Talk:Derry

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

Poll on renaming "Derry" and "County Londonderry"

I believe that Derry and County Londonderry should be renamed to "Derry/Londonderry" and "County Derry/Londonderry" in-order to take a neutral stance on the ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland. Although this name may be a combined name which is discouraged in wikipedia, it allows a neutral and equal stance on issues concerning political and religious beliefs in Northern Ireland. This poll is for both articles, and will be conducted on this Talk page (a link may be found in the County Londonderry Talk page). This poll is on whether to keep the names Derry and County Londonderry respectively, or rename both articles "Derry/Londonderry" and "County Derry/Londonderry". I am for renaming both articles to "Derry/Londonderry" and "County Derry/Londonderry". Italay90 (talk) 09:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a couple of questions first,

"take a neutral stance on the ongoing conflict in Northern Ireland", really? Thats not even a neutral stance on the present situation in NI.

Discouraged? Its not used.

Derry/Londonderry? Londonderry/Derry? Which is neutral?

Looking forward to your replies. Murry1975 (talk) 10:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Ongoing conflict? Give us a break. New York has a far higher murder rate and it is pretty good by American standards. In fact NI is slightly better than the UK or ROI average. Dmcq (talk) 10:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please be respectful. "Derry/Londonderry" seems to be more populour than using "Londonderry/Derry" but neither is "more neutral". Calling the city Derry is biased? By ongoing conflict I'm refering to the political and religious devisions in the city and in Northern Ireland, (I personally have been to the city). Dmcq said it is discouraged. How is naming "Derry/Londonderry" not neutral? Many media companies and even people in the city, county and across Northern Ireland call it "Derry/Londonderry" which is far more equal than naming it Derry or Londonderry. Italay90 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

There is no real conflict in Derry now. The disparity there is now such that if anything many nationalists are now coming round to wondering about how to support unionists and not endanger their traditions there. Dmcq (talk) 11:25, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

It is still far more convient for both sides. Also, it may be more convient when searching "Derry" or "Londonderry" on a search engine. Why should it not be changed? It respects the beliefs of both Catholics and Protestants, rather than slandering them with what wikipedia calls "equality" and "neutral" which is not strictly true, also, you should not generalise an entire city. Italay90 (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"'rather than slandering them "WP:SOAP. Nothing new being put forward, just personnal opinions and views of proposer. Swift close needed. Murry1975 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia is based on verifiability and references, not votes. Wikipedia is not a democracy and polls aren't a deciding factor and decisions are not based on them. Strength of argument carries much more weight than X people want Y. Oh and respecting the wishes or opinions the people involved that live in a place we're doing an article on is not a factor. Canterbury Tail talk 17:55, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

So, just who takes it upon himself to decide on the "strength of argument"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.68.184 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your contributions by putting ~~~~ at the end. See WP:DISPUTE for the whole business about disputes and WP:RfC for a common one and WP:CONSENSUS about consensus on Wikipedia. Basically there are normally enough people around more interested in trying to improve Wikipedia rather than just using it for their own propaganda. However if some group does manage such a straight biased vote locally it often will be escalated to a wider audience and the people involved are liable to have their other edits checked, quite often such people are found to be WP:sockpuppets trying to corrupt Wikipedia. Dmcq (talk) 10:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Anybody who gets "offended" or feels they are being "slandered" by the naming of this article need to reevaluate their priorities in life. I'm deadly serious. I don't see any compelling arguments, and don't understand why the OP doesn't want to regard WP policy. Put it to bed. --Somchai Sun (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

If Wikipedia is based on reference and verifiability, why not refer to the city's charter to verify that its name is Londonderry, and nothing else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.14.119.20 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The city obviously has two names, with Derry being the one used here. There is nothing non-factual, non-pov or policy violating about the article title. --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it does. One is official and one is slang in referring to a city that was destroyed in 1608. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

OK...? --Somchai Sun (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Follow Canis lupus familiaris and you'll get to the article about dogs. That's how most people refer to them in reliable sources. Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

When searching Londonderry on Google "County Londonderry" is the first result, which is pretty misleading (searching County Derry comes up with County Londonderry). Italay90 (talk) 11:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who says that Derry is named Derry not to please Catholics/Republicans and County Londonderry is not named that to please Protestants/Unionists is wrong. The cities official name is Londonderry and UK cities use official names on wikiepdia than popular slang ie. Newcastle is called Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Hull is called Kingston-upon-Hull, so rather than avoiding what is blatantly obvious and completing ignoring the troubles of Northern Ireland (which in-case you are not aware of did not end until 2007) is in denial. Militant groups like the IRA and UDF still exist and so I believe that the article should be renamed something fair and equal despite your rants that the article is OK at present. Even so, many people seem to be in denial of the OFFICIAL name of the city, we don't call Stoke-upon-Trent Stoke do we? I personally am Protestant and see no fairness in naming the city Derry and county Londonderry, it's inconsistent and misleading, people may think Londonderry and Derry are different places? Italay90 (talk) 11:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

How about starting off in a small way by telling the Apprentice Boys to rename themselves and that they're really marching round the walls of Londonderry. [1] is their web page to contact them. Dmcq (talk) 13:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Lol. --Somchai Sun (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Then call it Derry/Londonderry and keep everyone happy? Your argument against me is pretty poor, you can name the city what you want and I respect your beliefs but respect the beliefs of others too, just because you call it Derry doesn't mean that's its name, a lot of people call it Londonderry too, so rather than making this article a piece of biased rubbish, maybe we should call it fair, as wikipedia says take a neutral point of view in issues like this, I feel "Derry/Londonderry" is more equal to the city of "Derry" and county of "Londonderry". Italay90 (talk) 10:53, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep ignoring the argument and trying to put your own views across - you call me biased at yet DERRY is used commonly by Republicans and LONDONDERRY by Unionists, it is biased naming it one or the other? Give me one reason to show that naming the article Derry and county Londonderry is not biased and I would happily stick with these names. Also try give a decent response to what I say rather than ignoring what I have said because I am right, Wikipedia isn't some piece of Republican/Unionist propaganda. SO if it isn't biased, why shouldn't the city be Londonderry and county Derry? Please explain how naming them two biased names somehow makes them neutral rather than one name which is neutral itself? Italay90 (talk) 11:01, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:OFFICIAL Italay90 (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." Italay90 (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

"Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) in the box of Topic-specific conventions on article titles." WP:ARTICLE TITLES Italay90 (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

What makes "Derry" a more commonly used name than Londonderry? Italay90 (talk) 11:25, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Your question was answered in the section #Renaming Article. Derry is the name more commonly used in reliable sources for the town and County Londonderry is the name commonly used for the county. And both of those are by quite a good margin. Dmcq (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way if you ever want to actually run a poll have a look at WP:RfC. You would really need to make a far better case if you want to convince people to overturn WP:COMMONNAME. There's been quite a bit of argument over the years about the name and editors are reluctant to change anything in this area for fear of sparking edit wars as some people have strong feelings about the subject. Personally I would like to see a bit of peace and quiet for a while and then perhaps some of the restrictions about referring to the city in WP:IMOS could be relaxed. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well why can't you respond to my "case"? I'd like your response to what I have said. Also the sources chosen could be deliberately biased towards naming the city Derry and county Londonderry, some do it vise-versa. If you wish to criticise what I say at least have some decency to reply to all of it. It could easily be argued that Derry/Londonderry is used significantly in many sources as well - which are nothing to go by in my opinion. Yes, some have strong feels for naming it Londonderry as well, yet the article remains Derry. I am doubtful about these so called "edit wars" as the articles already have biased names (so shouldn't they be happening now)? Italay90 (talk) 12:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC) You are almost suggesting to leave the article as it is because it is easier to maintain, which is a lie. Lots of wikipedia policies clash with the Common Name one, so which do we follow? Italay90 (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

You could argue that Londonderry is the cities common name, and let's face it, we can't prove either is  ? Italay90 (talk) 12:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Some people could say Bombay is a more commonly used name for Mumbai, which it may be, but Mumbai is the cities official name and is used frequently enough for the article to be named as such. Derry is in no way an official name, only the cities historical and common name (like Bombay). Italay90 (talk) 12:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So someone might have biased the returns of Google books searches on "Londonderry Northern Ireland" and "Derry Northern Ireland". I at least am going to follow the advice in Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Surprised this discussion has lasted so long and is still ongoing. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Italay, but Wikipedia doesn't use "official names", which is why we have Ivory Coast, Burma and Republic of Ireland, among countless other country names, as article titles. Incidentally regarding your points above, having lived in Stoke Upon Trent for several years in the 1990s, I can reliably inform you that there is no such city. The city is Stoke on Trent and it consists of six towns, one of which is Stoke Upon Trent. The real centre of the city though is Hanley. Most locals by the way, refer to the town and city simply as "Stoke" and internally refer to going to the city centre as "going to Hanley", where you'll see signs saying "Stoke 2 miles >." Valenciano (talk) 20:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Italay, Wikipedia doesn't use common name or official name. It uses the name decided by the POV of the greater majority of editors involved in the article. In this case you've chosen the wrong page. To call the County, Derry/Londonderry would be wrong and historically incorrect, so no support here.Dubs boy (talk) 12:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

1. You selectively chose Stoke-on-Trent, what about Kingston-upon-Hull? 2. Yet you may argue Londonderry is more common, or County Derry ? But the articles have separate names!? Merge them for the sake of neutral point of view or select one name, whether it is Derry or Londonderry depending on which one is more "common" (because we all know commonness can be measured). Yet you ignore NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW which wikipedia suggest when in a talkpage. Italay90 (talk) 16:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening sentence

Londonderry should be the first word in the opening sentence as proposed in the now infamous "Compromise" [2] so are there any objections to this?

From the agreed "Compromise": "The way I set it up was to have the articles at 'Derry' and have the first word in the actual text to be 'Londonderry'" Dubs boy (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

How about just giving a good reason? If you think this place is full of POV pushers who will outvote you then what's the point of you coming here? The compromise as you call it is based on WP:COMMONNAME, you should either show that is wrongly checked or does not apply or there is a good reason otherwise to ignore it. Dmcq (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Shucks, I was only kiddin' Dmcq. I just think that the 'compromise' is quoted on this page so much that one of the strands of this compromise was to have the opening line start with 'Londonderry'. I think discussions above show that even the common name is in dispute, but if the 'compromise' is to be used to keep the status quo then shouldn't we also keep this strand also. It makes sense to call the page Derry, but have the opening line start with Londonderry as certainly it would go someway to appease some editors that sprout up every once and a while before being blasted with this compromise thingy. What do you say? Again I was only muckin' around.Dubs boy (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I think how it is now "Derry, offically Londonderry" sounds pretty good and says the case well. Dmcq (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The way it is now seems to give more weight to the name "Derry" than Londonderry, or why else would it be the opening word.Dubs boy (talk) 12:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BEGIN "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence". More to the point I think Derry is the more important name to mention. If you look at Dog for instance it starts "The domestic dog (Canis lupus familiaris)", the official name is stuck in brackets. Dmcq (talk) 13:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BEGIN is only a guideline with every page open to change and formatting as decided by the community. And for every WP:GUIDELINE there is another one that offers a contradiction.Dubs boy (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections in principle. However, I don't think it is appropriate to second guess what would "appease" other editors. Unless a sufficient number of people who are unhappy with the current article title put their weight behind the idea, I don't think it is worth tinkering with a tender box. --RA (✍) 10:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with the two chums above. How about a nice cup of tea pint of Guinness? Anyway, changing it either way would have no fundamental effect on the article. Pretty pointless. And r.e no "vote" please. Urgh. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think its an edit that should go in. If we are to enforce the long serving "compromise" in the naming dispute which often is put to frequent passers by curious as to why the page isnt called 'Londonderry', then in this case it should also be applied otherwise the 'compromise' carries no weight in further discussions.Dubs boy (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that 2004 talk page you pointed at carries no weight. Dmcq (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Where did this compromise come from then and why is it constantly used as an excuse for no change(see every naming dispute discussion above)? To use Derry as the opening, gives more weight to that name than of Londonderry, which is not neutral.Dubs boy (talk) 13:09, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You're the only one talking about it that I can see. Dmcq (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you wanting anyway? A concrete proposal is always better, something like "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, commonly known as the United Kingdom (UK) or Britain, is..."? Dmcq (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose as laid out in the original compromise that the opening sentence begin with "Londonderry, commonly known as Derry" or derivation of that, to add neutrality to the article.Dubs boy (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Whats the most neutral way? Alphabetical? Its Derry first. Which name is older? Its Derry first. Which turns up more search results? Its Derry first. Murry1975 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would of thought neutral would of been in keeping with the long standing consensus? No? Some would argue that Londonderry was a completely new settlement on the waterside but that is another can of worms. I think many have argued on the front of search results, neither side was able to prove the reliability of the results. The only solid strand is the long standing 'consensus'. And as argued before, the consensus hasnt changed.Dubs boy (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"would of thought neutral would of been in keeping with the long standing consensus"? Then why are you trying to change it? Murry1975 (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to change the consensus, I'm simply trying to enforce it. The consensus was to call City "Derry", County "Londonderry" and for the current article to open with "Londonderry". That was the consensus. So no, not changing, simply applying it fully.Dubs boy (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult to successfully argue for the change based on a Talk page comment that's nearly 10 years old, and one that hasn't raised itself since then. But. I think as a suggestion, it's certainly worth discussing and like others, I'd support it in principal. So far, I haven't seen anything to suggest it's a bad idea. --HighKing (talk) 18:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Its more than just a talkpage comment. This is "the" consensus. This is the comment is the reason why the page is called 'Derry' and has remained relatively stable since, though digging through past discussion this "consensus" is quoted a lot when discussing the naming dispute. So to disregard it now in this case would trigger a need to change the page name back to "Londonderry". Dubs boy (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

No - you're making the mistake of treating a Talk discussion involving 3 or 4 people as a legal treaty that should be enforced in it's entirety, or not at all. In reality, the compromise is exactly what it is today, and has been quoted as such ad nauseum "Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county". You also neglect to give weight to the fact that the article has had the same opening lede since 2004. If this was truly against community consensus, it wouldn't have remained as such for 9 years. My advice to you is that you're not going to convince anybody by diving in on each comment made here. You'll just drive people away from the discussion. Let others discuss and see what happens. If it gets momentum, a change might happen. --HighKing (talk) 17:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I only raised that conversation as a another user MO AIMN quoted it in one of the many past discussions, and it seemed enough at the time to convince another discerning user to go away. I would add that the conversation did lead us here and to a certain amount of enforced stability, so it wasnt a bad suggestion, just not a very evenly weighted one. But as it stands its not really neutral, and I can't think why anyone would want to relegate "Londonderry" further.Dubs boy (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I like the current sentence, it starts with the article name rather than confusing the reader using a different name straight off them explaining the article name. Canterbury Tail talk 18:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There was no consensus established in that 2004 talk. Even if you thought it had any relevance nowadays it in fact showed that putting a different name first caused trouble and there wasn't any agreement. I in fact am happy to just be counted as neutral on this even though I think the current phrasing is better, I don't feel strongly enough about it to care overmuch so if more people would get rid of their bees in a bonnet I be happy with that.

Then you go on again about not showing Derry is more common in reliable sources. I see that you were saying the same thing a year ago and were saying checking for relevance to Northern Ireland in the search wasn't standard, so you were counting references to Londonderry in New Hampshire and references to the county as referring to the city to get the numbers to be comparable. I guess you'll pursue the same course again but as a small thing could I just ask you to stop going on about [3] as establishing some sort of compromise on the wording here? Just go with the straight proposal on its current merits. Dmcq (talk) 18:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Obviously the original compromise was not with out its flaws, Offering "Derry" as city name, and "Londonderry" as County, when the County name was never in dispute was a bizarre trade off. It makes sense here to use Derry as city name then and Londonderry in opening to give both names prominence.Dubs boy (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

"...the County name was never in dispute"??? You must pop up to County Derry sometime, Dubs boy. Brocach (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Where's that? Anyway near Narnia or Nevereverland? Well if its encyclopedic facts were dealing with here then, yes County Derry was never disputed because it never existed.Dubs boy (talk) 22:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is flawed, but as a compromise it works to a degree. Mabuska ^(talk) 12:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

To a degree yes, but in terms of this page, it gives more prominence to "Derry" than to "Londonderry" so by having the opening as "Londonderry" would go some way to addressing that. As it stands neutrality is a side thought to stability which is fair given the number of edit wars here but it still needs to be addressed. Dubs boy (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to be impolite, but trying to tinker with a near non-issue seems like a bit of a fruitless task. The article has been stable for ages, and changing it around would be something of a "token" gesture at best. The compromise was certainly not bizarre btw as Wikipedia works on consensus, and many obviously want the other article named Co. Derry, not Londonderry, regardless of any historical usage/naming. --Somchai Sun (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not at all but naming the County "Londonderry" as some sort of compromise was an empty gesture as the County has never been called County Derry. Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. The article has been stable, thanks to this long standing compromise though, the number of users who have queried this long standing consensus probably by now outweighs the number who currently support it, and have been fobbed off. But the consensus was based on the Derry(City) = County Londonderry + Londonderry(opening to this article). As it stands the current status gives more prominence to "Derry" which was not the original agreement. Hence why I feel the need to raise this issue. And as you can see yet another topic has been raised on the naming dispute so this is constantly ongoing.Dubs boy (talk) 15:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

County Londonderry is a different article. This article is about Derry. No 'compromise' is needed because of the 'County' in the name of the article. Dmcq (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

So what exactly is the compromise or consensus in place that is keeping the article stable and everyone so happy? Over the years I am sure there are as many people who have queried the consensus and been told to "do one" against those who support the current consensus. So obviously the article is heavily weighted towards "Derry" which isnt justified.Dubs boy (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You are the one who keeps talking about some compromise. How about just trying better at justifying putting the official name rather than the common name first? The talk page you pointed at indicted doing what you say might cause confusion because it doesn't correspond with the usual rule of WP:BEGIN. Dmcq (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The current page is based on the original compromise made 9 years ago. Common name has been quoted as the reason why it has remained the same though recent discussions have shown that no one has been able to prove which name is more common. Mabuska pointed out that there are 300 odd names in Ireland with "Derry" in them yet no searches seem to eliminate them nor the "Londonderry" in North America. So to prove either name is more common is ludicrous. What is funny is that WP:BEGIN does use the example of Mumbai and Bombay, where the official name is used first. Nice work DMCQ. As it stands the article opening is not neutral. That is what we should try and change not keep the biased. Dubs boy (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is quite easy to show which is the common name, just look at #Renaming Article above for instance and it was done more thoroughly a year ago with the same conclusion. You can see there the way the references were checked to see if they actually referred to the city or not. I doin't see why you refer to Mumbai, yes it used to be called Bombay and that used to be the common name but if you do a quick check you'll see Mumbai is now considerably more common. Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway if you can show Londonderry is the common name then you have good grounds for changing the title of the article and there would be no problem with changing the first sentence. Are you actually disputing common name or not? If you are then go for renaming the article. If you are not then just go with trying to get Londonderry first in the sentence as being the official name. Dmcq (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dmcq, surely the title of the topic is a hint as to what I am suggesting. As for Mumbai,I simply referencing the guideline that YOU brought up. I've read the discussions previously and see no overriding argument that shows that either Londonderry or Derry is more common. Can you point me to the exact edit? I think User:The C of E God Save the Queen! put it best in reference to the city "One is official and one is slang in referring to a city that was destroyed in 1608." Also the sources you refer to, were they historical sources discussing Ireland in the 1500's for example? did you remove Irish government sources who refuse to acknowledged anglicized names, did you remove the 300 instances of townlands that have "Derry" in their name, or did you simply check the first 2 pages of the search results? I know the page title will never change given the pov of the users watching the page, but I do think that their is an element of users here who would like to see some encyclopedic logic applied , so "Londonderry" should be the opening to the lead as it would add neutrality as first suggested in the original compromise.Dubs boy (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't exclude references from books produced in Ireland otherwise your objections were all met. You were in the discussions a year ago and refused to look at the evidence then. Did you even look at the section #Renaming Article above I referred to? It would already have answered some of your questions. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway shouldn't you be coming up with some half way decent argument of your own if you want to change things? What is your evidence for your beliefs? Dmcq (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So your response is sending me to a redirect of a redirect to a conversation that still doesnt show anything. How did you remove the 300 instances of townlands with "Derry" in their name? This is a new discussion, a new topic, and they need new opinions and new evidence, present it here or go away.Dubs boy (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubs boy - it seems to me that this discussion has failed to get any momentum, and we're going round in circles with the same old rehashed discussion. Honestly, I can't see anything here that hasn't been said before. And it is considered disruptive to continue to rehash this same discussion over and over. --HighKing (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You are right HK. I am disappointed. I really am. The page as it is, is not neutral, and gives more prominence to the outdated/slang name over the actual name. This is not encyclopedic regardless of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:BEGIN. A real shame.Dubs boy (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, let's close this so. --HighKing (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Move to close. Though 1 thing I will do when I find the time is count the number of users who have questioned the status quo over the last 9 years just to see how many people disagree and agree with current format as it is not evenly weighted. I'm off now to the "Istanbul" page to see if i can get "Constantinople" reinstated as the name of the city by fixing google results and filling the talkpage with bureaucracy.Dubs boy (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just adjust your figure to include socks, then remind yourself that Wikipedia is not a democracy nor a bureaucracy. Murry1975 (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Its not an encyclopedia either. It may not be a democracy but how then are discussions resolved if not by democratic means? This page seems to use Democracy in the Mugabe sense of the word. Serious question though, When I'm counting socks, do I only count socks who have used their other accounts here or socks in general? I'm actually going to count this.Dubs boy (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Err...socks? O_o --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the suggestion I posted was per WP:IMOS as you can see here [4]. So anyone who wants to question the validity of my suggestion or the "compromise" I am referring to, which has apparently no bearing on today, yet is quoted in IMOS, must be leading a life of contradictions. So I will make the change per IMOS guidelines if there are no further objections?Dubs boy (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just don't. Firstly you are misreading that 2004 talk page. Secondly that there was some agreement back in 2004 has no bearing on anything nowadays. As to counting people who have complained on this page about the name compared to those who have come along saying what a wonderful idea it is, people normally come to the talk page because they want to change things rather than just talk. The only reasonable measure is the one you get by doing a WP:RfC and each RfC in turn becomes the new standard. Dmcq (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How am I misreading it? If it has no bearing why is it quoted in WP:IMOS? OK, since the conception of the "compromise", how many users have disagreed with it and been told to move along? how many of those users are likely to come back at the very point that an RFC is open? Some rfc's don't even run the course of 3 days. So many users on this page have quoted IMOS a reason to keep the status quo, so for any of them to turn around and demote it would be hypocrisy at the highest level of Elysium.Dubs boy (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Not to discredit IMOS, but the user who seconded the proposal has been blocked for Socking. Just typical. IMOS: born from socks and argued to death by socks.Dubs boy (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As it says at the top "Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." Have you something to say which might lead to a change? Dmcq (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

you didnt answer my question. How did I misread the discussion? The edit improves neutrality and it is per IMOS. I'm sure some the IMOS experts will back me up here.Dubs boy (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The bit pointed at says as the last contribution

That would make sense. The way I set it up was to have the articles at 'Derry' and have the first word in the actual text to be 'Londonderry', which struck me as a typical Northern Ireland compromise - that way both sides could claim primacy. ;) 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. Morwen 18:03, Mar 4, 2004 (UTC)

What that says is that originally they set it up the way you wanted but that it was changed to the current way and they are saying that what is there now makes sense.

Even if it had supported you though it has no force nowadays because RfC's have come and gone in the intervening period and the article has been around in pretty much its current form as far as this is concerned for the last nine years. You need an RfC on this matter to change it. Yes the IMOS says that was the original basis. It is not the current basis. Notice the "and has been generally accepted as a convention for both article titles and in-article references since then". Dmcq (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here [5] is the article that they agreed with. The opening sentence could be changed without violating IMOS as it does not specify the order of the names - but the support you were giving was not in fact support for your case and going on about common name would widen the remit to the title which is covered under IMOS. Dmcq (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you drunk? Where in that sentence does it say that what is there now makes sense? Morwen is discussing an edit war. And you saying it took them 2 months to apply their consensus to the page? Here is the edit [6]. Try harder Dmcq. Also it makes no sense to have Derry in the official namespace of the infobox. Another inconsistency adding to the uneven weighting of the terms. Dubs boy (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not make personal attacks against other editors as you did above. Comment on content, not editors. Canterbury Tail talk 14:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And it doesn't help your proposal when they've already told you they wouldn't oppose the proposal if it was put to a poll! Dmcq (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I misread the month. No I am not drunk. It looks like it was changed to the current form again shortly thereafter. The IMOS as I said does not specify the opening sentence, it refers to the titles and the references so it has nothing to do with the opening sentence. What does cover it as I said before is WP:BEGIN and the many years since then when the current wording has stayed there. You'll still need an RfC to change the opening sentence otherwise there would be an edit war just like back in 2004. 14:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you did a WP:BOLD change to conform with your views. Please don't try and change it again without getting an agreement using an RfC. I see you are already aware of WP:TROUBLES. Dmcq (talk) 15:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I see it differently - that edit was disruptive and POINTy, and you knew it was against the community consensus. --HighKing (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur. No more edits like that, please. --Somchai Sun (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

ok, ill ignore IMOS, but I was simply showing that the conversation carried merit as it is quoted in IMOS though obviously that is not enough for some. Question: if Londonderry is official, why is Derry in the official namespace of the infobox? This page is ridiculous.Dubs boy (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To answer Dubs boy's comment on my talk page more properly here: your edit does not meet IMOS in any way at all. Also if the article is to be called "Derry", if you were following IMOS why did you remove "Derry" from the infobox? Even disregarding IMOS why did you remove it when it is a common name for it in the English language alongside Londonderry?

Also whilst I would prefer Londonderry to be at the front in the lede, at least the way it is before your edit has Londonderry stated as being the official name, yours didn't. Mabuska ^(talk) 20:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I answered your question in my last point. Derry is not the official name so why include it in the infobox in the official namespace. You can bring a donkey to water. Also no one has been able to prove commonname.Dubs boy (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

So you're back to just flatly denying the evidence given without going to the trouble of doing any work to back up your belief. I think this quote from when you were here last and blocked in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive772#Blatant_sock covers that:

Totally uninvolved having actually read through that morass of a RM, I can only conclude that you, Dubs boy, have been unable to effect a change in consensus and are continually arguing the same point over and over again. Even in the face of info digging by a couple of the editors there which showed that the statistics is against your proposal, you nonetheless continued to flog the same carcass.

You haven't raised an RfC for the change you said you wanted despite repeated requests and been shown that it is necessry for such a change. I think my WP:AGF is quite exhausted. Dmcq (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I stopped assuming good faith when I was hounded off wikipedia for 4 months. Ill raise an RFC just as soon as I figure ot out again. Dubs boy (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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 [7] 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 [8], 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 [9] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

YEt more on the name

I note (Nov 2013) that on television reports by the BBC, interviews, both natives and MPS, the name "Derry Londonderry" was used. Has there been a change inthe official guidelines? 95.148.205.59 (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that was just the name of the brand used to describe the city when it was the UK city of culture. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Since the City of Culture thing the stroke city style Derry/Londonderry has been used quite a lot more this past year in various fields. Still doesn't make it official in any way. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The official name of the city and county are Londonderry, named 400 years ago - the majority of the current population would like to delete the work that the London people did to build the city, due to the actions of more recent British forces, but that is driven by hatred and racism. There's no place in Wikipedia for changing facts based on emotion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.243.242 (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Using the name Derry to describe the historic city of Londonderry in Northern Ireland simply renders Wikipedia an unreliable source of factual information. The city is officially called Londonderry and has been for over 400 years. The consensus policy operated by Wikipedia whereby the city is referred to as Derry instead of Londonderry simply undermines Wikipedia as a credible source.

Credible source for what? It has always been commonly called Derry over the past few hundred years back to when Londonderry was founded, even by MPs in the Commons. Do you want the full name of the UK put in as the title for its article? It is Wikipedia's policy to use the common names of topic for titles rather than official names Dmcq (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The commonly called argument is a major fallacy considering both Londonderry and Derry are common names for the city and county. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:29, 24 January 2014 (UTC)