Talk:Yogurt/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Yogurt. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

The pictures

Can someone spread out the images over the article so that they don't all gather together in two spots? Also one or two could probably be cut. Xiner (talk, email) 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

And why are all 3 pictures from Japan? It gives the impression that it's a Japanese invention or something.

Yoghurt is a invention by the Turks i agree that those pictures give you another impression

Please look again; they're from three different national pavillions at an International Fair. They are probably the easiest way to show multinationalism without copyright violation, unless some editor is both in the Caucasus and can upload photographs. I will look to the captions, which are redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

A section on reproductivity

How about a section on a live yoghurt culture's amazing ability to reproduce indefinitely when milk is added? I will get onto myself when I get time, but maybe someone a bit more knowledgeable with biochemistry could help out. - Bennyboyz3000 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing amazing in this. Micro-organisms reproduce and multiply. The same happens with yeasts in bread and wine, for example. Not worth a special section. — Michael Fourman 22:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Is buttermilk yogurt?

I've always thought that cultured buttermilk was made with mesophilic cultures, while yogurt is usually made with thermophilic cultures.

Is it really appropriate to say that cultured buttermilk is yogurt? ASL 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Ruling?

So...what was the final ruling for the naming of this article? I think it needs to be made clear, because it will always be a contentious topic. If the article is to remain Yoghurt, then why? It seems odd that there has been no concensus on the naming, yet the manual of style was not followed in that case (no concensus = follow the naming conventions of the original author, which was Yogurt). Please clarify this, so that the topic is CLOSED. 132.170.188.103 17:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC) (User:Chris Ducat on a public computer)

The article is to remain yoghurt because it was created as that - however apparently the version was not saved in the history. You'll notice that in the history - the title is still yoghurt - meaning whoever really created it set it up as yoghurt - and there is no N next to the guy who claims to have created the article - meaning that was not when the article as created.daniel folsom © 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

(for the record, I fixed it back to yoghurt even though i'm an american after someone vandalized half the article to "yoğurt") The version in the history will show the _current_ title always, look at a version right after a pagemove to yogurt to verify. It's not clear the N always existed, and there's no Yogurt article on nostalgia.wikipedia.org. [1] is the first edit with the "yoghurt" spelling at all, and [2] is absolutely convincing. The article used "Yogurt" throughout for the first twenty-six versions, being switched from one consistent spelling to another. --Random832 06:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, what Random832 said. This can be trivially verified by looking at the first revision. --moof 07:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Right. The title on viewing old versions is always that of the current version, and I don't think the N existed back then. And what reason does he/she have to lie? --Random832 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell would a person spell the title one way, but not spell it the same in the article. What i've most often heard is, just like the first edit on Wikipedia, the real creation edit was lost. However, it's possible that someone just created an article called, "Yoghurt", and then put next-to nothing in the text box, like just "Yoghurt" and then this person said "Created article" because they added all the text (For the record random832 - I'm and american too, but that has nothing to do with it - you even if I was Russian I'd be expected to follow Wikipedia rules).danielfolsom© 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that the first version with "yoghurt" in the article text is actually http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoghurt&oldid=756214 which appeared about 2.5 months after the article was created and about 3 weeks before the link [1] given above by Random832. Also note that link [2] may be "absolutely convincing". Nevertheless examination of the immediately preceding revision, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoghurt&oldid=2041822, with your browser's find function will demonstrate that the article contained both spellings immediately before that edit. I made the changes that I did in accordance with a suggestion of mine on the talk page a month earlier (more than meeting the requirements of policy for discussion of this type of spelling change/article renaming at the time). During the lifetime of this article it has used the "yogurt" spelling exclusively for about 2.5 months, both spellings for about 10 months and the "yoghurt" spelling exclusively for over 3 years. It has also been the subject of two lengthy debates, neither of which led to its title being changed. Why do we need to revisit this ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because spelling it with an h is strange to a majority of English speakers. It will always be questioned. Just sayin'. SchmuckyTheCat 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Serves me right for asking, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The article contained the "Yoghurt" spelling in _one_ place, where it otherwise used the "Yogurt" spelling throughout. If some newbie added a line that spelled it as "Yogurt" now, and I used that as a justification to change the whole article to it later on, that would be unacceptable (a clear WP:POINT violation if ever there was one, but even otherwise it'd be unacceptable) --Random832 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well actually it contains three (look at Tarquin's revision just previous to the diff, not at the diff itself) but who's counting, <grin>. And I didn't just make the change out of the blue, I suggested it on the talk page a month earlier and had no objections. That met the requirements of policy for this type of change at the time. I certainly didn't realise I'd still be defending my actions years later. And I don't see the relevancy of bringing up WP:POINT, a policy which did not exist at the time, and which, even if it had, is hardly applicable to a change previously suggested on the talk page and not objected to. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

(two _places_. there are multiple occurences in the second place i named) I didn't mean you violated WP:POINT, I meant I would if i made such a disruptive edit and said "well, i did that because he did the same thing three years ago!" _i_ would be in violation of WP:POINT. which is why i didn't do it, and i even changed it back to yoghurt recently from someone else's spelling changes. I didn't mean to imply your original edit would have violated that (though, i'm not convinced it followed the rules regardless, how much traffic did this talk page get back then?). Anyway, my original question wasn't meant to be combative (when i described your edit as being a "clear violation", i was leading up to a sort of 'and now, you know... the rest of the story' kind of moment with this edit _not_ being part of the later edit wars, but a simple well-meaning edit. But i'm curious as to why you changed it to a spelling that only appeared in one section (apart from a brief mention of the spelling differences themselves in the lead), rather than what the whole rest of the article was using. --Random832 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, with regard to WP:POINT, that's fair enough. The answer as to why I picked the "yoghurt" spelling rather than the "yogurt" one is contained in the third revision of this talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoghurt&oldid=2387041, in which I made the initial suggestion that "yoghurt" should be used. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Arguments for "yoghurt"	Arguments for "yogurt"
Article has had this spelling longer	Article had this spelling first Most commonly used spelling even in reference works that would otherwise be expected to use british spellings (Britannica, etc) Oxford English and Merriam-Webster dictionaries both use this spelling Google returns 13 Million hits for Yogurt, 5 Million hits for Yoghurt

Anyone have anything to add? feel free. --Random832 22:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hunno-Bulgars

Google Book Search, Google Book Search 2 Chapultepec 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to counter this - see bulgars. It's a little insultive - only a little, but still insultive --Laveol 11:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Laveol, I know the article Bulgars. But I can't see anything insultive. What I'd like to say is there is a term "hunno-bulgars" and this is used by the scholars. Chapultepec 12:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oks, I'll take it :) --Laveol 12:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

pressed yoghurt

if possible, could an informed yoghurt expert please post something about pressed yoghurt?

thank you,

susut-nohr family —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.68.172 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

Finish Up with the Naming

Ok, come on people - it's been discussed - it's over, and sadly you'll have to see an h instead of an o. The worst part about this is - no one here actually cares about the article - if you did you'd be able to deal with the spelling changes - but half of you at least would just try to change the name and then move on - maybe watch this page in case another name debate comes up. The article is fine - I can't believe someone tried to put a poll up on here.daniel folsom 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read the archives, and most of the opposition seemed to hinge on an argument that the less common name was the first version used in the article...which was shown not to be the case in the edit history. In any case, the last poll was in October '06. Since AFDs often reoccur in much shorter time frames I do not think it is too soon to post a poll for a much lesser change. If no one cares about the article, changing to the more common spelling should not be controversial. Antonrojo 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

People care about having american english or british english - not the article. Seriously though - is everyone here really so stupid that they're baffled by an h. "Hmm ... I know what yogurt is, but yoghurt? WTH? That could be anything!"daniel folsom 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Naming poll

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus. Hús ö nd 03:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like the pro and con arguments have been clearly summarized and extensively discussed and I think a poll is appropriate. My opinion is that longevity should never be a reason for not improving an article.

Proposal: change article name to Yogurt, add a redirect from Yoghurt.

Arguments for "yoghurt"	Arguments for "yogurt"
Article has had this spelling longer, ~~thus the manual of style says the spelling should be kept the same~~ ~~(I call BS! The MoS says, "[If] there is no clear reason to change it")~~ - oh, my bad, I forgot that an extra h can occasionally blind people. hmmm... There is no clear reason - poppularity has never been used - otherwise there would be a lot less American/British English controversies. The article has been stable until you guys insisted on bringing it up	Article had this spelling first I know that there was speculation among some, but this is definitely, undoubtedly true. —METS501 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Most commonly used spelling even in reference works that would otherwise be expected to use british spellings (Britannica, etc) Errm, Britannica is an American publication--why would it be expected to use British spellings? Um, probably because Britannica uses colour instead of color, I guess. They also use aluminum instead of aluminium, carburetor instead of carburettor--they appear to have some style in use that is not simply a matter of preferring British or American usage -- we can't really draw any conclusions about their decision to use yogurt. Oxford English and Merriam-Webster dictionaries both use this spelling Google returns 13 Million hits for Yogurt, 5 Million hits for Yoghurt Wider distribution: dominant in the U.S., widely used in Canada, current in the U.K. too and lemmatized by British dictionaries (cf. Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide (2004), pp. 587 f.) Once the title is "yogurt", there will be no clear reason to change back to "yoghurt", and the article name will stabilize.

Support

Antonrojo (talk · contribs) Antonrojo 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
JackLumber (talk · contribs) —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 23:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
SchmuckyTheCat, and I think that oppose votes of "leave it alone just to leave it alone" is not an argument on the merits.
--Polaron | Talk 23:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Mildly, per note in comment section. Tom e r ^talk 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Always supposed to use the most popular name. -M^ask? 02:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Article had this name first and therefore should never have been changed. This is a long-established wikiprecedent Juppiter 04:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The fact that the article was originally at "Yogurt" is reason enough to move it back since WP policy states the article shouldn't have been moved in the first place. Yogurt is also far more common. TJ Spyke 04:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Mild support. That the article was stable in the wrong name by mistake is no reason to leave it wrong. (And there is a clear reason to change it. ~~It's no longer the current British spelling, either, according to the nominator.~~) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC) No. "Yogurt is current in the UK too" doesn't mean "yoghurt is no longer current in the UK." The British National Corpus has 260 instances of yogurt and 288 of yoghurt; and since yogurt strongly prevails over yoghurt in the U.S. and Canada, yogurt is the commoner spelling worldwide. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 12:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Support per nom. --Serge 05:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong support first and more popular name. there would be no debate if it had been "yogurt" since the beginning. --Maestro25 05:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, except from Derek, apparently, and given previous experience, probably Jooler as well... Tom e r ^talk 06:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong support to change to Y-O-G-U-R-T! English is difficult enough. - Jeeny ^Talk 19:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Objection - Yoghurt is still English.daniel folsom 21:07, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Support. All of the major sources support this as the more common name. The article started at the point, albeit with some questions. While not the best source, Google supports this. The oppose opinions are mostly 'end this discussion' and 'leave it alone' and don't provide evidence why this is the correct spelling to use here. This is apparently not a US/UK issue since both use the name being proposed, according to the above information. Bottom line the facts support this position in an overwhelming manner. Making this change will also ensure that we will have clear consensus to not change in any future nominations finally putting an end to these discussions. If that is what editors really would like to see, this is the only option. In fact a rename for that last reason alone may be worth the effort. Vegaswikian 19:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Support per MoS, and because Wikipedia is supposed to be dialect-neutral. --Yath 03:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Strong support per Maestro's reasoning: First and more popular name. There shouldn't even be a debate about this. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-19 03:49 03:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Googlefight! – at the risk of sounding glib: yogurt: 12,600,000 results. yoghurt: 5,180,000 results. Feel free to disregard this vote; it's not really a support or an oppose. I just thought I'd brighten the day of the voters. :) — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 03:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Very Strong Support per MoS, this is clearly the spelling that should be used. --Dscarth 21:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Very strongly opppose The way to stop this nonsense is to stop. Leave it alone, per WP:MOS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose - can't people find something more useful to do with their time than propose the conversion of Wikipedia to US English ad nauseum? As I have said before on this talk page, moving this article back to "yogurt" would be arbitrary and would achieve nothing. People quoting the Manual of Style really shouldn't, because that is merely a collection of descriptive guidelines, not a rulebook. Granted, early in its history, this page was at the title "yogurt". But for a substantially longer time, and for a substantially larger number of edits, this article has been at its present title. The question here is not "why shouldn't the page be moved?" but "why should it be?" and I don't see any good arguments being advanced for its moving beyond the typical "OMG but the person who started this as a crappy stub 5 years ago spelled it this way!" which I think is weak at best. - Mark 05:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You do know that yours is the most long-winded "oppose" right? That, in conjunction with your participation here at all, makes your "can't people find something more useful to do with their time" remark a bit of the pot calling the kettle black. That said, your denigration of people quoting the MoS is an invitation to disaster. If this truly is a BrE vs. AmE dispute (which it doesn't really appear to be), then the MoS clearly nullifies all arguments against moving it back to Yogurt. If it's a simple spelling issue, regardless of where which spelling is preferred, popularity should probably carry the day...in which case it should also be moved back to Yogurt. Your declaration that the original spelling shouldn't hold sway because it was a "crappy stub" pretty clearly indicates that you haven't bothered to investigate. If this, the article in its original form (the edsum Created article. pretty clearly negates the argument that the "original" might have been lost in a server crash), is what you call a "crappy stub", I think you'll find your definitions are significantly out of step with the vast majority of your fellow editors. Personally, I think you owe User:Collabi an apology. "The original spelling" should be maintained is not a "weak" argument, it's part of a comprehensive agreement hammered out specifically to preclude this sort of argument...even if the original were simply a "crappy stub" (which it pretty clearly was not). Tom e r ^talk 02:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I certainly wish I could spend my time doing better things than returning every few months to the same articles and arguing the exact same thing because some new people have come along and decided to dredge it all back up again.

As to the Manual of Style, people have been quoting it selectively a lot here. Looking at the bit which says it should be moved unless there is a clear reason to do so, if we're going to follow that, what is the clear reason? Doesn't the fact that there is significant opposition of all counter the argument that the reason is clear?

Finally, in relation to the "crappy stub" comment, it is true enough that I did not read through the original revision before making that comment. It's quite good, as first revisions from 2002 go. In any event, if you'd read what I said properly, instead of assuming bad faith on my part, you'd have noticed I was referring to a typical argument I see in article naming arguments like this, not my own personal view. - Mark 03:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Feh. I wasn't assuming bad faith, I was assuming unqualified pontification. I don't think the problem is that people are quoting the MOS selectively, but rather, that people are placing more emphasis on the parts of the MOS that fit their views more closely. I've commented on my take of this as being the root of the problem, below, in the comments section. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the mos says if a spelling has been used long enough - and the article is stable, then don't change it.daniel folsom 02:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've addressed this below, in the comments section. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 03:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose for the same reasons stated on the half dozen polls regarding this subject that have taken place before. Why does this keep coming up every few months? Just live with it. Jooler 07:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Stop proposing this move, per Jooler above. Proteus (Talk) 11:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose — It is very sad to see this fought out as an British/American thing — it's a Turkish thing. The modern Turkish spelling is yoğurt, and the Ottoman spelling is يغورط. Then, the issue is over how we represent the letter ğ or غ. Being rather patronising, I believe it is likely that most of the people who have voted here have no idea what those two letters mean, so go and read those articles. Anyone who knows the slightest about thing about Turkish knows that ğ is not g. Anyone who knows anything about Arabic alphabet knows that gh is the usual way of transliterating غ. Now, how the word has been spelt in English is important, but, in a case where that tradition is unclear, it should be informed by the word's etymology. — Gareth Hughes 11:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your argument is that, while it is true that "gh" is used to transliterate ghayn, we're not discussing the word's etymology nor its Turkish spelling. The fact is that ghayn was not used in Turkish to represent anything like the Arabic ghayn, any more than Phoenician `ayin was ever used for that purpose in Greek. If the Taliban and their allies win and someday we're all writing this using the Arabic alifba, or some variant thereof, your argument about etymology will carry weight. Until then, the use of "gh" to transliterate Arabic ghayn has no bearing in a discussion of the etymologically correct spelling of an English word kyfed from Turkish. This diatribe provided courtesy of someone who regularly writes things like "the rôle of naïvété" and "coöperation". By your logic, we should move Algebra to Aljabra because jim is transliterated as "j", not "g". Tom e r ^talk 02:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose and never bring it up again - chances are, even if this move succeeds, it'll backfire, and we'll change back. We have the established spelling, per MoS we should keep it like that. If you all are honestly baffled by on extra letter - then you belong at the Simple English Wikipedia.daniel folsom 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Previous polls have repeatedly established there is no consensus to move the page back and no new reasons have been introduced--voting is evil--just get on with writing articles already. older ≠ wiser 02:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Just leave it alone and stop re-agitating this peripheral issue. The article is stable; there is no live issue here. Metamagician3000 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. Not Again! I guess these sort of surveys will just keep on going. Please just leave it as is. – Axman (☏) 09:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. As per all above in the oppose. – Marco 79 10:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, per all the arguments in the past. Dialect neutrality matters. Guettarda 03:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose, this is the spelling we use here in Australia. --203.220.170.209 05:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Objection. This user is an anon and a wikistalker by trade. And that ain't no valid reason. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 18:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Why have you made this personal, when I don't even know you? Just because I have different view from you I'm called a *wikistalker*, which is NOT ever a proper word! My reason is perfectly valid! --203.220.170.126 07:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. I can't believe people are wasting time on this yet again. How often does it have to be settled before people drop the issue and do something useful for a change? Vilĉjo 23:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Flip a coin

If the first number of the May 22 daily lottery pick at http://www.lottery.co.uk/daily/ is odd → "Yogurt"; if it's even → "Yoghurt". ~ trialsanderrors 20:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Oppose. This has been discussed ad nauseam. Resorting to poll rather than priority would lead to continuous wiki-wars. Youghurt is a valid spelling and has priority. Leave it alone. Michael Fourman 09:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Have you read anything here? The argument is between "Yoghurt" and "Yogurt". Your "valid spelling" of "youguhrt" has, in this argument at least, no legitimate proponents. Cheers! Tom e r ^talk 09:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

Danielfolsom left a message on my talk page about this, because I commented on the naming issue months ago. I don't really care what the page is named, and I'm baffled that people are still expending energy on this. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't much care what the spelling is. I have a personal preference, but that is not relevant. I do care about wasting time on discussing and changing the spelling back and forth. Why does anyone care? --Macrakis 01:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the fact that I added yoghurt to WP:LAME some time ago explains my position pretty well. --moof 01:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Not worth arguing about, methinks. —Michael Z. 2007-05-16 19:54 Z

Comment

I'm bringing this up in WP:RM - prepare for a lot more attention.daniel folsom 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought it had been! Good. SchmuckyTheCat 00:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah - hopefully everyone can get there say in,right now it looks pretty one sided and really with how many people who voted the first times, I'm thinking that a move can't be made until a few other voices come out.daniel folsom 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I would have gone neutral except that I take a pretty rigid stance wrt maintaining the AmE/CanE/BrE naming and usage ceasefire. If the assertion that the article started at "Yogurt" is true, since it is not a subject of strictly or even chiefly British or Commonwealth interest, it should remain at, or be moved back to, its original title. The argument that people won't be able to handle the "h" is a red herring—and is easily mootified by a properly worded lead. If a properly worded lead doesn't help them, they belong at simple:, not en:. Tomer^talk 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
- It's been stable at Yoghurt; as WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English says:

When an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated.

The first contributor is a fall-back, when there is no stable history. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I respectfully disagree that there is "no clear reason to change it". See the nomination for a handful of clear reasons. --Serge 05:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The nomination list reasons like, "it was there first" - which is now conflicting what the MoS says - also, I have a hard time believing that Europe has changed it's spelling - given that people are voting against changing it to Yogurt. This vote was a waste of time brought up by (chances are) a bunch of immature Americans (which granted, I may be one, but at least i'm not obnoxious enough to bring the vote up) who will likely never edit this article again if it's changed (or maybe edit it one or two times). I have to change my vote.daniel folsom 11:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

The google test results alone invalidate the "no clear reason to change it" clause. Note that if the title were "yogurt", there would be no comparable clear reasons to change. --Serge 16:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Europe hasn't changed its spelling. The spelling yoghurt is not found in French, German, Spanish, Italian, or Portuguese. Both yoghurt and yogurt are current in England. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 13:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the OED's spellings are (numbers are the second digit of the century): 7 yoghurd, yogourt, 9 yahourt, yaghourt, yogurd, yoghourt, yooghort, yughard, -urt, yohourth, 9- yogurt, 20 yoghurt. See also YAOURT. If this passes, I will be strongly tempted to propose a move to yaourt. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

And, not that German, French, or Italian spelling make much difference for English, the article is at de:Joghurt, with alternative spellings listed as Jogurt and Yogurt; it is fr:Yaourt, with alternative spellings of yogourt or yoghourt; and it:Yogurt, with no alternative spellings listed. older ≠ wiser 02:39, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It's an interesting argument. There are obviously numbers of people who really dislike the h spelling. And every few months, it is proposed to rename the article because the h spelling is so rare, and that's a compelling reason. On the other hand, all the opposition to renaming are "just drop it" "leave it alone", with little basis in actual support for the h spelling. Isn't it obvious that leaving it as is will continue the conflict? If it truly doesn't matter what the spelling is, then go with the spelling that has the least dispute, not the one that can't even muster support on its own merits. SchmuckyTheCat 23:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
What your saying is, give us what we want, and we won't complain ... hmmm. But it's the principal of the thing - the fact is the vote should've never been started in the first place.daniel folsom 02:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the article never should have been moved to Yoghurt to begin with. I really am not bothered by its present location, so much as I am by the potential for the move (to Yoghurt) to set a precedent that I foresee unravelling the BrE/AmE status quo. That, to me, is where "the principle of the thing" comes into play. Tom e r ^talk 02:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Uhh! It doesn't matter if it shouldn't have been moved there to begin with - the fact is this artcle has had yoghurt for a while, and it's been stable, so per MoS, it shoudl be kept as Yoghurt.daniel folsom 02:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

give us what we want, and we won't complain Well, yeah. I guess, but it there is a cost/benefit thing here. What is the cost of complying to the whiners? Zero, it's style, not substance. It's not like there is an abandonment of any core policy. SchmuckyTheCat 03:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

But it is - because there are always winers for one way or the other - and if you give into one - then the other side will rightfully accuse you of bias - so instead we go by the wikipedia guideline WP:Mos - the article has had the spelling for a while and it has been stable, so it should be keptdaniel folsom 03:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

There are few who are actually opposing the move based on the merits of "gh". So who is going to whine about it if it is moved? The spelling issue repeatedly arises because the gh spelling is strange. SchmuckyTheCat 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

“

Stay with established spelling

If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case). Other editors are justified in reverting such changes. Fixing inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated.

”

The problem here is that the MOS's "Stay with established spelling" is butting heads with "Follow the dialect of the first contributor."... This "rule" specifically exempts simple stubs, which is probably why Mark characterized the original article as "a crappy stub" eventhough it quite clearly was anything but. If I were King of Wikipedia, I would move it back simply because the best way to make the argument go away is to undo the first injustice. Perhaps the development of a template for talkpages is in order as well, indicating the spelling conventions to be used in each article with differing spellings, so this sort of thing can be avoided in the future. This is beginning to bring up memories of Danzig... BTW, my requesting a citation was in jest. Sorry to make you go through that... :-p Tom e r ^talk 03:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, to maintain the BrE/AmE truce, I consider Follow the dialect of the first contributor. to fulfill the requirements of Stay with established spelling's "clear [and] compelling reason"... Tom e r ^talk 03:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there someone we can defenestrate for making the move in the first place? :) I'm pretty sure I checked the MOS last time this came up, and the MOS definitely said the "use the first contributor's spelling" way back when this change would have happened. - Mark 03:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, at this point, I don't think it's worth the effort to figure out who did it, unless someone has the time and really wants to start digging around and see how many other articles the offender moved. More than likely, it was by someone who's long since disappeared into the woodwork and has no idea the havoc they've spawned...or is sitting back getting a wickèd laugh out of the chaos they've left in their wake. In either case, as much as I'd like to give them a hertz donut, that's not gonna resolve this issue, unfortunately. :-\ Tom e r ^talk 03:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, it was me and I have explained my reasons for doing it (which had nothing to do with Br/Am spelling) so many times over the last few years that I see no need to do so again. If you're really interested you will read the archives; if you're not then you shouldn't be taking part in the discussion since your lack of awareness is leading you to conclusions which amount to personal attacks on me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Your arguments are flimflam!!! :-) Tom e r ^talk 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the "stay with established spelilng" overrules go with the first contributor - otherwise you wouldn't ever need "Stay with established"daniel folsom 03:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Logically, "go with the first contributor" is really just a form of "stay with established spelling". This is a weird case because the spelling did not stay with that of the first contributor, and so the established spelling became something different. - Mark 03:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah...it reminds me of "it's our minhag to drive on shabbes". Tom e r ^talk 03:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
- But the issue appears to be what is the established spelling? The move to the current spelling is far from having consensus. So why it was moved from the first spelling is the cause of the continued rename requests. What's wrong with using the first name? If there is no consensus why not simply return to the start and then see if there is consensus for a change? The results may very well be different then you would get from this rename request. Vegaswikian 06:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  I consider that to be a rational proposal, and I think that if Shmucky wasn't advocating it, s/he was at least on the road to coming up with it. Perhaps the article should be moved back to Yogurt and then those in favor of moving it to Yoghurt can bring it up on WP:RM. The question is, will those who oppose Yogurt lay down their slings and arrows long enough for such a thing to take place? I have no doubt this is going to elicit exaggerated responses about how pointless such an exercise would be...but I think anyone with their finger on the pulse of sanity should be able to recognize that months and months of bickering about it is far more pointless. In fact, speaking of pointless...a lot of the "oppose"rs' comments strike me as verging on POINTy... Tom e r ^talk 06:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  Um... that sounds like jumping through procedural hoops to me. Why not just agree that it doesn't matter how it's spelled, and that arguing to move from one controversial title to another is a terrible use of our energy? I've haven't seen anybody offerning an argument to move the article other than "there's a rule that says such-and-such". If we didn't have any rules, and had nothing but reason to apply, would we want to move the page, and why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  It doesn't sound like jumping through procedural hoops, it is jumping through procedural hoops. While I generally am inclined to agree that that would be an unnecessary waste of effort, in this case, as I said above, it basically puts the article back to where it was when it was first moved inappropriately, and, by doing so, nullifies the argument that, if a subsequent discussion indicates a consensus or something at least remotely resembling consensus to move it to Yoghurt, doing so was inappropriate. I really would like to get some input from Mel Brooks on this discussion... Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 17:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

GT, "I've haven't seen anybody offerning an argument to move the article" there is a large chart at the top of the discussion if you are really missing this. It clearly goes into the merits of the yogurt spelling. So far I see two people in the oppose group making a discussion on the merits of the gh spelling. All the rest are variations of "status quo". It's a wiki, there is no status quo. SchmuckyTheCat 17:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I see a chart explaining that the 'h'-less spelling is more common. That's kind of an argument on mertis. Nobody seems to be claiming that either spelling is actually doing any harm, misleading or confusing anyone, or problematic in any way other than being at variance with WP:COMMONNAME. It probably will be more stable at Yogurt, but I have a hard time seeing it as anything but very, very trivial. The chart doesn't explain to me why I should care how we spell the word. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tomer's argument is flatly irresponsible. The wording of WP:MOS is "If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor." We are complying with this; we are considering it. If this weaselwording can be considered to override Stay with established spelling, it is too strong; and we should consider removing it altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way is my argument (whichever argument that might be) irresponsible, "flatly" (whatever that might mean) or otherwise? In the future, unless you're joking around (which I don't mind), it would be appreciated if you could stick with refuting arguments, rather than dismissing them out of hand with denigratory characterizations. You might also consider looking up the meaning of weasel words, since what you seem to be characterizing as "weaselwording" clearly does not fit the definition thereof.

To address your interpretation of the apparently conflicting sections of the MOS (which actually deals with language usage within an article, rather than with article naming, which is the cause of this dispute), I think it's pretty clear that all else has failed to quell this disagreement. Tom e r ^talk 21:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That it cites MOS for a position that the words of MOS (intentionally, I helped write that paragraph) will not support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In what way does the MOS not support my position? It seems me that you're reading your intention and interpretation, as one of the contributors to that section of the MOS, into the wording, rather than reading what the words actually say and mean to those of us who were not involved in hammering out that section of the MOS. Tom e r ^talk 22:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you may not be reading at all - the mos says stay with the stable spelling if it has been there for a while - this obviously over rules the stay with the first spelling - because otherwise you would always stay with the first spelling - and the established spelling rule would not need to be mentioned. You say that there is a reason to change it - but in reality your reasons have been "It was here first" - which is overruled by "stay with the established spelilng" and "it's more common" - but popularity is never used as a reason to have a spelling - otherwise there would be no spelling debates- we would just do a google count for everything.daniel folsom 17:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point...The MOS does say to stay w/ the stable spelling, but Derek's moving the article to Yoghurt clearly violated that principle. You can't say stay with the stable spelling overrules the first spelling when the first spelling was already stable, which it was. My rationale is that the move to Yoghurt was a violation of the principles that you are now arguing support not moving it back to Yogurt. All I'd like to see is for the article to be moved back to Yogurt, since moving it therefrom was improper in the first place, and let any move discussion to Yoghourt, or Youhurt or whatnot, take place from there...where the move discussion should have been considered at to begin with. I'm not arguing about which apparently internally conflicting principles of the MOS have precedence over each other...I'm simply saying that the argument would me moot if we just start the whole process over from the beginning and do it PROPERLY, which, regardless of where it ultimately ends up, will nullify at least one strong argument for why it should not be at Yoghurt. Tom e r ^talk 03:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Derek did what he did, but regardless - the spelling he changed it to has become the stable spelling - even if it was a bad edit. It seems to be that your more interested in giving a "ticket" of some sort to Derek then you are with the manual of style.daniel folsom 12:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even vaguely interested in "punishing" Derek in any way. I think he was wrong to do what he did, but unless he did the same thing to a bunch of other articles, no censure is called for, nor have I ever said anything that remotely indicates that I think so. Where you get this "ticket" stuff from is beyond me. I am, on the other hand, directly contrary to what you assert above, extremely interested in the MoS. In fact, it is precisely because of my interest in the MoS that I assert that what Derek did was "wrong", and want to see it undone. Tom e r ^talk 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

While directed to deletion discussions, the closer here really needs to consider the oppose votes as being in the WP:ILIKEIT genre. One side is presenting facts and logic that should add to the weight of those opinions. You can not simply count oppose vs support and determine consensus. Vegaswikian 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- Let me get this straight. Now that the numbers aren't going strongly in favour of the support side any more, the support side is coming out and demanding that the oppose votes be discounted because the support side of the poll is better, or something like that? The list of support votes contains its fair share of disregardable votes, if that is the case. Either way, this is headed for stalemate, yet again. - Mark 01:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

New proposal

I pretty obviously think Derek was wrong to have moved the article in the first place, and regard defense of that move on the basis of "stability" to be void of merit. Nevertheless, since I simultaneously regard the practically unbelievable flood of nonsense this violation of WP policy has spawned, I have come up with a proposal that everyone should be able to agree to. It is as follows... Someone write a bot to move the article to Yogurt for a week at a time, if the date of the Tuesday of that week is an even-numbered day...unless Thursday of that week is the first day of a new month... If, however, the month begins on the Monday of that week, and the following month has a Friday the 13th, then the article shall remain at Yoghurt for the entire month. If the January of the year before, however, the 24th was on a Wednesday, then the article shall remain at Yogurt for the month instead...except in a leap year, or if the following year is a leap year and July 12th falls on a Sunday. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 06:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it that this is a joke. It's certainly a reductio ad absurdum of the whole pointless debate. Metamagician3000 08:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I think a solution like a scripting or Wikimedia addon that converts disputed words to British, American, etc. English via a tag like {{idioms|American=color British=colour}}. Users could then set their preference under 'my preferences' or on a Javascript page with a default set when the account is created based on the country the user's IP resolves to. Antonrojo 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That exist except for titles - i think it's the {{sp}} template - but you also have to set it up on your monobook.daniel folsom 15:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I had described almost exactly this template at this village pump proposal. The first user that responded raised an important point: the template would be used potentially dozens of times in many articles and might lead to serve load problems such as those described here.

It is possible that the simplicity of the template--that it simply replaces text rather than rendering images like most templates--may obviate this problem. Of course there is also the problem of deciding which spelling is the default. My suggestion is not to have a default. Instead, users could set an idiom when they make a new account or 'no idiom' which shows all idioms. The default could be based on the users IP or American English, with a notice to this effect on an account creation page. Antonrojo 15:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No - the people at VP were right - it'd crush the entire wp server - it'd be insane. And people need to learn to get over extra letters - if they can't read a word because there's an extra h or one less u - then they belong at simple english wikipedia anyway.daniel folsom 19:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Poor excuse for keeping the "h" because "people need to get over extra letters" WTH? It's YOGURT. ugh, my yog hurts. A Google search produces 13,100,000 hits for the spelling "yogurt" vs 5,170,000 for "yoghurt". - Jeeny ^Talk 20:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your arguing google searches - and I'm arguing Wikipedia policy. We're on Wikipedia. Advantage: Me.daniel folsom 21:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You you you. :) (your = you're) be careful! Yup, and Wikipedia is in Amercia and uses English per Wikipolicy. lol - Jeeny ^Talk 21:14, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all - Wikipedia uses both American and British English - omg, are you really that dumb that you thought yoghurt wasn't english!? Either way read the Manual of Style - specifically the part about "Varieties of English". Second - grammar Remember to put commas most often when your repeat words twice (You, you, you not "You you you."). Also remember to start people's quotes out with capital letters, and ... actually I don't know where to begin on this sentence: "Poor excuse for keeping the "h" because "people need to get over extra letters" WTH?" daniel folsom 21:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, lighten up. I was being lightheartly sarcastic. Your "argument" is faulty though. And making fun of my usage or grammar is not nice, because I can get all over your case in on this very page for English usage and your many, many, many mistakes... if you want to go there, but I know you don't. Respectfully. - Jeeny ^Talk 21:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Psh - I see, when you pick on my grammar is lightheartly sarcastic, but when I do the same afterwards - it's a personal attack. Hmmmdaniel folsom 21:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, stop. You called me dumb. I didn't attack, just used your picking on my grammar back at cha. Did you get caught in the block? What was that all about? - Jeeny ^Talk 22:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You were the one that picked on my grammar first!

“

You you you. :) (your = you're) be careful!

”

And yeah, I did get caught in the block - for a second there I thought we had seen the end of Wikipedia. daniel folsom 22:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I did start it. Hmmmm.... but then again, I don't know. But, will not go back and look, I'll take your word for it. Truce? That block was weird. Maybe it was trying to tell us something. (twilight music) :) Gotcha last. Neener! - Jeeny ^Talk 22:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the Canadian spelling, yogourt. It will annoy everybody equally. (Isn't that the essence of consensus?) --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 10:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL. - Jeeny ^Talk 19:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think SigPig is treating this <irony> momentous</irony> question in the proper spirit, and support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly agree. lmao. - Jeeny ^Talk 20:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Planned Closing

There's obviously no consensus either way - so barring any reason to keep it open (and I don't mean a reason like "but it should be yogurt!" I mean a legitimate reason to expect a consensus one way or another) then I'll remove this of WP:RM in about an hour. Then finally people can focus on the article and not the spelling.daniel folsom 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't close it early. SchmuckyTheCat 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly don't close this early unless you are going to move it. I have made the point that I believe if moved, there would be more support to keep it and a consensus to leave it. Right now we have consensus to rename, but apparently not strong enough. Personally we need to take this to a review process were the root issues of how we got here can be discussed. Saying the spelling is stable, while being correct, is problematic since those who object to what may have been a move without consensus was used to justify the current spelling in the name and the article. Why should those who are playing by the rules not be served by having a fair decision be made once and for all to revert back to the historical version? Do we have an option like deletion review? Vegaswikian 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the spelling is stable. I took a stroll through the archives for the talk page and there has been arguments over "yogurt" vs. "yoghurt" since 2004. The only things stable about the spelling is the constant fighting over a single letter and that the editors involved in the arguments have shown restraint and not edit/move warred over that letter too often.--Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose closing for there is consensus. Danielfolsom, what gives you the qualifications to judge the opposing votes? It is not stable and should not be closed because you want it to be. Your reason is not any different than the one you use to contrary. You say because it should stay this way because its here and has been stable for a long time. But, there are many articles that are blatantly wrong, yet they are "stable" under your definition because no one has bothered to check them, or come to view them. Check the random article link from time to time, and you'll see what I mean. BTW, that is how I got here. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there is no consensus; as there never has been. Even if this were a vote, and it isn't, 14-10 is not the sort of supermajority required. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why do I bother? Because it's nice to have a flagrant example to tell the Br/Am edit warriors - and by extension the BC/BCE Date Warriors, and all the other pointless contentions - to back off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. We ought to be firm on the point that we don't move pages from one perfectly acceptable spelling to another on the grounds that someone was "wrong" two years ago. That is way too far removed from building an encyclopedia. The 'h' is neither misinforming, misleading nor confusing anybody. Being so insistent about making styles conform to whichever standard is against the spirit of our naming conventions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the move to "h" was wrong then (move without concensus away from the original form) and wrong now (not the most common name in any version/dialect of English, so it fails WP:NC(CN).) That seems to me to be a reason to move, overriding "stable". (These aren't supposed to be votes, anyway; the closing admin is supposed to look at which reasons have more weight, rather than how many votes are for the alternatives. Only Wikipedia:Deletion review is supposed to count votes.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"not the most common name in any version/dialect of English" — I think you have been confused by the use of "yogurt" by the Oxford English Dictionary. "OED English" is regarded as a language variant of its own, and does not entirely reflect common UK English usage. "Yoghurt" is by far the most common spelling in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, at the minimum. - Mark 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

See, what I'm saying is that failing WP:NC(CN) isn't a reason all by itself. Normally the policy is to use common names, not because it says so somewhere, but to reduce confusion. Nobody has made any argument that the spelling with the 'h' is confusing anybody, so I don't see a compelling reason to move an article that's at a perfectly good title. I don't mean "perfectly good" in the sense of satisfying every "rule"; I mean it in the sense that it's not actually hurting the encyclopedia to use the slightly less common spelling. It's not worth moving this page over, considering the history of controversy. It's in the same spirit as how we deal with BC(E) and colo(u)r, namely: stop arguing about it, and leave things the way they are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus does not require a supermajority, but 60% may be the lower limit of one, Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority. As Arthur notes right above, the closer should look at reasons. And to those reasons, the oppose votes don't look at the merits of moving, they simply oppose based on "status quo", a concept which isn't well-respected because it is anti-wiki. SchmuckyTheCat 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, claiming that keeping this article at "Yoghurt" is maintaining the "status quo" is a non sequitur. The relevant "status quo" (don't mess with articles ["crappy stubs" are fair game] to alter the article's already "national variety" established spelling) is, in this case at least, a stronger reason to move it back to "Yogurt", rather than to keep it at "Yoghurt". Tom e r ^talk 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

(left)That's just it. They ain't got no reason whatsoever! They plead MoS even though they well know that *we* have the MoS on our side, as well as every possible policy, rule, and guideline! Their only other argument is, "Please stop it!" Come on! That's ridiculous! —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

MoS is on both sides; it's not entirely consistent. We should take as an indicator to stop thinking the buck stops there; ultimately, it doesn't matter what MoS says, it matters why it says it. There's no good reason to prefer either spelling, so it was wrong to move it, and it's wrong to move it back. The spirit of the whole cease-fire on national varieties of English is "stop worrying about it". Both varieties are fine, and not worth moving pages over. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok ok if there was this much opposition to closing it then I wouldn't have brought it up - but I think that there's obviously no consensus either way (14-10 qualifies as no conensus - sometimes 14-8 qualifies as no consensus) and based on the way things have been going I don't think we'll see some splurge of voters come and vote for one side.daniel folsom 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't oppose closing the RM discussion; I oppose people worrying about national varieties of English. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok - well I agree - I actually can't decide which one should technically be the right spelling - but I do know that we've had this for a while and there are a lot more important things (see WP:Backlog) to worry about than changing a name - which is why I opposed.daniel folsom 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You oppose, because you want to ignore several years worth of griping to save an administrator less time than it took to write this response? SchmuckyTheCat 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not to save anybody time, it's because we don't make changes based on national varieties of English, and if we do it here, people with bitch that we have to do it everywhere else. The point is to not worry about extra or missing 'h's and 'u's, because they're not confusing nor hurting anybody, and they're not making the encyclopedia any worse. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That was, specifically, the reason for the oppose of the last person. (Danielfolsom) SchmuckyTheCat 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait what - the Backlog is for everyone - they have the pages without citations pages needing to be rewritten etc. So it's not about saving an admin time- it's about people like you and me actually doing productive things rather than arguing about a letter (and even more so: It's about people like you who vote in things like this instead of even knowing about the backlog...). I mean this page's name is going to be changed every five seconds if this is allowed - I mean you'll have the supporters of yoghurt saying we were wrong to move it when it was stable and you'll have the supporters of yogurt saying it was yogurt first - so I say, stop worrying about sill spelling differences and actually do something productive.daniel folsom 23:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Get over it

This has been discussed to death and should never have come up again. I propose that any further naming discussions are deleted on sight. violet/riga (t) 12:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Get over it! That's life! :) Eyedubya 03:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is compelling argument for it to be changed to "Yogurt" as said above, and little to none for "Yoghurt". This will all go away once the proper change is made! --Maestro25 18:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not a compelling argument. Simply noting what a guideline says isn't a compelling argument when people are making arguments for why the guideline shouldn't apply in this case. To make a compelling argument, you'd have to explain why the other spelling is better on merits, and not just on agreement with a line in MoS. The "rule" about staying with the original contributor is secondary to the rule that says we should leave well enough alone, absent compelling reasons.

I don't see anybody arguing that the encyclopedia is any worse for the extra 'h', so I can't see the point in adding another pagemove to the history. I can see a lot of point in agreeing not to move pages around between national varieties of English. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

staying with the original contributor is secondary to the rule that says we should leave well enough alone

I notice that people have started saying that on this talk page, several times in fact. I'd like to note that it's a novel idea, unsupported by any precedent, rule, or argument. In fact, the leave-well-enough-alone guideline post-dates the original-contributor rule, in the MoS.

As for "reasons", the original-contributor rule exists to ensure dialect-neutrality, which itself is utilized as a way to quell regional conflicts and ensure that people speaking any dialect of English feel equally welcome. --Yath 22:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsupported by precedent, rule, or arguement, eh? I've seen the precedents. It's the very principle that kept Honour where it is instead of moving it back to Honor to "fix" a several-year-old pagemove. As for the rule, I can cite it verbatim, so I guess it is supported by rule, too. See WP:ENGVAR, where "Stay with estabished spelling" is given clear priority over "If all else fails, go with the original contributor. As for argument, I'm supporting it by argument now: the argument for such a rule is that these naming questions are very trivial and not worth moving pages around over. The idea is that we want people to worry about something other than national varieties of English; if it's possible to stop worrying about it, then stop worrying about it.

You're correct that the "original contributor rule" exists to ensure dialect neutrality, and I fail to see how dialect neutrality is served by not letting sleeping dogs lie. Those arguing to move this page aren't making a case that it's more neutral to do so; the most neutral thing would be to just be ok with either spelling. Rather than quelling a regional conflict, moving the page seems to be an act of participating in one. If you can explain how the article, in its current location, makes anybody feel less welcome, I'm all ears, but at this point, I'm not seeing it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great point GTBacchus - I was going to mention Grey - which started as Gray - but the problem was there were other reasons behind that move (gray actually is used as something else in the UK) - glad you knew of an example.daniel folsom 03:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not a question of national dialects any more; the (h) is not the preferred spelling in any English-speaking country. That's a reason to move the article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:43, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yog(h)urt

Well, why not?Eyedubya 23:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Definitely not. —METS501 (talk)

That's no reason. There needs to be a reason.Eyedubya 00:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey whatchew doin' here? It should be like it is now in the article, but only reversed Yogurt or yoghurt.... that's my vote. - Jeeny ^Talk 02:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there's a specific rule against that in the naming conventions, if I remember correctly. And if we did this, you'd start to see articles like Humo(u)r, Colo(u)r, and Alumin(i)um, and we don't want all our articles to look like that. —METS501 (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's in WP:NPOV#Article naming - and elsewhere IIRC. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we want all our articles to look like that? How else can we deal with the imperialising tendencies of the cultural hegemon in our midst? If we are to follow WP policy on weight of opinion (which is quantitative), then every article will end up with US spelling. And what about articles on 'ambiguity' or 'ambivalence' or 'heterogeneity'? If we're allowed to have such impure words on WP, then why not others, hmm? Eyedubya 03:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

How else can we deal with it? How about the same way we deal with "color"/"colour" and "BC"/"BCE", which is to declare a freeze on edits in either direction. We basically have a rule against worrying about national varieties of English. For some reason, some people want this article to be exempt from the spirit of that rule, which is "stop worrying about it". -GTBacchus^(talk) 12:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the edit controversies seem a little pointless once a stalemate has been reached. HOwever, where spellings differ slightly, but in sufficient quantities to be a cause of controversy, then there is a third way, and that is to have titles like 'Colo(u)r', 'Hono(u)r', 'BC(E)', 'Alumin(i)um' and 'Yog(h)urt'. To some this formulation may look klunky, but that is less of an issue than the concern about cultural dominance or subordination, in my view. Of course, this method can't incorporate the differences in the usage of 's' and 'z', but it does go a lot further to acknolwedging the differences in spelling that seem to matter so much to many people. Then, there is a fouth way, and that is to have articles that reflect the different varieties of English as separate but related articles, with titles spelled the appropriate way, rather than catch-all articles that attempt to universalise each topic. Isn't the benefit of an online wiki-based encyclopedia that its not a paper encyclopedia, meaning that it doesn't have to be a cultural arbiter on everything, but rather, present the differences that do actually exist, rather than trying to paper them over? After all, there are WPs in other languages than English, and that's a start in this direction Eyedubya 03:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a limitation of the technology we're working with that each article has to have a single title. Titling the article "Yog(h)urt" wouldn't solve the problem, because the word still appears in the article many times, and are we going to insert a parenthetical 'h' into each instance of the word? As long as the article acknowledges that different spellings exist, I don't think we're "papering over" anything. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Who says the word has to be spelled consistently throughout the article if it has a title that acknowledges inconsistency, and then sets out the different spellings and the contexts in which they are used? Besides that yog(h)(o)urt version is only an imperfect third way. The fourth way suggets related, but differently titled articles in each variant of English, and then the title and the word would be rendered far more consistent throughout each article. As someone who has migrated as an adult from one part of the English-speaking world to another, I can assert that the different varieties of English are more different than the way a few words are spelled. They are, at times, as different as separate languages. How else to explain the incomprehensions between us all?Eyedubya 10:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Your suggestions have implications reaching far beyond this article, and would involve a more fundamental reconsideration of our naming conventions. I'm not necessarily opposing such a suggestion, but I don't think this is the most appropriate venue for bringing it up. Why not start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion and the link. I have put something up there now.Eyedubya 21:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent Japanese Yog(h)urt

I couldn't help laughing at the irony of someone adding an 'h' all over the place and then writing 'no, we practice consistancy' ... will we now have the unedifiying sight of a battle for this new spelling and the substitution of 'a' throughout WP wherever consistency is found? ... just a thought. :) Eyedubya 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is 58% not a consensus?

I see there were 18 votes in favor of the change, and only 13 opposed. Why isn't 58% a strong enough majority to warrant change, especially considering the history of this article name? 58% would be considered a very strong mandate in a hotly contested political election. Can this decision be appealed? Or should we have another poll? --Serge 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ugh. Tom e r ^talk 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

A)Because wikipedia is not a democracy - I kidna hope you didn't vote - because technically only users that know the rules should vote - but essentially, what matters more than vote numbers is what people say - it's up to the admin to say, "hmm, this side had better arguments". B)Occassionaly numbers can overrule arguments - i've never seen that done unless it's above 70%. Why don't you stop complaining and edit the article - both sides said that it shouldn't be brought up again - so I'm not sure why you insist on doing so - if you try doing another poll you'll be reverted by day's end. Why don't you focus on the contents of this article - it could be improved in many ways - the spelling however, is not one of them.daniel folsom 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Surely, 18 to 13 is a majority, while a consensus is a consensus. It has nothing to do with whether or not WP is a 'democracy'. Democracy has any means at its disposal for making all kinds of decisions - some are participatory, hands-on and consensus orientated (hard to achieve in asynchronous telepresent cybespace), some are poll-based (countable) and others appear to be a version of law. WP seems to the latter. Eyedubya 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Nonono - really, look at WP:NOT - democracy is listed.daniel folsom 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link - WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy - however your right in that a majority is not a consensus - but my point is it's the same principle.daniel folsom 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

It was actually 17-14 (only 54%), if you're going to insist upon counting !votes (which, I emphasise, doesn't ascertain consensus). - Mark 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

~~::Just out of curiousity - how was it 17-14?daniel folsom 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)~~ Nevermind - one of the oppose votes was in a dif. section.daniel folsom 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)