Talk:Salug

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 28 January 2021[edit]

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.

– It is the topic that gets more readers (373 page views) over Salug River (which gets only 45 page views). WP:MOSPHIL now allows the use of <CITYNAME> only convention for uniquely-named towns. Furthermore, Salug, Iran (disambiguation) only redirects to Saluk (disambiguation), hence cannot be considered as the eponymous topic. The disambiguation page can only have both the topic on the municipality and the river, then a link to Saluk (disambiguation) at "See also" for Iranian place names using "Saluk" (also rendered as "Salug"). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and MOS:PHIL. —hueman1 (talk contributions) 02:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a sensible proposal, as the Philippine municipality is certainly the most prominent topic with the name. However, I don't believe it has the overwhelming prominence that would place it as a primary topic – "Sulug""Salug" is also the name of a language variety (I've just added a link to the dab). The Iranian villages, obscure though they may be, are still eligible for inclusion on the dab – whatever spelling is preferred in their article titles, the important thing here is that the term "Salug" can refer to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uanfala (talkcontribs) 17:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per primary topic. At least in the English language, Salug and Sulug are completely different words and sound completely different.--RioHondo (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the city is the primary topic and I agree with RioHonod's arguments above. Lennart97 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.