Talk:10048 (ZIP code)

Move? (1)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Valiant is the word for Carrie → Valiant Is the Word for Carrie — Correct form. B3t (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the picture of the title card, you will see that the word "word" is not capitalized Givememoney17 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

10048 (ZIP code) → 10048 —

• Only article called 10048; primary topic. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• Bare numbers are usually reserved for years. That said, we are unlikely to need room for an article on the year 10048 for some time. How are other articles named? 81.111.114.131 (talk) 05:16, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• The code is clearly far more important than the year or any other uses of the number. Given the year in question is over 8,000 years away, it is absolutely not notable. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 12:34, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
• See Category:ZIP codes. Half the articles are California; all of those are named by bare number and so are half the non-California ones. Seems to me, conforming to CA is the way to go; the title only needs to say ZIP in the unusual case of an ambiguity. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Those are all redirects, apart from 90210, which would appear to be a dab page. In any case, the bare title "10048" is not meaningful. 81.111.114.131 (talk) 00:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed title is meaningless to most of the world (and probably to most Americans also). The comments about California are irrelevant: those titles all redirect to an article about a placename. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
• Hmm, yeah, it seems anything we do will set a precedent, this being the only article in Wikipedia about one ZIP code. When there's so much interest that someone wants to write three or four more, we should think about it. For now I figure better just let the sleeping dog lie, and take down the move notice. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• https://tools.usps.com/zip-code-lookup.htm
  • In 10048 (ZIP code) on 2011-05-23 01:57:26,
  • In 10048 (ZIP code) on 2011-05-31 21:14:23,

--JeffGBot (talk) 21:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Move? (2)

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. (non-admin closure) Hot Stop talk-contribs 04:11, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• 10048 (ZIP code) → 10048 — There is no ambiguity between the two names; the latter title redirects to the former and this is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Not sure this can be done as uncontroversial. There was a move discussion about this in 2010 closed as no consensus. older ≠ wiser 16:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
• Comment current Wikipedia standards require bare numbers to be AD year articles. I think that any article for the numbers 3000+ should not default to year articles. If they aren't AD year articles, I'd think we should have disambiguation pages (1) or number articles (2) at the bare name. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 03:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. Although neither the year nor the number is a likely target, neither is this article. It's hard to say whether someone entering the digit string might be looking for the number. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NC. 10048 is not recognizable nor precise enough for an article about a ZIP code. Zarcadia (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It is entirely unclear whether the number or the zip code is the more likely search term. Leaving 10048 bare for the zip code is not sensible. Xoloz (talk) 19:34, 10 March 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.