Talk:Derry/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

RFC

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

---

Proposal to make this article more neutral. Some options:

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

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

C. Is to implement both A and B.

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

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

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 Plus we must remember that the Royal charter that gave the city it's official name has not been revoked and thus is still in force which means that the official name should be given prominence despite the use of the alternate name.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Close RFC and poll

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Is to implement both A and B.

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

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

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

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

Comment on name treatment

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

An RfC on the name of the article?

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

A. Keep the articles as is.

B. Rename the Derry article to Londonderry.

C. Rename the County Londonderry article to County Derry.

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

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

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

History/destruction...a few suggested changes.

The article currently states (based on a tourist guide, which I'd suggest isn't reliable or independant) that the city was continuously inhabited, but also that it was destroyed in 1608. As far as I can tell, the old city was wiped out in 1608, and the current city grew from the walled city. Repeated refences use words such as, wiped out, destroyed, gone....etc. And refer to the walled city as a new settlement: suggesting there was nobody living there between 08 & 13. I don't know if this is correct, suggest it should be clarified.

A few changes suggested: 1 - This line "The soldier and statesman Henry Docwra, 1st Baron Docwra of Culmore, made vigorous efforts to develop the town, earning the reputation of being " the founder of Derry"; but he was accused of failing to prevent the O'Doherty attack, and returned to England." Should come before this line "The town became strategically more significant during the Tudor conquest of Ireland and came under frequent attack, until in 1608 it was destroyed by Cahir O'Doherty, Irish chieftain of Inishowen." As per chronology....the town refered to in the Henry Docwra line, & his efforts developing it....were before 1608. It should also probably be noted that Henry was replaced prior to the sacking (and his replacement was possibly part of the cause).

2 - to search out a more definitive source for the line "Derry is one of the oldest continuously inhabited places in Ireland." As it appears to contradict the history of 1608-13.

3 - In the line "Planters organised by London livery companies through The Honourable The Irish Society arrived in the 17th century as part of the Plantation of Ulster, and built the city of Londonderry across the Foyle from the earlier town, with walls to defend it from Irish insurgents who opposed the plantation. The aim was to settle Ulster with a population supportive of the Crown.[23]" The part "across the Foyle from the earlier town" doesn't seem to appear in the source, and implies that the earlier town was in existance at the time. If the previous settlement did still exist before & while the walled city was built, it should be made clear inhabitation continued after the sacking....if not, this line needs changing.

4 - The sacking/destruction of the city should be mentioned in the Name section, probably immediately prior to "The name was changed from Derry in 1613 during the Plantation of Ulster to reflect the establishment of the city by the London guilds.[22][23]" as it seems highly relevant to the disputed names origin, and without mention of the sacking it's a little unclear why at that stage the city was 'established' despite apparently having already been there. Iliekinfo (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Page should be updated to reflect Census Data 2011

Hi,

I have just discovered that Lisburns population has reached around the 120,000 mark, doesn't this mean its now larger than Derry City. I'm not counting the Greater Derry area, just the city proper. I'm suggesting someone edit this to reflect the new census data. Also on the wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_settlements_on_the_island_of_Ireland_by_population. Lisburn should displace Limerick and Derry and be in third place. Usually Lisburn is included in the Belfast Metro Area but on this list it is not and so as an urban area in its own right it should be third? Just a point of information. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.6.53 (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I think a bit more thought/discussion is needed. For instance do we also therefore include Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown in the list of settlements in Ireland, it is far larger again, or is it just counted as part of Dublin? Dmcq (talk) 09:52, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Well I've had a bit more thought and I'm in agreement with yyou. It has been given city status and should be treated as a separate city as far as anything like this is concerned. The business of metropolitan areas is what makes this sort of thing difficult perhaps a note could be put in about that in the list. Dmcq (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe its the Lisburn page that is incorrect, i think its showing the population data for the council area rather than the city itself, its difficult to measure these things unless official city boundaries have been established. Also many of the populations on the list above need to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.6.53 (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

The Lisburn page is showing data for the council area and as the council is soon to be abolished, it will soon be outdated. Lisburn council includes places like Poleglass and Twinbrook, which, in addition to becoming part of Belfast within the next year, have never considered themselves to be part of "the city of Lisburn" so Derry is the second city. Valenciano (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Derry / Londonderry

There seems to be a slow edit war on the heading for the infobox. Derry / Londonderry was there for a long time but since the 20th it has kept going between Derry and Londonderry. Could the issue be decided here first please. There was a big discussion above that did not come to any special conclusion about this. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I would go for Derry / Londonderry as causing the least trouble and being long standing. The key for the field in the infobox is official_name but that has no policy implications in Wikipedia - it is just a hint for the template and is not displayed. Dmcq (talk) 10:29, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

God I f*cking hate slow-moving edit wars. I'm in agreement with your last point, I see no reason to change it from Derry/Londonderry. Somchai Sun (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I support the above of having the two names. Londonderry is not as commonly used as Derry, and therefore the term 'Derry' should still receive some recognition reflecting it's popularity. However the use of the word Londonderry has more than enough support and credit both locally and internationally for it to merit being used in the title. Cbowsie (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I also support the article having two names. I see no solution where peace will break out, so this is the best solution overall. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Usage of both names is preferred, as apparently both names are used for the city. Best to have Derry first, thus matching the article title & also per alphabetical order. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! "Officially" Londonderry"? Be still my beating heart! How on earth did that happen? — Jon C.^ॐ 12:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the policy is based on the official name, not usage / frequency or most common name. Here in Australia almost everything has slowly been renamed to 'traditional names,' many of which are unpronounceable or onomatopoeia-like repetitive syllables that are just too awkward for use in everyday conversation and thus the 'old names' are still the most commonly used outside of government publications leaving the locals to have one name for the place and the government (and often tourists) another. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 09:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to, a government or Wikipedia? In Wikipedia WP:TITLE says practically the opposite of what you said. Dmcq (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dmcq; I thought we were talking about the official name in the boilerplate and other areas of the article, not the article title? The article title, or rather titling of articles have no hard and fast rules IIRC besides a neutral and common convention, but it's been some time since I've reviewed that policy. Regardless, back on the subject of official names; I just noticed that the 'official website' for their council is derrycity.gov.uk. The council logo and all other related paraphernalia clearly states it's name as Derry. Are we sure that Londonderry is it's current gazetted name? BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. An attempted compromise in 1984 involved the city council being renamed Derry, but the city remained officially Londonderry. A legal challenge in 2007 by the council was rejected. I haven't heard of any developments since then. Valenciano (talk) 10:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Under the circumstances of the situation in Northern Ireland I think calling the article/infobox "Derry/Londonderry" is probably the best thing to do considering the wiki's policy on neutral point of view. Italay90 (talk) 20:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the article is pretty much out of the question by now. There is no strong evidence present that shows Londonderry should be the preferred title. In addition, the article title has been Derry for such a very, very long time. Barring personal feelings on the issue at hand, a title change would be eyebrow raising at the very least...--Somchai Sun (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Londonderry is not as commonly used as Derry," - hard to prove reliably Cbowsie. Somchai Sun "no strong evidence"? Uh ignoring your equally long-standing republican bias and the fact the official name of the city is not Derry is strong enough evidence. Also ignoring the obvious bias of quite a few editors here the Derry/Londonderry naming convention is the best practice it seems in media nowadays and even now in common speak. So for the infobox that seems to be the best way per WP:nPOV to go no matter how flawed it is.

@BaSH PR0MPT - an overwhelmingly nationalist controlled council is always going to use Derry for everything regardless of the official name of the actual city. Derry City is only the name of the council, or rather "Derry City Council". The council name has no actual bearing on the name of the city itself as confirmed by the judicial system. Mabuska ^(talk) 00:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Got to love Mabuska claiming Republican bias when all you ever show is a loyalist bias. Derry is widely used. Mo ainm~Talk 00:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

As ever Mo ainm provide evidence for your fanciful claims and maybe for once in your life here you'll be taken seriously. So many examples I can call upon to show where your claims fall short of reality. Then again whats new when it comes to you... In regards to "widely used", that is the only argument you have in regards to this issue. Nothing new there either then... Mabuska ^(talk) 01:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have no bias (whether that be Republican or Unionist) which is why "Derry / Londonderry" is a more relevant article title. You can't exactly prove either name is more "common" and so the name should fall under the official name (Londonderry - which I do not believe should be the article of the title) or, where naming is sensitive as is the case, a neutral name... See: WP:POV Italay90 (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

official_name

The official name of the city is 'Londonderry'. The opening paragraph acknowledges this by saying 'officially Londonderry'. The infobox has a field "official_name", yet this field is populated with both Londonderry(official name) and Derry(slang). This offers a contradiction and an inconsistency not typical of an encyclopedia. Looking at the examples of Istanbul and Mumbai, neither 'Constantinople' or 'Bombay' are listed as official name though are noted in the infobox. Request for comment. Dubs boy (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The UK infobox for placename contains the phrase "offical name", the other examples given by Dubs Boy, dont- but Mumbai infobox does contain Bombay. Newcastle upon Tyne would be a more comparible infobox, they uses City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne as its offical name. Again another UK city Stoke-on-Trent, that has similarities with Derry (older names) uses infobox settlement and gives the name as City of Stoke-on-Trent.

The offical name parameter seems to be the disputed problem. What defines as the offical name? The Royal Charatered name? The name the city council use? Or the original name?

Again the filer has given a biased propasal on his SPA to an RFC. Murry1975 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Murry1975, I had requested you do try your hand at a neutral description, as you had suggested, and you simply ignored my plea. I can do no more. In the example of "Mumbai", "Bomabay" is listed under other_name, not official_name. As it stands the page is not neutral and the infobox is a contradiction of the text. Ohh and I believe by order of royal charter, should be suffice for a city in the UK, though the local council also uses "Londondery" for official name, though uses "Derry" for council name. A huge difference. And as history serves "Londonderry" was a new settlement built on the Waterside so it has always been called Londonderry, much like the county. But we'll not let facts get in the way of you pov now will we. Let us see what the RFC turns up. Ill be reminded of this little episode next time I take you at your word.Dubs boy (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I didnt ignore your plea, read my reply. Again a waste of time spent meandering to your excuses. Your account is just disruptive and singular porpose now.

For your history lesson, not all the old Derry was destoried, its been discussed in the archives. You should read these. Murry1975 (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Where did I say old Derry was destroyed? I know not all of Derry was destroyed but it was consumed by the growth of Londonderry. And please Murry1975, stick to this topic rather than personal attacks. You are an IMOS warrior which is just as much single purpose, so please focus here on neutrality, not attacks.Dubs boy (talk) 17:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Show the personal attack? False claims of such are disruptive. And then you throw in a personal attack. But ignore the fact that I gave you advice- which you ignored and opened another biased phrased RFC.

Move to close biased phrased RFC (again). At least it was posted in the right topic this time. Murry1975 (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Murry1975, you had suggested you would raise the RFC. You did not. Don't complain. You had your chance and you chose to ignore the issue hoping it would go away. Having observed your editing style, biased editing is your bread and butter, so ill take your criticism with a pinch of salt. Now be gone, I'm sure there are plenty more cases where it is imperative to replace "Republic of Ireland" with "Ireland". Let that be your focus.Dubs boy (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Show where I suggested I would raise the RFC? And stop the insults. Murry1975 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

It would help if it could be proven exactly what the definition of "official name" is in the context of the info-box. I'm still not seeing it. Btw, claiming Derry is a "slang" name isn't productive and just you attaching your own definitions to it. Pleeeaaaaseeee avoid controversial statements for everyone's sanity. Please. --Somchai Sun (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

City status in the United Kingdom is granted by the British monarch. Dubs boy (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT: Judging from this and this site, and this search, Derry is more than a slang name --BoogaLouie (talk) 01:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

The question is, is it the official_name? The answer is no.Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This RfC is a little less than honest about the debate well-covered across the rest of the talk page. This is a political issue. The British Crown owns Londonderry and the Crown says the name is Londonderry, not Derry. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I raised it as a geography rfc as I was accused of showing my POV by raising a past political rfc. You can't win.Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Does the crown own all the people in the city or only the British subjects? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think it's time this RfC was closed. It's been nearly a month (not including the previous RfC) with nothing new added by way of discussion. --HighKing (talk) 13:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, this isn't going anywhere fast. Let's quickly leave before the Queen unleashes all her flying monkey's on us...Somchai Sun (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Highking, don't be so keen to close this. The point is that the infobox requires the official_name which is recognised in the opening sentence as Londonderry so why would the infobox be any different? I'll change it if there are no objections.Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I think you're the only editor here that is keeping this as an active topic. You posted for comments and next to nobody turned up, and none had anything new to add. Why do you want to keep it open? What is the gain at this point? There's no consensus for anything to change, as has been obvious for the past couple of months. --HighKing (talk) 17:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you need consensus to fix an inaccuracy or error?Dubs boy (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes. You need consensus for any change, but most especially for any potentially contentious changes or changes that are likely to be challenged. --HighKing (talk) 17:52, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why would fixing something that is factually wrong be contentious?Dubs boy (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it factually wrong? No I'm being serious - why? Why is Derry considered by you to be "unofficial" when clearly the name is in widespread use in official city organisations/groups/council(s)/world governments/residents? This seems like a tiny issue anyway, I'm merely just curious. I honestly couldn't care less with all the more important world issues going on. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

To my knowledge you can still buy Bombay Mix but the city is official Mumbai.Dubs boy (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

It is factually wrong because the royal charter which founded the city as it is today in 1623 names it as Londonderry. Derry was destroyed in 1608 and modern usage is just a slang term that has found favour but that doesn't necessarily make it correct. Plus not to forget as mentioned above, the infobox says "official_name" which would require Londonderry to be in there by the very definition. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made the change in keeping with consensus on the need for an encyclopedia to contain facts over POV.Dubs boy (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have no more to say about this other than I do love Bombay Mix. Just play nice people...is all I ask. Would be a shame if this had to go to...say, ARBCOM (dun-dun-duuuun). Toodles. Somchai Sun (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this edit even though I agree with it so I reverted Dubs boy. In fact Dubs boy I think is deserving of some form of short-term temporary block for slow edit warring, by leaving it days or weeks at a time until they make the exact same edit over and over again. It mightn't be breaking 1RR or 3RR but it's still edit-warring and edit-warring without a consensus on their side. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:12, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wise up Mabuska. With you in agreement that would make a consensus. Slow edit war? Are you for real. I jumped through hoops to even raise the RFC. I do have consensus. I've made the change in keeping with consensus on the need for an encyclopedia to contain facts over POV. That is consensus and this is an encyclopedia. You are too keen to police rather than contribute.Dubs boy (talk) 21:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change, no consensus to change it has been derived on this talk page. Also you've made that edit 5 times now, and been reverted 5 times, and not all by the same users. If you continue this pattern of editing then you will be blocked for disruptive editing. Canterbury Tail talk 22:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose the change on a number of grounds. Using a nonvisible tag to dictate the form of the article is unreasonable. This talk page determines consensus on this article unless there is some stronger reason that somebody names a field in a template. Putting in both names with a slash is appropriate in this case as both are used in an official capacity. That a person is unable to follow simple directions in setting up an RfC does not justify tem causing trouble, plenty of people set up RfCs and they don't seem to have problems with trying to state a problem neutrally. Dmcq (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I've contributed more to this Wikipedia than you seem to have and have been involved in this never ending general issue more times than enough over the years. Having me in agreement does not make a consensus. Does HighKing agree? No he doesn't, and the input is far too limited to be used as an effective rough consensus. You are slow edit-warring and it is disruptive. Slow edit warring does exist and people have been blocked for it, so pursue this tactic if you wish - how many times have you been reverted now? You will no doubt face some form of sanction if you keep it up. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, I probably would agree to some compromise, but none was suggested here. I don't see this as a black/white case, one term right and the other wrong, and I have problems with a POV that labels "Derry" as "slang". For some, Derry is more an official name than Londonderry. It's a pity DubsBoy has effectively ruined his opportunity to find compromise - I recall when he appeared on this scene, he wanted to simple change the first sentence - and that suggestion appeared to find favour with a number of editors. But rather than focus on that, he appeared to *not* want agreement, but wanted to find something contentious instead. It seems to me that DubsBoy is more interested in being the centre of attention than actually doing something of worth to this article. For that behaviour, I agree with Mabuska that a sanction is in order - and I honestly can't understand why a sanction hasn't already been applied for your most recent edit. In my opinion, you should be topic banned from going near articles related to Derry. --HighKing (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

How can you have a MORE official name? The authorities have decreed that the name is Londonderry, regardless of what the locals call it, and calls to have th signs relabelled were rejected.176.27.15.66 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)Lance Tyrell

Highking, are you not topic banned? for what I must ask? Excelling in the field of neutral and constructive editing? I doubt it.Dubs boy (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to ask; do you know what a consensus is Dubs boy? When everyone agrees. Obviously not everyone does, and if this issue was raised at WikiProject Ireland you'd find many more objectors to it. A rough consensus can work even if a few people object, but only if you have quite a lot in favour. This is not the case here, so with no consensus for your change, not even a rough one, then there is no consensus to change what is in the article. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Question: Is this an encyclopedia or a blog?Dubs boy (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTSOAPBOX Dmcq (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:FORUM Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia.Dubs boy (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the question?

A bot advised me of this RFC. However, the RFC isn't stated in the form of a question on which we can !vote. Since there is no question or questions for a survey, this RFC is flawed and will result in no consensus. The previous one was closed, but this one is worse, because I can't even figure out how I am supposed to express an opinion. No wonder this is just more arguing.Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The question is: Why in the text does it say "officially Londonderry" which is the official name by chance but in the infobox under official_name field both Derry and Londonderry is mentioned? Yes Derry is used in some cases but it is NOT the official name of the city. That is a fact that can not be disputed.Dubs boy (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised that Highking and Mo_aim are so keen to close this discussion so quickly. I thought Highking is topic banned? Are they allowed to contribute here? Dubs boy (talk) 12:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand that the issue is the use of the words "officially" and "slang", but the RFC doesn't ask a question about a specific change. As such, the RFC is just a vehicle for hostile talk page comments. Either the RFC should be closed and restated, or the RFC should be closed and the topic put to bed. (I realize that it isn't bedtime either in North America or in Ireland.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

the question is: DO you think the official_name field in the infobox should contain the official name "Londonderry", as outlined in the opening text in the article or should it contain both official name "Londonderry" and unofficial name "Derry"? As it stands the opening text and infobox offer a contradiction which is confusing and unencyclopedic.Dubs boy (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Should this RFC be closed and reframed?

To note the first RFC was closed as it was raised under a politics rfc which was deemed incorrect and a reflection of my POV, so I raised a new one under geography. Some are suggesting it was closed because no consensus had been reached which sadly is a fabrication of the truth.Dubs boy (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support That seems to be all this fracas is about is that the RFC wasn't worded correctly. I'd say give it another go. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
3. Support Italay90 (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Yes, it should be closed. Unless you propose an exact "reframing", it's going to be difficult to get support for yet another RfC to be opened. Another RfC would be the 3rd in a row on this page. I think we need to give it a rest. --HighKing (talk) 00:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Enough already. Mo ainm~Talk 09:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment

1. Swings and round-abouts is springing to mind here. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Moratorium for 6 months

I believe had there been any momentum towards some changes or compromise, this latest three months of "discussion" would have yielded some constructive ideas. Instead, we got the same people, the same comments, the same point-scoring, etc. I propose we all give it a rest for 6 months. So for anything to do with the name, Londonderry or Derry, we stop. No more polls. No more RfCs. 6 months of looking at other, more constructive, areas to improve the article.

Support

1. Support --HighKing (talk) 00:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
2. Support Mo ainm~Talk 09:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Why? Because of one editor? It doesn't seem right to stifle discussion when there is still discussion to be had. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

If you look back over the discussions since July, they're not exactly constructive. Have we learned anything new? --HighKing (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Highking, why do you continue to block correcting this anomaly? How can Londonderry be official in text yet Derry is offical_name in infobox. It is not encyclopedic and is misleading to the reader. Why would you want people to think that the City is officially called Derry?Dubs boy (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

1. The edit is factually correct. Exactly what is Highkings and Mo-ainm's objections as its not clear. One can assume its simply because they do not like the edit.Dubs boy (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

What we're talking about is what should be at the top of the infobox. An internal parameter name is not a visible part of the page and carries no policy implications. What you are talking about is not a basis for a decision. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. To say that the content of the infobox is irrelevant is utter nonsense. Somebody thought it was important enough to include Derry in the infobox, and have the page named Derry, leaving the page with a distinct bias.Dubs boy (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not say the contents of the infobox are irrelevant. I referred to the parameter name, that is the name used in the template not the value given to it. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying that it says official_name but it doesn't require official name. So does the location field mean the actual location or can that be anything as well? Then what's the point of the template if all of the fields are subject to pov?Dubs boy (talk) 16:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The names provide guidance to someone using a template, it is the generated result that appears in the output page that is subject to the various policies and guidelines. Dmcq (talk) 22:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I oppose this completely, let the name be changed - there should be a clear and definite vote on this as soon as possible. Italay90 (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Dubs boy's argument boils down to one thing - being pedantic about the terminology "official_name". A better idea for Dubs boy would have been to propose having "Derry" and "Londonderry" added to the "local_name" parameter alongside "Maiden City". Then again that's only if you want to be so pedantic about a template parameter name that ordinary Wikipedia users and readers will never see unless they decide to edit the article. Then again, again, the article lead explicitly states that Londonderry is the official name. This whole discussion is banal. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Just so we are clear, we are saying that "Derry" is the official name of the city, not "Londonderry"? ok, got it. Going over to the Paris page now to change its name to "narnia", come and join me y'all.Dubs boy (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If that is what you read from what Mabuska said then so long, byeee 15:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

He's not saying that Dubs, he's saying it should be in the local name template parameter. We all know Londonderry is the official name. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I was not applying to Mabuska, just a reaction to seeing the rfc closing.Dubs boy (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say we should GStQ, I said it was a proposal that would have been a better idea for Dubs boy to pursue on the grounds of parameter naming. Mabuska ^(talk) 18:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment on what's "official"

I was steered to this page by the "Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on ... " bot some weeks ago and I'd like to emphasise a point I made then that I think got lost in the shuffle, namely
when you search "city of Londonderry" and find the home page of the city government, i.e. www.derrycity.gov.uk , you will look in vain for any mention of Londonderry (notwithstanding the fact that the search summary says "The City of Londonderry, also known as Derry, is the economic centre for northwest of Ireland. Provides information for citizens, visitors to the area ... ", you will not find that phrase on the website itself - at least not any more.)

If the website of the city government doesn't use the word "Londonderry" to refer to its city how "official" a name can Londonderry be?
And how can "Derry" -- the name the site uses throughout -- be compared to "Maiden City"? Or to the name "narnia" for the city of Paris? --BoogaLouie (talk) 19:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The name for the city is officially Londonderry in it's city charter and according to the UK courts. The reason why the council website doesn't make use of the term is because it is an Irish nationalist controlled council and as such push their own anti-London agenda in regards to the official name. Derry has as much officialness as Maiden City. Mabuska ^(talk) 19:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes and sadly this webpage is overrun by Republicans who refuse the name Londonderry which is just as official as Newcastle-upon-Tyne or Kingston-upon-Hull. Whil - as Mabuska said - Derry is as official as Old Reeky is for Edinburgh, or the Granite City is for Aberdeen. 86.130.132.177 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Hardly "overrun with republicans" as you put it. And comparing apples and oranges there...a "nickname" which is used infrequently and a name which is used all the time by a majority of the population inc gov organisations are hardly comparable. Yawn, phony outrage. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you'll find that "Newcastle" is not a nickname used infrequently and that the residents very rarely refer to "Newcastle-Upon-Tyne", and that the city council there also refers to itself as "Newcastle City Council." Yet there's no similar debate over on that page where these points are used to obfuscate the issue. I don't know about Republicans, but it seems pretty obvious to me, who is not a Wikipedia editor and who has just skimmed through this conversation out of curiosity, that page has been named "Derry" by someone with a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.71.209 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Says the ip with this one and only contribution. It may have been for all I know but it does follow Wikipedia policy and there's just lots of other things which are more likely repay one's attention. I have no problem with the name Derry and in fact think it is the better name for the article, but I would like for other articles to be able to refer to it as Londonderry more often, calling it Derry is just being plain annoying for instance in articles about Unionist politicians.Dmcq (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, says the IP with only one contribution, as in fact I said in my previous message. What of it? Shall I take from your ad hominem that you agree the point I made is sound? Must be an intriguing and convoluted policy that insists on the formal name of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne for that article, but the colloquial name of Derry for this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.71.209 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The choice of name for the city of Newcastle in England's article is a result of this being in existence...just thought I'd point that out. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you suggesting that it is an attempt to avoid ambiguity? There long list you linked to of different places called "Newcastle" wouldn't seem to suggest that an article called "Newcastle, Tyne and Wear" would cause too many difficulties.

No as I made obvious. I agree with the decision and just because the decision suits some people more than others does no mean it was overall a political decision rather than in line with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. What I want is less editors with a political agenda shouting so references to the article can be named Londonderry as appropriate more often. At the moment the guideline is a sledgehammer without exceptions as exceptions just cause endless arguments. So I don't appreciate people stirring up trouble going on about political agendas thank you. Dmcq (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The decision is political not because it does not suit everyone. The appearance of politics arises from the different decisions reached in other analogous situations. Sorry, but you made nothing obvious, in fact you didn't address the point I made at all. I can understand why complaints of political agendas can be frustrating in an endeavour like Wikipedia - I would suggest applying a consistent approach to all these cases to avoid such arguments in future.

I am no fan of the article name any more than you are but Arbcom made the decision to try and prevent big disruption. Contextual references to Londonderry are becoming more acceptable than they were so there is less POv pushing on some articles. Also consider that the trade-off was for County Londonderry, which is probably used more in Wikipedia because it covers a wider area (Coleraine et al). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The city's official name is Londonderry - when you search "Newcastle-upon-Tyne" or "Kingston upon Hull" which are the official names of the cities, used on their Wikipedia pages, most search results come up with "Newcastle" and "Hull" respectively (including the government website). The city is Londonderry, like it or not - there should be a proper vote on this which is made CLEAR. (Order of preference perhaps? With Derry/Londonderry as an option). Various sources (ie. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/constitution/city/citygj.htm) name the city as Londonderry which IS it's official name, and cities should go by official name (on Wikipedia) as opposed to nicknames or names used in other countries, such as those OUTSIDE of the UK (ie. the Republic of Ireland) or people who do not identify themselves as being in the sovereign state which Londonderry is DEMOCRATICALLY situated in (ie. those who recognise the region as part of the Republic of Ireland when it is part of the UK). You may argue that the city has a majority Catholic population, which it does, but most Catholics and people in Northern Ireland want peace in the UK - and in-fact around 50% of Catholic residents in Northern Ireland believe the country should be part of the UK whilst nearly all Protestant residents believe it is British. Italay90 (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There MUST also be a vote on actually renaming the page to Londonderry, Derry/Londonderry or keeping it as is. Italay90 (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

There has been lots of discussions and votes etc. The relevant Wikipedia policy for article titles is WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:OFFICIALNAME. Also there was a conflict with the county name. Your democracy sounds more allied to subjects of the crown than free citizens to me, do you really think that is what people wanted with a devolved Northern Ireland parliament? Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can someone more adept than I clean up the indentations here? Anyway, Italay90 - did you see my comment about the Newcastle naming thingy? It explains a lot about that particular naming issue. Yeah, and the people of NI are pretty fed up on the whole with groups/individuals who have silly political points to score, or bands of thugs taking to the streets in order to wreak havoc over a stupid flag. --Somchai Sun (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not, but the article should take a more neutral stance if any, if this article was named 'Londonderry' I'm sure many of you would be outraged. WP:Neutrality is of higher importance as than WP:Official, which is disputably more important that WP:Common, as both names, Derry and Londonderry, are used frequently as a name for the city.

It is striking that the article even outlines the fact that 'Londonderry' is the official name, which is by no means a neutral compromise. Readers of 'County Londonderry' are not necessarily readers of the 'Derry' article, which makes both articles hold a naming bias, please change this. Despite my unionist political views I think a compromise is better than how the articles are named currently - it begs the question, why not the city of Londonderry and county of Derry? As it would suddenly no longer be 'neutral'? Italay90 (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The county name isn't up for debate here, different article. Also the county name hasn't got the confusion associated with the city, since it was created as County Londonderry and there has never officially in any capacity been a county named Derry. The city is much more involved though with official bodies calling itself Derry etc. Canterbury Tail talk 16:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That maybe, but Londonderry is the official name, and considering their is no true way of knowing which name is more common, the article should either be named neutrally or officially. The articles opening lines even states "officially Londonderry". SOME official bodies do, admittedly, however that does not make it official, does it? The city's official name is, according to the governing body of Northern Ireland, Londonderry.

I suggest renaming the article (as I have already stated) to something more neutral or to it's official name. "Derry/Londonderry" or "(London)derry" seems to take a more neutral POV as opposed to the unofficial "Derry". We may as-well call it "Maiden City".

Now, can we please actually have a proper vote on the name? These long discussions lead us no-where, and, like it or not:

1. Derry IS NOT NEUTRAL. (WP:Neutrality - Derry-Londonderry or (London) Derry is perhaps better?)

2. Londonderry is the official name of the city. (WP:Official names)

3. There is no way of knowing which name is more common, both are used frequently. (This makes WP:COMMONNAME invalid) Italay90 (talk) 14:06, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

See WP:VOTE, discussion is the only way this will change and it's obvious there is no consensus to make any changes. Canterbury Tail talk 14:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Common name was decided by checking Google and looking through the references especially in reliable sources, see Wikipedia:Search engine test The disparity was quite large so there's no great problem in deciding which is more common, the problems are in distinguishing it from the Londonderry and Derry in America and a few other such instances of the names and instances where both names occur in the same source and whether a name refers to the county or the city. Wikipedia does not go in for criteria which can't be checked reasonably easily, WP:COMMONNAME would not be policy if 'considering their is no true way of knowing which name is more common' was correct. Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

First sentence of lead

As often done when the official title of a person or place does not match the corresponding article title, should the first word of the first sentence of the lead of this article be Londonderry, the official name of the city, with Derry included immediately afterwards? 86.133.243.146 (talk) 01:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - This was briefly kicked around before and had the discussion not been derailed, I believe this suggestion may have received enough support. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - how it is written here seems good to me. For people's names we don't have to say that the long name is the official name but saying officially Londonderry is much clearer and more accurate than saying unofficially Derry. I would at the least need to see a good replacement leading sentence before considering this rather than just some comparison with some other articles about ordering names. Dmcq (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I think how it reads now is better for the reader than switching the ordering and trying to explain more in that sentence. Canterbury Tail talk 11:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Reads fine now. Snappy (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - I would like to see either a neutral name for the article or the official name, but I feel this is going in the right direction. Italay90 (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Support - All media outlets in the British Isles' policy is to use Londonderry firstly and Derry there after. I think it would be good consistency for its wiki page to do like wise, while also pointing out the correct terminology sooner.Cbowsie (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - I completely disagree with this. It was fine the way it was. The name of the article is Derry so the first word should be that, otherwise it'd be confusing for any Wikipedian who is coming to learn about Derry. Also, Cbowsie, I don't know where you're getting that information from, considering all Irish newspapers in the Republic of Ireland use Derry only, same too with the Daily Mirror. st170e^talk 20:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose When it comes to the lead - the name of the article appears first. I don't see any point in changing it. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose The first word should be <title>, followed shortly by <othername>, per WP:BEGIN. The reverse is bizarre and implies the article is wrongly titled. NebY (talk) 21:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

St170e, It is not confusing at all, it is been objectively information as to the official name at the nearest opportunity, something a wikipedian would appreciate. 'Considering' Republic of Ireland in this has no relevance to my point as I stated British media, which ROI is not. If you research policies on the matter within the BBC (including newsline) and UTV a local UK media outlet, then you will find this is infact their policy, as I was involved in forming this in 2009. regardsCbowsie (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You might have intended to state "British media" but you wrote "media outlets in the British Isles", thus appearing to include those in the Republic of Ireland. It didn't seem unreasonable of you to consider them. NebY (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

...and it's still not a strong enough reason to disregard WP:BEGIN...--Somchai Sun (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Prehen

Prehen mentioned in the section about woods along with ness woods is actually located outside the city boundary and is not in the city- cod golf course is also not located in the city — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prehen65 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Population

Opening sentence of the article states that Derry is the 4th Largest city on the island of Ireland, but the Ireland article states it's the 5th largest (behind Limerick) - which one is correct?

62.30.110.92 (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2014

Shous be renamed to Derry~Londonderry 86.137.110.230 (talk) 10:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

 Not done unsurprisingly, the title of this article has been discussed, at great length, in the past - please see the discussions on this page, and further discussions in the archives. Any such change needs consensus - which it has not had. - Arjayay (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be impartial, right? By naming the article Derry that means yous are taking the Republican side which can offend some people 81.158.60.168 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The city is in the UNITED KINGDOM not another country. The name of the city is LONDONDERRY in the UNITED KINGDOM. It is not difficult to understand. 94.193.185.148 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The name with a twiddle in between was used in the city of culture advertisements but isn't an actual name. I'm afraid the policy about not using multiple names in article titles has been confirmed in numerous instances in polls about disputed place names and this article is explicitly mentioned in WP:POVNAMING. And by the way the dispute here is as nothing to what has happened over Gdańsk/Danzig (which thankfully has quietened down now but there's a complaint on the talk page about Polish references being used for the city even though it is in Poland) or the uninhabited Senkaku/Diaoyu/Diaoyutai/Pinnacle Islands (which I notice has a recent request that names them as the Uotsuri Islands and wants to rename the island Kuba to Tiao-su) Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)