Talk:Derry/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Proposal to make this article more neutral. Some options:

A. "Londonderry" to be first word in opening sentence as agreed here [1] which is the foundations of IMOS

B. To remove "Derry" from the official Namespace in the infobox, as Derry is not the official name.

C. Is to implement both A and B.

D. No change. Page is neutral as it is.

My choice would be CABD. Dubs boy (talk) 12:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Dubs boy here on CABD. I think that in the interest of neutrality and accuracy, Londonderry should be mentioned first with derry being used later in the sentence. Plus we must remember that the Royal charter that gave the city it's official name has not been revoked and thus is still in force which means that the official name should be given prominence despite the use of the alternate name. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Just to point out, an RFC is a Request for Comment, not a poll. Also, the RFC states that the question or comment should be neutrally phrased - providing options (as in a poll) simply restricts discussion, and including *your* preferences at the RFC page is not neutral. So can you decide what it is you want? Do you want comments from uninvolved editors (purpose of the RFC process), or do you want a poll? --HighKing (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies HK, but DMCQ was pushing me for an RFC, I thought this would be the ideal format. I would like a poll and a opinion from an involved editor. What is your vote?Dubs boy (talk) 13:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you should go with the RFC first, and let it run it's course. It would be great to get some fresh opinions on this (although don't be disheartened if they don't all rush over as it's an area that a lot of people avoid). After that, take stock, and then perhaps opt to run a poll. My advice is to keep the poll simple - you've over-reached (in my opinion) with the poll above. I believe there's a good chance that changing the first sentence will pass, but I'm unsure about changing the infobox and I don't think that will pass. So I'd present two choices - change the opening sentence, or leave it as is. --HighKing (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll let it run its course. I think the page has a contradiction and the options reflect that. We can not say "Officially Londonderry" then include "Derry" in the infobox official namespace. That doesnt make sense to me. But then the page is a reflection of years of edit warring and very few wars make sense.Dubs boy (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

If the result of the RfC is fairly clear one way or the other then no need for anything else. RfC is a common way of getting reasonably binding decisions. It would be better to state the options clearly one per line and bolded if deciding between them is wanted. Writing should be easy for other people not the person writing as the aim of writing is to communicate and more people read something than write it here (usually! ... hopefully!) 15:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. No great feelings either way. Following the way the United Kingdom article is phrased something like 'Londonderry, commonly known as Derry, is the ...' would be fine I think. I don't think anything in the IMOS prescribes anything about this so we needn't worry about that, and the example of the UK article shows we can override WP:BEGIN without any great hassle if we get an agreement here that doing so is a good idea. Dmcq (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'd be fine with option A, but not B or C - I don't agree with making any other changes at this time. I'd rather no changes at all, than changing the infobox. At this time. I also don't believe this poll is worded neutrally. There shouldn't be any mention of a discussion of "foundations of IMOS" as this is grossly misleading, and ignores nearly a decade of intervening time and discussions, and pre-dates the entry at IMOS by a couple of years. Similarly at the RFC, Dubs Boy has indicated their own preference - that isn't the place for doing that, and may even influence any opinions. --HighKing (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nothing misleading about my statement. The conversation is quoted in IMOS. Foundations typical predate construction of the main form. Where was I suppose to highlight my own preference in a poll? Can you also indicate in bold your preference to make it easier to read. I've spent so much time on this page that I don't know the meaning of neutral.Dubs boy (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You must accept that IMOS has ignored a decade of edit warring, not me. If you think IMOS is not up to date then I suggest you try and have IMOS revisited but as it stands that is the guideline we have no matter how old it is. For someone who brandishes IMOS so frivolously, I'm surprised that is only now you are taking issue with its content.Dubs boy (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Where was the conversation you point to referenced when the section was being put into IMOS? As far as I can see, this is when the section was added, and I can't see any reference to the discussion you continually point to (and which occurred years previously). You may simply be reading too much into that discussion, but until you can show how one lead to the other, you are misleading people with you own opinion/POV. You may be right, but I can't see the link.

Also, perhaps you don't realise it, but your RFC comment also appears here. You shouldn't express your opinions - your request for comment should be completely neutral. Nothing to stop you changing it to be neutral...

Just FYI - comments such as "I don't know the meaning of neutral" above, won't endear you to many editors. Comments such as "IMOS is nonsense and reads well for those of a particular political bias" the same. --HighKing (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it seems to have founds it way into the guidelines now [2], so I'd imagine some sort of community consensus was gained to include the discussion as the birth and christening of the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute convention. Just for the record, I didn't put it there, but its there. Though the conversation is from 2004 so feel free to troll through a further 2 years of petty edit wars if you wish, may reveal the answers we all seek but I won't be wasting my time. Look! I've made 4 proposals. 1 of them was to make no change at all. That seems like a neutral option. To include Derry in the official namespace despite it only being a slang term used by a particular community (deny if you will) but that is not neutral. Giving more prominence to the name Derry over Londonderry is not neutral. Calling the article Derry instead of Londonderry is not neutral. So if neutrality is so important to you, focus your strengths on this article please.Dubs boy (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also stop stalking me. The fact you added that off the cuff/sarcastic remark from another users talkpage suggests that you are stalking me. Dubs boy (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

However, this then resulted in someone moving both articles to 'Londonderry' without a change in the wording, then someone copy-and-paste moving it to 'Derry' and making it clear in both articles that Derry had primacy, the last part of the comprise link. People using a comprise for thier own porpose? Not new apperently.

There seems to be a problem with your knowledge of RFCs here DubBoys, its a geography issue, not as you claim a political one, and so mutes your point and expresses that you have a political bias on this issue. Are you going to move it to the correct catergory or are you going to push your political point of view more? Murry1975 (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sir, please AGF. I would of raised this under geography had this been a dispute of location but this is quite clearly a politically loaded article. Had I raised it under geography would that then mean that I have a geographical bias on the issue? But I should hope that having an opinion no matter what the sway would not be mute by your judgement. There's a scary thought. So please focus less on insulting me and more on the topic for I am glad you are here. Do you have a vote or opinion to pass on the proposals?Dubs boy (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Whilst C would be perfect I can only give backing to A, as despite the parameter stating "officialname" it doesn't mean that it has to be. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

very passive Mabuska, but with wikipedia, nothing is set in stone. But then how far do you take it? Though I guess if there is room for 1 nickname(The Maiden City) then there is room for another, but I'd say given that Derry is mentioned several times in the infobox and Londonderry is mentioned twice, does seem like overkill to have "Derry" noted as the official name as well. I'd imagine the infobox is setup to have the official name in the official name space, at a guess, so it kinda does mean that its for the official name otherwise why else would it feature.Dubs boy (talk) 22:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you just lay off the mumbling and grumbling and complaining and not attack people thanks and just let the RfC get on with it. It is a request for comments not a forum for you to have a go at everyone who comes along. 22:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Dmcq, don't be so moist. Ive had a few wayward comments thrown my direction yet you did not come to my rescue. Be productive and cast a vote.Dubs boy (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this an RFC or a vote? Currently it comes across as neither masquerading as both. If it's a vote please withdraw the RFC requests. If it's an RFC please provide the comment and question more neutrally and get rid of the vote options (you're asking for comments and people's views and opinions, not to drive them into a set of boundaries.) Canterbury Tail talk 00:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Tails, dmcq requested I raise a RFC. I did so. I want to cast a vote and get an uninvolved opinion. This offers both. You clearly recognised this and still did not offer an opinion or vote. Clearly you're just being awkward which is not constructive. Thanks. Dubs boy (talk) 01:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

We're not supposed to vote on Wikipedia, it isn't a democracy. When people 'vote' here they're supposed to give reasons for their decision and the 'vote' is a summary of their conclusion. That's why you sometimes see people refer to them as a !vote. Things are supposed to be decided on the basis of the weight of the argument and the number of people going one way or the other is evidence of the consensus. The number of 'votes' does not always decide the outcome. See WP:CONSENSUS. So in an RfC summarizing ones conclusion is fine but one should always say why or one's conclusion may be discarded. It would have been better to say the issue neutrally at the start this is explained at WP:RfC. Besides which trying to see the other person's point of view is a good start to cooperative editing even if one disagrees with it. Dmcq (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't win. Call it what you will but ill call it voting. I just want the page neutral, and I don't care how we come to that result. I've raised an rfc hoping that it would attract more users and more opinions to this topic. If I have gone about it the wrong way then apologise but on wikipedia, people go out of their way to be offended sometimes. I feel I've jumped through hoops already. If all could cast their "Opinion" that would be great. As for attacking users, I didn't mean to but Mabuska's comment was so annoying. It just seems that every structure on wikipedia is so fluid, it makes no sense to have infobox, its getting that bad. So Please just offer an opinion on the topic, rather than constantly harassing my methods of community consensus. I'm no wiki expert. If you wish to fix the RFC content then please do so, but to me I've outlined how I think the article can be improved and a back out option if no one likes the options.Dubs boy (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

People go out of their way to be offended sometimes. One can read that a number of ways! I gave my opinion. I'm not fussed one way or the other and thought a change was okay by the guidelines. Note the C in RfC. That stands for comment. Others have decided they prefer one thing or the other. There's no need to drive yourself to a heart attack over something like this. Dmcq (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(They sure do) I'm not sure this RfC is going to result in anything productive. For starters I think the editors involved should take a break. --Somchai Sun (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubs boy, you asked me for my opinion, close current flawed RFC open new neutral one in the correct sphere, geography. If you want a neutral article here ask for the correct RFC to be open. Murry1975 (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

He's offered to let someone else have a go at sticking something a the top. Do you want to have a go? I think the grounds are that Londonderry should be at the start because it is the official name like for United Kingdom and Derry because it is the common name and the title. Dmcq (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My point being its a flawed RFC, any consensus coming from which will itself be flawed. Dubs can close this one and open a correct one, only him or an admin can do that (as far as I am aware). Murry1975 (talk) 18:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Close RFC and poll

Not sure how to close an RFC once its open to be honest. I still don't think this falls under geography so ill leave it up to Murry1975. I don't want to be accused of geographical bias. I think it should be 2 pronged. If "Officially Londonderry" is going to remain then "Derry" surely can not remain in the official namespace in the infobox. Say what you like, I know this isnt an encyclopedia, but its inconsistencies like this that are misleading.Dubs boy (talk) 19:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There are two ways. If there is consensus to close then the label can be removed and the discussion closed. Or the opener can decide to withdraw the question. Both options are detailed under the WP:RFC page linked in the template above. I can do it, but if there's consensus then so can anyone else. Canterbury Tail talk 19:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a point in this flawed RFC being let run? Dubs seems to think that its a political RFC, which its not, he may view it as political but for reasons of this encyclopedia its geographical and should be dealt with as such. Lets move to close and start one at the correct point, with a balanced approach. Murry1975 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Close. I tries to point out the flaws previously but I'm getting the impression that Dubs boy is more focussed in banging a broad political drum, and using Wikipedia as a forum to air his political views, and biting and hand that tried to help him, than making any real progress at this article. He's not happy with the consensus moving an inch, he wants a mile. --HighKing (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Murry1975 and HighKing. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just to add to Canterbury Tail's comment. Maybe a better location is appropriate as well? For example at IMOS? Mabuska ^(talk) 12:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

@Mabuska, IMOS tends to be insular, we need to expand the views in there. I think its time IMOS grew with the rest of the encyclopedia, for too long the subjects that IMOS refers to have been a scene of bans and blocks, a disproportionate amount with registrared editors. We need outside opinion and help to achieve the best neutrality and keep the articles in-line with other project wide guidelines. Murry1975 (talk) 12:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I thought that the RFC was to be closed on the provision that a more neutral rfc was to be opened. What happened?Dubs boy (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe as you are the one proposing a change, maybe they are expecting you to do it?

@Murry1975 - all places have a degree of insularity, that's why we post notifications at relevant WikiProjects and places for notice to get as many editors involved. I suggested IMOS as the issue is in regards to it, though if it is Dubs boy's last proposal that is raised at a new RfC then maybe here is the best place for it. Mabuska ^(talk) 13:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, my understanding was that as I was incapable of providing a neutral heading to the RFC that it would be closed. I assumed Murry1975 would do so as he was most critical of my opening statement. I wish for these 4 options to be made available for a poll as it would make the page more neutral, though when I think about B is the most important to myself as Londonderry is listed as "official" in text yet Derry is listed as official infobox:

A. "Londonderry" to be first word in opening sentence as agreed here [3] which is the foundations of IMOS

B. To remove "Derry" from the official Namespace in the infobox, as Derry is not the official name.

C. Is to implement both A and B.

D. No change. Page is neutral as it is. Dubs boy (talk) 14:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how do you define what the "official name" is?..in the context of the infobox at least. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean, but "Londonderry" is the official name of the city. There is no disputing that yet in the infobox it is listed as this "official_name = Derry / Londonderry" which obviously is incorrect and not neutral.Dubs boy (talk) 21:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

CABD for me Italay90 (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment on name treatment

Just came by here randomly, thought it'd make a few observations with fresh eyes. I don't think there's any need to put the official name of an entity in the "official_name" field of the infobox template. Readers don't ever see the name of that field; looks like it's called "official_name" just to distinguish where you put the regular name (of which most cities only have one undisputed) from where you put nicknames. It's probably better thought of as "the place you put whatever name should appear at the top of the infobox". The intro and the infobox reflect both names and the Name section goes into exhaustive detail about the dispute and seems to fairly characterize both sides. There are two sources documenting that the city is more commonly called Derry, so titling the article "Derry" and putting that first in "Derry/Londonderry" seems like a reasonable decision, which was apparently reached by a previous long discussion. Doesn't seem like there is a need for any changes. -- Beland (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

An RfC on the name of the article?

Could we please have a Request for Comment on the naming of this article and the County Londonderry article? I believe it should be voted on whether to:

A. Keep the articles as is.

B. Rename the Derry article to Londonderry.

C. Rename the County Londonderry article to County Derry.

D. Make no changes as regards to naming the articles.

E. Rename both articles to Derry-Londonderry and County Derry-Londonderry respectively.

(Or something along these lines). Italay90 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Considering Wikipedia policy neutral PoV and official naming would make B and E the only viable options unless you deem "County Londonderry" and "Derry" as neutral. As for common naming - there is no evidence that 'Derry' is a more popular name for the city and county than 'Londonderry' and so (in my opinion) should be ignored in this situation. Italay90 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)