Talk:Rod El Farag

Page move[edit]

Please use discussion and provide evidence before moving the page. It is best if we edit with proper evidence and due deliberation. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 01:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence[edit]

Google search

"Rod El Farag" -Wikipedia -forming = 2810 hits

"Road El Farag" - Wikipedia - forming = 975 hits

This represents 34.7% of the latter to the former.

Google Books search

"Rod El Farag = 354 hits

"Road El Farag" = 23 hits

This represents 6.5% of the latter to the former.

Badagnani (talk) 01:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move the page again without first proving that "Road El Farag" appears more commonly on Google and Google Books. The above searches were done "minus" terms unique to the Wikipedia article, so the claim that they reflect a bias from Wikipedia is inaccurate. Badagnani (talk) 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A: I moved a stub. I am not responsible for discussing a minor edit the first time around.

B: google searches are terribly inaccurate, so they aren't "accurate". As a matter of fact, I notice that page hits change all the time. Just because the majority of people say "rod", doesn't make it correct (-wikipedia doesn't mean you took WIKI out of the factor)

C: it's a simple: spelling is different from pronunciation. No one pronounces it as R-O-D.

As for your google searches:

"Rod El Farag" -Wiki -forming = 4450 hits

"Road El Farag" -Wiki -forming = 991 hits

~ Troy (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This search is spurious because it finds all pages with the word "Road" in it, most not discussing the neighborhood that is the subject of this article. For example, in the first "hit," it mentions "between the Agricultural Road and the northern coast." The quotes are necessary for a proper search. Please don't selectively fail to mention the Google Books search as well. Regarding the pronunciation, there is of course Job (Bible), pronounced Jōb in the English language. It doesn't have to be spelled "Joab" for it to be pronounced "Jōb." Badagnani (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I DIDN'T SELECTIVELY DO THAT. It was an honest mistake (I forgot to add quotes), and also you can't transliterate it if you can't read Arabic or haven't even heard it from Arabic-speaking people. Google searches are not accurate so I will move it back unless you have a real reason. ~ Troy (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you can provide evidence that clearly disproves the very clear Google and Google Books searches, and shows that, in English-language publications, the spelling "Road El Farag" is the most commonly used, that would be fine. Badagnani (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the issue: how many English publications are there to begin with? Otherwise, a google search is an unwise reference. There is no point in relying on inaccurate spellings. Also, if the majority of online sites spell it a certain way, you better be aware of the fact that they are not necessarily accurate. I have made several contributions to these articles, like Shobra, and obviously didn't expect to waste my time over moving a stub-class article. ~ Troy (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A Google Books search is fairly representative of the published literature, containing a sample of very new and also very old books (they are scans of the pages of actual published, paper books, not Internet sites). The Google search gives an indication, with very large sample size, of how this place's name is generally spelled on English-language Internet pages. It doesn't matter the length of the article; if there's any doubt, the move proposal should first be proposed at the "Discussion" page for that article and evidence provided. Please do that in the future; it's good editing practice. Badagnani (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. I already know about moving pages and I don't need people to lecture me on things like that. Yes, it's a good practice, but I don't have the time to do that for articles that are stubs and don't appear to be controversial. In any case, I will take it that move proposals are not always needed for minor changes and google web searches are not to be taken as accurate or reliable. I have gone over this with other pages time and time again, so there's no need for me to think that this case is something special. Thanks for your contributions, though. ~ Troy (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I will try to discuss more often, though. Hopefully things will stay calm in the future. ~ Troy (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]