Talk:1989 (disambiguation)

Requested move 6 May 2024

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: WP:SNOW  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

– The WP:PT1 (the Taylor Swift album) has ~9.5 times the pageviews of the WP:PT2 (the year). This massive split possibly means there is WP:NOPRIMARY, and WP:RECENTISM likely does not apply as the album is more than nine-and-a-half years old. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 1989 (disambiguation) → 1989
 * 1989 → AD 1989
 * Leaning support the year is clearly primary by the 2nd criteria and there isn't an article on the number but the year clearly isn't primary by the 1st criteria but there is a much stronger case than say 911 to have the year at the base name.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 18:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose There would be no value in this. Users typing in "1989" are now presented with a hatnote link directly to the Swift album, which is exactly the same number of clicks to get to their desired page as landing directly on the dab page would be. We don't need to change literally thousands of internal links to save users zero clicks. Black Kite (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The rise in the album's page views is a temporary situation because of the album being re-recorded, so it absolutely qualifies as recentism.  O.N.R.  (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per |1989 pageviews since album release (excludes redirects – see below for a fairer comparison) which still show a majority for the year. No one will be surprised to find the year at the base name.  Maybe repropose in a year when the re-release is no longer so recent. Certes (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * The |1989_(album) working pageview graph (ticking "Include redirects") does show the album gets 5x the views. Just from |1989_(album) 2017 to 2022, well outside of recentism, is still 3.8x. Hameltion (talk &#124; contribs) 06:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you; I hadn't realised the title had previously been fully disambiguated before a . Certes (talk) 09:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm still weakly opposed for consistency: I think 1989 would become the only year between 1000 and 2048 not at its base name. If other, similar cases can be found then the argument for a move might be stronger.  I've supported the gradual recognition that years are not the only numeric topics – eight years ago, 1 was about AD 1 rather than some obscure integer – but this may be a step too far for now. Certes (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose as recentism. Killuminator (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this definitely would be recentism. Yes, the album is almost 10 years old, but the year is over three times that long ago and is part of the entire dating system that is centuries older. The only possible thing that could displace the year would be the number, and there really isn't much to say about most random numbers. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the album is almost 10 years old, but the year is over three times that long ago and is part of the entire dating system that is centuries older.
 * This does not seem like a good argument. Are you saying that, because the year is older (and will obviously always be older) than the album, that the year will forever be the WP:PTOPIC? JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 14:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as recentism per WP:PT2. Graham (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Nowhere in this request did I even hint that the album is WP:PT2 (and thus would most certainly be the WP:PTOPIC). JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I am well aware that you didn't suggest that the album meets WP:PT2. I am arguing, however, that the fact that it does not meet WP:PT2 dissuades me from believing it to be the primary topic. Graham (talk) 01:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there's general agreement that the album is not the primary topic and should not be moved to the base name. The only real debate here is whether the year is a primary topic or there is no primary topic. Certes (talk) 09:08, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And as I've said above, it doesn't make any difference, because anyone typing in "1989" looking for the album would still have to click once more - and only once more - to find it regardless of whether the base name is here or the dab. I don't think that's worth disturbing the fact that every other year in the last few centuries is at the base name. Black Kite (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is odd and I've never seen an RM like this before. During the entirety of me being an editor on Wikipedia and before my first day of editing, all year articles I have visited, including 1968, 1996 and 2012 are values as base names for numbered years articles. Naming this one to AD 1989 would be inconsistent with all other years in the previous and current century of year articles. Also when we sign on talk pages, we don't see the AD in front of the year of the date of editing. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * And that's before one gets into the "why not 1989 CE?" discussion ... Black Kite (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly. No page years, as far as I'm aware, uses the CE format. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose per above. I don't think anyone refers to the year as AD 1989 and a hatnote is sufficient in this case. Mellk (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)