Talk:Rutog Town
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Dominique Roux in topic Merging and title name
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rutog Town article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Merging and title name
editThe pages should not be merged.
Reading the content of both pages, the entry for Rudok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudok) is describing the older, Tibetan village, whereas that for Rutog / 日土县 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutog_Town) describes the much newer Chinese settlement. Rutog lies on the G219; Rudok a few kilometres off it. The Lonely Planet guide to Tibet 7th edition pp 237 - 238 provides an accurate description of the two places.
I visited Rudok and drove through Rutog on 18 August 2010.
Photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/maryloosemore/archives/date-taken/2010/08/18/page2/
This is my first contribution to a talk page. I hope it's appropriate.
Maryloosemore (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
- Besides the fact that the page contains some wrong information (for example population data) and also outdated information, the main problem is that after the merging done on 22 April 2011 with Rudok, the article is mixing information about "Old Rudok" and "New Rudok", which are two distinct villages located about 10km away, as mentioned by Maryloosemore. I think we should either split again the two articles, or create two different sections describing both new and old Rudok separately. I am volunteering to make the necessary corrections, but I'm not sure what is the best option. --Pseudois (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- Another issue is the article title. Rudok (created on 13 February 2006) was merged into Rutog (created on 13 September 2007) without discussion on which is the most common English name. Despite its small size, Rudok has an important historical significance and is known in English publications since at least the 19th century. The historical prevalence of Rudok over Rutog can be seen in this chart. An analysis of the last 10 years shows that Rudok is still apprimately 10 times more frequent than Rutog. In case that we keep both new and old Rudok/Rutog in the same article, then I would suggest to move back to the original article "Rudok". A third spelling (Rutok) is popular in English language guidebooks and should also be added but probably not as article title.--Pseudois (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
- I am just (re)discovering this discussion 8 years later (I am the same person as Pseudois above). I will simply undo the redirect. --Dominique Roux (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)