Talk:Figa

Requested move 28 October 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Theres consensus to move as there's no primary topic. (non-admin closure) –Ammarpad (talk) 09:23, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Figa (disambiguation) → Figa
Figa → Figa, Slovakia

– many different meanings MrKeefeJohn (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the suggested destination target name is already occupied, so this seems to be a malformed request. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:37, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the village in Slovakia has received more page views than all other articles on the dab page combined over this year (except Fig sign which isn't commonly known as "Figa" in English). feminist (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree there's a primary topic here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per pageviews Even if we assign just 1 daily view from the fig symbol's 217, and 2 from Beclean's 8, which administers three villages including one named Figa, there just isn't enough views to justify keeping the page here. There would be seven daily views for the village and seven for other topics, meaning this fails WP:PRIMARYTOPIC's requirement that a PT has to have more views than all other topics combined. And since the village is at the base name, it seems likely that at least some of those views are by people looking for another topic. I see no reason why we should prioritize a very small Slovakian village over other topics on the DAB page. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination and Patar knight. The three-sentence stub for a place with no specified population or historical importance lacks standing to qualify as a primary topic. Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I just created Figa, Bistrița-Năsăud, a Romanian village with important archaelogical site and spa. However, I think that the proper disambiguator is Figa, Rimavská Sobota District (currently a bluelink). No such user (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Now that Figa, Bistrița-Năsăud exists. I'd note that some of the places in Category:Villages and municipalities in Rimavská Sobota District use "Rimavská Sobota District" and some use "Slovakia". I chose Slovakia since we tend to DAB by country per WP:PLACEDAB and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#Europe and North Asia doesn't mention Slovakia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Fact-checking about these two villages

These are two villages, in alphabetical order

Figa in Romania (the article in the english wikipedia is not present yet but you can read in other languages [1]) in 2002 had around 500 inhanbitants and, as I can guess from hu:Füge_(település), was first mentioned in 1305. It's an important archeological site.
Figa in Slovakia ( article in more languages than the Romanian one [2]) in 2017 had 465 inhabitans and it was first mentioned in 1295. There's a church.

By now, actually I can not see which is the more important one. MrKeefeJohn (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]