Difference between revisions of "Talk:Firefighting"
From Conservapedia
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
I wouldn't really know which is correct, but "firefighting" returns about 5.8 million Google hits, whereas "fire fighting" returns about 7.8 million Google hits. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 7 March 2008 (EST) | I wouldn't really know which is correct, but "firefighting" returns about 5.8 million Google hits, whereas "fire fighting" returns about 7.8 million Google hits. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 08:04, 7 March 2008 (EST) | ||
| − | What was wrong with moving it? Google hits are good for general observations, but in this case "firefighting" is definitely the more correct term. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 19:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT) | + | What was wrong with moving it? Google hits are good for general observations, but in this case "firefighting" is definitely the more correct term; at least it's how i've always seen it spelled. Google's algorithim gives results without the space when you search for "fire fighting" so the numbers can be misleading. Plus some pages may have nothing to do with firefighting and only have the words "fire" and "fighting" in separate places. [[User:Fantasia|Fantasia]] 19:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT) |
Revision as of 23:44, June 26, 2008
Move (rename) proposal
I wouldn't really know which is correct, but "firefighting" returns about 5.8 million Google hits, whereas "fire fighting" returns about 7.8 million Google hits. Philip J. Rayment 08:04, 7 March 2008 (EST)
What was wrong with moving it? Google hits are good for general observations, but in this case "firefighting" is definitely the more correct term; at least it's how i've always seen it spelled. Google's algorithim gives results without the space when you search for "fire fighting" so the numbers can be misleading. Plus some pages may have nothing to do with firefighting and only have the words "fire" and "fighting" in separate places. Fantasia 19:40, 26 June 2008 (EDT)
