Talk:Almond roca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Correct name

Google search for "almond roca": About 147,000 results Google search for "almond rocha": About 947 results

Add to that the fact that the confection's name comes from one of the Spanish words for rock (roca) and it's clear that the correct spelling is Almond roca. | Klaw ¡digame! 03:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, though, that if the spelling is 'Almond roca' then it would not make sense for Sharon Rocha to be named after it. Since she actually was, this proves to us without a doubt that the correct name is 'Almond rocha'. Let's get this fixed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.160.180.50 (talkcontribs) 08:13, 28 February 2006.
This does not prove anything beyond doubt. Just because she spells her name as 'Rocha' does not mean that the correct form of the candy name is 'roca'. They are phoenetically identical and her parents (or whoever filled out the birth certificate) could have easily slipped in the offending 'h'. 23:57, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.57.99.188 (talkcontribs). 1 April 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, there is no such thing as "Almond Rocha" until found otherwise on a candy package. The logic that creates this from Sharon's name is not unlike stating that because someone was names "Lunden Bridge" that "London Bridge" can be alternatively spelled in this way. I live near the makers of "Almond Roca" in the United States and have never seen anyone spell it any other way. (I'll also make a point of getting some pictures and details for this pitiful stub.) --DigitalGadget 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)