Talk:2305

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 January 2016. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Requested move 7 March 2016[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: redirect to 24th century. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 13:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2305 → 2305 (disambiguation) – There's a clear primary topic. The base title should redirect to 24th century with a hatnote there. The AfD was closed as no consensus. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:02, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose years should not automatically be the "primary topic". There is no reason to believe that years beyond the 22nd century are years as primary topics. We don't associate all other distant future year numbers with years by default like 10000 or 5000 or 3000. We should not associate numbers beyond 2199 with years, and instead associate them with number range set indices that indicate number articles and year articles and disambiguation pages. It would seem like a clear WP:CRYSTAL on predicting that future year numbers are automatically years -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per 70.51.46.39. Years far in the future shouldn't be considered primary over the same year in BC or the number. Furthermore, Google web and book searches for 2305 don't seem to turn up many results for the year at all. — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Why is 24th century AD the primary topic? As the IP pointed out, that's WP:CRYSTAL - we may not measure years like that then or we may never get that far as a species. 24th century BC actually happened. Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 2305 to 24th century. There is a long-established pattern whereby years redirect to centuries, whether or not they have a partial match minor planet: see 2101 for a low-number example. It makes no sense to treat 2305 differently and inconsistently. If anyone thinks there should be a change of this long-standing pattern, please discuss it more widely, perhaps an RfC. I have added a couple of "For" hatnotes to 24th century: perhaps we should do so for each century. If the dab page at 2305 continues to exist, then there should be an equivalent dab page constructed for every year for which there is currently a redirect to its century: at a quick look there are redirects to centuries from 2304, 2404, 2504, but not 2604 or 2705, so presumably for the rest of those centuries too but no later (2704 is a dab page with an engine having that number). There should perhaps also be a hatnote referring to 2000 (number), as 2101, to use the same example, features there but does not have a 2101 (number) redirect (unlike 2109 (number)) ... have now added such a hatnote too. If this is not objected to I'd be happy to add similar hatnotes to the other centuries, so that we can leave the numbers redirecting to their century unless there is some specific sense which makes a dab page worthwhile. (If any numbers in the 24th-century range merit a dab page, perhaps they are 2312 and 2359, which I think have a stronger claim to a dab page than 2305). PamD 13:40, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect 2305 to 24th century. I'm with PamD. There is probably a number X above which it doesn't make sense, but I think X > 2305. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 24th century per PamD. This is the standard way of handling this issue.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:21, 15 March 2016 (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.