Talk:AD 404

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled]

Page for number redirects to page for 400. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.0.82.42 (talk) 01:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 3 August 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 year article to AD 404, and move disambiguation page to 404. (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

404 → AD 404
HTTP 404 → 404

– Per precedent recently established for AD 911, this is another one of those articles where the year is less notable than something else. In this case, HTTP 404 is many times more notable than AD 404. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support 1st certainly by views and Google, even the film gets 2,907 views compared to the year's 456 [[1]] but consider moving the DAB to the base name instead to avoid problems with incoming links etc. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Please consider the alternative proposal of moving the disambiguation page to the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yes while the error message has 461,973 views I agree we don't have sufficient evidence that people would search for it with "404". Therefore I support a DAB at the base name. In addition I don't see evidence that plain "404" is the best name in any case so a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT would probably be appropriate if the error message was primary for "404". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support as primary. Possible many of the film's views are searching for this page as the search box prominently brings up the film as '404:Error Not Found' when '404 error' is searched for and that redirect should probably be changed to wherever the present HTTP page lands. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good discovery. (However, having noticed the votes below, I also oppose the second move on the basis that a disambig page is created.) --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 19:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Support 1st per nom. ...However, OPPOSE 2nd. An alternative proposal - the DISAMBIGUATION PAGE should be at the basename. Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging all the users who participated in the previous discussions, who might have an opinion on this similar issue: @Crouch, Swale:, @Interstellarity:, @Tbhotch:, @Tbsock:, @Randy Kryn:, @Netoholic:, @Colin M:, @Certes:, @Hansen Sebastian:, @Arthur Rubin:, @Narky Blert:, @Shhhnotsoloud:, @Bkonrad:, @King of Hearts:, @JHunterJ:, @Steel1943:, @JFG:, @CookieMonster755:, @Dicklyon:, @Power~enwiki:, @Rreagan007:, @Red Slash:. ...What do you all think?: Should the HTTP page be moved to the basename? Move the dab page instead? Keep the status quo of the year? ...What are your opinions? Paintspot Infez (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support 1st proposal. But I oppose 2nd proposal. 404 should probably be a disambiguation page as I'm not convinced that there is a primary topic for that number. A disambiguation page seems more appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support first, oppose second – Create a dab page instead. — JFG ^talk 20:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral first, oppose second. Disagree that HTTP 404 is primary, and moving 404 shouldn't occur until the template gurus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Years modify the templates. Pinging the project, if not already done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looking at some of the disamb pages maybe only 420 will stand up as a primary. Likely that not too many other numbers will "pass" requested move, unless I'm missing a batch of them. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will nominate 420 after this and the 999 move, see User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support – I second Arthur Rubin's comments. We should move 404 to AD 404 (please use that exact title for consistency with AD 1 etc.) but only when the aftermath of the 911 move has been repaired in an extensible way. See also 999. As for the second move, HTTP 404 gets lots of pageviews but it's unclear how many of them relate to the bare number "404", so I'd put the dab at the base name. Certes (talk) 21:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't that been fixed since the page was moved to AD 911? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. It affects a complex maze of templates such as {{Drep}} and the best solution is still being discussed. There are still minor errors such as the box top right of 910 linking to the 911 dab rather than the year. Making AD 1–100 work took a few weeks to design and roll out. Certes (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support 1st, disambiguation page should move to the base name. No clear evidence for a primary topic. older ≠ wiser 21:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all changes per Arthur Rubin/Certes until the technical issues have been sorted out. In principle, support 1st, oppose 2nd - the primary topic of a number larger than 100 should never be any particular subject other than a year: it can be the year, or it can be a disambiguation page. Years are universal, and will be a leading use case for any culture that uses the Gregorian calendar. Making the HTTP error primary is first-world bias. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Partially Withdrawn. per the large opposition against the second move. I withdraw the second move since it seems too many people oppose it (which I am free to grumble about privately). Future !voters can just comment support or oppose for the first move and moving 404 (disambiguation) to 404. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Miniscule page views received by the year compared to the HTTP status and film show that having the year as primary topic is not helpful to our readers. (FWIW, I would have also probably supported the second move, given the overwhelming majority of views received by the HTTP status, and given that '404' is a very likely search term for that page. But oh well.) Colin M (talk) 15:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the error message was primary would we move it to just "404"? That seems like moving Adolf Hitler to Hitler or River Thames to Thames. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Crouch, Swale and Colin M: It probably should have been done piece-meal just with one request at a time in retrospect. To answer CS's point, I feel like part of the reason for that is for Reductio ad Hitlerum/Hitler (insult) and we generally don't put bios with just their last name. Idk, the comparison just isn't the most apt here on either count. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree its best to take it 1 step at a time, best title for error message and primacy for "404" are 2 different things. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Now that I think about it, a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT would definitely be more appropriate (keeping the current 'HTTP 404' name). Colin M (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support first, oppose second. Make 404 a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT instead._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral first, oppose second. Numbers are not primary topics for other recent uses. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 17:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong support of both, but the first is not conditional on the second. Original proposal > dab to 404 > status quo. Red Slash 02:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Two main reasons:

Blatant recentism. 404 has been a year for the last 1600 years of human history. It has been an error code for only 25 years, and the significance of the error code is declining as more and more systems hide 404 messages.
Talk:AD 911#Requested move 8 July 2019 was a rogue decision. The question of whether to break a consistent format should not be made at a lone RM. It needs an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But the error code is more likely to be primary by PT#1 and the film clearly is. The best compromise is to have not PT, while the year may primary by PT#2 its clear its not primary by PT#1 and therefore WP:NOPRIMARY is best which is clearly true for 991. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors who follow this discussion may be interested in WT:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers. Certes (talk) 08:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: Thank you, but just to note that this RFC was linked below here: #RfC of interest. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:28, 10 August 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

Editors are invited to comment on the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC about articles on three digit numbers Wug·a·po·des 22:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]