| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2719 page. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
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)
2719 → 2719 (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, 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)
- 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
editAll 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)