Jump to content

Talk:999

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:999 (TV series))

0.999...

[edit]

Wow, I used to think mathematics was uncontroversial. Dig Talk:Infinitesimal. Andrewa (talk) 18:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 28 July 2019

[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: Moved Clear consensus that the number 999 has no primary topic and that the year should be moved for consistency. Editors from WP:YEARS should double check that these moves do not break templates per Certes comment. (closed by non-admin page mover) Wug·a·po·des​ 21:17, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]


– There is primary topic for "999". After a consensus to move a no-primary topic 911 (disambiguation) to the basename of 911 (at Talk:911#Requested move 19 June 2019), and then another move consensus to move the year to AD 911 (at Talk:AD 911#Requested move 8 July 2019), this similar move should be considered as well.

For those who don't know (e.g. to folks whose countries' emergency phone number is "911" like in the U.S. or something else): in many parts of the world (including many English-speaking places, as this is the English Wikipedia) the emergency telephone number is "999". Places where this is the emergency number include the United Kingdom, Ireland, Singapore, Hong Kong and Macau, Malaysia, Trinidad and Tobago, Poland, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Botswana, Ghana, Eswatini (Swaziland), Kenya, Mauritius, Seychelles, and Zimbabwe.

There is no clear primary topic over 999 (number) (the source of the name of the year), and especially the emergency telephone number 999 (emergency telephone number). In the last 30 days, the Year article has 1,260 views, but the Emergency Telephone Number article dwarfs it completely with THAT TIMES 10 (specifically 12,803 views in the last 30 days alone). Other articles that make the year EVEN LESS of a primary topic are 0.999... (with 9,166 views), 999 (band) (with 3,373), 999 (number) (with 1,045), and partial title matches like Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors (with 11,207) and Galaxy Express 999 (with 7,724) and Ducati 999 (with 4,233) and 999: What's Your Emergency? (with 1,782), etc... [(Here's a chart of pageviews over the last 30 days)]

(Additionally, as illustrated similarly in the 911 move, ...a Google search of "999" brings up almost nothing about the year - in order: stuff related to the number, then the page 999 (emergency telephone number), then 999 (number). Not at all about the year. (And it's similar when searching Google Images or Google Books as well.) A site:wikipedia.org 999 returns (1.) the band, then (2.) the emergency telephone number, (3.) the DISAMBIGUATION page, (4.) Nine Hours, Nine Persons, Nine Doors, (5.) the number itself, and finally (at #6.!!!) the year.)

In conclusion, it's evident that the year IS CLEARLY not the primary by PT#1, and the emergency telephone number has a better claim for PT#2 (but the disambiguation page should be at the basename).

In the 911 move, User:Born2cycle stated there was a "Consensus to move as proposed. While there are some reasonable opposition arguments, they are clearly in the minority, and there is a strong consensus that there is no primary topic for 911. In particular, consensus is that consistency is outweighed by [lack of] primary topic for this particular number which is perhaps unique in having multiple so widely known and very commonly used topics associated with it." I'd take it that this is a similar situation.

(Also, in voting, it doesn't matter if whether it should be at "999 (year)" or "AD 999"/"999 AD" or "999 CE", which could be settled en masse later for the year pages in general. But, there should be consistency with other pages like AD 7, AD 62, and more recently AD 911. So, the request is to move to "AD 999".) Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Meh. There may be an attempt to move the page to 999 (year); if that is done, I am strongly opposed. If the move is done, the target should be selected, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years should be informed before the move is made, so that navigation templates can be fixed. I'll inform the project now that this is being considered, if it hasn't been done already. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like many three-digit numbers, the year is blatantly not a primary topic. However, several year templates are still broken following the 911 move and we should be cautious about breaking them further. If we do move the page then it should be to AD 999 fof consistency with AD 1 to AD 100. Certes (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and agree with Certes. There should be no primary topic for most numbers. Dicklyon (talk) 02:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal here is to have no PT for "999". Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dicklyon: If limited to answering the binary question then I lean towards support, but I suggest a wider discussion on whether years in general are automatically and by default the primary topic for three-digit numeric titles. Certes (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that. But I oppose because swapping one bad PT for another just makes it harder to get to the right place. Dicklyon (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support the evidence here clearly shows that the year is far from the primary topic for "999". Where the year article is moved to is less of an issue and as noted can take place in a future multi-move anyway. I would also note that 998 had 525 views and 997 had 379 views so many readers are likely landing on the year article incorrectly. As someone in England I'd say "999" nearly always refers to the phone number (and not the year) and although I might be biased being in England, I'd say the same about 911, that it rarely refers to the year. @Paintspot: thanks for making this RM, I to was going to make it once the destination of 911 was resolved but you beat me to it! When you said "and the emergency telephone number has a better claim" I think you meant to say "and the (numeric) number has a better claim" (just to avoid confusing people). Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Crouch, Swale and common name. Similar to the 911 RM, this is one of the few three-digit numerals which has a primary common meaning outside of the number and year. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, who has thoroughly demonstrated that the year is not the primary topic. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The year is clearly not the primary topic in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Page view stats show that the year is far from primary in terms of usage. Also, Crouch, Swale's observation suggests that the majority of readers landing at the year article via search are intending to read about something else. Colin M (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also point out editor stats for some of the options, the telephone number has 76 watches while the others are unknown, the telephone article's size is 33,716 compared with 17,540 for the band but only 4,350 for the year. Similarly the phone number has 4 editors while the year only has 1. While the year article is short meaning its not difficult to load and has clear hatnotes its clear that its not what our editors want either. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support dab page at the 999 title, and moving year to AD 999. — JFG talk 22:30, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose first, strong support second - an easy choice for this American. 999 (emergency number) is easily the primary topic for both views and long-term significance Red Slash 02:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I'd go that far, while I'd say that 99.9% of the time it does (in the UK) mean the phone number, considering the hits of some of the other uses and the long-term significance of the numeric number, combined with incoming external links to the year and the fact that most other years are at the base name. However indeed if there was a PT is would likely be the phone number. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:27, 30 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC of interest

[edit]

Editors are invited to comment on the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers Wug·a·po·des​ 22:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

999 - Juice WRLD entry

[edit]

Why exactly is there opposition to including Juice WRLD in this article? (Juice WRLD 999 EP, 999 club, etc.) The information is not incorrect and not irrelevant; relevance is defined as "the quality or state of being closely connected or appropriate". Juice WRLD commonly used 999 in his music; thus, it is closely connected and appropriate. As a result, it is relevant.

The Juice WRLD article does not support the WP:DABMENTION. I restored the album with more appropriately formatting per WP:MOSDAB. older ≠ wiser 19:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cain 999

[edit]

There's no link to the Cain 999 plan. Which I was looking for a fact based description of.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.98.74.175 (talk) 12:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

now added.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:999&oldid=1197115740"