Tuvic wrote:
Steve Bennett wrote:
Ok, I'm going to plead ignorance. Is the problem with option 3 that 1995 is a better name for an article than AD 1995, or that renaming 1995 to *anything* is not worth the trouble?
It may be that 1995 is a better name, but renaming 1995 to *anything is indeed not worth the trouble. After 2060 page moves, you have to check for double redirects, and maybe correct all links to "1995". Also, you're left with the choise: do you leave the 2060 redirects the way they are, or do you make a disambiguation page from them? Of worse, do you move the number where the year used to be.
Whatever you do, interwikilinking will be totally (and really totally) broken for the year-articles, and will probably take years to correct it. In my point of view, this is the most significant reason to not move the year-pages.
And, _then_, you will have problem of fixing all the links in the continual move/edit war that will inevitably result from this, as each of the 2060 different year articles is repeatedly moved from [[AD X]] to [[X CE]], to [[X AD]], then to [[X]] again, and on, and on, and on, whilst each group of combatants desperately tries to fix the links in all linking articles to point to their preferred version, in the greatest and [[WP:LAME]]st ever edit war in the history of Wikipedia.
-- Neil