Talk:Vila Real (disambiguation)

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: no consensus. Number 57 14:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Vila Real (disambiguation) → Vila Real
• Vila Real → Vila Real, Portugal

– Mover assumed the city in Portugal is the

This is a contested technical request (

talk) 03:27, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• This page was last moved in July 2017, meaning that the current title has probably become stable per
  WP:SVTRT. Feel free to start an RM if you feel that the city isn't primary. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Oh ha, I'm sorry. I was browsing an editor's contribs and tricked myself into thinking I was looking at my own watchlist and that this just happened. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Portuguese Vila Real is a regional center with population of about 50k. The Spanish namesake is usually spelled
  No such user (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support the Portuguese city has 1,287 views and its district 329 but
  Vila Real (Olivença) has 83[[1]]. Google is split between both cities and the 1st result is the Villarreal WP article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support per nomination and Crouch, Swale. There are eight entries listed upon the Vila Real (disambiguation) page, with no indication that the importance of this relatively small population center, which is listed in 48th place among List of cities in Portugal, is so overwhelming that it dwarfs the combined notability of the remaining seven entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counting of entries on the dab page is a rather poor measure of their relative significance and likeability of search. Four entries are subitems of the Portuguese city (football club, association and district); one is a PTM city in Portugal; another a tiny village. And finally, the Spanish city is only called "Vila-real" in Valencian, hardly ever in English. Heck, I'd say that every single item listed there is a PTM.
    No such user (talk) 16:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Nevertheless, if a dab page features a putative

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, thus forcing the use of parenthetical qualifier "(disambiguation)", it takes the responsibility of ensuring that the primary topic, such as it is, rises to an acceptable level of primacy, otherwise we might wind up with an exactly named one-sentence stub as the primary topic among a slew of partial dabs. An exact name form should not become primary by default, simply because all the other dab page entries deviate from the exact form of that dab page's main title header. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There, I formatted the page according to

No such user (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I never stated or even implied that the putative primary topic at the center of this discussion is a one-sentence stub, since the entry for the city of Vila Real is obviously a full article. My example was a theoretical one, spurred by the recent two-entry dab pages discussed at Talk:Giuseppe Valle#Requested move 26 March 2022 and Talk:Ivor Smith#Requested move 5 April 2022 where a two-sentence and one-sentence stub had been positioned, respectively as the default primary topic over a longer entry.

Taking a wider view, each dab page tends to have an entry that is accessed to a greater degree than the next widely-accessed entry or is more-specifically titled than another entry. However, such positioning should not enable it to advance by default to primary topic, otherwise all dab pages would feature primary topics. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Clear primary topic for this spelling. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Necrothesp and No such user.
  Calidum 18:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]