Talk:Derry

Note to editors: the agreed compromise for the Derry/Londonderry name dispute is that the city page shall be titled Derry and the county page shall be titled County Londonderry.

City Wall being the most complete in the "British Isles"

It's time to revisit this topic as I've been troubled from the start by this claim. Here are reasons why I believe common sense should overrule the inclusion of this term, based on reliable verifiable sources and references:

• The only source provides is for a tourist website (on the US part only, not available if you say you're from Europe), where the claim is made out of context with a snippet view given between quotes as "The city of Derry is the only completely walled city in the British Isles and boasts over 1,450 years of history.". We don't know who wrote this. It is not presented as if the website wrote the quote. For all we know it came from a book where the rest of the text might have defined "British Isles" as being used in the context of the "United Kingdom" or in the sense of the term in the late 1800's, etc. We know nothing about the pedigree of the quote. Where does it come from? Who said it? Without being able to properly qualify the reference, it fails WP:V.
• All official sources do not make the claim. Doing a google search of "Derry city walls" shows:
  • Derry Visitor and Convention Bureau
  • Discover Northern Ireland Official website
  • Northern Ireland Environment Agency
  • Visit Northern Ireland official website
  • Derry Tourist website

In fact, I could probably very easily produce a couple hundred references that make the claim that it is the best example of a walled city in Ireland. Keeping the reference for "British Isles", in this context and with such weak references makes no sense. Reliable references, in this case, outweighs the argument for the current text. --HighKing (talk) 11:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

How about this one? LevenBoy (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we'll always find the occasional reference because of the circular nature of many references. The BBC website was written as a piece to accompany a TV program in 2006, and the reference for this piece of text shows it came from the Derry Visitor and Convention Bureau. Here's a snapshot of what that website said in 2006, for example. Here's what the current website says, and you can see that the reference now says "in Ireland". This type of reference is also normally a poor reference, because it is not a primary source. --HighKing (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I would say the BBC reference is at least up to the quality of the five you've noted. Regardless, here's a better reference [1] LevenBoy (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please take the time to read the BBC reference and the points I've raised above. Are you merely being obtuse or do you have a concrete reason as to why it is "up to the quality of the five I've noted"? The 5 I've noted are all what could be considered "primary sources". They are the representative websites of official Derry information and tourist organizations. In fact, I was kinda surprised there were so many, all of which appear to be official. As to your reference (while I could just say that it's a rubbish reference and leave it at that) - I'm starting to get a picture that you're more interested in the inclusion of the term "British Isles" than the issue at hand. Because the book you've quoted does not support the assertion that the walls are the most complete in the "British Isles", it says they're some of the "best preserved". --HighKing (talk) 13:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I suggest that the text of the article is amended to state that the walls are the "best preserved" and use the reference I've given. The reference from Google books is certainly far superior to those that you list and is as close to a "primary source" as you are likely to get. I would not regard any of your references as "primary sources", nor, it has to be said, would I class the BBC reference as primary. Each and every one of them is obviously just pulling material from other sources - maybe even Wikipedia. The Google book is a substantive reference work and quite adequate for the current purpose. LevenBoy (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to say that as it turns out, Chester also makes the claim for "best preserved" too. --HighKing (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. So you're not really interested in the current claim, just any claim that can justify inserting the term "British Isles" into the article. Tell you what. Why don't you let someone else continue this discussion cos I get the feeling that you're just making your case weaker. And look up "primary sources" and tell me where it says that a light-hearted tourist book is a "substantive reference work". --HighKing (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've no prob with using British Isles in the article. It's better then the article being named Londonderry. GoodDay (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion ended. LevenBoy (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, British Isles is only being inserted because the British want it there. To say that the city has fine walls, with a brief description of them is enough. And they have nothing to do with Chester!--FF3000 (talk) 15:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd safely say that you can call that a fact,FF3000, although it's definitely a British nationalist trait more than a British trait in this day and age. Eurosceptics love talking about the "British Isles" as it separates them from the rest of Europe. Dunlavin Green (talk) 05:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Liar!

Have removed info about Chester, as I only just read reference to find out that it says that Chester has the most complete city walls in Britain, while I've been told all along that it said "British Isles"! This is, as one previous user described it "poliically inspired nonsense".--FF3000 (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I've reinstated the reference. Please read it carefully again. Note the phrase "Find out about the fascinating history of one of the best preserved complete walled Cities in the British Isles.". --HighKing (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I also note that an admin @Canterbury, read your gross personal attack but didn't see any need to warn you about policy WP:AGF, etc. Sometimes its hard not to read too much into things. In any case, I've placed a pointer on your Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I missed the title segment. I apologise for that. And for my part, I should have also read the reference personally, so yes HighKing you where quite right to reinstate the older version. Dropped the ball twice at the same time, I ought to stop working 14 hour days. Canterbury Tail talk 20:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Now I feel bad... :-( Apology accepted, thank you. Maybe if I ever (what, never!) make a mistake, I'll remind you that it *can* happen to the best of them! --HighKing (talk) 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, firstly I'm sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings, I kind of got carried away, but the reference about Chester only says "A walk around the most complete city walls in Britain is essential". This doesn't mean that Chester are claiming that they have a more complete city wall than Derry, as they're probably referring to the island of Britain, which Derry is not part of.--FF3000 (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with hurting peoples feelings, and everything to do with being civil. Also, once again, please read the reference and perhaps search for the phrase "British Isles" using your browser's search function, and it will take you to the reference. --HighKing (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

But it's not about British Isles, it's just that Chester doesn't make a claim for having the most complete walls of all the UK, so it has nothing to do with de--FF3000 (talk) 22:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)rry

Did you actually find the reference and the sentence I quoted (in bold above)? It says exactly what I quoted. If you found it, I don't see what you're arguing about because it's pretty clear and unequivocal... --HighKing (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The point that I am trying to make is that Chester does not lie a claim for having more complete walls than Derry. The only reference about Chester has been removed at the time of writing, and it said "A walk around the most complete city walls in Britain is essential". That "Britain" doesn't include Derry. The statement I removed said that Chester lies a similar claim for it having the most complete walls in the British Isles, which is an unreferenced statement as the reference only says that Chester has the most complete walls in Britain. Therefore Chester has absolutely no place on his article--FF3000 (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Liar! No. 2

"20:23, 2 June 2009 Canterbury Tail (talk | contribs) (76,684 bytes) (reinstate extra text accidentally removed when editor was removing section about Chester (as per talk))" - By stating '(as per talk)' you are implying there is some consensus for the inclusion of the "British Isles" claim which is patently incorrect and merely "politically inspired nonsense", there solely for the sake of it's own inclusion, rather than actually explaining anything to do with the City Walls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.240.145 (talk)

The most expensive city walls still in existence in the UK and probably the most impressive are those of Berwick which were rebuild to a trace Italienne design by Queen Elizabeth I. See this Google map image which shows just one bastion ( for scale note that in the ditch, next to the bastion, one can just make out the lines of soccer pitch -- which means that single bastion is about the size of a soccer pitch) zoom out a couple clicks and you will be able to see all of the walls. This source says "The second set of walls is a mile and three-quarter in length. The ramparts completely surround the town, ... Walking around the town walls takes about 45 minutes."

There are other towns in Great Britain with complete walls eg [2]. The thing is though, for impressive walls to have survived one has to find a town that was economically important before the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, sided with the English Parliament of one of its allies during the wars, and had become enough of a back water that the walls were not a real impediment to economic development between the end of the Wars of Three Kingdoms and WWII (since then they have been preserved as a tourist attraction). See for example the London Lines of Communication which were the largest town walls ever built in the British Isles, but they were built and demolished within five years. -- PBS (talk) 05:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Name compromise

Note to editors: the agreed compromise for the Derry/Londonderry name dispute is that the city page shall be titled Derry and the county page shall be titled County Londonderry.

If the agreed compromise for the purposes of this article is that the city is called Derry and the county called Londonderry, then why is the city on the map marked "Derry / Londonderry"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.182.243 (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

From what i understand that is just for the name of the article and does not mean Londonderry cant be mentioned in the info box. Londonderry has remained there for some time (from what i can see) so i presume consensus is that it remain there. I havnt followed this matter, but its best to keep the stable version until agreement can be made on the talk page about making such a change. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia from reading is meant to encourage correct content naming. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that a world leading website such as Wikipedia accepts such poor use of English. How can they accept that Londonderry City is called Derry without no official guidance what so ever. I have researched in Libraries, websites and on no account was the name Londonderry ever changed. Why may I ask is this city titled Derry on Wikipedia when there is not one, not one sign that sign posts to Derry but instead to Londonderry. Wikipedia has just contradicted it's self as in the article Derry/Londonderry name dispute it states that the official name is Londonderry both for city and country, but then doesn’t even go by these titles when titling articles. Just like Wikipedia says, people should remember to keep the own views to them self’s when editing and by changing this cities name to Derry is downright biased. This city isn't being named Derry because people believe that what it's called it's being named this just to leave out the word London from it, how childish, now how is that not bring views and beliefs into editing. If there's such a dispute between what name to go by wouldn't it be a good idea to go by the one that is official and not the one that is slang. The country complains that the populations literacy rates is worrying, titling web pages that are being viewed by many age groups with such poor language as ‘Derry’ doesn’t help. I've never heard Lisburn being called Burn or Belfast being called fast so what makes it ok to call Londonderry, Derry. Cbowsie (talk)Cbowsie 17-06-2010. —Preceding undated comment added 22:17, 17 June 2010 (UTC).

I agree with Cbowsie. There have been times when I've wanted to see things called what they're actually called, but I've been barked down because it wasn't official, i.e. I live in metro Detroit-Flint-Ann Arbor, yet Wikipedia says I live in metro Detroit-Livonia-Warren. I accepted that, despite common sense, because the Bush Administration decided to rename metro areas in descending order of most populous cities, rather than most commercially/culturally significant cities. I find it offensive that, being as insistent on following the straight and narrow as the wikigods can be, they've allowed an exception for the city which in every official capacity is referred to as Londonderry. The people of Londonderry, UK live in one of the world's oldest, strongest and most civil democracies. If they wish to change their city's name, they can. Until then I'd urge Wikipedia to rethink the can of worms they're opening.mp2dtw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC).

Issue with the main title

Why is the link and the main title of the page Derry when it should be LondonDerry? This is in Northern Ireland, LondonDerry is the name recognized by the government, fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.110.255 (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a long standing consensus on this issue. The city is Derry the county is Londonderry --Snowded ^TALK 15:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

There is one easy way to settle this. How about at the start of an article, Londonderry - cited as "Derry", is indicated as being in County Londonderry. So in the format: "Derry, County Londonderry" for the initial usage only, and on any details panel. This gives respect to both the Ulster-Scots Protestant, Hiberno-Catholic usages and traditions, and may help remove what is at the moment, the sectarian shibboleth permeating many articles regarding Ulster on wikipedia, and creating a great amount of disagreement. This does not result in a major change to the style guide - it does however grant recognition that another term exists in articles where it would be to cumbersome to explain in detail?

AndySCO (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tell me AndySCO where did you come from? Starts editing on 10 April and straight into a very contentious and complex issue. Please read the many discussion threads here on WP about this subject. WP is all about consensus and a consensus has been agreed. Bjmullan (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

One - it is hardly a complex issue. The state has the right to name its towns and cities - the official name of the City has been Londonderry since 1613 when it actually first became a city in the then "Kingdom of Ireland" - oh and before a "ruled by the English" rant strikes up - i'll point out the King of England and Ireland at the time was a Scot himself, and had been King of Scots for years. It was last officially called "Derry" when it was a bunch of mud huts around the Foyle.

Also - it hardly seems consensus based at all. It seems like a small clique of nationalists sit deciding what is acceptable usage for folk to use. I have yet to see someone that does not have a reference to the republican movement in their name, or is not listed as a Citizen of Ireland calling for that usage. I hardly seem to be the only person who has taken offence at it - there are plenty of others in full agreement at the city's correct name - Londonderry. What is the objection to calling it that in an official matter - or even better - just accepting that a different group of people call it different things and simply allow the terms to be used interchangably. You know as well as I do - the Nationalists on the City Council in Londonderry want to change the name to "Derry", and the Unionists support the retention of "Londonderry". In short, there are ethnic and religious differences to the usage. Its not something you can justify fixing with a style guide. If any of you truly want one state on the island of Ireland, perhaps a good place to start would be too stop pretending Protestants aren't a hugely important contributor in Irish history by trying to remove anything that references or indicates the Protestant community in Ulster. Protestants like Wolfe Tone were Republicans at a time when most Catholics were still Jacobites, and the South of the island would not even be independent today if it wasn't for men such as Charles Stewart Parnell, a Protestant, or even the First President of the Republic, Douglas Hyde.

I have read the threads - it seems to me plenty of people are not falling in this so called "consensus". Indeed, on a poll of the entire population of Norn Iron, i'm faily certain you know as well as I do - the Unionist majority would refer to the city as Londonderry.

Pretend all you want, but by doing so seems an attempt to hijack impartial academic referencing for ethno-political ends. Its about as much as a consensus as the Northern Irish Stortmont Government prior to the Troubles.

And for the record, according to Wikipedia's own guidance, of greater concern is "impariality" - by using one form over the other, this is not achieved.

AndySCO (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

AndySCO quote I have yet to see someone that does not have a reference to the republican movement in their name, or is not listed as a Citizen of Ireland calling for that usage. WRONG. Check out my name and my userpage. Bjmullan (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not nationalist, or a citizen of Ireland, and don't even live in that country. However the Derry consensus works well on Wikipedia. The article acknowledges that the formal name of the city is Londonderry per charter, however it is called Derry by it's residents and has become the common name. The city council is also called Derry City Council, not Londonderry City Council. The only real official reference to the city name as Londonderry is the city's royal charter, and the postal district allotted. Canterbury Tail talk 11:37, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail: "Derry" is not used universally by residents. It is most usually referred to as "Derry" by Catholic folk staying in the Bogside. "Londonderry" is mainly used by Protestant folk on the Waterside. Its not only its name by charter, the High Court of Northern Ireland has ruled that the name of the city in all circumstances is Londonderry - The council can change the name of the council, but not the city, the two terms are NOT synonymous and the council cannot change the name of the city, Sinn Fein and the SDLP have recognised this by recently applying to the Privy Council to change the name, therefore at the moment the name of the city is Londonderry, and even they are aware of that, unless the Queen-in-Council decides too change it - but if you know anything about NI politics, you would know that the council vote was split, with nationalists voting to change the name of the council, and unionists voting against. This is why it is proper to use both formats. The naming dispute is a hangover from the troubles - which is why when anyone is attempting to be impartial, they use both formats, this is even true of the style guide of the BBC. If you write about the Battle of the Bogside referring to "Derry" - it can be interpreted as an article that is likely to lean towards the side of Bogsiders, rather than being impartial to the facts. The same as if you write solely about Londonderry in the same article, it looks like you're writing it from the viewpoint of the RUC. No reference to the naming dispute is included in those articles.

Bjmullan: A hell of a lot of nationalists are listed above - no issue with folk being nationalist, its a democracy now after all - but other articles referring to the city do not recognise the naming dispute and are thus far from being impartial. Anyhow, its far from a consensus - by its very nature a consensus requires everyone to agree. Hence why the "consensual" Northern Irish Assembly requires both the Catholic and Protestant communities to agree to things and one community can veto the other - its not a simple straight vote to describe something as "consensus". That is not the case. I am not the only person who has disagreed with the use of "Derry". The arguement comes back "its decided by consensus". You do not have consensus. You have a group of folk who overzealously replace any mention of Londonderry with "Derry", who think they have the right to decide what is correct. The sheer amount of disagreement means any claim to consesus is nonsense. This 'consensus' doesn't actually exist, as is quite clear from the number of folk who raise this issue. If you attempt to claim a 'majority' - this is not a consensus either. The last person prior to me to raise it was only 4 days ago (on the 6th April I believe), and we can no doubt assume, as this clique has semi-protected the name then it is more than assumable it gets changed more than once every day.

The impartial use is "Londonderry/Derry", or the use of Londonderry at the first instance and then Derry in the rest of the article, or vice versa.

AndySCO (talk) 13:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest respect Andy... Give over! I don't live in the Bog in Derry, yet I call it Derry... Unsurprisingly this debate grows tedious! I always think using the Unionist majority as an argument feeble; since Northern Ireland was only created in order for there to be a Unionist political majority in an Island where they were an insignificant minority. If we look at Derry it self, the majority are Nationalist and on the whole prefer the title Derry, If we look at the Province in its proper definition, it would again hold a Nationalist majority whom would refer to the City as Derry, and if we look at the Island as a whole, surprise, surprise the overwhelming majority would and do refer to the City as Derry. Now you can go on to say that the overwhelming majority in these Islands would refer to the City as Londonderry, due to there ignorance on the situation and topic over the City, further more I doubt that Derry comes up in discussion in day to day conversation on the Island of Great Britain as it does on the Island of Ireland. BBC itself refers only to Derry as Londonderry in the first instance and after Derry during shows or news reports. This argument is pointless, there is little debate on the title due to the agreement on Wikipedia and it only ever appears to be the odd disgruntled Unionist that seems highly aggrevated by it! Get over it, move on... there's more to life than this silly little "issue" --NorthernCounties (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe that AndySco should be blocked as he is obviously just a sockpuppet of Irvine22, Irvine was indef blocked on the 10th, and hey presto we have a new aggrevator on the scene, who's first edit was on the 10th! Obviously a sock! And something else that rhymes with sock! --NorthernCounties (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

They have only brought this up because people like you can't "GET OVER" the fact that Londonderry is the legal word. I haven’t actually heard one half decent statement in reply to this argument. The only one was, it's what people in Londonderry recognize it as, it's what nationalist recognize it as and it's what The island of Ireland recognize it as, but even this point couldn’t even be finish because in the end of the day Planet Earth recognize it as ‘Londonderry’. This means this webpage isn't anything to do with what this island thinks it what the whole world thinks and the fact this webpage is being viewed by the world, it should be titled what they recognize it as, after all this webpage does begin with 'www' World Wide Web. Why do you want to leave out London, is England really that bad, this is a country that has got the best democracy in the world who has contribute immensely to the economy and influence of Northern Ireland and you want to leave it out, please tell me what joy you find in re-titling a cities name that you know fool well what it is called. One last point I would like to make that I'm sure as usual you won't have much of an answer to. Every county in Ulster that has a town/city named after it uses the same wording, i.e. County Antrim's town is Antrim, same with Armagh, Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan etc. So how on earth do you accept ‘County Londonderry’ in this consensus thing but you can't even accept the county-town as Londonderry? I find it an insult to read yours and anybody else’s reasons of justification of their views against those who have taken the time to fight for what they know is right, what they know inside it is the true name and will not let certain people change the name of an important city for a reason that is simply down to the content of an English city in the word. Cbowsie (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Of course Northern Ireland was created in order for there to be a Unionist political majority, it might be that the Unionists did not want to be a part of the Irish Free State. The arguement about the island of Ireland is an invented tradition at any rate - most of the Protestants in Northern Ireland are of Scottish and English descent, not Irish. Would you make the Italians live under the government of the Germans just because they share some piece of land together? Considering the first Irish constitution gave special recognition to the Catholic religion and not the Protestant faith - you can probably imagine it hardly helped the issue. Never forget, Northern Ireland was part of the free-state for 1 day before it requested to rejoin the U.K. in full by its own will. I suggest you read the Ulster Covenant considering the feeling. An Irish state is as foreign to a Protestant Ulsterman as it is to a Protestant Scotsman.

Ireland is independent - and NI is independent of it. The term "Unionist" and "Nationalist" of course is misleading. A Unionist is just as Nationalist, just do not believe the national capital to be Dublin or the national language to be Irish. Largely because the Unionist community are not part of the Irish nation, but are of the British state. Also If you read what I have written, I have argued for the term Londonderry to at least be used once at the start of the article, which is probably in the style of the BBC.

Its quite funny - you have to ban anyone disagreeing with you? Just goes to show how pathetic and weak your position actually is. Of course, probably has a lot to do with why folk have trouble trusting what is written in these articles.

AndySCO (talk) 15:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia consensus is to call the city Derry, and the county Londonderry. This is an agreed upon decision by the community. End of story. If you wish to try changing this then put your argument clearly in writing for everyone, and include Wikipedia guidelines to back you up, and it will be considered. Until such time this talk page is not a forum. Also blocking people for block evasion has nothing to do with strength of arguments. Canterbury Tail talk 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail you seem feed up with this discission. I would ask you to read eacha nd every point that has been put forward with out replying this is what the consensus says. Could I just remend you that there's no point telling us what the agreements are when we make a point because we are making a point against the agreement of Londonderry/derry name.Cbowsie (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll reiterate the fact that I believe you are indeed a sock puppet of Irvine22, since your account came into existence on the 10th, after Irvine was indefinately blocked... Please don't also try to give me a lecture on Irish history... I'm an intelligent, well educated person... I wish to no longer converse with you Irvine! --NorthernCounties (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I will say one thing, if you're going to accuse another user of being a sockpuppet of a blocked user, please provide the evidence and open up a report at WP:SPI so these things can be looked into. Canterbury Tail talk 20:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Canterbury Tail, note that Derry City Council is due to be abolished next year, so there will be no such statutory body called "Derry" and you won't be able to use that argument anymore. Also, it is not only the Post Office that uses "Londonderry": most/many state or official sources use it, e.g. all the road signs in Northern Ireland, the Londonderry Port, Londonderry railway station, bus station, Londonderry courthouse, etc. Just for your information, like. Mooretwin (talk) 20:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true. The replacement body will be called "Derry City and Strabane" so the argument will still stand. Valenciano (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

NorthernCounties - I am not Irvine - I may share support for an arguement by a user of that name - however I am not him.

Also Mooretwin is correct - and Valenciano - that was A proposed name, however current post-Good Friday Agreement usage, the name is quite likely to follow the seat names selected for the UK Parliament and NI Assembley constituencies namely, "Foyle" rather than including Londonderry or any abbreviation of the full city name in order to avoid contention - so the arguement will not stand. This arguement is strengthened by the fact the merging of councils must be done by a higher power - these follow a consensual system per the St. Andrews agreement. This is also supported by the fact Strabane used to fall inside the Foyle constituency, and this was the preferred usage even then.

Canterbury Tail, with the greatest respect, the definition of "consesus" used here is far from correct or reasonable.

AndySCO (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Valenciano, even if you are correct about the title of the new council - which doesn't appear to be clear, the rest of my contribution remains true. Mooretwin (talk) 09:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Note to everyone, the very words of James I "shall be united, consolidated, and from hence-forth for ever be one entire County of itself, distinct and separate from all our Counties whatsoever within our Kingdom of Ireland-and from henceforth for ever be named, accounted and called, the County of Londonderry." The words of the bible where never changed so why change the words from the monarchy who ruled and remain to rule Northern Ireland. Cbowsie (talk)

This article is about the city of Derry, not the county. We're not discussing the name of the county here so this has no relevance. Canterbury Tail talk 00:10, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a wear of that but Londonderry city was called this in correspondences to the county there for if the county name changes, then the city name does so with it and vice-versa.Cbowsie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

It is unfortunate that I have write this paragraph but it seems that Wikipedia has become a webiste based on general consensus rather than fact. A compromise was reached outside of Wikipedia many years ago; the city and county would be called Londonderry and the council and airport would change to City of Derry. So why is it that everytime I change Derry to Londonderry in regards to the city that I receive warnings from the same users with reference to vandalism? The city was formally known as Derry but is officially called Londonderry following the intervention of the Siege of Derry. Any objections to me changing Russia back to USSR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Factocop (talk • contribs) 12:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as a compromise was reach outside of WP so also a compromise was reached by the WP community to call the city Derry and the County Londonderry. You can get more info @ Derry / Londonderry. Bjmullan (talk) 12:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the question of the USSR you are best taken that up at the appropriate talk page. Bjmullan (talk) 12:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was the compromise made between elected represented politicians not enough? At least politicians represent the community fairly. Can you say the same for those consulted during the discussion? The fact is that the city is called Londonderry. This is fact. And as wikipedia is an instrument of fact and not based on general consensus, shouldn't page be called Londonderry? Or should'nt there be a page called Londonderry to run in parallel? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.200 (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Parallel articles sounds like a nightmare because they would very soon start to differ in other ways than the title. Please read WP:COMMONNAME on Wikipedia naming conventions. The convention is to go with the name most commonly used in reliable sources, which is not necessarily the official name. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 4, 28 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The official name of the city is Londonderry, the article is titled Derry and reference is given to this throughout, meaning the article is biased giving out false views of a republican nature. The citys name was never changed and still remains LONDONDERRY so therefore any reference of calling the city derry should be changer to LONDONDERRY. The use of Derry is a factual error PPLZ10 (talk) 11:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a long standing consensus on this issue, Influenced in part by www.derrycity.gov.uk. On WP: the city is Derry the county is Londonderry. - ClemMcGann (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: This was discussed to death and a compromise was reached, as mentioned at the top of this very page. You would need for this change to be made, and I highly doubt you'd get it – just a load of opened cans and escaped worms. AJCham 11:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(talk) has just sumed up why this page should be called 'Londonderry'. I would ask again this time without an anwser stating "thats what the consensus was'. Why is this city being called something it's not.

A compromise. Same reason why the state named "Ireland" is being called something it's not. It's to avoid disruption. And consensus is how we edit here. --HighKing (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Derry, has been the name we've settled on. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

REASON FOR LONDONDERRY & REASONS FOR DERRY

I have created this page as a new way to try and come to a final dicision as to whether this city should be called LONDONDERRY or DERRY. If you feel there are reasons that this webpage should be called Londonderry/Derry, state the reason under the appropriate title. By doing this I hope that the title with the strongest points put forward would determent the overall title, this way everyone gets to express their views that might go somewhere. There is also a section under 'COMMENTS' which allows editors to comment on peoples reasons.cb NOTE" Compromise is not a valid reason, as this is a debate for and against the compromise. Happy reasoning!

!REASONS FOR LONDONDERRY!

• Northern Ireland is under British rule and until thats not to be the case London shall remain in the British cities name.

• It's what's on the sign posts.

!REASONS FOR DERRY!

• Some of the signs have London scratched out. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• Goodday, but under the scratch you will find london. "Don't judge a book by its cover"!

Moratorium on requesting a name change for 2 months

I suggest a moratorium on rehashing the discussion on how and when to use Derry or Londonderry in articles for 2 months. --HighKing (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite content with having Derry as the city's name & Londonderry as the county's name. GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why post that provocative request above with the really silly statements? I'm tempted to delete it as needlessly provocative. Are disputes on Irish issues a spectator support for you? Have things been quite for too long? This is one of the longest standing stabilities in a contentious area can we please close it.--Snowded ^TALK 11:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not, why accept that Londonderry city is the county town of County Londonderry and change the name. Antrim's county town remains Antrim, same with Armagh etc. the whole point of a county town is the name a corresponds to that of the county 92.8.220.174 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

Actually it's not a rule that county towns and the counties they are in share the name, it is certainly not the point of the county town. See county town for more details. Also it should be noted that the county town of County Londonderry is actually Coleraine, not Derry or Londonderry. So unless we return the name to County Coleraine (unlikely since the borders have changed since that time) the argument is wayyyyyy of the bat. (Fermanagh's is Enniskillen and Tyrone's is Omagh, so three against three in NI's instance.) Canterbury Tail talk 23:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's called compromising. Antrim & Armagh, don't or never had London in their names. GoodDay (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

GD, you should know better. DFTT. --HighKing (talk) 21:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Monaghan, Cavan, etc. I'm awear that Tyrone dosn't share the same name with it's county town, hence the reason I didn't use it as an example. Nor did I state that this was a rule, I was making the point that if and when the county shares the same name with the county town is dosn't change.Cbowsie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC).

Well County Londonderry has never shared its name with its county town so I really don't see what point you're making here. Canterbury Tail talk 00:08, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The point I am making has already being stated above, learn to read! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 10:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with HighKing's suggestion of a moratorium. This horse has been flogged to death too many times and is a waste of users time. Valenciano (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Biased editing

There are a number of things that I find very basis and untrue. First of all is the obvious, Londonderry City being called 'Derry'. But besides that, I think that stating on the page under 'name' "however in everyday conversation Derry is used by most Protestant residents of the city" is an insult, unfair accusation and very untrue. The majority of Protestants of Londonderry do not referrer to the city as Derry. I am getting rather tired of outsiders getting involved in things they have nothing to do with them, why not ask the Protestants of Londonderry what they use; you will find this judgement to be misleading. One other point I find to be biased, the pictures used of the road signs. Yes London is drawn over on several sign posts across Northern Ireland, but there are hundreds of signs with signing for Londonderry and this picture gives the impression that every sign post has London rubbed out when it’s just a minority. What makes this evening more biased is that when displaying a picture of a sign post in the Republic of Ireland for 'Derry' a clean sign post is used as if London is never written onto the sign post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 10:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The protestant item has a reliable reference. If you can find a reliable reference that counteracts it, then by all means come back and add it. However until you can provide a reference all we have is your personal opinion on the matter, no matter how correct it may be. Wikipedia, at the end of the day, is not based on truth, but on verifiability. No matter how true something may be, if it is true, it cannot go in Wikipedia unless it can be reliably referenced. Canterbury Tail talk 11:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

A reliable reference which reads "As far as everyday conversation is concerned, most Protestant inhabitants of the city would still refer to their home town as 'Derry', too.", for the avoidance of any doubt. O Fenian (talk) 11:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If it were up to me? the article would be named Londonderry, as it's within the United Kingdom. But in order to keep the peace, I'm willing to accept the city/county compromise. GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What reliable reference do you have that Protestants use this, and what but about my statement about the sign posts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 19:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The reference is detailed in the article next to the statement, and the exact text is reproduced above by O Fenian. Canterbury Tail talk 21:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

But this is just a personal opinion as well. None less so than my opinion.Cbowsie (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As you are not a reliable source, your opinion is worthless compared to that source. O Fenian (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So what the point having a discussion if your points worthless? Cbowsie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

There seems to be no point in the current discussion, since you seem to think your own opinion is equal or greater than that of a reliable published source. O Fenian (talk) 15:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And what makes your point any more reliable than mine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Introduction

Whilst i reluctantly accept the "compromise" to call the city Derry, the current introduction is not satisfactory. Nowhere in the introduction does it point out the correct/ official name for the city. Wikipedias policy may be to say Derry, but the introduction should not confuse people. The Republic of Ireland article starts out by saying, Ireland. The first paragraph of the introduction of this article must state what the official title of this city is. It should not just be left to the "name" section of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

If there is no response to this serious point within the next day or two i will be implementing changes to the introduction myself. I consider the present wording totally unacceptable and misleading by not pointing out what the official name of the city is. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are similarities. The very first sentence states Derry or Londonderry (from Irish Doire or Doire Cholmchille 'oak-wood of Colm Cille') is the second-biggest city in Northern Ireland. So it's mentioned as much as the Republic of Ireland article, and the "naming controversy" is generally kept out of the lede. While both "Republic of Ireland" and "Londonderry" are the legal names under UK law, neither have legal standing in Ireland. So it's ironic that the UK legal name is on the Ireland country article, while the UK legal name is not on the article on a city within the UK. You couldn't make this up.... --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Ireland article says in the first sentence,...

"Ireland[7] (pronounced /ˈaɪərlənd/ ( listen), locally [ˈaɾlənd], Irish: Éire, pronounced [ˈeːɾʲə] ( listen)), described as the Republic of Ireland"

and in the second paragraph of the introduction it says

"which declared it an entirely sovereign state and simply named it as "Ireland"

Clearly explaining the situation of what the country is called. Compare that to the introduction here, where it simply says

Derry or Londonderry is the...

clearly this is unacceptable, it is rather surprising this matter has not been dealt with before. The introduction should clearly state what the official name of the city is, the fact Wikipedia has arrived at a weak compromise to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county does not mean the reader should be confused about official usage. At the very least it should state Derry (officially Londonderry), although like in the case with the Republic of Ireland article, there would be justification for saying the official name first. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. The official name should be pointed out in the lede at the very least. --HighKing (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

There may be some room for improvement, but changing the order of the words in the first sentence is not something that would be done for the benefit of the reader. O Fenian (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

How about just "Derry (Officially Londonderry) is the..." ? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It currently says Derry or Londonderry in the first line. The council site is named Derry, all references there are Derry so its a mute point what is or is not official. This is a long standing stable area in a contentious subject and I am afraid I don't see the value is disrupting that, especially dubious nitpicking insertions of "official" --Snowded ^TALK 12:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not nitpicking, this is a serious problem. It does not disrupt the pathetic compromise agreed to use Derry/Londonderry, but this article introduction needs to tell the reader accurate information, not gloss over it because of the little compromise agreed here on wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I remind everyone that this page is for discussion, discussion equals possible change, therefore for someone to state "I don't see the value is disrupting that" and "That's what the consensus said" in response to a well put forward point is unacceptable. I agree with what BritishWatcher said. We cannot have a web page being viewed by Thousands across the world with false wording as that of Derry. Yes I understand there is a minority of people with in Northern Ireland that don't pronounces Londonderry but that isn't for the one country to decide on, after all at the beginning of the web address displays www (world wide web). Stop being so childish and accept for the good of planet Earth that this page has to be called 'Londonderry' what the people on this earth know it as and most likely are searching for when looking it up on Wikipedia. You editors can seat back on your wee keypad typing away whatever pleases you but you’re not the ones who live in Londonderry having to face the embarrassment of such poor English being view by the world. Let’s have an open mind about this. You’re some atheists from Germany, Japan, America, whatever, someone who couldn't give two heaps about what and why the problems and situations here are and you search for this city. You press enter in your search box on the wiki page and up come Derry, Can you imagine the disgust, the puzzled and the thoughts that are going though peoples’ minds as to why this major city, second biggest in Northern Ireland is being named Derry, they'll just click 'X' and wonder “what sort of website was that?” When you search for Los Angeles how embarrassed would you feel if up comes 'Angeles'. So the mural of the story is "you’re not the only ones in the world". Give the people of Northern Ireland the dignity of having their cities name list with respect and not thrown about with any old editor picking out words here and there bits they don't like the look of. Cbowsie (talk) 14:47, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

What other countries call it is irrelevant, the only country that matters for the naming is Northern Ireland. As for "has to be called", why? There is no has to be called here. We need reliable references, and reliable references show the city is mainly known as Derry, calls itself Derry and is mainly called Derry by those living there. Yes it's true that a court attempt to change the name officially on the city's charter document failed, but that doesn't change the rest of it.

If you say a minority in Northern Ireland call it Derry, and in the city, then provide a reliable reference for it and we'll change it. Without reliable references your personal view counts for nothing here. We have the references to support Derry. Canterbury Tail talk 15:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Noticed the name here? --Snowded ^TALK 14:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article currently states

"According to the city's Royal Charter of 10 April 1662 the official name is Londonderry. This was reaffirmed in a High Court decision in January 2007 when Derry City Council sought guidance on the procedure for effecting a name change.^[11][12] The council had changed its name in 1984;^[13] the court case was seeking clarification as to whether this had also changed the name of the city. The decision of the court was that it had not but it was clarified that the correct procedure to do so was via a petition to the Privy Council.^[14] Derry City Council have since started this process and are currently^{[dated info]} involved in conducting an equality impact assessment report."

It is very very clear the official name of this city is Londonderry, the article introduction MUST reflect this point. The response of two editors above to this matter highlights the fact this introduction is in serious need of alteration. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does reflect the current status (and actions) and no one is challenging that. The issue is a needless addition to the lede given WP:COMMONNAME and a very long established practice on these pages.. The fact that two editors don't like it is hard luck, the elected council is pretty clear. --Snowded ^TALK 16:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The article does reflect the current status, sadly the introduction does not, by failing to make clear one is the official name of the city, the other is not. WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with if we should include the fact Londonderry is the official name of this city in the introduction. This is not just about two editors, even Highking and O Fenian said there could be room for improvement on this matter. The Court is pretty clear the elected council has NOT changed the official name of the city, the article itself makes this clear and the introduction should reflect that. Saying Derry (officially Londonderry) does not put at risk the compromise agreement, it does not require Londonderry to be used throughout the article, it simply correctly informs the reader, that at present, Londonderry is the official name. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Derry/Londonderry name dispute this articles introduction says

Legally, the city and county are called Londonderry, while the district council is called Derry City Council..

Is that correct or incorrect? If it is correct then why should the legal name of the city not be explained in the introduction? BritishWatcher (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sure the lede can be improved but there is no need for the tokenistic insertion of "official". The lede summarises the article it cannot contain everything. Repeating facts I already accept makes no difference to the argument which is about what is really needed in the lede. The "official" name is clear in the main body of the text. If you introduce it in the lede then it has to be explained and it becomes a nonsense. Oh and WP:COMMONNAME does apply --Snowded ^TALK 17:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Considering the dispute a full sentence or paragraph on the matter would actually be justified in the introduction. However no further explanation would be needed in the introduction if we simply say Derry (officially Londonderry). If we all accept at present the official name of the city is Londonderry, backed up by reliable sources in this article, and stated clearly in this article.. where is the problem? Why should the status of the name Londonderry not be made clear. Just saying "Derry or londonderry" tells the reader nothing about the status of both terms. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Its very clear in the main body of the text, it is unnecessary in the lede which is a high level summary. If you check all the press around the culture capital you will just see "Derry" sometimes a "also known as Londonderry and certainly no "official". Ditto all the Derry official web sites, its a city with two names which is clear. If you want to say something about the status of Londonderry in the lede, then we also have to say something about the status of Derry. Its a total waste of time --Snowded ^TALK 17:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Simply saying Derry (officially Londonderry) would not need any further explanation. However i would support a full sentence or paragraph covering this. Consider the British Isles article, there is a controversy / dispute about that, and it gets covered in the introduction. Why should the dispute over the name of this city (which is detailed in its own section on this page and has a whole article on it) not get mentioned in the introduction? The official name of this city must be stated in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The official name of the city and the common name are mentioned in the lede; to add "official" to Londonderry would require Derry to have a clear statement about its common use, or a majority/minority label - the lede expands and it gets to be a nonsense. --Snowded ^TALK 18:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept that we would have to expand on the use of Derry if we simply put (officially Londonderry), however as i said before, a full paragraph or sentence on the naming issue would be justified in this introduction and that would be better than the present introduction, which fails to mention one term has legal official status, the other has none. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Its completely unnecessary--Snowded ^TALK 18:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded. To label L/Derry "official" explicitly and incorrectly labels Derry as "unofficial", without explaining its actual status. O Fenian (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well im happy to support a sentence or paragraph explaining the situation in a neutral way, but the fact one name has official status seems important for inclusion in the introduction, i do not feel strongly about how it should be included, just that it is. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The introduction should explain one name used has official status, i do not understand why it would be unreasonable or lengthy to mention such an important matter about the name of the article subject. "Derry (officially Londonderry) Would be short and simple, people could then read more in the naming section within the article. But at the moment the reader will have no clue which name has official status, they will presume it is Derry as it has the article title spot and its mentioned first. It is vital we ensure people understand this is not the case. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

And if they read the article they will see the details. For the lede it is important that they realise there are two names. You can keep repeating the same points as long as you want but I disagree. As O'Fenian says the effect of your proposed change iis to give one more status than the other which is incorrect and divisive. --Snowded ^TALK 18:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well i will not simply be repeating myself here if no resolution to the situation can be found. If we can not get agreement there should be some form of change to the introduction to ensure it informs the reader accurately about what this city is officially called then i will take this matter elsewhere to get more feedback from other editors. I think this introduction at present is flawed and considering how serious the naming issue is (unlike the British Isles issue there is actually real evidence of a major controversy in this case), something needs to change. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't that much controversy you know, the city has two names and the elected council may attempt to reduce it to one. Both names are mentioned in the lede without either side being privileged (something your proposal would do). You are of course fully entitled to continue disturbing what has been stable for some time by raising it elsewhere.--Snowded ^TALK 19:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole page on the naming issue, there is a whole section on this article about it. The council has had to seek clarification about what the city is called, and the court has made clear only one of these names has official status, that is Londonderry. You say that adding (officially Londonderry) would lead to one side being privileged, this is nonsense, we are simply stating fact, sure one side may not like this fact.. but it is fact and to exclude it from the introduction makes this article biased. Especially as we already give derry the privileged position, being the article title and being used throughout wikipedia as well as first in the introduction. I have no idea why this has been stable for some time, im shocked that is the case. I think people obviously have focused too much on the actual naming compromise used throughout wikipedia and not the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You may be confusing legal with official by the way. No one is disputing facts here, its a matter of how to write the lede in a NPOV way. The Court has made it clear how they can change the name. Sorry BW I will persist in my "nonsense" because I don't like petty edits such as this which whether intended or not are divisive in nature. Its been stable for some time because its sensible and balanced--Snowded ^TALK 19:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The present situation is in no way balanced. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Neither is your suggestion. Apples, oranges, swings, roundabouts. O Fenian (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how my suggestion was not balanced, but like i said before i would support a paragraph or sentence explaining the situation in a fair and neutral way. My concern is at the moment this introduction makes no mention of the status of either when it should. Im happy for us to try and agree to some wording to be put into the introduction, but if there is no agreement to change the introduction at all, then ill have to raise this elsewhere later. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The complete 2nd section is taken up with the "Name" and the lede should summarize the article, no? It doesn't have to sensationalize it, or bestow preferred or privileged status to either name, but I think a sentence or two is appropriate. What about adding

• The name Derry is an Anglicisation of the word Doire, the original name of the city in Irish. In 1613, the city was granted a Royal Charter by King James I and the "London" prefix was added, changing the official name of the city to Londonderry.

This could be added at the end of the 2nd paragraph and doesn't interrupt the flow. --HighKing (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That would work if you added the modern use of Derry to that --Snowded ^TALK 22:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

If another sentence was added to that to mention usage of Derry today, it could start something like "Whilst Londonderry remains the official name of the city, Derry is...." or add something else to the end of the previous sentence to point out it is still the official name, rather than just when it was changed. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I do still think the first sentence should be Derry (officially Londonderry).. It is accurate, backed up with sources and in line with other articles where the official title is clearly stated in the first sentence. Whilst a paragraph like suggested above would be useful and help explain the situation in the introduction, it does not mean we should avoid stating clearly in the first sentence what the official title is rather than just saying "Derry or Londonderry". If no other editors here have concerns about that first sentence then ill support and accept just the inclusion of a paragraph along the lines that highking suggested to the introduction. If others have concerns about the first sentence not saying "officially Londonderry" then it may be useful to get some uninvolved editors opinions on this. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me who is in charge of the discussion and who makes the final decision, as I would like to speak to someone with authority instead of wasting my time speaking to some person that hasn't a clue how to deal with a debate and is probably about 12years old?Cbowsie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC).

You will make no progress on wikipedia by attacking or insulting other editors. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read the above debate you are involved with. The position the other editors have taken on the specific sentence about protestants use of the term Derry is a reasonable one as its backed up by a source. What you will need is a reliable source backing up the fact most protestants use the term Londonderry. If a reliable (reasonably recent) source can be found showing that, then your case for getting that sentence changed will be radically improved. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I honestly don't think it would. Let’s take your point for example a point that is so good that it really doesn’t have an alternative answer to it and this shows though there replies. The reason why I have asked for a contact is because it is like talking to a wall. You spend time putting forward points that in return you get such a low class answer to. I'm sorry that it has come to this, and I'd much rather debate about things on discussion pages like this but the lack of consideration into other people’s views is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand how frustrating it can be but the only way to accomplish change is to keep at it and ensure you stay within the rules (like avoiding saying something that could be seen as an attack on other editors). Sadly it can some times takes days, weeks or even longer to resolve certain issues and it doesnt always have a satisfactory result.

Reliable sources are vital when it comes to an issue like the sentence you mentioned on protestants use of Derry. No matter where on wikipedia you would take this matter, the response would still be something like: "provide a reliable source that counters the current one or discredit the current source". A fairly recent (as old as the present source) newspaper or book stating that protestants still say Londonderry in day to day conversation rather than Derry is all thats needed. They would then have no choice but to remove the sentence in question or change it to balance it. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

High King compromise

Lets explore this for a bit to see if it works. "The name Derry is an Anglicisation of the word Doire, the original name of the city in Irish. In 1613, the city was granted a Royal Charter by King James I and the "London" prefix was added, changing the official name of the city to Londonderry. Since an election in xxxx the common name has been Derry and an application is being made to the Privy Council to change the official name" I'm not wedded to the exact wording but something along those lines. --Snowded ^TALK 05:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Derry (officially Londonderry).... would be satisfactory as it is not going into detail and this means when people around the world are viewing this page they will be able to know what the difference between the two names are. As the first words you read on any webpage are the ones that matter most, and this would get the readers attention. Cbowsie (talk) 08:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't support the use of "officially" or "official", and trying to qualify a name like this turns it into a "catch phrase" of sorts. A couple of sentences is more explanative and infinitely more neutral. Also as previously pointed out, the term "official" doesn't have any formal status - we could just as easily argue to use "legally" or "historically". And we might then get into an argument that we should prefix Derry with "preferred" since the Derry City Council says in their Draft report In doing so, this policy will address the confusion that exists among investors and tourists in relation to the name of the City and recognise the use of preferred names of the City by private correspondents. and The majority, (70%) of residents in the Council area prefer to use the name Derry when referring to the City. The stats also show a clear divide among Nationalists and Unionists.

@Snowded, I don't agree with stating "an application is being made to the Privy Council". This isn't true. A motion to proceed with the petition to the Privy Council in March 2010 was voted down, and alternative approaches are currently being examined. --HighKing (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed the bit about the Privy council should be left out. However i do not see how we are not being neutral by saying Derry (officially Londonderry), that is simply stating very clear fact, something that will be fact until the Privy Council agrees to a change. It is not neutral at present by saying Derry before Londonderry, it is not neutral to have Derry as the title of this article. Both of those things means it is important we clearly state right away in the first sentence Londonderry is the official name in brackets after saying Derry. Rather than just Derry or Londonderry. We should have a paragraph explaining the situation in detail, but theres no reason not to state fact in the first sentence. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I know where you're coming from. Reminds me of the Ireland/Republic of Ireland debate, which as I recall, involved a lot of discussion about what was "official". It's frustrating. There might be some agreement for a sentence or two, I think there'll be a lack of support to putting in "official". --HighKing (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But like with the Republic of Ireland, this article is not at its official title. Whilst i wanted the Republics article at Republic of Ireland i accept the intro needs to make clear what the name of the state is and that ROI is just a "description" of it. In this case i have concerns about the compromise but i accept it and that Derry should be used for the city throughout wikipedia to avoid confusion. Just saying "Derry (officially Londonderry)" in the introduction seems a reasonable alteration which is backed up by sources and the introduction can then go into more detail in the 3rd paragraph or couple of sentences somewhere stating clearly the current situation about usage and when the name change happened etc. Such a change would in no way unbalance the article, Derry would remain the first name used and the name used throughout, but we would state clearly in the first line which is the official name at present, rather than just "Derry or Londonderry" which tells the reader nothing about the status, they will likely presume as Derry comes first and is the title, that is the official one. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We might get somewhere if you were happy to accept "legallly" rather than officially. --Snowded ^TALK 11:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support that rather than official if that makes the suggestion more acceptable to other editors. Its highlights the status of the term. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the current wording it is slightly confusing the way the description of the term comes after Londonderry but is only talking about Derry. "Derry or Londonderry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille")" Maybe that could be: Derry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille") or Londonderry' (basic description including its legal status since the Royal charter in 1662) is the...." ? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to have official or officially beside Londonderry, to let the users across the world know straight away that Londonderry is the official title of the city. I also think it should state beside Derry why the term Derry is used by nationalist. I will go back to my original point, Wikipedia is a www therefore it is not right to have a minority of people’s views determining the overall title of this article. Yes by all means include that Derry is widely used in the north of Ireland and I agree with high kings point about the translation of Derry to Londonderry but If you are someone that hasn't a clue on what and where Londonderry is and you want to research it on Wikipedia then don't you think they have the right to know from the start what the cities official name is. I will tell you a story. My cousin’s son lives in England he is 15 years old doing his GCSEs. For an English essay he had to write about his summer holidays which he attended in Northern Ireland with a visit to Londonderry as well. He couldn't remember what the city was he had visited here and researched it here. Cut a long story short, he was marked down for his use of poor English when he talked about his "visit to Derry" because he was lead to believe that Derry was the proper name. Cbowsie (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you telling me Cbowsie that if your cousin's son had gone to Newcastle, Bo'ness, Hull or Southend he would have been marked down because he used the common name? He needs to move school or get a better English teacher. Bjmullan (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

He needs to move school or get a better English teacher? It sounded to me like a very good school and English teacher lol BritishWatcher (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To make both of you happy why not Derry, offically and legally Londonderry...Cbowsie (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is officially and legally Londonderry, but if use of the word officially is problematic we can avoid that term. legally seems fine and would address the problem fully. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not change New york to The Big Apple going by the warped pc logic on here?--87.113.239.247 (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In the most politest way possible can we give this conversation a rest! I watch this page for important topics, not old fashioned backward views. And this discussion just continues to pollute my watch list. As we all know this has been infinitely discussed, and the arguement always ends were it started. We have a perceived compromise to prevent this, and any adaption will just lead to the same arguement in reverse. Note that the people in the "We call it Derry camp" don't argue the County Londonderry page; why? Cause we have a compromise. I actively revert all vandalism I come across, and I see those in the Derry band camp do the same. If Derry is such an important topic to you, such an important City to you, why not instead of arguing this truly superfluous topic, edit this page in other ways to make it a truly great article. There are many other issues with this page, i.e Lack of referencing, Lack of good spelling and grammar, Lack of sufficient proof reading, and in my personal view excess photographs in a layout not to my taste and don't show the city at its best. If the City being called Derry offends or affronts you, it must be an important place to you, so how about you work to the better of this article in other ways. Otherwise, if you don't feel the need to improve this article in other manners, I can only assume you bring this arguement to head for other more sinister reasons! P.S I take no heed of those who comment without an account.--NorthernCounties (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well said NC. I too have watched this discussion and my only comment has been a light-hearted dig @ Cbowsie. And thanks BW for making me laugh :-) The discussion is going nowhere. Bjmullan (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a compromise to call the city Derry and the county Londonderry thoughout wikipedia. Whilst i have concerns about this compromise i accept it and reluctantly support it. This is a completely different matter. This article on the city should clearly state in the introduction the official or legal name of this city, which can not be disputed.. It is Londonderry. This may deeply offend some people in Northern Ireland, but it is fact. To avoid mentioning this in the first sentence, makes this article far more unbalanced and misleads the reader. At present there is no explanation in the introduction at all about what is the legal name of the city, it simply says Derry or Londonderry. As Derry is first, and as Derry is the title of the article and used throughout wikipedia, its not hard to see why some could easily confuse it as the official name unless they go on to read the name section of the article. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This debate is getting somewhere so just stay out of it if you have no positive ideas to offer. NC if you are fed up with this conversation you wouldn't have taking the time to write all that above. Now back to where we were. BA yes I think your idea of legally would be satisfactory.Cbowsie (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

And tell me Cbowsie how is your shaggy dog story adding anything positive to this discussion? Bjmullan (talk) 21:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is an example of how someone can be misled or ill informed by the present introduction because it fails to provide the reader with information it should. I do not understand why some people seem to just be dismissing this serious problem. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I see alot of these arguments over Derry/Londonderry as kinda lame. One could also go with London(Derry). GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things. A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.Cbowsie (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But. Until you have retested consensus, you cannot edit against consensus. And take my word for it - there is no change in consensus. There's probably not even an appetite to retest. --HighKing (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it and I think the above statment is common-sense based.Cbowsie (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Very true. But any editor can challenge any edit, especially if there is a looonnnngggg record of discussion available showing how consensus was reached. Once your change has been reverted, and the reasons pointed out and/or discussed, the onus is on you to edit within consensus. Continuing to edit against established consensus is very severely frowned upon, and usually becomes part of a learning curve for most new editors (involving blocks and a rapid learning of all sorts of policies). BTW, your argument above is unusually ...accurate... for a newbie editor - have you edited previously under a different name? --HighKing (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Another suggestion

Highking what are your views on the above idea, currently it says:

Derry or Londonderry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille") That may cause confusion because the description appears after Londonderry yet it is only talking about Derry.

How about if we said...

Derry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille") or Londonderry (basic description including its legal status since the Royal charter in 1662) is the...." ?

That would clearly put the description of the term Derry after it as well as explaining the term Londonderry including its legal status since the Royal Charter of 1662? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I doubt if it is in line with MOS guidelines for introductions. Even the current lede probably doesn't - I'd say the Etymology doesn't belong in parenthesis after the word "Derry" at all. It should simply be pronunciation (like the Lisburn article).

I would fix the lede as follows:

Derry (Template:Lang-ga) or Londonderry (Template:Lang-ga) is the second biggest ....

And I would support the following sentence in the 2nd paragraph

The name Derry is an Anglicisation of the word Doire, the original name of the city in Irish. In 1613, the city was granted a Royal Charter by King James I and the "London" prefix was added, changing the official name of the city to Londonderry. While the common name today is Derry, Londonderry remains the official and legal name.

FWIW - my advice is that, at this point in time, you are unlikely to gain support to change the lede in the way you'd most like. The discussion will probably end up being unable to agree on the "wording". I'd encourage you to pursue getting agreement to insert the sentence as suggested earlier. But feel free to make a proposal if you believe you can get support for changing the first sentence. --HighKing (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Something along those lines, if it is not possible to get agreement to alter the first sentence in the way mentioned before would certainly be an improvement to the current introduction. I am not sure about linking to the WP Commonname policy page in an introduction though, that part would have to be worded carefully.

Should we raise the issue of the first sentence on an MOS talkpage somewhere, to get some uninvolved editors opinions on what sort of things should / shouldnt be after the names Derry / Londonderry? Your suggested wording looked good if we shouldnt be including any of those other factors there. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BW, I'm not married to the Commonname link. And it's a good idea to ask on an MOS talkpage about the wording/structure of the opening sentence I've proposed, to get some outside views. --HighKing (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, can I ask you with an honest answer. Can you please state why including officially before Londonderry in the introduction nothing else nothing less just this one word, a word that will make everything be summed up straight away is a bad idea. I think this in excellent idea and the fact that this page has already been called Derry the official title needs to be stated at the beginning and not hidden away in 'the small print'.Cbowsie (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, because in all likelyhood, it won't get community support. Some will argue about the word "official". Some will point out the length of time it took to agree the current lede which has been stable for quiet a while. Some will argue about the appearence of elevating one name above another for political ends. To each of these argument, others will take the opposite view. That's why each and every article on Wikipedia tries to be neutral and is written by consensus - and if you don't have consensus, it won't be written. And the more editors that "watch" an article (like this one), the harder it is to get any changes made. --HighKing (talk) 16:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be uncontroversial to say that Londonderry remains the legal name, to say it is the official name is more controversial as the two are not the same. If the elected representatives of the people of Derry have moved all their "official" sites over the Derry then it is hardly unofficial. I'd be happy to accept The wording above if you delete "the official and". FYI I am at the AoM in Montreal at the moment and will only have web access about once a day, so don't expect prompt responses. --Snowded ^TALK 08:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

wow. you guys are really excitable. i found this on "lame edit wars". can someone possibly list the reasons for derry and londonderry? i can see the reasons for ld (legal, signs, history) but i can't see any reasons for derry - at all. guys, go for it. bullet points. let's do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.239.120 (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

One good reason is that it is a commonly used name for the city. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

By the way there was not an edit war, but even if there was it would not be a lame one. Many in the real world have strong views on Derry/Londonderry so its understandable there is controversy about what name is used here. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

thanks to both for the reply. i now understand the commonly used name thing and as a neutral that would seem to be the deciding factor to me. yeah i agree about the lame edit war misnomer, you do seem to be having a civilised conversation on the topic at least.

Getting some uninvolved input

Cbowsie awhile ago tried to take this matter to Arbcom at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Londonderry-Derry . Clearly it is far too soon to consider taking this matter there, and i hope he will close or just undo the edit there becaues it would be counter productive and be closed straight away. However i can understand why he did that, i too am seriously concerned about the present situation. Highking has been very reasonable in this debate suggesting some proposed wording, which certainly would improve the article introduction, others seem less concerned about the introduction and seem to think we are over reacting about the present flaws in the introduction.

So i think it is best we do get some feedback on this matter just to help all editors here decide the best way forward. I will there for be raising this matter at WP:NPOVN, we can then get some fresh views on this matter. If the feeling there is just a paragraph in the introduction explaining the situation (like Highkings suggestion) then i will support that and drop concerns about the first sentence. But at the moment, as far as im concerned this article is failing to meet neutrality by purposely avoiding to state clearly the fact this city is officially (or legally, i aint fussed about the term) the name of this city. Will link here once ive made the post on the noticeboard. Thanks BritishWatcher (talk) 16:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the discussion i have started on the NPOV board. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Derry. I would just like to say thankyou to Highking who has been very reasonable and trying to suggest alternatives, rather than some more dismissive responses which attempted to suggest there is no problem at all. If it was not for highking id have made this post more than 24 hours ago. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It has now been about a week since i raised this matter on the NPOV admin board. More comments are needed there. At the moment i consider this article introduction to be a gross violation of WP:NPOV. If there is no more debate on this matter i will be making the changes necessary to ensure the introduction informs the reader that the legal or official name of this city is Londonderry. If you have an opinion on this matter, please contribute to the debate over on the noticeboard in the link provided above. Thankyou. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You do not have agreement to make those changes. Suggestions have been made above I suggest you respond to those rather than issuing ultimata without authority --Snowded ^TALK 12:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate is taking place on the WP:NPOVN, people went quiet for a few days over there. At present nobody has given a justifiable reason why we should not inform the reader what the official (or legal) name of the city is in the first sentence. You said yourself you had less concerns if we said (Legally Londonderry) rather than "officially", i am prepared to support that compromise, but the first sentence needs to make clear which term has legal/official status. The only reason you stated was basically to avoid giving one term more status over the other. But the fact is one term does have more official status, hiding it from the reader is unacceptable and makes this introduction a gross violation of WP:NPOV(and the reason why this debate should take place on the admin noticeboard to keep some neutral eyes on it). Especially as we treat Derry as the common name, we have the article title as Derry, it is mentioned first in the introduction and used throughout wikipedia. the first sentence clearly saying Londonderry is the official name is not unreasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

BW, I think its fine as it is. As a compromise the wording which makes its legal status clear in the second sentence is OK. Your above comments approach the absurd. If its legal status is clear in the second sentence of the lede then it is not been hidden, it is not a gross violation of NPOV. You have been given justified reasons, you just don't like them. Seek consensus, work with other editors stop making this extreme statements. --Snowded ^TALK 00:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

compromise

Per discussions above, it seems to me that the following works

Derry or Londonderry (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille") is the second-biggest city in Northern Ireland and the fourth-biggest city on the island of Ireland. The name Derry is an Anglicisation of the word Doire, the original name of the city in Irish. In 1613, the city was granted a Royal Charter by King James I and the "London" prefix was added, changing the name of the city to Londonderry. While the common name today is Derry, Londonderry remains the legal name and is still in use.

That places the names in context --Snowded ^TALK 00:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

Thank you Snowded, I would be prepared to support that wording and leave matters there if that was the first paragraph. My only 1 concern about that is the issue of the (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille") bit. That is all about Derry but comes after Lononderry. It could be a little confusing and is a problem with the present wording too. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:49, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Also i would change this " While the common name today is Derry," to say "While the city is more usually known simply as Derry today, Londonderry remains the legal name and is still in use. "more usually known simply as Derry" is the term used within the article and is less contentious. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK how about this (although other editors should get involved):

Derry or Londonderry is the second-biggest city in Northern Ireland and the fourth-biggest city on the island of Ireland. The name Derry is an Anglicisation of the word Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille" , the original name of the city in Irish. In 1613, the city was granted a Royal Charter by King James I and the "London" prefix was added, changing the name of the city to Londonderry. While city is more usually known today as Derry, Londonderry remains the legal name and is still in use. ' --Snowded ^TALK 12:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would much prefer that rather than the (from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille") bit coming after Londonderry. Would there be a problem with the WP:MOS by doing it like that or are exceptions allowed like that as we are explaining it within the first sentence? And "more usually known today as Derry" is much better. I would be prepared to accept that paragraph and defend it if consensus can be found for it. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors think --Snowded ^TALK 12:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I would support Snowded version as it follows the normal style for other Irish place names. I think that this is a good compromise. Bjmullan (talk) 12:30, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Clear wording like that in the first paragraph would help take away the need for anything like (official/legal) after Londonderry, so it seems like a good compromise that explains everything clearly. If taking away "(from Irish: Doire or Doire Cholmchille meaning "oak-wood of Colm Cille")" and including it in the main text is problematic for others because of MOS then i am ok with it remaining in the position it is now, it just seems rather odd to be only about Derry but after Londonderry. Anyway yes, will wait for others to comment. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I still mainetain that London(Derry) is best. GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Will you support the above compromise GoodDay? Atleast it will resolve this matter if we can get agreement on that above wording which will improve the intro. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll support it. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't support "more usually known today as Derry" as this implies it was usually known by something else previously. Otherwise I think it improves the article and I support it. --HighKing (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the term used within the article. It is alot easier to defend this as the common name of the city today than it would be if we are talking about the past too. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're close. Instead, I propose for the last line While the city is more usually known as Derry, Londonderry is also used and remains the legal name. --HighKing (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK with me--Snowded ^TALK 20:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Id accept that, seems like a reasonable compromise which improves the introduction if we can get agreement to add it. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Leave it a bit just to check and make the change (or let High King). I would do it myself but I have to get on a plane shortly and will not be on line until early morning when I get back to Heathrow --Snowded ^TALK 21:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Have a safe flight, would you please give the BAA staff an ear bashing from me for the damage their strike is going to do to our economy. :) BritishWatcher (talk) 21:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

'Tis alright. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Changes made. Nice work. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good thanks, but could we move "The old walled city lies on the west bank of the River Foyle, which is spanned by two bridges. The city now covers both banks (Cityside on the west and Waterside on the east)." to the top of the second paragraph? would fit in with that paragraph BritishWatcher (talk) 21:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

Please restore the POV tag, the introductions neutrality is in question. Readers should be informed there is a problem before they read the introduction which at present is a gross violation of WP:NPOV. This matter is being debated over at WP:NPOVN. That tag belongs there until this matter is resolved.

I am unsure on the Revert rules relating to this article because of the 1RR on matters relating to "the troubles". If that template is not readded to the article, i will have no choice but to raise this on the WP:ANI. It is clear there is a dispute, the dispute is over the introduction. So the template is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would be fairly certain that this would be covered under 1RR. Mo ainm~Talk 15:43, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Lack of actual dispute over neutrality

Apparently the supposed dispute is over whether to add "legally" to the first sentence. I will address each point in turn of those raised here.

• "Sources back up that Londonderry is the official (or legal) name of the city."

Other editors have pointed out that adding information about "Londonderry" to the first sentence while leaving out information about "Derry" is biased, and have offered a solution where the naming dispute is mentioned later in the lead. The first sentence is not the place for extended discussion about names. So you have been offered to have the naming dispute mentioned in the lead, so your first point has been dealt with.

• "At present the following factors contribute to misleading the reader about the name of the city"
  • The introduction makes no mention of each terms status.
  • Derry comes before Londonderry (it simply says "or Londonderry").
  • Derry is used throughout wikipedia when talking about the city.
  • Derry is the article title.

Per my point above, you have been offered the inclusion of information about the naming dispute later in the lead. Derry comes before Londonderry because that is the name of the article. If it was at "Londonderry", it would say "Londonderry or Derry". So that cannot be fixed unless the article is moved, and given you blocked the moving of Ireland to its official name arguments from you about legal or official names cut little ice. Yes, Derry is used throughout the article as that is the name of the article. If Londonderry was the name of the article, it would say Londonderry throughout. Do you think it should alternate between Derry and Londonderry from one sentence to another? Or perhaps some timeshare arrangement could be worked out, where it says "Derry" for half of the year and "Londonderry" for the other half?

• The introduction is meant to sum up the article subject, there is a section about names in the article itself and there is a whole article on the naming issue, but some believe the introduction does not need changing at all.

The naming dispute does need adding to the lead, but not in the way you want. Only having one point-of-view in the first sentence is not neutral, and it would be too clumsy to explain both. So explain it later, like has been suggested.

• Stating the official name of the city would be in line with articles such as France and Spain. I could produce a huge list of other articles which do the same thing.

See above.

• No justifiable reason has yet been given about why the first sentence should not inform the reader of the status of Londonderry.

Yes there has. The way you have suggested only displays one point-of-view, and is not neutral.

• One reason against inclusion in the first sentence was this statement: "One of the issues with the use of "official" on line one is that it privileges one name over another" This sentence sums up the problem. Editors are trying to prevent fact being stated in the first sentence of the introduction because one community does not like the term.

Great, then let it say that Derry is the common name of the city and is used in everyday conversation by the majority of all residents regardless of religion to the first sentence too then? Or do you want to censor that FACT?

• The claim that by stating fact privileges one name over the other fails to take note of the previous points i raised above about why Derry currently has the privileged position and there for could mislead people into thinking it is the proper name.

See above.

I see little more than foot stamping because you cannot get consensus to have only one point-of-view in the first sentence, when everyone else seems to agree it would be better off dealt with later. O Fenian (talk) 15:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thankyou for the response, let me respond to each point in turn.

"Other editors have pointed out that adding information about "Londonderry" to the first sentence while leaving out information about "Derry" is biased, and have offered a solution where the naming dispute is mentioned later in the lead. The first sentence is not the place for extended discussion about names. So you have been offered to have the naming dispute mentioned in the lead, so your first point has been dealt with."

Derry is considered the WP:COMMONNAME of the city and the compromise says we must use it throughout wikipedia, The term Derry has no legal/official status regarding the city. Notice on France and Spain they say "officially" for their official name but do not state the status of France/Spain. I support explaining in detail in the introduction the status of both terms, like in the second paragraph as has been mentioned. Some have said they support that new paragraph, others seem to think there is no need for change at all. Either way, it is not an excuse not to include in the first sentence what the official name of the city is. It is also not an excuse for the POV tag to be removed until it is fully resolved.

"Per my point above, you have been offered the inclusion of information about the naming dispute later in the lead".

I am not confident that the "offer" of a new paragraph is going to be supported and included in the article at this stage. I also do not accept going into detail in the introduction means we should not state quite clearly in the first sentence "Officially Londonderry".

Derry comes before Londonderry because that is the name of the article

Indeed, and i accept this article title. However because it comes first and because most people do not know Wikipedia policies regaring the naming of articles, it is vital the first sentence makes clear what the official name of the city is rather than just the commonname in line with most articles.

"and given you blocked the moving of Ireland to its official name arguments from you about legal or official names cut little ice"

I wanted the article at Republic of Ireland but i never objected to the introduction clearly stating right away what the country is officially called which is all i want this article to do. So the ROI article actually starts off "Ireland..." and then that it is simply "described as Republic of Ireland". The second paragraph then goes into detail about the name, the fact it says "Ireland... described as ROI" in the first sentence does not stop that paragraph being there.

Do you think it should alternate between Derry and Londonderry from one sentence to another?

No. I accept the compromise to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. But because of this controversial compromise the introduction of the Derry article must be very very clear what the official name of the city is.

The naming dispute does need adding to the lead, but not in the way you want.

Please explain that to some editors here who have simply dismissed our concerns and suggested there is no need for any change.

"Only having one point-of-view in the first sentence is not neutral, and it would be too clumsy to explain both. So explain it later, like has been suggested."

This is the heart of the problem so i bolded it. It is not "not neutral" to state fact that this city is officially Londonderry. It is infact a violation of WP:NPOV for us to avoid saying it simply because one side may not like it. Only one term has legal status, the first sentence should reflect this.

Yes there has. The way you have suggested only displays one point-of-view, and is not neutral

I am sorry but it most certainly is neutral to state fact that a city is officially called Lononderry. Some people may not like this, but they do not have the power or authority to dictate what the city is called. To avoid mentioning it because one side doesnt like the fact it is the official name, is POV.

Great, then let it say that Derry is the common name of the city and is used in everyday conversation by the majority of all residents regardless of religion to the first sentence too then? Or do you want to censor that FACT?

I am happy for the paragraph of the name in the intro to explain common usage, but the first sentence should explain the official status of the terms. One has official status, the other doesnt, it is the common name and like other articles it is simply stated first with no explanation.

see little more than foot stamping because you cannot get consensus to have only one point-of-view in the first sentence, when everyone else seems to agree it would be better off dealt with later.

Some editors dont think there needs to be any change. Some say it should just be said in the second paragraph, others have clearly said it belongs in the first sentence. Either way there is a dispute and the tag should be restored until it is resolved. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

New Intro is no better

I am unhappy as to the way the Derry articles’ first paragraph has been changed. First of all this whole debate was brought up because the status of the cities title is not being made clear. Therefore as a result of this some editors suggested that the word officially should be placed before the name. I don't see how adding a paragraph on the cities past titles and a history lesson of it has helped made the cities title clear; to me this has only confused things. I do not think that such background of the naming is appropriate to have on the VERY first paragraph of this article and this piece of important information such be cut and paste to the appropriative section. Let's remember that this is the introduction and an introduction should be quite short and presentable and inform the reader what they need to know about the city, not about specific detail as to why the name has changed over the years, information that readers do not want to be give in an intro. I would also like to express my disappointment in to the way this consensus was made. 4 editors in the space of 2days coming to an agreement and changing the wording of this pages introduction was not a positive and fair agreement. Cbowsie 23:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

It seemed like a reasonable compromise to me. The introductions first paragraph now very clearly explains when Londonderry became the name of the city and it states clearly this is the legal name of the city. It may not say Derry (officially Londonderry) as some of us would have liked, but i think it is a massive improvement on the introduction from a few days ago which failed to even inform readers the legal name was Londonderry. We can not always get the wording exactly as we would all like, compromise and meeting in the middle ground is encouraged. Considering the issue of the name, a paragraph on it in the introduction is justified. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For once, I agree with BritishWatcher. Most of the comments in Cbowsie's post above ignore how introductions of Wikipedia articles are supposed to read, it was unacceptable to not have any information about the naming dispute in the introduction. O Fenian (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian how is it acceptable to include the naming dispute in the entire intro and leave out content about the city it’s self? British Watcher I agree with you that yes it is a massive improvement but the introduction stills begins as Derry or Londonderry, making it out that the two have similar status. Although after this states the terms uses the introduction whether you like it or not is still not summing things in the introduction. We can say "but it states it in the first paragraph the introduction”. This isn't an introduction, an introduction sums up a bit of all the most important things and this paragraph just gives the reader a lecturer of how the name has changed apart from its rank. Can someone please tell me why having such history of the naming change as the WHOLE introduction is the best possible wording? Londonderry is an important city and surly we can come to some agreement to makes its Wikipedia webpage intro contain information that reflects its importance. That is why I debated that the introduction was perfectly fine and 'Officially' was all it needed before Londonderry and there we would have a fair, informative and presentable introduction. Cbowsie 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We have a consensus and it will sometimes happen that you end up unhappy with one. Best to move on. --Snowded ^TALK 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

A paragraph on the name of the city, its meaning, when it was given a royal charter, what its legal name is and remains is all useful information and does belong in the introduction. We have not removed any information from the introduction to make way for that information so i can not see the problem. We should move on to address potential other concerns or problems with the article. Be glad the introduction has improved, it sometimes takes months to get an agreement on something. BritishWatcher (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for accepting or rejecting proposals or actions. While past "extensive discussions" can guide editors on what influenced a past consensus, editors need to re-examine each proposal on its own merits, and determine afresh whether consensus either has or has not changed. Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things. A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago.Cbowsie 92.2.164.173 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

we may have to debate the intro again in the future at some point, but several editors were prepared to support this change, whilst originally some were opposed so i think its a good compromise which at least informs the reader about the situation in the introduction now. Did you have any other concerns about contents within the article that might need changing? BritishWatcher (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

On this article I have added '~Londonderry' because it is not true that Derry was announced by Phil Redmond but instead he said along with every other official notice board 'Derry~Londonderry...' For those who do not live here I will take a picture of the notice boards if you wish. Phil Redmond, Chair of the judges for UK City of Culture 2013, announced on BBC Radio 4 on 15 July 2010 that Derry~Londonderry will be UK City of Culture 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbowsie (talk • contribs) 15:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

What terminology other people use is of no relevance to how a sentence here is written, we do not use Stroke City style constructions to refer to the city. O Fenian (talk) 16:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, but this is a quotation and Phil Redmond did not say "Derry" he said "Derry, Londonderry". Therefore whether you like the term Londonderry being stated or not you can not take words out of someones speech.Cbowsie (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

He is not quoted directly in the article, so no one is takings words out. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I would disagree with you. It states his name followed by what he announced, therefore what he announced is a quotation of what he said.Cbowsie (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I said that he isn't quoted directly. The article simply summarises what he said. It doesn't quote him word for word, hence the lack of quotation marks. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It amuses me to think that whilst others live a life; Cbowsie and others alike, sit and stew over the name of Derry on a website. Ever heard of eHarmony?--NorthernCounties (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Its about as funny as those who seek the removal of the term British Isles from wikipedia. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Sadly we have to accept the current compromise of just saying Derry. It is a waste of time to try and change this matter, because the agreement has majority support. There are probably other issues within the article and theres certainly a ton of issues throughout wikipedia where there is a clear anti unionist POV which your time could be better spent on, do not get stuck on the single issue of the name. Sometimes we have to accept its impossible to get change and move on. Only 1 term can be used throughout wikipedia as its primary name, and despite Londonderry being the official name of the city Derry makes sense in common name terms. I believe i even heard on BBC newswatch a couple of weeks ago (when discussing their coverage of the City of Culture award), that the BBC aim to say Londonderry when first mentioning the city but referring to it as Derry after that, the fact people complained about use of Derry by the BBC does highlight this is a controversial issue. However here the article clearly makes the legal name clear in the intro, we have no need to say Londonderry again in that place. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It would appear Cbowsie does not understand what a direct quotation is, or an indirect quotation either obviously. If you disagree with the current wording you are welcome to start a request for comment, should the edit warring by Cbowsie against clear consensus and multiple editors continue I will be asking for administrator action. O Fenian (talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

OFenian I am deeply concerned about your understanding on this matter as you same to be missing the point. I have accepted that the name to be used on this article is Derry, but that does not mean that the word Londonderry cannot be used when listed in the right respects, which in this case is referring to what a certain individual said about the city not referring to the city by an editor. OFenian you are very much welcome to carry out administrator action but I would like to bring to your attention that at present according to the British law it is illegal to write and publish false information about what a person said and matters like this on wikipedia have previously ended up in court. Cbowsie (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

To completely misrepresent what someone has said may be illegal, but to paraphrase is not. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No legal threats I suggest you focus on the issue and not make any mention of legal issuses or courts to avoid any potential concerns about comments. Look, there is an agreement on wikipedia to describe the city as Derry and the county as Londonderry, this applies across wikipedia. In some cases it may be appropriate to say Londonderry as well, like in the naming section of this article. But the example with the city of culture is not one of them. We can still use Derry there. Although to be honest i have no idea why we need to state in the intro it was announce by someone on Radio 4. It should just state Derry will host the UK city of Culture in 2013. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point about the wording including the announcement. I've now changed the text as suggested. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well done, that resolves this problem. Nice work on the new article too. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It needs a lot more work but I thought I'd make a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless for changing the wording. Now Phil Redmond is not being falsely quoted of the words he broadcasted.Cbowsie (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

He wasn't being misquoted before, but I'm glad that you agree with the new wording. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no probs with the intro. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

The old coat of arms image was a Fair use image, which are not allowed when a free alternative exists. I visited the city Thursday, and found an obviously free alternative. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

UK City of Culture DYK

Just to let you all know that a fact from UK City of Culture mentioning Derry is currently on the Did You Know section of the homepage. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)