Jump to content

Talk:.shabaka

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

Requested move 18 March 2014

[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.shabaka → .shabka – I am starting this move request procedurally for User:Sarasin at that editor's request here, and as such, am not taking a position on this request. I will let Sarasin explain their reasoning below. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC) j⚛e deckertalk 18:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support The common and original spelling and transliteration of شبكة Shabka.
    Shabka شبكة is an interesting word in that it is both a word and a surname like many words/surnames in the English language such as Stone, Carpenter or Miller and means net, web or ring. Applying the three types of Wikipedia rules on transliteration to شبكة rules we arrive at the same common English spelling and transliteration of شبكة as shabka.

    Primary transcription of شبكة as Shabka
    There are numerous academic and reliable sources such as E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936[1] and Population Reference Bureau[2] and The British Museum[3] and Al-Ahram Newspaper[4] which spell شبكة, shabka. As well as a google search which returns over 300,000 results[1]
    Self identification: The surname is not a common one and is transliterated into passports, drivers licenses and other legal documents as shabka. Shabka family members are readily found on a google search [2].
    Standard transliteration of ش ب ك ة as Shabka
    The word and surname shabka did not originate from the Gulf area and the common and historical standard transliteration of *:شبكة is shabka
    Sha ش b ب k ك a ة
    Strict transliteration of shabka as شبكة
    Reversing the process and transliterating shabka into Arabic would produce شبكة
    The writing of the shabaka article
    Regarding the current .shabaka article, Scott and the dotshabaka registry (who have coincidentally registered shabaka.net) appear to be attempting to change the existing common transliteration of shabka. Since the English spelling and transliteration should make no difference to them, we can only speculate on their reasons for wishing to do this. In addition, I would also suggest the article could be better written so as to appear less of a promotion by using the .com TLD on Wikipedia as a basis.
    Thus the shabka domain would more accurately read
    ‘The domain name شبكة is a top-level domain (TLD) in the Domain Name System of the Internet and spelled and transliterated into English as shabka. Its name is derived from the Arabic word shabka which means net, web, network or ring.’
    Pronunciation and dialects.
    Certainly, dialect and accent affect pronunciation. In the Gulf some people may pronounce shabka as shabaka, due to their regional dialect, yet they also have electronics and telecoms business names in the Gulf that they have spelled as shabka in English, the correct way.
    If we look at all the new TLD’s, they are written in the commonly accepted way, not in regional dialects. Otherwise .hair could be .air or .hockey could be .ockey and .living could be .livin, to give just a few examples. Most people who pronounce these words regionally know the correct written way. Shabka, with the same meaning, has been transliterated into English for hundreds (if not thousands) of years from شبكة to shabka and I have easily provided multiple published and reliable sources referencing the spelling in English. The few ‘references’ for shabaka all point back to the same single source – the dotshabaka registry company – and those few publications are not going to question the transliteration as they can’t be expected to know better, and they simply publish what they are given.
    Regarding the family name.
    shabka is an not a common family name and contrary to Scott’s assertion, the family is an extremely reliable source as accepted by Wikipedia under self identification rules.86.128.218.112 (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 86.128.218.112 (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil Shabka[reply]
  • Do not move. The user links above to the Manual of Style for Arabic. The section about primary transcriptions reads:
    A word has a primary transcription (anglicization) if at least 75% of all references in English use the same transcription.
    100% of the references in the English language to the subject of this article (note, the subject of this article is not the Arabic word شبكة; Wikipedia is not a dictionary) transcribe it as ".shabaka". Also, compare the 350 hits on Google you get for shabka tld to the 140,000 hits you get for shabaka tld.
    And no, this user's family is obviously not a reliable source. I don't know how many times this user needs to be linked to our policy on sources before he will actually read it. — Scott • talk 23:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Far more than 75% of all refences point to shabka and are historical and wide. Scott mentions a search for 'shabaka tld' not 'shabaka' and is well aware that all references to shabaka need to be typed 'shabaka tld' in google and stem from on source - a company - and that all articles mentioning 'shabaka tld' have been written in the past few months and are based on reporting about one company, dotshabaka. Scott could do with reaquainting himself with the wikpedia rules 'Google search counts are also biased toward syndicated news articles; a single syndicated reference may generate hundreds or thousands of hits, amplifying the weight of whatever spelling happens to be used by that one reference.' [3] re the family, of course the family is obviously a relevant source 'Examples of self-identification include a driver's license or passport in which the individual personally chose a particular form of transcription' [4]. The thing that puzzles me though is surely if it is an Arabic TLD it shouldn't matter how it's written in English as it would be in Arabic and, why is Scott so concerned? My motive is clear and obvious to all, it's my name and the meaning of my name. Fact of the matter is the word is شبكة and the common spelling and transliteration is shabka and has been forever. I certainly expect and hope that wikipedia will not change the historical and common transliteration of a word because of one company and one editor?Sarasin (talk) 00:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil Shabka[reply]
I'll thank you not to attempt to lecture me about our policies.
The topic of this article is the .shabaka TLD, operated by the dotShabaka Registry. You seem to be under the complete misapprehension that this article is a dictionary entry for the Arabic word. It is not. You have also completely failed to understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I suggest you stop arguing, sit down for a while and read that policy page carefully. — Scott • talk 01:19, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I didn't have to keep reminding you about wikipedia's policies but clearly I do. I strongly suggest you sit down and reacquaint yourself with them.
The topic of this discussion is about شبكة and its transcription to English. The titel of the articel is shabaka (should be shabka) and to quote you, "شبكة (meaning ".web", and transcribed into English as ".shabaka"). And the dotshabaka company make a big deal of the meaning of the word in their press. This is not a new word nor a word invented by the dotshabaka company, it is a word that has been around for a very long time and the commonly and long accepted transliteration of شبكة is shabka. If the dotshabaka company choose to say it in their local dialect, that is of course fine, but when it is written in English it should be written properly. Why won't they and you do that and why is it such a big deal to you?
I am truly puzzled as to why, as this is not an area you normally write about and as this TLD is to be used only in Arabic (and there is no argument about شبكة), there is an argument about the English transcription? Why are you and the dotshabaka company so concerned about the English transliteration? 86.128.218.112 (talk) 09:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil[reply]
You can't "remind" me of anything. On the other hand you are doing a fantastic job of illustrating just how poor your understanding of this project is, and that you are apparently unwilling to do anything but repeat your personal opinion over and over again. — Scott • talk 09:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support The common and original spelling and transliteration of شبكة is Shabka which complies with the accepted rules of transliteration from Arabic to English. It has been my family name for centuries and means, net, network, web, ring and we write it in Arabic as شبكة and English the correct way as Shabka. 67.163.116.161 (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Dr Hussein Shabka[reply]
— 67.163.116.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose Regardless of what the correct transliteration is, the official romanized title of the registry for the domain is dotShabaka. Whether it was intentionally spelled this way or was simply a mistake is uncertain, but that's how it's officially spelled. If someone would like to add a note regarding the difference in spelling between the two romanized forms, go for it. However, until the official registry for this domain, dotShabaka, changes its romanized name, the title of this page should stay the same. Remember, this page is about شبكة. (domain), not شبكة (word/definition). --WikiWinters (talk) 20:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with a note on the spelling difference on the sole condition that its content is sourced. In other words, absolutely no words like "usual", "normal", "frequent", or the like unless they're accompanied with a reference to a reliable source that specifically addresses the relative prevalence of Romanizations of the word "شبكة". — Scott • talk 11:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That deosn't quit make sense. If it were the case then the article should be called dotshabaka and this line/definition in the article should not be in there (meaning ".web", and transcribed into English as ".shabaka") - the word شبكة , meaning web, network, net, ring is both spelled shabka and the comon transcription is shabka. This line (meaning ".web", and transcribed into English as ".shabaka") makes it about the transcription of شبكة. If this line is removed and all references to the meaning and transcription removed and the article renamed to dotshabaka then I would agree with you.Sarasin (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil Shabka[reply]
No, this article is not about the registry, but it's not about the word, either. I told you that if you wish to include a note somewhere in the article noting the difference in how the registry chose to romanize the word and how the word is technically supposed to be romanized, then go for it. However, the article is specifically about the domain, and the registry of the domain chose to name it .shabaka (dotShabaka) in English. --WikiWinters (talk) 20:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This entire debate began when I attempted to simply change a spelling mistake. Scott went on the offensive and the debate was always about the correct transliteration. From his first sentence to me “The operators of Shabka (domain name), the dotShabaka Registry, have chosen to transliterate it that way.”
As wikipedia's rules on transliterion as regards Arabic are straight forward and do not allow a company to change the common and historical transliteration of an existing word and Scott lost that argument he is attempting to now change the focus of the debate to make it TLD specific. Fine. Either call the article .شبكة, which is the TLD after all and would be correct, not .shabaka, or call it dotshabaka and talk about the company. The minute transliteration comes into play however it must be written in the commonly accepted way and so this sentence must go as well “.شبكة (meaning ".web", and transcribed into English as ".shabaka") If شبكة refers to the meaning and transcription it must be written as shabka as that is the commonly accepted transliteration.
As far as IANA, I only see the IANA report referring to it as شبكة (that is the TLD after all and no one is debating that) [5], maybe I’ve missed it. If you direct me to it can approach them as well.86.128.218.112 (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil[reply]
If it were the case then the article should be called dotshabaka
No, because this article is not about the dotShabaka Registry.
wikipedia's rules... do not allow a company
No. You have completely misunderstood the scope and intent of our Manual of Style for Arabic.
he is attempting to now change the focus of the debate to make it TLD specific
How many times do we have to tell you that the topic of this article is the TLD?
Either call the article .شبكة
You have already seen Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), which states The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources. And, again, our rule on primary transcriptions is A word has a primary transcription (anglicization) if at least 75% of all references in English use the same transcription. Since you seem to have a problem with understanding context, I'll add some more words to it for you. A word that is the subject of an article has a primary transcription (anglicization) if at least 75% of all references in English to the subject of the article use the same transcription. Not 75% of all reliable sources that just happen to have used the word in any context irrespective of whether it relates to the subject of the article. — Scott • talk 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
lol. There is no 'we' as in wikipedia, there is 'we' as in you and this company. BTW, I still don't understand why you're doing this as it's not your field and why the company should care as the TLD is in Arabic? Why should they care about the English transliteration? Anyway, You wrote the article and said this “.شبكة (meaning ".web", and transcribed into English as ".shabaka")". Applying wikipedia's rules (not yours) rules it should read “.شبكة (meaning ".web", and transcribed into English as ".shabka")". As for the title, 1. the title is not called 'shabaka tld' and 2. we have already estabilished that your 75% links on a 'shabaka tld' are not valid as to qoute wikipedia 'Google search counts are also biased toward syndicated news articles; a single syndicated reference may generate hundreds or thousands of hits, amplifying the weight of whatever spelling happens to be used by that one reference.' which is were all those links come from, syndicated news! Sarasin (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil[reply]
You appear to have severe problems with reading comprehension. — Scott • talk 13:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested additional views on this at the requested moves talk page WT:RM. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

— 41.130.58.105 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sarasin, recruiting people to come here and comment will not succeed, so stop that. — Scott • talk 13:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Scott, you crack me up. While I have of course told some family and friends about this ridiculous argument, if I wanted loads of people commenting you would have had hundreds by now :-) As you've been a wikipedia editor for what, almost 10 years now, and judging from your behaviour I would suppose that you are doing what you can to have others in wikipedia back you but I believe in the ethos of wikipedia and its editors (presently company excluded of course, i.e. you) and am happy to believe in the trusted hands of wikipedia to do what is right.
I do ask again though, as this is not even remotely your field, why your interest in the subject and what made you decide to write the article in the first place?
Likewise, as the TLD is in Arabic, why are you and dotshabaka so concerned with the spelling in English, it should be irrelevant? 86.128.218.112 (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil Shabka[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
Any additional comments:

I strongly advise the user to read Help:Wiki markup and learn how to format text before making any more edits. — Scott • talk 23:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know that wikipedia editors and admins put themselves out and give much of themselves to maintain the worlds most fantastic wikipedia and they do it because they care, which puzzles me as to Scott's abrasive approach which is certainly not in keeping with the wikipedia ethos [6] and has been in evidence form the start from when I simply attempted to correct a spelling msitake. Sarasin (talk) 00:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC) Nabil[reply]
Formatting notes: don't put a blank line after the thing you're replying to; and add another colon to the start of your comment each time, to indent it more - it makes it easier to work out who's talking. See Help:Introduction to talk pages/Layout.
Regarding "from the start", you began your interaction with this article by edit warring over it, and you don't seem to be willing to read our rules on reliable sources (mandatory) and original research (prohibited), no matter how many times they're presented to you. — Scott • talk 01:12, 24 March 2014 (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.


Move it to شبكة, there is no such thing as .shabaka, here I'm giving you the official source http://www.iana.org/domains/root/db Moreover, if this is going to stay as .shabaka we also need to move .орг to .org. --Kirov Airship (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirov Airship: Please see WP:Use English. The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources. .shabaka is that version, as shown in numerous sources, including this one which is referenced in the article. — Scott • talk 12:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then we should move .орг to .org ? That doesn't make any sense. Also I really hate such kind of newspapers, they are making it up, I even block this kind of newspaper web site in my computers hosts file. "shabaka" should be in the parenthesis as explanation. --Kirov Airship (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ E.J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam 1913-1936
  2. ^ Population Reference Bureau
  3. ^ Al-Ahram
  4. ^ The British Museum
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.shabaka&oldid=1194781263"