Talk:Bobali

WP:COMMONNAME

- -

• "Bobali"

-

• • Google - 11.100 hits

-

• • • Google Books - 704 hits

- -

• "Bobaljević"

-

• • Google - 3,700 hits

-

• • • Google Books - 1.880 hits

- Whoever renamed the article was not acting in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, revert to the english common name "Bobali"--Kanalesi (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC).-

Fix a point

google search, only English websites:

• (House of Bobaljević-Wikipedia) [1]: 88 hits
• (House of Bobali-Wikipedia) [2]: 79,000 hits

google books search, only English sources:

• (House of Bobaljević-Wikipedia) [3]: 3 hits
• (House of Bobali-Wikipedia) [4] 7,410 hits

google scholar search, only English documents:

• (House of Bobaljević-Wikipedia) [5]: 6 hits
• (House of Bobali-Wikipedia) [6]: 34 hits

I'm going to move the page as per WP:CN, WP:UE, and of course to replace in under the right title [7] this article after some reiterated undiscussed move [8]. - Theirrulez (talk) 00:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

LoLz... 79,000 hits eh? Obviously you need to learn a thing or two about Google tests... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it fun. I thank you for your googling lesson, but you are, as usual abit partizan: this what appear serching ("House of Bobalijevic -wikipedia): [[9]] BLANKED. Thanks for not perseveratin in your move-n-edit war. --Theirrulez (talk) 14:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the "House of Bobalijevic"? Never heard of it...

You must mean "Bobaljević"? I'll be happy to give you all the lessons in Googling you need, as long as it makes you notice how obvious your POV-pushing is. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

About indiscussed moves

The move-warring you started on House of Bobali -an article I created few days ago- which followed your undiscussed moves of several other articles -which was all created by me: House of Cerva, House of Bobali, House of Bucchia and others- seems frankly not to be in line with WP:CONS, WP:EW, and seems, even supposing your good faith, conducted just to impose Croatized version of names (e.g see [10]).

I remind you how was resolved your undiscussed moves on House of Cerva [11], and what happened after you moved Fausto Veranzio wihout seeking of consensus, when your undiscussed move is forcing until now dozens of authors to take part in the discussion related to the move proposal rightly issued after what you deliberately did. House of Bobalijevic was moved back to House of Bobali after an open proposal posted in the article talk page showing clearly the original title matches WP:UE and WP:CN criteria. If you want to move again the page feel free to do that, but after this message consider yourself adviced about necessity of using absolutely controversial move proposal procedure, WP:RM. Regards, - Theirrulez (talk) 14:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like I have to repeat myself:

I am sorry, but will you please stop with the act? A user with your appalling record forfeits entirely the right to lecture others in propriety. Your edits are those of a POV-pusher of the most obvious order, "sir", and you may feel free quote me on that. Your campaign on these articles has seen you use every devious POV-pushing method available, from incessant edit-warring, move-warring, and MEATPUPPETEERING, all the way to sock-recruitment. Yet you insist on this incessant (badly spelled) "shocked-innocent-user" charade. From now on, please spare me the thoughts and opinions you may have about me. Thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to show openly and exactly what's your position. I appreciate you sincerity. For real. Theirrulez (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Nobody likes to be attacked on their own talkpage, Theirrulez. Your ideas are way beyond the point of no return if you think that people from the Slav populated region of Dalmatia need to be "Croatized", whatever that means... You know, "Croatization" primarily refers to the forced conversion of Serbs to Catholicism performed by Croatian fascists. The same fascists (Ustaše) who were trained, funded and armed by the Kingdom of Italy... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if you feel someway offended by my posts, but I can't see any provocation in it.

Can I show you what exactly is the point? You seems a bit confused about national identity and cultural history of a nation. I'm not challenging or discussing Croatian history, I just talking about historical names, which you know, are referred to a period and a region, Dalmatia, populated for century by several cultures -of course neither Croatian nor Italian- and in which were spoken different languages. I usually offer to your attention how, especially in the Republic of Ragusa, was very hard to say there was a Croatian culture, without going along with a clear historical inaccuracy.

At the end I think that talking about fascists, Italian, Serbs etc. is a little off-topic. Leaving apart any political meaning you want to underline, Croatization means forceing something to become Croatian, and it fits perfectly to the needing to translate into modern Croatian an entire historic nomenclature -belonging to a Romance former culture of pre-national age, pushing it as the primary use. -- Theirrulez (talk) 16:18, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, Theirrulez, but what is the "historical name"? Is it the name those people used in every day life? Or the name in documents? The aristocracy of Dalmatia, a great part of which was of Italian origin, naturally felt superior to the commoners. They emphasized this difference by writing their names in the language of culture at that time and place - first Latin, then Italian (Ragusans did not really like Venetians that much, so there not Venetian, but in Split certainly). They also naturally knew that language, esp. if they were of Italian origin (such as my family), but even if they were not (e.g. Božidarević). However, their primary language was the Shtokavian dialect of Dubrovnik (or the Chakavian of Split, etc.). Everyone there spoke Slavic dialects. You could not buy a head of lettuce (or ask a servant to bring a cup of tea) without knowing the language. Yet you postulate that these people were "Italian" in language after 800 years of living in a Slavic land. It is an interesting fact that Dubrovnik nobles were known to speak Italian in the Great Council (where they were required by law to do so), but cursed and yelled at each-other in Shtokavian. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd take a look to Dalmatian language, just to spend some time. Theirrulez (talk) 14:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Lessons on Google testing

• Lesson 1. The Google search engine distinguishes very clearly between a "c", "ć", and a "ch". That's a bit of a problem with Slavic names, different authors spell them differently. So, what we do is we add the results, e.g "Bobaljević" + "Bobaljevich" + "Bobaljevic". They all very obviously refer to sources using the same name variant. The romance names do not have this problem

• Lesson 2. Since both the proposed names start with "House of...", a two-year-old could figure out that the issue is between the notability of the word "Bobali" and the word "Bobaljević". What this means is that we do not search for "House of Bobali" and "House of Bobaljević", but just the surnames.

• Lesson 3. Words like "Bobali" and "Cerva" are rather common and refer to very many things other than those Ragusan family names (e.g. Bobali, Cerva). Therefore we need to disambiguate somehow by adding other search words. Old Eastmain suggested adding the word "Ragusa" (or "Dubrovnik" for the Slavic variant) [12]. You agreed to his search results, I do too. It is important to note that Slavic name variants do not have this problem [13].

Your tests are very much flawed, all of them. Lets have a look at Cerva for example, shall we? (Google Books in English)

• "Cerva" Ragusa 263 hits.
  (note per Lesson 3: without the disambig "Ragusa", we get results like "The Sopranos family cookbook" and "Defects in silicon III" [14])
• "Crijevic" 389 hits + "Crijević" 103 hits.
  (note per Lesson 3: every single result refers exclusively to Dubrovnik's Crijević family)

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:42, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the lessons, I'm very grateful, but you must understand me, as English reader I'm not familiar with diacritics.

Anyways even adding dicritics, search results don't seem to support any change:

("House of Bobaljević" -wikipedia) [15]: 3 hits...

- Theirrulez (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh they have diacritics in Italian too, you must've heard of them? 3 hits vs 3 hits, then? Not "88 vs 79,000"? :) Wait a minute, you did not read all the "lessons"... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Shall we continue?

• "Bobali" Ragusa 83 hits
• "Bobaljević" 121 hits + "Bobaljevic" 48 hits.

Please remember: without the disambiguation word "Ragusa" (or "Dubrovnik", if you like?) we get all sorts of unrelated results that have nothing to do with Dubrovnik at all... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahem... excuse me teacher: ("Bobaljević" Ragusa) [16]: 26 hits...

- Theirrulez (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why did you add "Ragusa" to the search? I'm curious. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you joking or are you serious? You performed a search using the keys ("Bobali" + Ragusa) (92 hits) but then you compared it (I don't know why) with a search with only the key "Bobalijević"! So I showed you that searching ("Bobalijević" + Ragusa) it gives back only 26 hits. Ratio 4:1. - Theirrulez (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Theirrulez, why didn't you read my first post in this thread? We're not going to get anywhere if you don't read posts. See "Lesson 3": we NEED the "Ragusa" (or "Dubrovnik") dismbig for the romance names since if we don't use it, we get the Sopranos and similar junk hits (per Eastmain [17], with whom you agreed when it suited you). If you search for the word "Bobali" you get stuff like:

• "the country of Bobali"
• Basotho and the mines: a social history of labour migrancy in Lesotho ("bobali" means "brideswealth", apparently)
• "bobali transactions"
• some guy in Cincinnati called "Bobali"
• "Bobali, a great landed estate in the Northern Circars..."
• "the Bobali Corporation", Bobali Corp.
• The Blacks of Premodern China: "We know that Duan Chengshi could not have firsthand experience of Bobali..."

etc, etc...

We do NOT NEED it for the Slavic names since we DO NOT get any junk hits - its all the Bobaljević family of Ragusa [18]

So I'm asking you again: if there are 121 English hits for the Bobaljevic family on Google Books, why did you add the word "Ragusa" to lower the number? There are a total of 169 English Google Books sources that use "Bobaljević" to refer to the subject of this article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not consider you a stupid, not at all so why are we wasting our time? on Gogle books if you search for "Bobali" (only English sources) you got 620 hits, six time more common, and all books (but less than ten hits) are about Savino de' Bobali or Marino Bobali or Sigismondo and Ludovico Bobali, or others members of the House of Bobali.

WHO decides slavic name should follow different keys? same keys make comparation reliable, different keys make you seem too smart to give lessons around. - Theirrulez (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious here? Those 620 hits are not about the subject of this article, the vast majority are about completely unrelated nonsense - as you can clearly see from the listed examples above. You cannot seriously expect people to pretend they're stupid and say "yes, there are 620 hits for the House of Bobali, even though the search has a TON of unrelated hits".

Maybe I am wasting my time here. LoL, maybe you should ask someone about your "620 hits" and see what they're gonna tell you. Are you going to take this discussion seriously, or are we going to pretend we're stupid? Cuz if we are, then we'll go to WP:RM and see what the community thinks about your "620 hits"? "Bobali" is 1) a small region, 2) a "landed estate in the Northern Circars", 3) a corporation, 4) a surname unrelated to Ragusa, 5) a type of transaction, 6) the Lesotho word for "brideswealth", etc, etc...

Do we have a problem with communication? Are you able to understand my posts completely? Because I cannot seriously believe that you are trying to say those 620 hits are all for the Bobali house from Ragusa. The bottom line is: its silly to even claim such a thing. You need to narrow your Google test to the Ragusan family - how you do it, I don't care - but no more cracks like that post above or this discussion really is pointless... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

If we have a problem of communication I don't know. I'm perfectly able to understand your posts.. what I cannot understand yet it's why you posted all these lucubrations about searching tricks:

("Bobali" -Connecticut -corporation -Lesotho -Basotho -transaction -"Northern Circars"): 602 hits, only English sources, as usual. - Theirrulez (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "automatic" way people do these tests. If the test shows unrelated results it is flawed and needs to be narrowed down. You're trying to avoid the facts - the simple "Bobali" search renders a huge number of unrelated results and thus simply cannot be used as a marker for English usage. It is completely worthless. We are not here to stupidly write in "Bobali" and see what comes up - we're here to find out how many English sources use the name "Bobali" for the Ragusan family. Again, if you "don't trust me" ask someone. You can't say there are "602 hits" when there is a huge number of other "Bobalis" besides the family. Other surnames, other people unrelated to Ragusa, etc... Those which I listed above were just a few examples I found on the first page! "Bobali gardens, Bobali peak, Richard Bobali, Bobali H.J., some place in Africa, India,..." --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 01:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

97% of that number is related to the Bobali family or to one of its member. ("Bobali" -Connecticut -corporation -Lesotho -Basotho -transaction -"Northern Circars") = 602 hits, means 6 pages of 100 hits, easy to check. Is by far a bigger number of hits.

P.S. Anyways I'm seriously appreciating your efforts in this discussion, I prefer by far this Direktor than the crazy rollbacker or the sockpuppets haunted. This kind of discussion we had on this talk, sometimes too sarcastic for my taste, was in someway constructive and surely more respectful than usual. - Theirrulez (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're gonna manually list over 160 English sources using "Bobali" in there? That's the first 17 pages, plus you have to be careful about the foreign language sources that are in there, about stuff like catalogs and the old testament (its in there, lol), and about the non-Ragusa-related stuff - so it will likely entail more pages. Well, in any case, I admire your enthusiasm. People rarely go through these things manually, but if you're right it ends this issue.

Here's another idea (honestly, I doubt you'll do the above) - we use "[Italian name] Ragusa" and "[Slavic name] Dubrovnik" searches and see the results? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 02:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It woulnd't give balanced results, we have always, or as often as possible, to choose the same disambiguation keys, excluding that one more common in one sense or in another one. --Theirrulez (talk) 13:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It makes sense - Slavic word for the city as the key for Slavic usage, Italian word for Italian usage. Seems reciprocal? It is rather unfair to use an Italian key for Croatian language usage... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Theirrulez, pick some way to narrow these tests down to Ragusa. "Cerva" (or "La Cerva"), for example, is a very, very common surname and is also present in many other meanings. The truth is its obvious how to narrow it down - Eastmain's keyword - it looks to me you're avoiding it because the Ragusa-related search does not give you the results you want. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You guys maybe should try also "Babalio Ragusa Dubrovnik -wikipedia", 'cause "Babalio" was an alternative name of the family: 97 hits[19]. Cheers.--87.28.126.85 (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC) center

This is Wiki Fight Club.

Fourth rule: only two guys to a fight.

— Jimmy Wales

"Babalio" seems to be another variant more common than "Bobali" and less common than "Bobaljevic"... Theirrulez, have you come up with something yet? The more I think about this the more I realize we REALLY need a searchword to narrow this down. LoL, try searching for "Gondola"... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

You should appreciate my job just because I didn't provide yet a challenge search to House of Gondola. =) --Theirrulez (talk) 04:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

An interesting thought! Sir Floyd (talk) 05:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

WoW, s0000 interesting... There are a thousand hits for "Gundulic" on Google Books [20] [21], and 597 for "Gondola" Ragusa [22]. Besides, Ivan Gundulić is like the "father of Croatian literature" or something (though Marko Marulić, a Split noble, is there too ;)...

Wait a second, Sir Floyd, what are you doing here? Aren't you supposed to have stopped WP:STALKING me? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Direktor!:) Did I attack you here in anyway? You have taken my remark the wrong way. I'm not taking sides. That STALKING statement, not nice. Are you trying to portray me in a negative way, please don't and be nice! Focus on the subject matter and let their be civility. I'm interested in these particular issues that you & Theirrulez are wresting with. Hi Theirrulez! Sir Floyd (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC).

Hi Syr Floyd, what are you doing here? I was having a bloody fight with my fight-mate DIREKTOR, we have choosen this talk page so far from busiest places just to find a bit of privacy! Don't you want to start stalking me too??

I'm joking: welcome, Syr. - Theirrulez (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) Sir Floyd (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not know we were calling in buddies? :)

So Theirrulez, have you found some other acceptable search method that excludes the junk hits? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed request. Number 57 19:09, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

---

Bobaljević → Bobali – Gbook hits: "Bobali" "family" (48) versus "Bobaljevic" "family" (11); "Bobali" "Ragusan" (31) versus "Bobaljevic" "Ragusan" (12). Zoupan 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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.