Talk:123

Requested move 2 December 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: Move - any discussion of a merger can happen separately. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 00:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

123 (disambiguation) → 123
123 → AD 123

– No primary topic for "123" per views [[1]][[2]]. The AD year article gets 4,942 views but the number (the original meaning and arguably more primary by PT#2) gets 4,335, the film gets 3,056, the interbank network gets 108, the BC year gets 106 Nikki Laoye song gets 104. Japan Airlines Flight 123 gets 21,426 but its not clear how often its called "123". 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ gets 31,178 and several of the similarly named songs like 1-2-3 (Len Barry song) gets 1,291, 1, 2, 3 (Sofía Reyes song) gets 1,176 and 1-2-3 (Gloria Estefan and Miami Sound Machine song) gets 1,170. A Google, Image and Books search don't appear to show anything for the year, most appear to be for the number. A site:wikipedia.org 123 search returns the number then 123-reg, then the AD year. 122 gets 504 views 124 gets 160 compared to 123's 4,942 so its clear many readers are landing here incorrectly. As noted at User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB the 1-2-3 could be merged per WP:DABCOMBINE ("Terms that differ only in capitalization, punctuation and diacritic marks") per Talk:911#Merge 9/11 (disambiguation). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support as with many other such numbers. I still say do this for all 3-digit numbers. Dicklyon (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support per nom. With the number's use in counting and titles of other things, it's evident there's no clear primary topic (the pageviews of the surrounding years make that clear). Move disambiguation page to basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, pinging participants of previous similar discussions: @Alex 21, Amakuru, Arthur Rubin, Bkonrad, Carn, Certes, Ceyockey, Colin M, CookieMonster755, GeoffreyT2000, Gonnym, Hansen Sebastian, JFG, JHunterJ, King of Hearts, KingSkyLord, Narky Blert, Netoholic, No Great Shaker, Power~enwiki, Randy Kryn, Red Slash, Rreagan007, Shhhnotsoloud, and Steel1943:. Dicklyon already responded above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support dab page with no primary topic, and merging 1-2-3 per the 9/11 rationale. — JFG ^talk 18:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Dicklyon makes a good suggestion about moving each three-digit number primary to a disamb page, worthy of consideration. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support main proposal, and support merge proposal for 1-2-3; per nom and for my usual reasons, which habitués of these discussions will already know. The default WP:PTOPIC of a 3-digit number is the year AD; but if it has a competitor, the basename should be at the DAB page because nothing can supplant the year as PTOPIC.

Now that the problem of templates which insist that the primary meaning of a 3-digit number is the year seems to have been resolved, it may be time to open a WP:RFC along the lines proposed by others above: should the basename of every 3-digit number be at a DAB page? Otherwise, there might be another 800-odd move proposals of this kind to address. Narky Blert (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That idea has been kicked around for at least a decade. I think the last serious discussion was here where years were evicted from pages 11 to 100 but, whilst I favoured going further, there was no consensus to do so. However, consensus can change after a few successful RMs. I wonder what the lowest number is for which the year is a clear primary topic. Certes (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer those that are clear to be made without discussion but unfortunately as with Talk:777#Requested move 23 November 2019 they all seem to be controversial enough. I don't think a new RFC would bring much more than the previous one a few months ago which concluded they they need to be assessed separately. As you (Narky Blert) have noted elsewhere most 3 digit numbers are the only (or primary) topic so don't need to be moved. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On pageviews, which of course aren't the only measure, the only years 100–199 which come close to being a primary topic seem to be 105, 190 and 195. Certes (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Certes: There are no memorable dates between 55 BC and 1066 AD. Narky Blert (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends where you went to school. I can distinctly remember learning about 732 because of the battles between the Frankish army of Charles Martel and the advancing Umayyad Caliphate, and 800 because of the coronation of le bon roi Charlemagne, who was said to have invented school. Ha! — JFG ^talk 17:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With 39% of pageviews for "123 (something)" pages going to the year, this might be the weakest of today's batch of RMs but the year is still technically not a primary topic. I am mainly convinced by the discrepancy between views for 123 and surrounding years, indicating that most of that 39% sought a different article. The argument that an unknown number of readers will type in "123" looking for a partial title match is also significant. Certes (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:PT and Orange (colour) Red Slash 23:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hyperbolick (talk) 21:03, 7 December 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.