Talk:Sacramento (disambiguation)

Move? (11 January 2015)

 * 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: no move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Sacramento (disambiguation) → Sacramento – Is Sacramento, California the dominant meaning of the name "Sacramento"? If not, move Sacramento (disambiguation) to Sacramento. Currently Sacramento redirects to Sacramento, California. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The California capital is the clear cut primary topic. Its page has been viewed 114,000 times in the past 90 days. In that same timespan, only 740 people clicked through to the dab page. -- Calidum  00:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with Calidum. It's the clear primary topic.  only (talk) 03:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. If anyone is curious, the article on the city is titled that way because of the WP:USPLACE guidelines: with a few exceptions, articles on populated places in the United States are typically titled  (the "comma convention"). The WP:USPLACE guidelines have been frequently disputed in the past (with discussions spilling over into various move discussions), and there is currently a moratorium on it, so I recommend this move discussion strictly focus on what to do with the "Sacramento" title, and not focus on the title of the Sacramento, California article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose. I am not sure from above what they are opposing, since it could be one or the other. So let me lay my cards on the table:
 * Sacramento, as far as I see, should be primary topic to the place in California.
 * All else follows with Sacramento (disambiguation) and Sacramento, California and Sacramento (California) et cetere ad nauseam,
 * Quite obvious to me, all that has been said, Sacramento is the primary topic for the place in California. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In case of doubt, I am an Englishman living in Hungary. I sometimes have a slight anti-American b, oias, which I try n to come out when I edit articles. But this is so patently primar it makes my eyes water. At the second-hand shop the other day there are T shirts saying "SACRAMENTO, or "SACAMENTO CALIFORNNIA with lots of surf boards (I have no idea, cos I have not looked, whether one can surf in Sacramento). It is so patently primary I don't know who would oppose it. Si Trew (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * If you don't understand how someone could doubt its primacy, why did you say it's "patently not primary" and start this whole issue? only (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose move - the California capital is clearly and by a wide margin the primary topic for Sacramento, therefore it appropriately redirects to Sacramento, California, which is the appropriate article title per WP:USPLACE. The disambiguation page is therefore also appropriately named. Nothing to do here. Ivanvector (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep things where they are currently. As evinced with the pageviews, people are looking for information on the state's capital. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose so long as this is the English Wikipedia. Red Slash 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If anything, I think Sacramento, California should be moved to Sacramento as the clear PRIMARYTOPIC, though I defer to Zzyzx11's point above, so let's just leave as Sacramento as a redirect to Sacramento, California... --IJBall (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose because Sacramento, California is very clearly the primary topic, but should be located at Sacramento, California per WP:USPLACE. kennethaw88 • talk 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose and Speedy Close., seriously? Is it the "dominant meaning"?  What does that even mean?  Why are you asking?   Why are you, of all people, using non-standard terminology with unclear meaning in a context where we have, you know, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?  Is this a joke?  --В²C ☎ 21:15, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not Anthony's fault. Another user (Si Trew) requested this move in the uncontroversial section of WP:RM/TR. I had Anthony undo the move and put a discussion here, as the move was clearly not uncontroversial. -Niceguyedc Go Huskies! 21:30, 14 January 2015 (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.