was the outcome of that, and so further moves wer inappropriate without similar discussion. But the move is not the final thing required for the RfC. So changing to support – but given that RFC do other articles also need moving in the same way?--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note the recent related discussion at Talk:AD 1 § Number articles or dab pages? – wbm1058 (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this has all been decided some place, why the RM discussion instead of technicals? And if an RM discussion is needed, why was this information not explained and linked in the rationale. I'll let my oppose stand as a protest against lame RM rationales. Dicklyon (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, when I proposed this I was unaware of the RfC and IMO it doesn't make a difference. It's not harming anyone by making a more specific RM. Laurdecl ^talk 05:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not harming anyone, but you're harming your case if you don't make a clear presentation of what has been decided already. I'm still unclear on this. And if it's all decided, we probably should procedurally close this and move on. Dicklyon (talk) 06:17, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dicklyon's oppose. Please close these discussions as not consensus. Years or disambiguation pages maybe still placed on the primary topic. I'm waiting for other users who don't like with these discussions like me. Thanks. Wisnu Aji (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the primary topic for the term "2" is clearly the integer or glyph 2, covered in the article currently called 2 (number). Similar for 3 to 9. Certes (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support, but not yet ready for this. The case for pulling AD 2 off primary topic was much stronger than the case for putting 2 (number) on primary topic. WP:Primary topic usage criteria: "if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term". Per daily page views BBC Two 467 + 2 (New York City Subway service) 310 + 2 (Mac DeMarco album) 208 = 985 > 2 (number) 935. However, there's certainly a "long-term significance" argument for the number, which does significantly lead the pageview counts, as the letters A through Z are primary, the glyphs for the digits 0 though 9 could be primary as well. I'm concerned with the push for this though, and want to draw the line here. I'll oppose any requests to move numbers 10 and beyond to primary status. However, Category:2 is still a soft-redirect to Category:AD 2, Template:Year by category, Category:0s and Category:1st century are still pointing to 2 rather than AD 2. Work on this seems to be stalled. wbm1058 (talk) 01:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The statistic that matters is what readers clicked on after reading 2 and realising it was not the topic they sought but contained a link to it. I don't think we have that referrer information available. BBC Two certainly has a significant number of hits, but how many are from readers who typed in 2, two, etc., and how many are from readers who searched using the term "BBC" and thus won't be affected by this change? That's a genuine question; if it's likely that many of those readers came via the dab then I'll withdraw my support. Certes (talk) 13:49, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(comment) I've removed One (disambiguation) from the request as the rationale doesn't apply and it isn't being discussed here, and fixed what I think was an error in the "6" requests. Peter James (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I've unstruck the "One" move though as I intended to have it moved for consistency. If all the other disambigs are in the form of "1, 2" there is no reason for one to use the word. Laurdecl ^talk 05:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost worth splitting One (disambiguation). It's very long, and there are plenty of entries such as Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen and L'One (French river) which do not owe their names to the fact that the word "one" can mean "1". Certes (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

wbm1058, if you want to rename the categories then by all means do so, but it seems like an exercise in wasting time to me. I would also oppose numbers beyond 10 being the primary topic (although I could supporting moving 10 (number) as the primary). Laurdecl ^talk 06:51, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think categories should match whatever we decide to do with the corresponding articles. If we move article 2 (number) to 2 then we should do the same with its category. If the status quo prevails, we'll need to think further about category:2 - should it become a disambiguation between category:AD 2 and category:2 (number)? Category moving is (quite rightly) stalled awaiting the outcome of this discussion. Certes (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although it dilutes my support given above, it is useful that 2 etc. are not legitimate link targets. Several of us have cleaned up the existing links to numbers 1-100. It is currently easy to spot new, carelessly added links and revise them to their correct targets or undo overlinking. (Typical example: I just unlinked a footballer who scored 0 goals.) Certes (talk) 12:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for all numbers from 2 to 100. Timo 3 14:52, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Numbers are not the primary topic, but years. Because, every AD 2 to AD 100 tells stories and some great peoples were born on that time. Sometimes if I could change my mind, disambiguation pages are also the primary topic without going to 2 (disambiguation). Wisnu Aji (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has evidence that AD 2 is the primary topic for "2", please cite, as it would make an important contribution to this debate. (Genuine invitation, not sarcasm.) Certes (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Certes, thanks for remind me that AD 2 is the primary topic for "2". Wisnu Aji (talk) 08:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is rather bizarre in hindsight that we ever allowed consistency to override the obvious fact that when people say or write "2" in English (rather than something like "2 AD") they almost always mean the number. We have made ourselves and our naming conventions notably eccentric, if (hopefully) not an absolute laughingstock. Let's fix it. Andrewa (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for 2 to 9, because they are both numbers, numerals and glyphs, whereas the dab pages contain mostly lists of artifacts called by a number (umpteen songs, books and subway lines come to mind). Not convinced for 10 to 100 yet: there is obviously no primary topic for "24" given the many uses of this particular number, and numbers like "52" are not particularly notable. Let's settle 2…9 like we settled 1, then discuss the rest. Technical work has been conducted already (see Talk:AD 1), so we shouldn't see any big issues with those moves. — JFG ^talk 01:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. This RM is for 2-9, and those are clear enough. Similarly I think 1001-9999 should probably stay as dates, certainly 1066 and 2525 should and many others between, 1945, 2001, 2011 for example. 256 and 512 are interesting, as is 666, and some in the range 10 to 100 may be problematic, for example 12, 20 and 60. Fix these first. Andrewa (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed in the Talk:AD 1 RfC that there would be two ranges of numeric article titles: 1…100 about numbers and 101+ about dates with no exceptions within a range. The cutoff point may move in the future but for now 100 seems reasonable and obtained sufficient consensus. Since then, dates 1…100 have been moved to AD 1…AD 100, along with plenty of tweaks in date and number templates, and overall cleanup of this area of the encyclopedia. The next question is whether articles titled 1…100 should be about the numbers per se or remain disambig pages about various uses of each number. This is an open question; we may end up with a style of article for 1…10 and another one for 11…100, and I believe each range should remain consistent (no picking "interesting" numbers). Lots of work has been done on the 1…9 range already, so this particular move is the logical next step. I would add 10 but that can easily be adjudicated in a followup RM. — JFG ^talk 09:01, 14 February 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.

Correction of Two (metal band) name

My link buggered in the edit comment, but this Rob Halford band is frequently incorrectly referred to as "2wo" due to the stylization used in promotional materials (similar to how Pink often stylizes as "P!nk"). For confirmation of the correct band name, refer to the United States Copyright Office information in this copyright record and others. 2601:3CA:204:F860:4DEB:52C8:7CB0:F598 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]