Talk:1488

Years Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Years, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Years on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YearsWikipedia:WikiProject YearsTemplate:WikiProject YearsYears
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 28 December 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to 1488 (year). The result of the discussion was not moved.

Requested move 28 December 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: not moved. Discussion rests on the balancing of PT1/PT2. Neither argument appears to have a significantly better basis in policy. Also slight of note is that supporting editors seem split between the dab and primary redirect options, though this was not a major factor. Overall, I find rough consensus against the move at this time. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC) (statement added on request Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

1488 → 1488 (year) – Most common use these days is the white separatist slogan, so 1488 should redirect to Fourteen Words and 1488 (year) should be the new destination of the year's page. 67.209.130.93 (talk) 07:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 04:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support AD 1488 per WP:YEARDAB, the year has 1,215 views but Fourteen Words has 34,854[[1]] and most Google results are for Fourteen Words. However I'd say disambiguation might be best as the year is probably primary by long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per long-term significance. Srnec (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is true that 1488 gets many more views than surrounding years other than 1492, so most of those readers probably do want Fourteen Words, but Fourteen Words would never actually be titled "1488" and WP:PRIMARYREDIRECTs should be reserved for rare cases; this case doesn't rise to that level in my opinion. The existing hatnote seems sufficient; a dab page would not add anything to that. Station1 (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT the bar is explicitly exactly the same for a redirect v a non-redirect (the title) "The fact that an article has a different title is not a factor in determining whether a topic is primary". Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The examples in that guideline are cases like Einstein, Danzig and ovens. Those are legitimate uses of a primaryredirect because the articles they point to could easily have those titles. I don't think Fourteen Points could reasonably be titled "1488", even if some people clearly search for it using that term, while the year clearly must be titled "1488", with or without disambiguation. That's the difference in my mind -- one article should not hog two titles unless clearly of benefit to a substantial number of readers. This is not a clear-cut case, though. I can see the argument for a primaryredirect, but not for a dab page, which benefits neither those looking for the year nor those looking for the slogans. Station1 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support AD 1488 or 1488 (year) per nom. Almost 10x more views than the surrounding years generally suggests some readers may be looking for something different. 🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 17:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strong indication readers are ending up on the wrong place especially when Google etc tends to take people to the correct place. Only a minority of people probably use the search box so it could be that we're sending 99% of people to the wrong article similar points were noted with the likes of 911 back in 2019. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The year is more notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support AD 1488 but then a DAB following 14 as an example. Yes it seems like 1488’s page views are inflated as 20% of all views click through to the other article which also constitutes 50% of all outbound link activity. Is there goings to be long term significance of the other page, who knows but it has already persisted decades and might even have more current developments written whereas the year will likely not receive any meaningful changes in the next decade. But I still don’t believe this is a good case for a primary redirect. TiggerJay (talk) 06:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Year is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above - clear that the year has long-term significance well beyond the alternative meanings. Most numbers in this sort of range have the year as the primary topic. — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.