If the DAB page moves to or is at the basename, bad links will get fixed relatively quickly, whether by WP:FIXDABLINKS, by DABhunting Wikignomes, or by watchers responding to User:DPL bot slaps. That isn't a problem.

If, as a result of this exercise, a year stays at the basename, there will be a good opportunity to check for incoming links which are wrong or which are against MOS:DATELINK. An editor who checks the links into an xxx page could report the fact on the main subpage, and there will be no duplication of effort.

(DATELINK errors should be much less common than they are with 4-digit years. I see a fair number of those, mainly in translations; some non-English WPs just love a WP:SEAOFBLUE.) Narky Blert (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For cases where the dab page exists, DisamAssist has a "disambiguate links to primary topic" option which makes this relatively easy. For example, when run on 147 (disambiguation), it will present links to the year article 147 for scrutiny. Certes (talk) 17:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yes thankfully due to DATELINK we won't have to fix thousands of links to the years that we would otherwise have had to do. Its generally only around a dozen (including fixing redirects). As others have already noted many years are of little relevance to most articles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From just over 4 hours ago: {{Infobox person}} |birth_date= 28 April 1988. Gimme strength!. Narky Blert (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at WikiProject Years about the minor issue of links to dabs appearing in category descriptions. I don't think it need hold us back. Certes (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 1 is at User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB#Batch 1 (101-125), they will be listed at WP:RMT to be moved if there's no objections within a week. If you object to any please write "oppose" if you don't think the move should be made at all or "discuss" if you're not sure but think it should be discussed, if you're fine with them all then you can write "support all" here (not on the user page) and give a reason as normal. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pinging the 3-digit RM posse@Amakuru, Arthur Rubin, Bkonrad, Carn, Certes, Ceyockey, Colin M, CookieMonster755, Dicklyon, Feminist, GeoffreyT2000, Gonnym, Hansen Sebastian, JFG, JHunterJ, King of Hearts, KingSkyLord, Narky Blert, Netoholic, No Great Shaker, Paintspot, Power~enwiki, Randy Kryn, Red Slash, Rreagan007, Shhhnotsoloud, and Steel1943: Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all: in no case is the year a primary topic. Thanks for all the good work. Certes (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• In every case I've looked at: if the year is not WP:PTOPIC (because of PTOPIC#1), then nothing else is either (because of PTOPIC#2). Unlike 4-digit years, I very much doubt that any 3-digit year is PTOPIC. Missing DAB pages should be created. If there is any topic other than the year which has an argument for 'significant' notability (e.g. 666 and 911), the base name should be a DAB page. This amounts to support all as default; wake me up if any xxx falls outside my rules. Narky Blert (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all. No primary topics, per page views. Colin M (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• ...Support all per nom. No clear primary topic for any of these instances. Maybe it could be argued that there's no primary topic for any numbers 101-200? Paintspot Infez (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all – I don't see an exceptional year in there, that would have higher significance than all other topics under the proposed dab pages. — JFG ^talk 16:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: I'm jumping ahead here, so feel free to move this question, but does 745 have a primary topic? Certes (talk) 22:13, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that there could well be other topics that might make the years even less of a primary topic in this list since the stats were only from those titled "Foo (qualifier)", "Foo BC" and anything else on the DAB (for the few that do have DABs). Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes and Crouch, Swale: IMO: no PTOPIC for 745. It exemplifies my basic position. On 30-day views, 745 (the year), 207; British Rail Class 745 (which could easily be called "a 745"), 3,731. There's neither DAB page nor hatnote. There's List of highways numbered 745, and a whole pile of WP:PTMs. A reader looking for something other than the year is, currently, lumbered. Narky Blert (talk) 22:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's just the tip of the iceberg, we obviously don't know how many readers will search with just "number" when looking for something called Foo number or number Foo but as noted in case (as above) where the number (qualifier) articles get more views than number we can safely say the year isn't primary for number and if we were to take into account all the other things than number could mean it would be even less of a primary topic. In the case of 117 for example where I noted the number gets more than double the year (despite being at the base name and as you noted lacking hatnotes) and there are 7 entries but indeed there are articles like Japan National Route 117 that could be added to. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This process is too painful for nearly a thousand articles. I suggest a centralized RFC on the proposition that all 3-digit titles go to disambiguation pages. That would make for a simple convention. The idea that any topic is primary for a 3-digit title is absurd, in my opinion, even if some such besides years might exist already (do they?). Dicklyon (talk) 02:16, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The year is a credible primary topic for 725 and the plane for 737. My POV is that both should have a dab at the base name, but other opinions are reasonable. There are plenty of similar examples but you're right that they are in a minority: most three-digit numbers are clearly ambiguous. Certes (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This process is only for 101-200 and any others people identify (at least at the moment) rather than all up to 1000. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be developing a "year zone", where the AD year is the PT for the number. Currently it extends from 102 to about 2999 with a few gaps such as 747 and 2112. We're seeing agreement that the lower limit should be raised, perhaps as far as 1000. The upper limit is less clear but 2112 just became a dab. Years up to 2089 have articles at the base name; 2090–2099 are primary redirects to 2090s; 2100–2999 are mostly redirects to a century; 3000–9999 are mostly redlinks. Of course, the zone need not be contiguous: it may be correct that 2113 still redirects to an article which mentions the year. Certes (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes 2112 will probably be primary in a few decades (or at least have an article). But probably not primary currently. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I much prefer the natural qualifier "xxx AD" to the parenthetical "xxx (year)"; not only for the reasons set out on the subpage, but also because (year) is arguably ambiguous.

BC/BCE and the Roman calendar (AUC) aren't problems; anyone who knows those will also know AD and be on the lookout. Nor are calendars, such as the Jewish and Thai, where the current year is in the high thousands and historical records of 3-digit years are implausible. The problem in the Islamic calendar, AH. AD and AH are only 622 apart; and that's well within the range of confuddlement. Yes I know that in English WP AH should always be accompanied by the AD equivalent, but it doesn't always happen.

There is an argument (which I'm not going to push at all hard) that all DAB pages such as 42 should include something like "42 AH, equivalent to 664 AD". (The difference between solar and lunar calendars messes up equivalence even more than the difference between Julian and Gregorian. There were justified protests and riots when UK changed from one to the other, and the discrepancy between the two has been said to have caused problems in coordinating Allied armies during the Napoleonic Wars.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

After several debates, I think we've settled on the AD 100 format for titles. All AD years that aren't plain numbers currently follow that pattern. There's certainly a case for listing the AH year in the dab, and possibly the Minguo year (Republic of China calendar) for years up to about 107. Certes (talk) 22:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an argument for including some regnal years. at least for Japan. Japanese patent application/publication numbers (of which there were at least three types) had the form [regnal year]-[serial number] until the 1990s. Narky Blert (talk)

Thanks for all the good work. Please let me know if I can help.

Should we be renaming dabs to the unpunctuated canonical form, e.g 12/5 → 125 and promoting the number and years to the top? Certes (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: yes I suppose per WP:DABNAME they should be moved to the simpler title ("The simplest form of the term is preferred to those containing punctuation") but the likes of 118 were split on the grounds that people who search for the version with the slash are probably only searching for one of 2 or 3 things. I would support such moves similar to the consensus of merging the 911 DABs.

With respect to the hatnotes is it possible to modify {{year dab}} so that it works when a year has the AD prefix (such as AD 112) and the title with "(year)" redirects to it but a BC year also exists. In other words if you added {{Year dab}} (or {{Year dab}} to AD 112 it would produce ""112 (year)" redirects here. For the year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar, see 112 BC." rather than needing the {{redirect}} template. The other improvement would be that {{Year dab}} links to the BC year even when the AD year is at the short name namely adding {{Year dab}} to 126 would produce "This article is about the year 126. For the number, see 126 (number). For the year of the pre-Julian Roman calendar, see 126 BC.". Maybe we should modify the text "This article is about..." to specify its for the AD year. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It may be best to ask about that one at Template talk:Year dab. Other editors seem keen to avoid having that template duplicate the functionality of others. Detecting whether n (year) exists and redirects to AD n should be possible but would add complexity which some editors may not like. Certes (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 2 is at User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB#Batch 2 (126-150), as before they will be listed at WP:RMT to be moved if there's no objections within a week. If you object to any please write "oppose" if you don't think the move should be made at all or "discuss" if you're not sure but think it should be discussed, if you're fine with them all then you can write "support all" here (not on the user page) and give a reason as normal.

Pinging the 3-digit RM posse @Certes, Narky Blert, Colin M, Paintspot, and JFG:. Note that I'm only pinging people who have participated recently since many haven't and I don't want to ping those who have lost interest, please ping anyone that I have missed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all. In no case is the year the primary topic. As in previous cases, there is a weak argument for making the number the PT which we've already discussed and rejected. The dab belongs at the base name. Certes (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ...Support all per nom. No clear primary topic for any of these instances. Maybe it could be argued that there's no primary topic for any numbers 101-200? (Also, in "Batch 1", four of them – 102, 106, 115, and 120 — never ended up being / still need to be disambiguated.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The issue with those four seems to be that they are all redirects with no corresponding DAB pages. Each AD page has a clumsy hatnote to related topics. They could be cleared up simply by turning the redirects into DAB pages; no moves required. Narky Blert (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The discussion above about nn/n is also relevant here. 10/6 might be one of the £sd amounts actually worth listing, though I'd change the target to half guinea. Note also the modern minstrels known as 11/5 and the hendecagram with Schläfli symbol {11/5}. Certes (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: I definitely agree with retargetting 10/6 to its proper destination. The current one is meaningless to anyone who doesn't know what 10/6 was worth. (In the early 60s, I had a Christmas present from my father's brother, a Scottish lawyer, for £2/12/6. It took some time for us all to work out what that was about.) Narky Blert (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Narky Blert: I've changed the target... but then had second thoughts as to whether 10/6 has a PT at all. For a UK resident old enough to spend money before 1971 it's a half guinea, but to an American the nearest thing to a PT will be October 6 and others may expect to read about 10 June. Retarget to dab? Certes (talk) 11:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: You're right, 10/6 is ambiguous. Retarget to DAB. Narky Blert (talk) 11:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10/6 done. Certes (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all. No PTOPIC for any of them. Narky Blert (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all – Lack of primary topic; ancient years certainly aren't primary, as they were not even known by that name at the time. Count me in support for a dab at all numbers until 200. — JFG ^talk 14:23, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You might want to also ping @KingSkyLord:, who offered suggestions on the Year DAB page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that 126-138 have been moved. I've fixed a lot of the incoming links (all for the AD year). It took about 35 minutes - piece of cake. After DPWL has re-run, I'll check for anything I've missed and for transclusions which haven't updated yet. Narky Blert (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Narky Blert I've fixed the redirects/hatnotes and a few remaining links. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've now got the lot; the DPWL report of one transclusion had distracted from one link in main text. That full cleanup was really easy.

(And I'd missed one. Narky Blert (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC))[reply]

The things some editors link to... List of presidents of Bangladesh and Osman Mirzayev. Narky Blert (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes more overlinking. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Batch 3 is now at User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB#Batch 2 (151-175). There are some things not note, 165 is the 1st year to actually get more views than the number but even still not significantly different (444 v 403) which is clearly not enough by usage (especially when errors are taken into account) and the fact that there are another 2 uses. Secondly there are a few that only have 3 uses so some might argue WP:2DABPRIMARY but as noted all but 1 cases the number has more views (and is probably more important) so that is moot anyway and as noted PT swaps aren't a good idea (if we suggested moving the numbers to the base name), in addition to the fact (as noted by Narky Blert) there are often other things like roads etc that can be added to the DAB pages. Pinging the 3-digit RM posse @Certes, Narky Blert, Colin M, Paintspot, and JFG: I know JFG you said "Count me in support for a dab at all numbers until 200" but I'll still ping you anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Support all per nom. No clear primary topic for any of these instances. It could be argued that there's no primary topic for any numbers 101-200. (Also, in "Batch 2", four of them – 139, 140, 141, and 142 — never ended up being / still need to be disambiguated.) Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've created the four missing dabs and fixed most incoming links. One complex template still links to 142 and I've pinged the author. Certes (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• ...Support all per nom. I suspect that many readers who see 165 are not seeking the year but stumble across the page when wanting the number or just browsing randomly. Certes (talk) 21:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all per nom. Still nothing resembling a WP:PTOPIC among any of them. As we know from 101-150, moving the basename to a DAB page is likely to reveal several bad links which have been around for ever, and correcting those is a bonus. Narky Blert (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all, thanks for your hard work. — JFG ^talk 19:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• These are now at WP:RMT but have been questioned, @Paintspot, Certes, Narky Blert, and JFG: you might want to comment there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the request due to the opposition, we will probably need to start a new RFC to deal with the rest but I'm not convinced local consensus was an issue, these are surely uncontroversial enough to use this method and the last point on the 2019 RFC was "Instances where a year is not the primary topic should be handled on a case-by-case basis as we have been doing already." so this kind of request seems within the spirit and letter of than and the global consensus of WP:ATDAB and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You might want to start a regular RM for 151–175 (or I can start one, if you'd like). Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:04, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd probably try a larger RFC to move all 3 digit numbers that fail primary topic. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:33, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus lines[edit]

See my edits on hatnotes at 164, 165, and 166; there may be more that you added recently. I don't see the point of adding hatnotes for New Jersey bus line numbers. There are hundreds of bus, tram and subway routes in the world bearing a 1–200 number: none deserves a hatnote, even if some of them have an article. — JFG ^talk 19:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: hatnotes are generally cheap (though many of these contain too many so a DAB page is needed anyway) but you're right that they probably aren't that notable, all of the articles should be moved in a week so I'll leave the others as is (unless you want me to remove them but that will happen when DABs are created at the base name) but won't add them to the next lot. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, let's get rid of these. We don't have room to list every bus in the world, and NJ routes aren't especially notable. Certes (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]