Talk:Sack

A sack as a large bag?

Size is no criterion - e.g. there are huge bags and tiny sacks. 85.193.241.184 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 04 September 2015

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. bd2412 T 02:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sack → Sack (disambiguation) – The primary topic of "sack" is a bag, as noted on the first line of that article. Sack should redirect there. – 209.211.131.181 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@209.211.131.181:This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Very weak oppose given the existence of the subjects Ball sack and Quarterback sack. In fact, the existence of term "ball sack" may prevent "sack" from being the WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT for anything since it seems that human body parts, for the purpose of the encyclopedia, seem to be more "historically relevant" than anything else (for a reason that I would assume would be that they existed before any of our inventions did.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I think that Dismissal (employment) is more likely the primary topic; and ransack/looting/conquest, would be a close second. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• weak support The content at bag is suited to the redirect. A hatnote link to sack (disambiguation) would also add to that article. Agree that Dismissal (employment) is another significant meaning of the term but think that this solution works well. GregKaye 20:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NOTDICT as I enjoy my dry sack. —  AjaxSmack  00:25, 6 September 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. No further edits should be made to this section.