Jump to content

Talk:Derry

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ibanda (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 8 January 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Pbneutral

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.

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The present situation is in no way balanced. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is your suggestion. Apples, oranges, swings, roundabouts. O Fenian (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That would work if you added the modern use of Derry to that --Snowded TALK 22:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

It seems clear from the above discussion that there was a consensus reached that the intro should say "Derry (legally Londonderry)" - with "legally" being preferred to "officially". I edited the article accordingly, but O Fenian reverted saying that it was unacceptable because it doesn't mention the status of "Derry". But "Derry" doesn't have a "status" - it is, in WP terms, the "common name" used in lieu of the legal name. Mooretwin (talk) 11:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no consensus at the time to add duplication to the lead or to give undue detail about one name in the very first sentence, which is why it was not changed at the time. So please do not make edits claiming a spurious claim of consensus that does not exist. Try reading the whole discussion, in particular the section below. When you do, you will find the consensus was to add extra detail (which includes a sentence currently reading "While the city is more usually known as Derry, Londonderry is also used and remains the legal name") to this version which did not include it. O Fenian (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Mooretwin (talk) 14:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.239.120 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


__ IT's hard to believe that this debate is still going on. I have to say I've lost all faith in Wikipedia because of this. No point in re-stating old arguments - you're supposed to be an online encyclopedia, a source of reliable facts. That's clearly not the case. There are plenty of political forums for this kind of thing, if that's what Wikipedia is about then you should say so. If you want to deal if facts, then do it. It's as simple as that... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.117.91 (talk) 00:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC) The simple fact is that the city council can call themselves "The Muppet City Council" or anything else. The City Charter granted by our present monarch gives the city the name of "Londonderry". That is the city's name and that is how it should be listed. As a supposed "encyclopedia" it is the facts and not the political wishes of some that should be given precedence. Should Edinburgh be listed as "Auld Reekie"? Ridiculous! Acorn897 (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only just lost faith in Wikipedia, 81.157.117.91? It is a fair guess to assume that this article has existed since almost the first week of Wikipedia's existence, yet this name argument still goes on and on and on - and there is still no Wikipedia rule-book guidance about what to do in this and with similar circumstances that occur on other articles (the World is full of places with contested names). I guess that lack of hard guidance is because working out those rules would be too much like hardwork. So, instead we have an insular, article-specific comment like "there is a long standing consensus on this issue", designed to give editors an easy life (though it fails even in that design aim). 93.97.143.19 (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, the name of the City Council is Derry. The name on the City Charter is Londonderry. These statements seem to be factual The City Council made the name change following the appropriate legal procedures. Place names are not however, in the UK and Ireland at least, the same as the administrative name of an area. For example, for a brief period after local government reorganisation in 1974, the City of Salisbury was in an administrative district called South Wiltshire. The name was then changed - by the Council - so that the larger district was also called Salisbury. The City of Salisbury is however not the same as the local government district of Salisbury. The City Charter only applies to the smaller area. It is also irrelevant to administrative matters, it is a historical document, not a constitution for government. So, it is understandable that changing the administrative name to Derry City Council hasn't changed the City Charter. Moreover even if the City Charter of Londonderry applies to the whole area covered by Derry City Council that doesn't mean the name of the place is still Londonderry. However, what a place is called, is not the same as what people call it! Can we not simply accept this and devise some form of wording that explicitly recognises both names are legitimately used by different groups of people for the same place? Ian (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You would think that they would at least get the name Londonderry right. The city Council may have renamed itself as Derry but the city certainly hasn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.76.201 (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On wikipedia there was a consensus to call the city Derry and the county Londonderry. See WP:IMOS. Although i must say the number of times this issue is coming up is starting to concern me about the stability of this agreement, sadly i see no better option that would get agreement. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus that the City and County would be called Londonderry and the Council would be called Derry City Council along with the airport being called City of Derry Airport was reached by elected representatives who sit on Derry City Council. There is not going to be a fairer consensus reached than that. But given that the consensus on wikipedia was voted on by a group of people of unknown(although slightly obvious) persuasion, did you honestly think the outcome would be a fair representative? It seems that if I got enough people together I could pretty much change the name of anything or any place if based on consensus.Factocop (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully happy about this situation either. Id rather the the official title of the city be used, but we have to accept present consensus unless there is enough support for changing it. The only alternative i can see is Londonderry for the City and County Londonderry for the County. But whilst there are plenty of sources using just Derry, i can see why Derry was decided on. This whole thing certainly is not ideal. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ofcourse there are always going be sources to suggest the city is called Derry. You could source the Irish Times or the Anderstown News for that but given that certain people patrol certain pages, you are never going to get an unbiased result. I don't see why the conclusion made by the elected Derry City Council was not enough?That seems the only fair way.Factocop (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only fair way...are you actually serious..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.117.91 (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland as a country

There is an interesting discussion on the Northern Ireland WP suggesting that it is not a country with some pretty compelling evidence. Just thinking should Northern Ireland be removed and have the page say 'Derry is a city in the United Kingdom'. thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.114.44.201 (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a city in Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. Even if Northern Ireland is just a province, the city would still be in Northern Ireland. Articles on American cities tend to mention their state rather than the USA as whole in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To cite an incorrect Wikipedia source is just plain silly and shows just how bad theis "encyclopedia" is. There is no suc city as "Derry", Cities in the UK have charters and the name does not exist in the list! The City of Londonderry exists. I perceive mischief amongst many editors. Wikipedia is an unreliable source as it is too easily manipulated. Acorn897 (talk) 02:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a troll. 15:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.17.137 (talk)

To reword a statement, to improve the article's neutrality

Before my amendment, the sentence I updated had begun "While the city is more usually known as Derry,". I tested this sentence by using Google.ie ( Google Ireland) to search for derry city and also londonderry city - the term derry city was more common. I then used Google.co.uk to search both derry city and londonderry city, and londonderry city had more search results. It appears to me that the city might more usually be known as Derry within the Republic of Ireland but more commonly known as Londonderry with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. So, to enhance the article's neutrality, I have reworded the sentence to begin "While the city is known as both Londonderry and Derry ..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Torquil Sorensen (talk • contribs) 06:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the history on this page, any change to the use of Derry and Londonderry should be discussed before a change is made, so I have reverted. As I remember it the current wording came from a third party source not an google search. --Snowded TALK 06:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The change made appears to be original research. I agree with the reversion. O Fenian (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the revert. Consensus. --HighKing (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who'd like to discuss names?

I took a look at the Derry name compromise thingy and it seems old and with sod all editors looking at it.

So I've created a new one. Here's my "advert" for it:

Derry

86.178.52.148 (talk) 19:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've deactivated the Category this template places pages in, it's messing with the helpme feature. Please note that placing this "advert" on pages is a violation of WP:CANVAS. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Derry&oldid=406713317"