Wikipedia

Talk:Ivory Coast/Archive 4

< Talk:Ivory Coast
Latest comment: 13 years ago by 41.202.113.102 in topic Requested move: Côte d'Ivoire --> Ivory Coast
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Religion demographics

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I would just like to point out that the text says around 38% are islamic while 32% are christian, or something like that, while the diagram directly below shows the opposite. Which is it, I wonder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.21 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

English name?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Shouldn't we use the English name since this is the American Wikipedia? All other countries have their English name on this Wikipedia, so why is this the only exception?--24.207.198.83 (talk) 01:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You need to read the lengthy earlier discussions. The answer to question one however is yes. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Not speaking to the choice of title either way, but note that this is not the "American" Wikipedia, it is the English Wikipedia. There is no "American" Wikipedia, by the way; this project uses the English language but does nt restrict itself to only one version of said language.) --Ckatzchatspy 04:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Why Ivory

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I ran through the article hoping to find out why it is has ivory in its name. Is it there somewhere? If not, it should be. Myrvin (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

It's in the related article about the history of the area. Elephant ivory boom in the 17th/18th century led to profitable trading that collapsed part way through the 1700's. Keegan (talk) 06:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Aha - thanks K. Shouldn't it be in this article under Name? Myrvin (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

... and that is why there needs to be an article called "Ivory Coast" that discusses the region that now includes Cote d'Ivoire the country. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC close

Latest comment: 13 years ago21 comments9 people in discussion

Closing an RM with an RFC seems to be quite irregular, but it has in fact happened before to this article, and by the same admin. Keeping this article where it is obviously really important to somebody. Kauffner (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Moving it is also really important to somebody. We could all work on something more productive than this endless debate; the gridlock isn't due to any single party, nor to either side of the issue. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it doesn't quite seem proper to have the same admin closing this discussion again. Especially not seeing as said admin has admitted to not being impartial in this matter[1].TheFreeloader (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Agreed... it's a little fishy and it's not like the support/oppose's were getting stale. It was still ongoing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Continually RFC'ing or RM'ing an article ad nauseum is the biggest waste of time ever. Playing Farmville is more productive. Can someone continue to WP:CANVASS to bring more "oh yes, move it" people? Sure. Does the argument ever get any stronger? No. Even a 2-1 or even 3-1 "support" will not be enough to take an article that is 100% properly named according to policy and move it to another name that only partly meets another policy. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is really lame. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
The hours invested in discussing this move over and over again, and in discussing the (ir)relevance of previous discussions, could have produced 2 or 3 FAs if they had been invested elsewhere. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Question for User:Fyunck(click): In what sense is it "ongoing"? Are any new arguments being advanced? Is anyone's mind being changed? Does the above discussion consist of anything but a rehash of what's been said before? I agree that the same admin shouldn't always be closing requests for the same article, but what are we doing? Is the goal to keep nominating it until we find an admin who says "yes"? Why not just leave it the hell alone? I'm tired of seeing this article come through WP:RM. Doesn't it get old for everyone else, too? There are a million articles that need improvement, and people would rather spin our tires in this same old mud pit? Why? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Because it's an abuse of power by the admin? As pointed out above, this is only the fourth RM in several years. This is at least a majority opinion, and there was a novel argument: the officials which made Côte d'Ivoire official usage are out of office. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, 4th RM and a couple of RFC's already. What an absolute waste. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, how about we just stop arguing and move the article then? Or that wasn't what you meant? ...No, what you are probably looking for is to bully everyone away from discussing this subject, because that way you can keep things the way you want them. It just doesn't work that way. Each of the last RM's were all started by people who did not participate in the previous discussion. And new people will keep coming here wondering why this article is named as it is, until we reach some sort of consensus on what to name this article and why. This is not an issue which disappears just by bullying people away from discussing it.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I have no title preference for this article. I think we should follow sources, and I think sources are mixed. My interest is in seeing naming disputes resolved, because WP:RM is my homepage around here.

I think it's fair to mention that, if we move the article, new people will still keep coming here wondering why the article is named as it is. Either title will result in surprising some significant portion of readers. Don't you think that's true? -GTBacchus(talk) 18:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It might, but I think the solution here still is to reach some sort of consensus on what we call it and why, then at least we can add some sort of tag at the top of this talk page explaining the consensus opinion, like it's done at Talk:Gdańsk and Talk:Derry.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see that, and it might be possible. How does that start? Shall we begin outlining the salient points on each side of the discussion, and analyzing more carefully how they play out amongst each other? Shall we set up a sub-page for it?

I still think this is getting a lot more energy directed at it than it deserves, and before someone tells me I'm wasting my time on it, too, I just sorted about 400 plant stubs because I wanted to do something productive. I still might take another swipe at the RM backlog tonight; who knows? -GTBacchus(talk) 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, maybe some sort of mediation process could help create a consensus.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Ongoing because it's not like 3 days had gone by with no opposes or agrees. There were 3 postings just today when it was closed. I had never been involved in the other nominations here so I don't know about what has happened before but certainly the same admin (who some have posted is not down the middle of the road on this issue) should not close it a second time. That brings out the worst in the opposition. I also realize it's not a vote... it could be 75%-25% in voting, an admin can like the 25% arguments better and go with the 25%. That's fine with me, that's the way wiki works sometimes. But if it comes to another vote and it's 75%-25%, and again the same admin rules with the 25%, one can see that many will claim bias. For transparency sake it would be far better for a different admin to read through the posts and come to a decision. Now this was only 54% in favor of moving but I've seen far too many terrible turmoils in the "Burma", "Global Warming" and "Tennis player names" pages where things could have gone smoother with a little forethought. Maybe there needs to be a policy where once something has been voted on to consensus it can't be brought up again for 1 year. As to what other articles with Cote d'Ivoire or Ivory Coast call themselves seems irrelevant. You tackle one page at a time. If we worried about what other tennis pages were called when changing a name on another we'd never get anything done imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree 100% with your last point. -GTBacchus(talk) 05:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I request that the ongoing/active discussion be re-opened, at least until an uninvolved admin closes it. Admins that have already closed RM discussions about this topic should abstain. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Most of that discussion is repetition of things that have been said before. If there's an actual new argument, then why not articulate it on its own, and we can discuss its merits with or without an official "open discussion". This talk page section is open.

I just don't see the point in generating longer and longer lists of people repeating things we've all read before. The whole "Support, per WP:UE" / "Côte d'Ivoire is English" back and forth is totally unproductive; let's stop encouraging its repetition.

When a new argument has been soberly and calmly evaluated, then if it truly seems to change the lay of the land, we'll act as appropriate. Reopening the above will inevitably produce more unnecessary repetition of what we all already know about. -GTBacchus(talk) 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I checked the archive again, and this is actually the third time that same admin has closed: June 2010, July 2010, and above. Since we are not getting answers here, I guess this goes to WP:ANI. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

So you want an uninvolved admin to close the RM? Well GTBacchus already did close the RM as "no consensus" a day before billinghurst's closure, and was quickly reverted by a "pro-move" editor. Are you just going to keep objecting to the closure until you find an admin who gives you the answer you want? It's not like this is a controversial close. There clearly isn't any consensus to move the article. TDL (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
To be fair, I checked the archives, and I was actually involved in one of the previous move requests, supporting the current title. I'd forgotten about that. I have no objection to a less involved admin evaluating the discussion, but I think it will be hard to find any who will call it anything other than "no consensus to move". -GTBacchus(talk) 03:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI notice

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Should billinghurst close yet another Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast RM? Your opinion goes here. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move: Côte d'Ivoire --> Ivory Coast

Latest comment: 13 years ago132 comments50 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move - I am an uninvolved administrator. I have never edited this article before and I have no opinion about whether or not this article gets called Côte d'Ivoire or Ivory Coast. The guidelines can be argued either way. In reviewing the comments below, there is simply no consensus to move. Neelix (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment: Côte d'Ivoire --> Ivory Coast

Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast – This title doesn’t just ignore the WP:COMMONNAME principle, it is so different than the name that readers are likely to know this country as that they may well wonder if they are at the right article. Unless you know some French, it’s not obvious how you are supposed to pronounce it. Looking through the archive, I must say that this is an issue with a most contentious and irregular history. "Ivory Coast" is overwhelmingly the common name as found in Google Books. Our guidelines specify that the common name be used as the article title. "Ivory Coast" is also the usage of major media organizations. Kauffner (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Arguments:

  1. To determine common name, we may use "a Google book search of books published since 1980,” per WP:COMMONNAME.this ngram should leave no doubt that “Ivory Coast” is in fact the common English-language name of this country. (Since there is a lot of discussion in the archive about British vs. American usage, I recommend trying out the feature that allows you to choose either a British or an American corpus.) For English-language Google News since 1980, there are 66,100 hits for West OR Africa "Ivory Coast", compared to 26,400 for west OR africa "cote d ivoire".
  1. Isn’t “Côte d'Ivoire” the “new name" of the this country? Won’t “Ivory Coast" make us look old fashion in a few years? The guidelines suggest that Wiki should not try to get ahead of the curve in this manner, but such arguments get deployed anyway. Media usage today will be book and common usage in a few years time. As the major media organizations are currently using “Ivory Coast”, there is no reason to expect common usage to change anytime soon. See The New York Times (“Standoff Set Up With 2 Ivory Coast Presidents”, December 3, 2010), the AP (“UN: both sides committed abuses in Ivory Coast”, Jun 10, 2011), the BBC (“Ivory Coast country profile”), The Guardian (styleguide: Ivory Coast not "the Ivory Coast" or Côte d'Ivoire”), and CNN (“Gbagbo loyalists attack Ivory Coast broadcaster as violence drags on”, February 27, 2011). Burma has been attempting to change its English-language name to “Myanmar" since 1989, but without success.
  2. As examples in the archive can attest, numerous readers who come to this page are surprised to discover that the name of this country is given “in French.” Certainly “Côte d'Ivoire” sees significant usage in English as well, but the point remains that the title is not supposed to come as a surprise to the reader.
  3. The fact that this country participates in international organization as “Côte d'Ivoire" is rightly given significant weight. But there are certainly other cases where Wiki uses an article title that is not the same as that country’s diplomatic name: Burma (Myanmar), Vietnam (Viet Nam), East Timor (Timor-Leste), North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea), and South Korea (Republic of Korea). It is also quite common for a Wiki title be a shortened form of the diplomatic name, for example Brunei, United Kingdom or United States. See here for a full list of the diplomatic names.
  4. Yup, here come the guidelines:

Ivory Coast issued a proclamation on this subject this back in 1985, but you don’t see any significant use of “Côte d'Ivoire" in English until the late 1990s. Usage seems to be associated with President Laurent Gbagbo, who was recently ousted. Agence Ivoirienne de Presse, the official news agency, published its last English language report on March 30 as rebel forces closed in on the capital. So who knows what official English language usage might be at this point? Obviously time for another RM. Kauffner (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire / Ivory Coast has a bewildering variety of names in different languages (Costa del Marfin (Span) to Elfenbeinnkuste (Germ.) all of which are translations. Long before Gbagbo the government asked all countries to use only the French name. At the time it was joked that the president didn't like being in the Israel, Iraq, Iran zone ('I') when the country was seated alphabetically at the UN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.202.113.102 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 0

Comment Just a note of correction, Google's ngram software is very finicky since it's based on scanned documents. Fiddling around with it a bit and I get a far more sensible graph which shows the expected behavior: after 1985, when the change was officially made, usage of Ivory Coast suddenly droped and Cote d'Ivoire increased, eventually overtaking Ivory Coast around 1993 as the most popular term. Today usage seems to be roughly equal, although Cote d'Ivoire is slightly more popular. TDL (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You are using a lower case "L" instead a capital "I" to spell "Ivoire". Who would have thought? But all this ngram shows that any book published in the 15 years will use both names at some point, which is hardly surprising. Kauffner (talk) 02:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per the comprehensive nomination. WP:COMMONNAME is policy and "Ivory Coast" is clearly this country's most common name in reliable English sources. Jenks24 (talk) 09:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Côte d'Ivoire is also commonly used and this is the official name of the country. Moreover Ivory Coast redirects here and is bolded in the first sentence so there's no possible confusion. Whether people can pronounce "Côte d'Ivoire" or not is irrelevant since the English name is also stated. Laurent (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Here in the UK, the BBC uses Ivory Coast and to me that is enough. I have never heard anyone ever use "Cote d'Ivoire", because it's a bit strange as it isn't common. Yes some of these news outlets may use Cote d'Ivoire, but in reality will they use it on the streets when talking to a friend? I stand by that I have NEVER heard someone refer to it as Cote d'Ivoire, but only as Ivory Coast. Bezuidenhout (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose What is this, the semi-annual waste of time? The arguments against last time stand (3 attempts in less than a month), and none of the arguments this time even fit. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep trying to move this. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
There have been only three RMs for this article: November 2005, January 2007, and June 2010. The June 2010 RM looks like it was a hash, so it's about time for a proper vote on this issue. If you think it's a waste of time, no one is making you vote. Kauffner (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support: Clearly the WP:COMMONNAME in English. –CWenger (^ • @) 17:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support: I can't even recall the last time I saw the name cote divoire in print or used on tv. There are times when common English use of a name and the country's own internal name go through swings over a decade, but Ivory Coast is used almost exclusively. It's not even remotely close. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment the CIA World Fact Book [2] calls it "Cote d'Ivoire". 65.94.47.63 (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Ivory Coast is clearly the most recognizable name for the country to an English speaking audience. As the data here[6][7] and above shows, major news organizations and books prefer this name, and I think it's exactly for for this reason, as they prioritize recognizability and comprehension by readers over diplomatic concerns. It is my opinion that Wikipedia should have the same priorities. The only reason why Côte d'Ivoire may be slightly favored in a regular Google search is that the hits are heavily slanted towards international organizations and government websites, who use the official name out of diplomatic concerns. Their language use does not reflect that of the general English speaking public.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Correction: You spelled Côte d'Ivoire wrong (you forgot the accent). When spelled properly, Côte d'Ivoire gets 269,000 hits versus Ivory Coast's 98,000. It seems Côte d'Ivoire is the most commonly used name. TDL (talk) 01:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
What a crock! If you specify English, the number for "Côte d'Ivoire" is 39,600. If you specify without an accent, it is 30,200. So the vast majority "misspell" it. Kauffner (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems you're correct, without the accent is more popular, so I've struck that comment. My mistake. But the point still stands. I get ~3x more hits from 2000-2011 when restricted to English language results: 269,000 for Cote d'Ivoire vs 98,000 for Ivory Coast. So Cote d'Ivoire seems to be significantly more common. TDL (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
You are not in fact restricting the search to English-language material. I get 35,800 for Africa -"cote d ivoire" ivory-coast, compared to 24,700 for Africa "cote d ivoire" -"ivory coast". That's certainly a lot closer than I realized. But even with this unusually recent post-2000 cutoff, "Ivory Coast" still has the edge. Kauffner (talk) 07:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The argument seems to be based around the policy of using the common English names for places. This policy is not uniformly implemented across wikipedia. See Kolkata (Calcutta) as an example. Kolkata is not an English word, but perhaps its lack of accent marks is less offensive to English-preferring readers. Kolkata is named as it is because it is the correct name for the place. Suppose Fred chose to change his name to Nathan and asked you to refer to him as Nathan from then on. Would you still call him Fred? The answer is No, because to do so is rude. Ignore the policy, it is wrong in this instance. Cliff (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Please discount this argument as a violation of core policy; it is not our business whether our subjects like something, but whether it is verifiable. We are not here for the Sympathetic Point of view, but for a neutral one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per nom (overwhelming common usage) and Wikipedia's guideline on using English. A couple of points that are sometimes not fully considered:
    1. "Ivory Coast" is routinely and usually used in English sources as the unqualified name for the country, i.e. without a parenthetical "Côte d'Ivoire" whereas "Côte d'Ivoire" often carries a parenthetical "Ivory Coast". Therefore, "Ivory Coast" is preferable per the principle of least astonishment. As the nominee notes, educated readers who partake of multiple English news sources might be genuinely confused by seeing "Côte d'Ivoire" as a title.
    2. I realize this is original research but, in professional dealings with individual 10-20 Ivorians over several years, I have only had one person introduce himself as from "Côte d'Ivoire". The remainder have simply stated they were from "Ivory Coast". So it's clearly not a huge issue of contention or offense in this regard. —  AjaxSmack  06:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Based on the sources provided in previous discussions, "overwelming common usage" is exagerated. I've pasted below some sources from a previous move request, because I think a lot of baseless claims are being made in this discussion. Moreover, proper reference works such as the CIA factbook or Britannica all name the country "Côte d'Ivoire". Since we are also a reference work, it would make sense to follow these sources, rather than newspaper journalists. See below for some more sources:
    • Close ties to France since independence in 1960, the development of cocoa production for export, and foreign investment made Cote d'Ivoire one of the most prosperous of the West African states, but did not protect it from political turmoil from Central Intelligence Agency
    • Cote d'Ivoire star striker Didier Drogba was voted the Man of the Match after his team's 3-0 win over DPR Korea in 2010 FIFA World Cup Group G here on Friday from Xinhua News Agency
    • Sven-Goran Eriksson, Côte d’Ivoire’s coach was quoted saying: “They’ve acquired discipline and organisation. These are good players, they listen and they want to learn and work. Côte d’Ivoire have a great team and a very bright future.” from The Hot News Herald
    • About one dozen people, including women and children, have been confirmed dead in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, after heavy rain storms this week caused mudslides in some of the most run-down areas of the country's main port from UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
    • Cote d'Ivoire will need a miracle and some help from Brazil if they want to reach the next round from Irish Times
    • Portugal joined Brazil in the last 16 of the World Cup on Friday after the pair drew 0-0 in their final Group G game, while Côte d'Ivoire were eliminated despite a 3-0 win over North Korea from Mail and Guardian
    • After their 3-0 win over Korea DPR, Côte d'Ivoire's players were looking back – both at their first two matches in Group G and at their FIFA World Cup™ debut four years ago from FIFA
    • Portugal stormed to life in a 7-0 rout of Korea DPR last time out, putting themselves well ahead of Côte d'Ivoire on potential goal difference from Soccerway
    • For the second straight World Cup, Côte d'Ivoire bumped into another hot group and are on their way out again at the first round stage from Super Sport
    • Brazilian Kaka is suspended for the game after being sent off in his team’s 3-1 triumph over Côte d’Ivoire from Betfred
    • Cote d'Ivoire coach Sven-Goran Eriksson said on Thursday that his former team, England, can beat Germany in the round of 16 at the World Cup from People's Daily
    • Of the more than 5 million non-Ivoirian Africans living in Cote d'Ivoire, one-third to one-half are from Burkina Faso; the rest are from Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Benin, Senegal, Liberia, and Mauritania from US Department of State
    • The mission analyzed the economic situation and outlook of Côte d’Ivoire in the context of Article IV Consultation and conducted the first review of the implementation of the economic program supported by the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) ., the IMF’s concessional window for low-income countries from International Monetary Fund
    • Côte d’Ivoire was once the economic miracle of Africa and a role model for stability on the continent from Lonely Planet
    • Côte d’Ivoire peacefully achieved autonomy in 1958 and independence in 1960, when Félix Houphouët-Boigny was elected president from Encyclopaedia Britannica
    • Côte d'Ivoire has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995 from World Trade Organization
    • Côte d’Ivoire’s civil war began in 2002 and has since fluctuated between periods of intense violence followed by relative calm from International Rescue Committee
    • The Côte d'Ivoire lies too far west to have been significant in the 17th and 18th century development of the Guinea coast gold, and slave trade from Geographia
    • In March, teams handed over the mobile clinics and the mobile nutrition programme they had managed in the western region of Côte d'Ivoire to the local authorities from Medecins Sans Frontières
    • Côte d'Ivoire's economy is based on the export of cash crops. It is the largest producer of cocoa in the world, producing 40% of global supply, and the fifth largest producer of robusta coffee from Foreign and Commonwealth Office
    • In the south of Côte d'Ivoire is a 320-mile (515-km) wide strip of coastal land on the Gulf of Guinea from C%C3%B4te+d'Ivoire&source=bl&ots=tozv-H-mxr&sig=FGttWwbEQVNl7wC3oUWLFdiat_Q&hl=en&ei=0GklTL2UL6L40wTZ4-nEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBjgy#v=onepage&q&f=false Cultures of the World : Côte d'Ivoire by Patricia Sheehan
    • Houphouët—who for more than three decades was "the 'active center' of an institutionalized state structure" in Côte d'Ivoire—sought during his long reign to recognize dissent but also to contain it within state structures, notably through cosultative mass meetings he called "Dialogue" from C%C3%B4te+d'Ivoire&hl=en&ei=U2slTLiVIYju0wTG1621BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=C%C3%B4te%20d'Ivoire&f=false The Emergent Independent Press in Benin and Côte d'Ivoire by W Joseph Campbell Laurent (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm glad you found a couple uses of the name cote divoire but Ivory Coast is so overwhelmingly used in everyday English and the press that if we start to list these silly types of items as you did we'd run out of bandwidth here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
So besides calling people who disagree with you "silly" and "trolls", do you have anything to contribute to your own move request? It seems that you want to change the country's name because you can't even write it properly. Laurent (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not glad that you have nothing better to say than dismissive insults and mockery at those whom you disagree with. I personally find not one item in the list to be silly. I happen to agree with the position of the one who made the list but to stoop to calling the World Trade Organisation, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the CIA, Chinese news, and the United Nations silly types of items which presumably are worthy of instant dismissal while claiming an obvious overwhelming use in presumably American everyday English for Ivory Coast does nothing beneficial for anyone. The usage in international media is generally about evenly divided. Ignoring that which you don't like is an example of why i voted as i did, which you subsequently commented on. Wikipedia is neither American nor yours personally. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose

I'm pretty Anglo-American-centric and even I think that the proper name for this article is "Côte d'Ivoire". Granted, I think that this is a particularly difficult issue to reconcile because as at least most of us can agree, the common name in English speaking countries and amongst English speaking peoples is fairly split and can best be defined as in a state of limbo. That said, it appears to me that there is general pattern emerging of abandoning the title of Ivory Coast for Côte d'Ivoire. This isn't so much an issue of right or wrong as much as its an issue of facing a reality of changing geopolitical nomenclature. While a large part of me would like to see it remain with the English title, I believe that would be contrary to reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkslaughter (talk • contribs) 09:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing break

  • O P P O S E per the overwhelming idiocy and Americanism and Englishism of most everyone listed before me in this round. This has become not a perennial proposal but a semi-annual proposal and hell, there is already a failed RFC on this very matter already in the current version of the talk page. Come on. This is just hoping that people get so fed up that eventually those pushing for it will have a majority on the 11th or 26th try.
    As has been pointed out by a few others, the common name in the media you personally frequent does not make anything common, just common to you. The common name policy itself does not even address such an issue. What is common to me might be so unfamiliar to you that you believe it to be fictitious. If we were to ask some certain people we might find among them the commonality of the name being Kanata not Canada. It is all in whom you sample. Media, which are subject to style guides and publisher's preference are hardly an appropriate point of reference as they are expressing a bias. What ever happened to the simple concept of what does the country call itself when written in English? Yeah, it uses French when things do appear in English. The CIA also uses French. Here is a most wild thought - look at google maps. http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=5.047171,1.054688&spn=21.62687,45&z=5 So notice anything in the naming pattern of the countries? Yeah, those countries of Arabic name bare both an Arabic and an English name whilst Côte d'Ivoire caries no English translation. Côte d'Ivoire is the proper name in French and English. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    Don't forget Yahoo maps too http://ca.maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=9.468648&lon=-3.978222&zoom=7 and Bing maps too http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=C%C3%B4te%20d%E2%80%99Ivoire&q=ivory%20coast&form=LMLTSN&cp=7.515186849207126~-5.634990558028221&lvl=5&sty=r&encType=1 (i even searched for "Ivory Coast" and it told me 'no no, wrong name'). All these maps are from rather reliable sources and all treat Côte d'Ivoire as the proper name in English for the country. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
    As for the nominator's rationale being a political leader being ousted as "Obviously time for another RM." If this passes i will say it is "Obviously time for another RM." to have the move reverted because not being able to pronounce it or a reader's presumed complete ignorance and the need to pander to the basest of intelligence is hardly becoming of a reference work. Such is why television shows like Hot In Cleveland so openly mock Wikipedia. But back on topic, if you insist upon abiding by google books and i insist upon abiding by google maps and they conflict does that then cancel out google as a reliable source? Does the fact that google books is merely a regurgitation get less consideration than google maps which is their own work? Most every fight here has cited American, Canadian, and British sources. All of them are of equally blah use because none of them are common to the people being written about.
    If such is irrelevant then as was mentioned earlier all places in India need to be titled according to their American or British or Canadian name rather than their local name in use in English. I dare someone in favour of renaming Côte d'Ivoire to request a move of Kolkata to Calcutta because Kolkata is so uncommon that in reading this it is the first time in my life i have ever seen the word Kolkata. Kolkata is not an English word and neither is Calcutta but Calcutta looks more normal to someone from western Europe or North America. And that is the substance of the reason put forward for moving Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast; those in western Europe and North America with little or no familiarity with French are often put off by the name of the country. It is an easy translation. Pandering to the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and respect has much of the media insisting upon using what is nothing more than a derogatory nickname.
    If you truly want to know what is common then sample large and small publications from various languages and places all over the planet. If the name remains the same despite the language of the document being German or Italian or Spanish or Japanese then you have probably found the true common name. Of course the common name policy actually expressly instructs you to disregard all non-English, which is actually part of the problem rather than an aid to a resolution, especially when looking for a common name that crosses linguistic boundaries to begin with. I don't know how else i can say that i oppose this and oppose the existence of the proposition. It was not time to make another request to move the article. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Once many of us read "idiocy and Americanism and Englishism of most everyone listed before me in this round" we stop reading thinking it's just a common troll not worthy of any attention. You might want to tone down the scolding and just state your case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't tone things down. And you gave me an edit conflict to finishing stating my case. I am very anti-English-only and in far too many corners of Wikipedia i am coming across sentiments that amount to 'if its not English don't link to it even if it has an article because it is inherently not notable and has no place in [whatever article it might be]' and that is where the elitism, Americanism, and idiocy is really obvious. And you can go back under your bridge now and read from there the extent of my involvement in this issue here on this very talk page. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You "don't tone things down" and you're "anti-English-only". That's not a good way to be a productive contributor to the English Wikipedia. Powers T 12:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah... I'm someone who closes a lot of RM requests, and I can say that, when I see someone use the word "idiocy", or otherwise show that they're unable to "comment on the content, not the contributor", I get the immediate impression that the editor is not serious, and is here to fight, not to edit. If you wish to be taken seriously, Deliriousandlost, comment on the content, not the contributor. Saying, "you can go back under your bridge now" tells me that you're hoping to be blocked from this project soon. If you can't behave somewhat professionally, please go away.

How disappointing, to have to address behavior issues in what should be a respectful and productive discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Rennell435 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH it seems to me that the French name has not clearly and undoubtedly crossed over into the English language lexicon due to the still common use of Ivory Coast, yes English absorbs others words/names from other languages(like any other language) aka San Francisco Sand Diego etc but here there is many sources here that still site Ivory Coast to cast doubt on the notion that the French name has really jumped into the English language lexicon without any ambiguity, so with that said i would suggest the name be in English Ivory Coast for the time being.--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Outrageous! The colour of the bikeshed roof should be blue, not red! There'll be blood shed yet over this, I tell you!! Fences&Windows 22:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
lol...we can never have too much levity around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Well let's see where other encyclopedias put the article shall we? Encyclopedia Britannica and Yahoo both use Cote d'Ivoire. So does the World Fact Book. Google News shows 700 recent hits for Cote d'Ivoire vs 400 for Ivory Coast. Google's ngram book search shows that Cote d'Ivoire overtook Ivory Coast in popularity around 1993. I'm not saying that Cote d'Ivoire IS the common name, but I think it's at least clear that Ivory Coast isn't the common name. Usage is a mixed bag at best. I think we should default to the official english language name of the country in the absence of a common name. TDL (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Cote d'Ivoire, being used in English sources, is in effect one of the "English names" of the country. So are names like Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, etc. insofar as they have entered common usage among (at least certain communities of) English speakers. I don't know if Cote D'Ivoire is the common name but "use English" is not really a valid argument against it. This isn't quite the same as, say, calling Munich "München". 146.151.66.63 (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose as the current title is one of the two common names in use in English with the added benefit that it is the name listed in the ISO 3166. Neither name is dominant, and when there is more than one common name, we should defer to the name in English that the entity in question desires to use. --Polaron | Talk 02:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Which, thankfully, is Cote d'Ivoire. Well said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
No it's not. Powers T 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Ivory Coast is still used in English language news channels. I think some French speaking Africans keep the regular French name. In some encyclopedias, like Britannica, Collier's and World Book. The Britannica link for the country: [8] ApprenticeFan work 09:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Usage is pretty evenly divided. Stick with the current because it's official. A Google news search shows that the current name is more often used in the media (293,000 v 154,000 for Ivory Coast, and I think most governments have adopted this convention aswell. The English is certainly not the most common. Nightw 15:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
    • We should not defer to official names; this is even less desirable when they (as Kauffner argues above) are no longer official. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The state's media does not deliberate on official toponymy. In this country, that would be the jurisdiction of the judiciary. So until a law is passed over-riding the naming policy of the Gbagbo administration, to call it "no longer official" is crystal balling. The name is still registered in English under ISO 3166 as Côte d'Ivoire, so it is still official. And we're not really deferring to the official here; we're choosing the name that, for the moment, is demonstrated to be marginally more common. Nightw 06:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Let's take a moment to look at yet another organization that represents the world-at-large (although our US compatriots may not know it very well}: FIFA. a quick glance here shows the official name "République de Cote d'Ivoire", but the name of Cote d'Ivoire, and the 3-letter code of CIV (just like the Olympics). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • FIFA and the IOC are both international organizations that use native forms of countries' names as a matter of course. We are an English encyclopedia that uses the English form of countries' names, so the two approaches are not comparable. Powers T 18:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
    • More seriously, they are diplomatic organizations that comply automatically with governmental pressures, whether from the government concerned or from a stronger neighbor (as with FYR Macedonia or Chinese Taipei). So here; that the former President insisted on this should matter only to those who had to please him; we answer to our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - I can only comment from personal experience, but "Ivory Coast" seems to be more common amongst English speakers. The nominator's five arguments above make the case well also.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Again. sigh. — Coren (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Côte d'Ivoire" has been used in most of the reference books I've seen for well over a decade. They even used that name on Carmen Sandiego! Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. There seems no doubt that the more common term overall is Ivory Coast, while the more common official term is Côte d'Ivoire (and not Cote d'Ivoire, which is also interesting IMO). Under existing guidelines, that means using the common name. While this seems doomed to remain a no consensus for now, consensus can change and I believe that Wikipedia is gradually moving towards attaching more importance to the official name, and that this ongoing discussion is an important barometer of that trend. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, not absolutely necessary, but it seems to be the more common name in Wikipedia's usual sense. (And "this has been proposed before" isn't a valid oppose argument.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME and per the fact that wikipedia in English does not have to do the bidding of some government. The article is in English, therefore an English name should be used, provided there is such a common name. It is not a case of changing the actual name of the country (ie Burma) but just making the French one official. --Laveol T 08:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - It's clear the English media uses a generous mix of the two names. Since neither name is clearly prominent (this seems to vary from region to region), the official name seems appropriate. --HiltonLange (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If you don't know which form is common use, I would have thought that would be a reason not to vote. Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Er, WP:NOTAVOTE. People are allowed an opinion, and of course, noting that "neither is prominent" backs up the entire argument. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
After all, who could know which form is more common? It's a head scratcher, isn't it? Kauffner (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Happy to go with the accurate, official name since the "ivory coast" variant is not particularly dominant. Should anybody need more detailed reasoning, I could copy & paste from my response to the last identical move request, or the one before that... bobrayner (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong Support per the deterministic naming algorithm at WP:How2title via 1 (start), 2 (it is a named entity), 3 (does not have exactly one obvious name), 4 (one of the names - the proposed title here - is clearly the most common name used to refer to this topic) and 10 (done).

    Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:TITLE (proposed title wins on recognizability, naturalness and consistency with other similar titles - it's a draw on conciseness and precision), WP:UE (yes, yes, I know English sources do sometimes use the French form, but it's still French, not English) and just about every applicable guideline and policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

    • Upon further reflection I must concede that the "Ivory Coast" is not clearly the most common name, but, then, neither is the French spelling. So back to the algorithm at WP:How2title: 1 (start), 2 (it is a named entity), 3 (does not have exactly one obvious name), 6 (no single most common name), 7 (no specific guideline for this case), and 10 ("Ivory Coast" meets the criteria at WP:TITLE better than does "Côte d'Ivoire").

      That is, it is more recognizable and natural, just as precise and concise, and more consistent with other names of countries (there is no other country for which we use a foreign language name for its title). Based on this objective reasoning, my support for the move remains strong. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

      • There are more than a few countries which use a foreign language title: Costa Rica (Rich Coast in Spanish), El Salvador (The Savior in Spanish), São Tomé and Príncipe (Saint Thomas and Prince in Portuguese), Tonga (South in Tongan), Venezuela (Little Venice in Spanish), etc. etc. etc. TDL (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Ummm, did any of them ever have a common name in English (any of the names you cited)? Has any of them ever been under any British influence or close to a large heavily British (or English-speaking)-speaking region? If the answer happens to be no, I have to take that comment as pretty redundant, sorry. --Laveol T 19:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and also the fact that this is the English Wikipedia, not the French. Island Monkey talk the talk 09:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Common name? It seems that many editors here don't really know what the most common name of the country is, and just assume it is "Ivory Coast". So for information, today Côte d'Ivoire is much more common than Ivory Coast. A quick search on Google News for 2011 returns 51,900 results for "Côte d'Ivoire" but only 18,200 results for "Ivory Coast". Some British media like the BBC or The Guardian might use "Ivory Coast" but the majority of other media in English language don't. Laurent (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Limiting the first search to English pages reduces that to 662 hits. Of course Côte d'Ivoire is common in French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
      • No, WikiLaurent was correct. The reason you only got 662 hits for Côte d'Ivoire is because you limited your search to only recent news articles. The links provided by WikiLaurent were for all of 2011. Of course Ivory Coast is more common if you compare 6 months of it's usage to only a couple weeks worth of usage for Côte d'Ivoire. For all of 2011 there is 32,100 english language hits for Côte d'Ivoire and 17,600 hits for Ivory Coast. (See that the "Search English pages" is selected and so is "2011" for both searches.) Also, you can see from this Google Books Ngram (which is restricted to English language books) [9] that Côte d'Ivoire has been more common since the early 1990's. So how do you support the claim that Ivory Coast is more common when all evidence is to the contrary? TDL (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmanderson (talk • contribs) 22:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I used the same search restrictions as Laurent; he got them from Google News; I clicked on English sources, and so can you. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Please look properly. The reason you see the English pages only is because it is already selected and you are looking at the 2011 subset of English pages only. In otherwords, both results are for English sources. It's obvious then if you limit the results to 2011 only (and English sources), you get far more results.
In particular, if I limit the results to English sources only but without a date restriction (any time), I get ~577 results for "côte d'ivoire" and ~1600 for "ivory coast". If I limit my results to 2011 but keep English sources only, I get ~51,700 for "côte d'ivoire" and ~17,400 for "ivory coast".
Do these results make much sense? Not really. Looking at the results, it appears 'any time' despite the name is restricting results to recent ones only. In particular I get nearly the same thing for 'past month' as I get for 'anytime'. Then again 'past week' isn't much different (I get the ~same for "ivory coast" but "côte d'ivoire" drops by about 100 results to ~451). And 'Past 24 hours' gives more results for both (~1910 results for "ivory coast" and ~758 for "côte d'ivoire").
BTW, '2010' (19,200 for ic, ~68,200 for cdi) and '2000-2009' (61,400 for ic and 144,000 for cdi; although ic is Jan 1, 2000–Dec 31, 2009 while cdi is 2000–2009) and even 'archives' (~154,000 for ic, ~293,000 for cdi) all show "côte d'ivoire" winning usually by at least a 2:1 margin. And yes in every case I'm limiting to English pages only.
This is one of the many reasons why counting Google results is a bad idea particularly when the difference is not at least an order of magnitude difference. In other words, neither results are particularly meaningful although if you really want to count something, counting all 2011 and also 2010, 2000-2009 and archive results makes more sense then counting 'anytime' which isn't actually anytime. Or even the actual subsets of recent results. Unless you claim the usage has really changed dramatically in the recent month and is going to stay that way.
Do note I noticed and got all this solely by actually looking at the results rather then just clicking without paying much attention to what I'm looking at; and so can you. And one of the reasons I've used ~ is because I often got different results a few minutes later.
Really, the only thing with some meaning here is the Google Books Ngram but even that isn't great.
Nil Einne (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

After relisting

Comment Since there are many who have quoted WP:USEENGLISH to justify a move, it might be helpful to look at what the policy actually says. As per WP:NCGN#Use English: "If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name." and "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name." Given that English language usage is quite clearly split between the two variants, and seems to slightly favour Côte d'Ivoire (see 32,100 vs 17,600 or [10] for example), as per policy we should default to the native Côte d'Ivoire. TDL (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I think what the paragraph you cited is actually saying is that if some place is so rarely talked about in English, that no name can be shown to be widely used in English for it, the local name should be used. I don't think that's case here. Rather it's the case we have two names which are widely used in English. In this sort of case WP:UCN suggests that editors should reach a consensus about which name to use based on WP:AT's principal criteria for deciding on article titles: Recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
While I can see how you're interpreting the second quote, I think that the first quote ("If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name") clearly applies to this situation. This statement doesn't make much sense in the situation where no traditional English name exists. My point is just that the fact that Côte d'Ivoire isn't a traditional English name is irrelevant. It all comes down to WP:UCN. If the native variant is more common, then that's the name we should use. Given that every quantitative comparison that I've seen has favoured Côte d'Ivoire, that's where the article should be located. TDL (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it's irrelevant at first if Côte d'Ivoire is traditional English, when deciding in regards to WP:UCN. But I don't think it's irrelevant when we decide that common usage is split, as in that case WP:UCN recommends we reach a consensus on which name to use based on WP:AT's other criteria. And those criteria include recognizability, naturalness and consistency, and on those counts I think the traditional English name wins out, as I think more readers will recognize Ivory Coast than Côte d'Ivoire as the name of an African country. And as for naturalness and consistency, I think this country is the only country where Wikipedia uses a local name over an English sounding name.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok let's assume for arguments sake that usage is evenly split. If that's the case, then both versions should be equally recognizable. Why would Ivory Coast be more recognizable if readers are just as likely to come across the country referred to as both titles? As I pointed out to Born2cycle above, many countries use a foreign language title over an English translation: (Costa Rica, El Salvador, São Tomé and Príncipe, Tonga, Venezuela) TDL (talk) 17:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I think recognizability may be a bit hard to find precise proof of, except for personal experience and anecdotal evidence. It's my experience that Côte d'Ivoire is mainly used in official relations and by people well-acquainted with African politics, and is only to a limited extent recognized by laypeople. On the other hand I think most people who know of the country will recognize Ivory Coast as a name for the country. I also think that if people want to ensure that their listener understands what they are talking about, they will use Ivory Coast, as AjaxSmack also has told about. I also think people who aren't native English-speakers (nor French) would be far more likely to recognize Ivory Coast than Côte d'Ivoire, as the country's name is commonly translated in almost all other languages. I guess this point would go towards consistency too. Finally I can say that I personally was a bit confused when the first time went to this article about a year ago when reading about the World Cup, and I actually thought for a few moments that I might have went to the wrong article.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree with TheFreeLoader and will add that as far as I can tell, the countries listed by Danlaycock don't have clear obvious English names like "Ivory Coast" in common use in English (and if any do, that's an argument to move those articles too!). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Use English (with a nod to the essay: WP:Official names). Both "Ivory Coast" and "Côte d'Ivoire" are valid titles... But I have to favor "Ivory Coast". Other editors have based their opinions (both for and against) on the narrow language of these policy/guidelines, and have provided statistics to support their views. My !vote is based on examining the intent of the relevant policies more than their narrow wording. There are two principal criteria that have shaped my opinion: Recognizability and Naturalness. The fact is, while common usage may be in the process of shifting from "Ivory Coast" to "Côte d'Ivoire", that shift is not yet complete. At this point "Ivory Coast" is still more recognizable and more natural than "Côte d'Ivoire". Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support on the grounds that: while both "Côte d'Ivoire" and "Ivory Coast" have currency and it seems similar ammounts of usage in RS thereby leaving CommonName inconclusive of itself, the additional element of the Ivory Coast being an English language formation (UseEnglish) and, previously a popular one (a historical angle on CommonName) tips it in its favour for me. I probably wouldn't have given my opinion but having heard of all the fury over this, and having read the discussion and in the course of that come to an opinion, I felt it my duty to give it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment User:GTBacchus has been arguing that we might make better progress using the RFC process. I don't see a need for it, but at this point I see I need to end the discussion about whether we need an RFC. Since I see no harm in making this an RFC, I am adding the tag to the top of this discussion section. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Having read through WP:COMMONNAME, as well as the extensive nomination, this seems pretty straight forward. I've no idea how or why it's considered a contentious topic to use the common English name for a country on the English version of Wikipedia. LHM 17:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per ISO 3166, Doctors without Borders, World Trade Organization, World Factbook, etc. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Ivory Coast" is anachronistic. "Côte d'Ivoire" has been widely used by international organisations for several years now. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Opppose - it's clear the common English name is in doubt. There is also an ENGVAR issue since in some variants of English Côte d'Ivoire is more common in others, Ivory Cost is more common. The Principle of least astonishment doesn't work either since both names are likely to surprise various readers. This case reminds me of Myanmar but with one clear difference. In that case there legitimacy of the defacto government is disputed and the change was made by the defacto government with some supporters of alternatives to the government preferring Burma. This has meant various sources and government have not used the new English name. In this case while the government has has problems in recent times, both sides appear to support the new English name therefore it has been widely (even if not universally) adopted. BTW whatever decision is made here, it would be a mistake to try and apply it wikipedia wide. Just as with all issues where ENGVAR come in to it, consistent is only required within an article, not between articles and each article should be allowed to make their own decision based on the factors at play. Nil Einne (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, consistency between article titles is one of WP:AT's principal criteria for naming articles.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the consistency argument would have us name more specific articles about the country in a way that follows the lead of this article. Indeed, that's probably why we have so many articles with "Côte d'Ivoire" in their titles now. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course it would. I see no other way than if this article is moved, most of the about 200 other articles containing Côte d'Ivoire[11] would also have to be moved. Thankfully no RM would be needed for most of them.TheFreeloader (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
User talk:Nil Einne#Consistency for some clarification/further comments. Note my primary concern was the usage in articles (not article titles) although I do believe we don't always have to be consistent in titles as well (and this is supported both by written policy including WP:AT and practice) particularly in a case when there is geographical variation in the name in English or where one name is used by certain organisations all the time. As I mentioned there, we do have Bronze (color) and Orange (colour) and the plenty of similar examples. If you try to rename them all in the interest of consistency, you're likely to find at least we're consistent in considering such things disruptive. Nil Einne (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
That's a pretty different example from what we're talking about here, but you're right about the general principle. Applying that to this situation, if we find that "Côte d'Ivoire" is prevalent in some variety of English and "Ivory Coast" is prevalent in others, that could give us a nice criterion for handling articles about this particular West-African state. Have we got evidence in that direction? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - This discussion is a bit long and sprawling. I find it a bit overwhelming, and I imagine I'm not the only one. The question we're considering is an important one, and it would be nice to look at all the relevant arguments in a coherent and structured way. I suggest that we try something I've seen work in the past, and start outlining the best arguments for each of the two titles, in an impersonal (non-dialogue) format. Then it will be much easier to weigh the arguments, and come to an informed decision, using reasoning that we can unpack in full detail.

    I'm not sure what the most useful structure would be, but I think it starts with simply enumerating the main arguments for each side. Something like... Talk:Côte d'Ivoire/Titling dispute. If people can separate the arguments from each other and get them all dressed up in their Sunday best, then I think we are much more likely to arrive at a stable solution. Thanks to anyone who wants to help give this suggestion a whirl. Like I said, I've seen it work in the past. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

    As I mentioned above, this case lacks the political considerations of Myanmar/Burma (although even that pales to something like London/Derry). However it does have a greater degree of 'it isn't English' complaints. [I'm personally waiting for the Move from East Timor to East East and from Babirusa to Pigdeer or actually probably Deerpig ;-) Of course East Timor has the added bonus of Timor-Leste thrown in.]
    But anyway, there were various attempts at mediation, RFCs etc at highly contentious Talk:Burma (see the header), they weren't particularly successful but perhaps a useful point of reference.
    P.S. The East East/East Timor/Timor-Leste case reminded me of another example. If we ever move to Timor-Leste, you're likely to find moving 'United Nations Transitional Administration in East Timor' to 'United Nations Transitional Administration in Timor-Leste' won't go down well. Then again, perhaps I'm too generous. I also came across United Nations Office in East Timor which looks to me like it was moved without discussion in this interest of consistency. So now refers to an organisation under a name it probably never used and was rarely if ever referred to, and includes a flag that was likely never used. Do people still wonder why I'm so concerned about attempts at being consistent when it's not supported by written policy and makes little sense?
    Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think I've expressed any confusion about your position regarding consistency. You've been very, very clear on that point by now. As a small point of personal preference, I find the small text kind of hard to read. Do we really need to whisper?

    Now, on topic: Can you say how the example of Burma/Myanmar informs this situation? There are major differences, so it seems to me that this case should be decided on its own merits, but I'm certainly willing to learn from any experience. What lessons should we be drawing from that example and bringing to bear on this one. Can we get down to brass tacks? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

    The confusion was from other people. And the small text is somewhat OT and this discussion is already very long so it's a good way to emphasise it's not really germane to the discussion. Anyway if you want me to be blunt, I would suggest the biggest thing we can learn from the Myanmar/Burma case is we will never achieve consensus and we can go through rounds of mediatiation, RMs, RFCs mostly will people repeating the same arguments over and over again with no resolution. Therefore, in the absence of a change of policy to use official names of self defining entities and when there is no clear cut common usage and both are seen as just as valid as the other, as is both the case here and in the Myanmar/Burma case. Our best bet is probably to go back to the last possible option in Engvar which is first contributors preference* which was Burma in the other case and Côte d'Ivoire here. (The actual original usage was Cote d'Ivoire but since hopefully no one is arguing for Cote d'Ivoire and it was changed in the next edit I think we can accept that as Côte d'Ivoire.) This may seem ugly but so is a rehash of the same other arguments every year. And hopefully the fact I prefer Myanmar in the other case and Côte d'Ivoire here would demonstrate I'm not just saying this because it follow what I want (and in fact I care more about the Myanmar case anyway). *I'm aware first contributors preference here was 'what CIA Factbook used'Nil Einne (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    Huh. That might be the most sane thing I've read in this entire discussion. Thank you. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment; there's no obvious winner in terms of usage by english-language sources (some people argue that one or the other form is more common; I know which I think, but there are prominent examples of both). In that case I would suggest that the official name ought to be favoured over the translation. If we're going to be picky over sources, I think that international organisations & standards bodies pay more attention to the niceties of nomenclature than, say, a newspaper; so maybe the former's choice should carry more weight. bobrayner (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, both terms are in common use; when in doubt, follow international practice and use the local name. —Kusma (t·c) 07:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - There's no clear consensus among English-language sources that the "Ivory Coast" form is in predominant usage. WP:USEENGLISH instructs us to default to the local name if there is no WP:COMMON name that is in much greater circulation. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
    • The WP:USENGLISH guidance to use the local name only applies when there are "too few English sources to constitute an established usage." That's not the case here. The use of "Ivory Coast" is predominant in English current news sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in addition to COMMONNAME and USEENGLISH, there's also "follow the sources", which support using "Ivory Coast". I don't buy that it's an anachronistic name, especially since it's still in use. That and I don't buy into the idea that "international organisations & standards bodies" and such, are particularly compelling to our interests here. They have their needs (which often include requirements to be multi-lingual within a single work), and our own needs (which should decidedly be mono-lingual. There are other language Wikipedia's, after all).
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 01:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Côte d’Ivoire is the official English name of the country, and it is my belief that official names should always be used, even as opposed to common names. MTC (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
    • As there is no support in policy or guidelines for the position that "official names should always be used", I suggest this argument (and other similar ones) be discounted for being a WP:JDLI variant. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      • I’ll try to spare us both the pointlessly long discussion that this could lead to and come to the conclusion that has been reached so often during these debates. Whenever someone tries to change a policy or guideline, opposers point to the articles and say that the policy/guideline must reflect what is actually the case at article level. But whenever someone tries to argue for an article name that is against those same policies, they are told that the policy doesn’t support their argument. It is a Catch-22. So this argument against my argument is a fallacy and should be discounted for that reason. MTC (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
        • LOL, you're telling me? See User:Born2cycle/FAQ#Change_guideline_first. But when arguing WP:IAR (as you're essentially doing here), you need to provide a good reason. Simply asserting your opinion ("it is my belief that official names should always be used") is hardly that, and really is nothing other than an expression of WP:JDLI. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Everyone’s argument comes down to their opinion. My opinion happens to be that the policy is wrong and needs to be changed. I have seen many people try to change policies and get told to argue their case at article level. You are advocating that people restrict themselves to just one of the two areas for such an argument to take place. I see no reason for such a restriction, and rather choose to argue my case at any opportunity. MTC (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    • You might want to check out the examples at WP:COMMONNAME before you get too far with that. Would you really support State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr., 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione, etc.? –CWenger (^ • @) 17:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
      • You’d find it very difficult to prove that those long names are the only “official names” of those entities. The government of Rhode Island calls their state Rhode Island, so it is an official name. Snoop Dogg calls himself Snoop Dogg, so that is an official name. Caffeine… I really shouldn’t have to explain to you why that is an official name too. MTC (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
        • The state constitution uses the full name. IUPAC nomenclature, which is pretty official as far as chemicals go, is 1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione, not caffeine. And I'm sure Snoop Dogg's birth certificate says Calvin Cordozar Broadus, Jr. It doesn't really matter what he calls himself anyway, what matters is what other people call him, i.e. the WP:COMMONNAME policy. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
          • Do I really have to spell this out for you…? You are arguing under the assumption that there is only one official name for any given entity. That is just not true. All of the examples you are giving have their articles at one of their official names. It seems I must absolutely specify my compromised opinion (compromised due to my real opinion likely being completely unacceptable to the ignorant majority of people) so that even the simplest of people can understand it: All articles should be at the most commonly used official English name of that entity, if one exists. MTC (talk) 07:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. This is English Wikipedia, and the country is better known amongst English speakers by its English name, whether that's what its residents (or French speakers, or whoever) want. Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • This is the English Wikipedia? To those who keep repeating that this is the English version and thus the name should be English, just think about what you are saying. The simple fact that we are on the English version doesn't mean we should translate all the titles to English - are you going to rename "Los Angeles" to "The Angels", "Tokyo" to "East Capital"? No, because both these names, though from foreign origin, are now part of the English language, just like "Côte d'Ivoire" is now widely use in sources in English language. Again have a look at Google News for 2011: 51,900 results for "Côte d'Ivoire" but only 18,200 results for "Ivory Coast" (only includes English sources). Laurent (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    "This is the English Wikipedia?" Yes, it is. You seem to concur two sentences later. "The simple fact that we are on the English version doesn't mean we should translate all the titles to English." Who said that? Did I say that? Did anybody? Whose argument are you responding to? Silvercitychristmasisland (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support. I've always thought that having a French name for that country in the English-speaking world was a bit odd, especially since it is a translatable expression, and indeed is translated in other languages; in Swedish it's called Elfenbenskusten, in Norwegian and Danish Elfenbenskysten, in Dutch Ivoorkust, in German Elfenbeinküste, in Spanish Costa de Marfil, in Portuguese Costa do Marfim, and in Italian Costa d'Avorio – all literally Ivory Coast (albeit with the traditional definite article suffix -en in Swe/Nor/Dan). But I won't raise hell if it stays were it is. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    A question: do we say "Côte d'Ivoire" with a French pronunciation, cot divoaar (to the best of our ability), when we speak about the country – or do we say "Ivory Coast"? HandsomeFella (talk) 10:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    "(The) Ivory Coast" is a region that includes much of what is Cote d'Ivoire, along with portions of other African countries (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    I'd be inclined to say "Côte d'Ivoire". That's what I called it among Africans when I was in Africa; no one there had hang-ups about French invading their English. Depending on who I'm talking to, I might double-check at first that they know which place I'm talking about. Have most Americans (I mostly talk to Americans) even heard of Ivory Coast? I've met Americans who haven't heard of West Virginia, so... yeah. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ivory_Coast/Archive_4&oldid=1239569556"