Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 11

< January 10

January 12 >

January 11

Sacramento

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sacramento → Sacramento, California (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Move over redirect. I do not have permission to do this, and I don't think this is RM but tell me if it is, if "Sacramento" R's to Sacramento (California) patently that is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and the R's should be swopped. I can't do this myself, but the DAB at Sacramento (disambiguation) flows through the R at its lede, which is obviously silly. Si Trew (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC) [ Sacramento, CA, US, is presumably primary. For if not, the DAB should not in its lede link "Sacramento" saying "Sacramento is the capital of the state of California, in the United States of America", linking through the redirect to Sacramento, California. Either that target is primary, or the DAB is prwe imary and Sacramento, I thought DABs were supposed o disambiguate, and this is either primary or it isn't: If no, Sacramento, California must humbly take its place in the DAB list: we can't have DAb through R in the DAB lede, surely? Si Trew (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment I shall stet my kb errors. Must get new keyboard. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Soddit. Taking BOLD.Si Trew (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I've fixed up so it is not in error. Now I have to do RM to move sacramento (the R) over the DAB, obviously keeping history. So this can close adnd I take to RM please. I've listed one of the many Sacramentos at the DAB, and removed its unnecessary hatnote since sacramento now r's to the dab. So we reverse that and we're done. Si Trew (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy procedural close Nominator has withdrawn request; further it is a procedurally inocrrect request, as it should be requested at WP:Requested moves since it is a move requestl; and due to the WP:USPLACE guideline, will need a discussion anyways. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure if this should be closed, when we now have Sacramento redirecting to the disambiguation page, i.e. Sacramento, California is no longer a primary topic. This seems debatable when the California city and state capital has a population of 475,000 while none of the others go over 30,000. Sacramento, CA still has the hatnote saying ""Sacramento" redirects here", but it doesn't!: Noyster (talk), 17:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note: I've asked Anthony Appleyard to restore the original redirect page that he moved to Sacramento/redirects back to Sacramento. There's no way that this should have happened without a full discussion of whether the California city was the WP:PRIMARY topic. There are over 1300 links coming in to Sacramento, almost all of which are meant for Sacramento, California. Also, the move request at WP:RM/TR to move the disambiguation page to the base title should not have been placed in the 'Uncontroversial technical requests' section, as there's no way it is uncontroversial. Also, Si Trew, saying Reversing the redirect does no harm, I will fix up incoming links, being bold (at WP:RM/TR) and then only fixing 21 of 1341 links is not very helpful. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 22:11, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Procedural close: The pages are back where they were before the last 24 hours (Sacramento points to Sacramento, California), and there is a move discussion at Talk:Sacramento (disambiguation) to discuss the move of the disambiguation page to the base title. -Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 00:45, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.