Talk:9 (disambiguation)

Help[edit]

Feel free to add other "Nine" articles which may be called by just "Nine". --nihon 01:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just added Nine (Indipop Album) and i'm happy. But thing im questioning is, is there a Mazda9 that replaced the Mazda 929?

We already have links that are on (The) Nine here, but articles/links like the Neverwinter Nine and Nine Hells of Baator etc. don't really fit under "9". OSborn 22:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed link to "The Nine" since that page is now redirecting to 9 (disambiguation). OSborn 17:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization of number pages and number disambiguation pages[edit]

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) 15:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose reverting this page to previous version[edit]

It appears that all versions of this page since [1] violate WP:DAB, MOS:DAB and WP:D3 increasingly egregiously. I propose reverting to this version as a stable platform for improvement in line with these guidelines and the rationale for disambiguation pages. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page seems to have been cleaned up since your comment was posted. Are they any item(s) on the current page that don't belong here? I see a few items that could be removed, but I don't think a revert is necessary at this point. Thank you, PolarYukon (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the train has been missed at this point. See Talk:8 (disambiguation) for some of the ways I think disambiguation pages in your preferred style do not follow consensus as documented in disambiguation guidelines. As far as entries that don't belong, the following fail WP:DABNOT in my opinion, mainly "Do not add a link that merely contains part of the page title, or a link that includes the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion.":

9 BC as far as I know never referred to as simply 9 as there is too great a risk of confusion over an interval under 20 years!
September not used in general context "when are you moving?" "9." Eh?
X-SAMPA (too many links there; which is being disambiguated?) in any reasonably general context, this would need to be qualified.
0.999... commonly known as "1" not "9".
09 should be in a "See also" section
9Lives unless the article demonstrates it is frequently referred to as "9".
Nine Network closer, but not used in a sufficiently general context.
Nine West unless the article demonstrates it is frequently referred to as "9".
9P unless the article demonstrates it is frequently referred to as "9".
Plan 9 from Bell Labs unless the article demonstrates it is frequently referred to as "9".
ISO 9 not referred to as "9".
Rich Text Format (too many links there; which is being disambiguated?) requires too much context to be meaningful as an unadorned "9"
seven-segment display never known as "7" let alone "9".
nine-rank system no evidence this was ever referred to as simply "9"

Well you get the idea. The rest of the article appears similarly overstuffed.

--MegaSloth (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing here that is "my preferred style"; this is an evolution of the material that was already posted on Wikipedia. None of this is "mine", this all belongs to the community.

Most of items you mention can be deleted. I still don't think we need to revert the article. Of the items you discuss above, I think these items should be kept in the article:

9 BC, makes sense for navigation, since we are also referring to 9, CE / AD, the year
X-SAMPA, 9 is a symbol used by X-SAMPA
0.999... is a special case worth including in the article
09, yes we can move this to the see also section

Thank you, PolarYukon (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my above comment was meant to indicate that I agree we should not revert. I disagree with your justification for the other entries, I will draw this discussion to the attention of editors at the relevant project, WP:Wikiproject Disambiguation. --MegaSloth (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should probably remain centralized at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numbers#Organization_of_number_pages rather than splitting it across multiple number disambiguation talkpages. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:31, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]