Talk:2719

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Disambiguation
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 12:27, 14 June 2014 (UTC)



27192719 (number) – "2719" is the only integer (at least in Category:Integers) represented as a digit string, with less than 10 digits, which is not tagged as "(number)". As an Admin, I could move it myself, as the existing redirect from 2719 (number) as no interesting history, but I would like to seek consensus. — --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:25, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Although I've changed this "article" to a redirect, the move (without redirect) request still stands. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
(edi conflict) I removed the prod without realising there is also a discussion. Couldn't we (shouldn't we) merge this to 2000 (number), leaving a redirect from 2719 (number). I would think it appropriate to keep this information (largest known and "probably" largest such) with the references but it doesn't need to be in a separate article. On the whole, though, I think moving to 2719 (number) would be fine and the redircet at 2719 isn't needed. Oh, but this is far too fast for me, I aee we now have a redirect here. Can you slow down, please? Thincat (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, actually; we don't preemptively disambiguate, and it's not like we're going to have an article about the year anytime soon... maybe? Red Slash 23:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Both target and source are redirects, so moving the edit history will result in no change in the current situation. And for the record, I don't think years should be occupying the undisambiguated titles by default, they clearly are not the primary topic for numbers >2200 or <1001 -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and furthermore suggest RMs be opened to move the numbers with "(number)" > 2500 to the simple digits if there isn't a disambig concern, like with 6346 (number). (Although that particular article should just be redirected, it seems...) SnowFire (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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.

Redirect[edit]

All that can be said about the number was transferred to 2000 (number)#2719; all other comments are about Ramanujan's other work, and should not be in this article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)