Wikipedia

Talk:Yogurt/Archive 2

< Talk:Yogurt
Latest comment: 17 years ago by ByteofKnowledge in topic Find something else to do
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Is it true?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

That yogurt helps in stopping diarrhea?

Yes it's true, in fact i think so... Because when I was in Turkey and had diarrhea, the doctor advised me to eat yogurt or to drink Cola (NOT sparkling)

Not a doctor, but I guess the bacteria in the yoghurt will help your stomach to bind the water better. The coke helps due to it's antiacidicity(sp?). Personally I never tried Yoghurt, but pretzles (the hard kind) and cola does work most of the time for me.

Yogurt with active bacterial cultures, primarily lactobacillus acidophilus, is a good treatment for diarrhea, especially when that diarrhea is caused by taking strong antibiotics. When my Army doctor put me on antibiotics, he told me that they would kill the "good bacteria" in my digestive system, and that eating unpasteurized yogurt would stave off or reduce the detrimental effects. Worked like a charm -- I've never had an adverse reaction since (although this particular example constitutes "original research"). But here's a good link if anyone wants to insert it:[1] --SigPig 04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Recipe?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the section "Home-made yoghurt" -- I don't think WP should be a recipe book, because then the article will get bogged down on all the different ways to make yoghurt. My suggestion: note that you can make yoghurt at home, give a general overview of the process, and leave detailed instructions (e.g. time/temperature) to external links. Just my opinion. -- 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right enough. We actually have a separate project for recipes -- the Wikibooks Cookbook and it would probably be a good idea to move the recipe there. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Home-made Greek yoghurt

I have to object to the notion that making yoghurt at home is the 'norm' in Greece (stated under the heading 'Home-Made Yoghurt'). I am Greek, 28 years old, born and raised in Athens, been around the country as well, and I have never, ever met or heard of a single person who made yoghurt at home. I'm sure there are people who do, but it certainly can't be the norm. I would be interested to know where this conclusion has come from--it sounds like an almost romantic / bucolic impression of life in some sort of pre-industrialized version of Greece. Although I would be surprised if making yoghurt at home is the 'norm' in Bulgaria or Turkey as well, and think that the arbitrary use of 'the norm' is probably the real problem, I can't really comment on those countries so for now I will remove Greece from the list.

LoL! Actually there are plenty of people who do. I'm Greek too and not only have I've heard of Greek people making home-made yogurt but I've seen my grandmothers, my mother, my aunts, my uncles, their friends, and their friends etc. etc. make home-made "Greek" yogurt AND οξύγαλα(ξινόγαλα; Αϊράνι) countless of times, not only in Greece but in the States too, made the old fashion way....and no we do not live, nor have ever lived in some "pre-industrialized" region. Born in Thessaloniki, raised in the States, between Boston, New York and Los Angeles, you can't get more industrialized then that, and go back to Greece every year. Do not live, nor have ever lived on some farm with farm animals but from what I've remeber my mom and grandmother making yogurt and ayran in the states and my aunts over in Thessaloniki, they used the cow from the supermarkets for the milk, they did not need to run to the "farm". LoL! Its not that they can't buy yogurt from the store, they enjoy making it homemade, its fresher they say 'cause its made with their receipt passed down generation by generation and they're teaching my nieces next. Me, personally, give me the old chemical induced supermarket stuff. LoL!! So you see making homemade yogurt is not as "pre-industrialized" as you might think. Haven't you ever seen those little clay pots or "goatskin" bags that are sold for making home made yogurt in stores all over Greece? Its pretty funny that this came up here 'cause I was having the same discussion about homemade yogurt in Greece on some other message board with a girl from Greece and she told me in her region many still make yogurt, oksygala, myzithra (a kind of cream cheese) etc at home for their families also....including her dad who has taken it up as a hobby.  ;) ~Mallaccaos, 7 June 2006

It is indeed a norm in Turkey. My mother makes home yogurt all the time and I know a lot of people do it. This is so because yogurt is a staple in Turkey. We eat, drink it, make a dessert of it, use it as a remedy, use in our soups etc. Thanks for requesting to remove Greek yogurt because it is not Greek. Musakka maybe, even baklava maybe, but not yogurt. It is Turkish, Bulgarian too. It makes me sick that some Greeks take off Turkish from anything and replace with Greek.

Have some Pepto, you won't feel as sick. LoL! The region is full of different people who share similar cultures, they've lived together for hundreds of years, it would be impossible that cultures didn't influence one another. Turkish cuisine is just as influenced by the native Balkanians and Anatolians who lived there before the arrival of the Ottomans just as Turkish cuisine influenced them. Anyway, this article needs to be looked over in some areas specifically the ==History== section such as:"milk products being produced as food for at least 4,500 years, since the 3rd millennium BC." I do not believe is accurate. According to this article[2] it claims that there are new finds which point that dairy products such as cheese, yogurt and milk were produced in what are now Romania, Hungary and Switzerland 8,000 years ago, 7 to 8 millennium BC. Regards. ~Mallaccaos, 6 June 2006

"buttermilk" as yogurt?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article says that some yogurt is sold as buttermilk in the West; in what countries is this the case? --moof 04:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was move to Yogurt. The first version of the article clearly used Yogurt, without the h, so I have no choice but to discount the many oppose votes that say "oppose per MoS" or the like. This means the following:

There is clearly a majority who support the move with proper reasoning, so the article will be moved. Please do not come to my user talk page with long monologues; I will not change my opinion if you write to me. —Mets501 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 18 years ago63 comments24 people in discussion

Yoghurt → Yogurt — Yogurt is the common spelling and Google searches demonstrate this as there is more than a 4:1 ratio of the spelling yogurt, versus the MUCH less common yoghurt. It should be changed for consistency, as this is an English wikipedia, and not a British-only wikipedia, when the rest of the English-speaking world spells it yogurt. I can't find a single encyclopedia I have that lists it as yoghurt, nor do I find any products in the store called yoghurt. It needs to be fixed. Posted to WP:RM by 68.37.140.224, formatted by -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Revision Per help from Yath:
The article was improperly moved from its original spelling, "yogurt", to "yoghurt". The manual of style states that in the absence of specific reasons to prefer one dialect, the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor should be used. The first version used "yogurt".
Also, the vast majority of native English speakers use American spellings. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

  • Support It's the much more common name, per naming conventions, this should be moved. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 14:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Until I came here, I had never heard of that spelling. It should be used by its most common name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwhat? (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Yogurt is the proper spelling and much more common. 216.86.38.14 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • There is no overall "proper spelling" of the word. It comes down to a question of regional orthographical standards, and the article was written based on the British English orthography. CRCulver 22:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- The 'yogurt' spelling is clearly more popular in North America (by about 5:1); and the 'yoghurt' spelling is clearly more popular in the UK and Australia (by about 2.7:1). The Wikipedia manual of style says that spelling differences between US and UK are resolved in favor of the "dialect of the first significant contributor". That is, it is against Wikipedia policy to change an established spelling. --Macrakis 17:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So you agree that the majority of English-speaking people use it, since the US has a larger population (and a higher ratio) than the UK and Australia combined? You've just proven that the majority call it yogurt. Canada also calls it yogurt, as do other countries. How can you still oppose it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.86.38.14 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

By this argument, the whole of Wikipedia would use US spelling rather than UK. But the Manual of Style is very clear on this. --Macrakis 20:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • What do you mean "we"? I, for one, just got here. As far as I'm concerned, this is just the beginning. For the record, after reading much of the Talk page here, I see you were behind the last move of this article from the original yogurt to the BE yoghurt, relying on a contrived argument based on the supposed "correct" (says who? you?) pronunciation of the word. No wonder you're trying to shut this corrective move down. --Serge 00:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to shut this move down ? News to me. How exactly have I been doing that ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose there was no consensus last time, and there is no new argument this time. The original move to yoghurt from yogurt [3] seems to be before move logs were kept was wrong and rude, so I would have supported the previous proposal, but since there was no consensus to move it back from an equally correct spelling, we should leave it. Anyway, yoghurt is a small strike in favor of against systemic bias. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I take back my "wrong and rude" accusation, as I see that Derek Ross allowed over a month for discussion before he made the move at the end of 2003. My opppose vote stands, a little taller. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You are a gentleman, Hroðulf. Thank you for that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - the MoS is pretty clear that, as the spelling used in the first major version of the article, "yogurt" is where the article should go. The "oppose" votes so far aren't very impressive, with half of them erroneously thinking the MoS favors no change, and the other half citing nothing more than "this is how it has always been". I'd like to encourage people to feel a little more empowered. You actually do have a right to fix things that are broken, and to think for yourselves. --Yath 10:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You are presupposing that "yoghurt" is wrong. It is not; it is just different. --Macrakis 16:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, this doesn't appear to be a response to my comment. Could you clarify? --Yath 17:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
You say "fix things that are broken", presuming that the spelling "yoghurt" is broken. It is not. --Macrakis 19:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. The spelling "yoghurt" is not broken by any means, it's just an alternate spelling. What's broken is that the convention of using the first spelling has been arbitrarily set aside here. I just wanted to caution folks that saying "it is now set in stone" is a poor principle to employ, as it accepts the bad along with the good, just because things have been that way for a while. But things should be fixed no matter how long they've been wrong. --Yath 23:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The MoS is just that, a guideline. The AE-BE compromise, on the other hand, is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia (that it isn't US-pedia) and it's a fundamental compromise that allows Wikipedia to function. The "original editor" issue is an avenue of last resort, not a starting point. The underlying principle is stability. If an article is stable using one spelling, then there's no reason to change it unless it deals with a topic that is connected with a country which uses one spelling system or another. Guettarda 22:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The AE-BE compromise, on the other hand, is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia
The compromise is the reason we usually stick with the original spelling used. It's a neutral way to choose. So from this statement, I guess you'd prefer "yogurt"?
The underlying principle is stability
Which is more important to you, the AE-BE compromise, or stability? If you choose the compromise, you'd go with "yogurt". If you choose stability, I guess it's "yoghurt". Personally, I think stability is overrated, and that we should feel free to focus on more important principles like quality and harmony between speakers of different dialects. --Yath 23:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
They are two sides of the same coin. The compromise exists to promote stability. And yes, if it had been at yogurt for the last couple years, but had started out at yoghurt, I would support yogurt (quite frankly, I have always used both spellings, so why else should I care?)
What do you mean by "quality and harmony between speakers of different dialects"? Are you saying that BE spellings are lower "quality" or that "harmony" means tyranny of the masses? That sounds pretty offensive to me. Guettarda 18:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Are you saying that BE spellings are lower "quality" or that "harmony" means tyranny of the masses? - no. I'd explain further, but I've no idea why the question is even being asked. It makes no sense whatsoever to me. Sorry, perhaps I'm just slow today. --Yath 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The "natural" thing to happen here is for the "yogurt" proponents to make a unilateral move. Then the "yoghurt" proponents would make their move back, and so it would go, back and forth. That's why Wikipedia has the convention to go with the original editor - that's how these conflicts are supposed to be resolved. Yes, the overall goal is stability, but the convention is based on the understanding that there is no right answer in these AE/BE conflicts. The last resort is ultimately the only resort: go with the usage of the original editor. --Serge 16:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose move. The logic expressed for the move is flawed - BE spellings are used in more countries than is AE. The AE dominance in google does not reflect the usage of spelling in English globally. Wikipedia policy accepts either AE or BE spellings as valid, so claiming that one should be used because it gets more google hits than the other amounts to attacking one of the underlying compromises that lets Wikipedia function stably. This is a BAD IDEA.
The reason we accept both AE and BE spellings is in the interest of stability. The idea that one should use the first author's spelling is only a last resort, when there is no other stable alternative. In a case like this, where an article has been stable using one spelling system for a long period of time, there is no reason to switch the spelling system. Guettarda 18:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose: Many of the 1.7 billion people in the commonwealth also use the "British" spelling of many words. The BBC web site favors yoghurt by 150 search result pages to 18. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation favors yoghurt by 1336 web pages to 93. But the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation prefers yogurt by 192 search result pages to 15 for yoghurt. Granted, this reflects the conventions at these organizations, but news organizations are a reflection of prevailing standards.
Data from India (a high yog(h)urt-consumption society) are limited, but indicate a "lean" vote for yoghurt: The Hindu, a leading newspaper, returns 787 pages for yoghurt vs. 187 for no-h spelling. A search of another site affiliated with the Times of India, produced 490 with-h spellings vs. 245 web pages for the no-h spelling.
It's not that difficult to determine. When you view the oldest version, you see the current title ("yoghurt") with the original spelling ("yogurt") in the text. --Yath 21:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, while I agree that the first contributor wrote "yogurt", tracing the moves is not easy. There is no record that Derek Ross moved the article in December 2003, but that is apparently what happened. Some other people are pointing to the May, 2005 moves as evidence of the first moves of the article, and looking at only one side of the log, conclude that the article was moved from yogurt to yoghurt at that time, when it had actually been at Yoghurt for over a year before that. older ≠ wiser 01:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Out of the five people who claimed to be voting "oppose" due to the MoS, not one of them has changed his or her vote when shown that the MoS recommends the opposite. I see that at least one of them has taken the time to change his stated justification, though you might want to strike out "and existing naming conventions" as well. --Yath 03:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

  • Support - Until I came here, I had never heard of that spelling. It should be used by its most common name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiwhat? (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - If this flies, why not colour, rumour, etc...? There's tons of cases where less popular alternative spellings were not made the main. This is a rare exception and I find it kind of strange. 68.37.140.224 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Please read the Manual of Style, you'll see why your Support vote is inappropriate. If an article was started off with those spellings in -our, they would have to stay. Same here. CRCulver 23:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a foolish way of determining anything. Maybe we should start making up words with similar spellings, as long as they get in there before the real words, I guess they stay. See how silly that would be? This firsties rule is not far off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.140.224 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 11 October 2006
  • Support - Yogurt is the proper spelling and much more common.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.86.38.14 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

We seem to have some confusion here. As of this moment, most of those voting against the move are citing the MoS's recommendation that the title follow the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor. However, if you peer at the history, you see that in the initial article, it was spelled "yogurt". So a few people are contradicting themselves. --Yath 08:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure you're interpreting the history correctly? If I'm not mistaken, the logs[4][5] show that the original name was "Yoghurt", and that moves to "Yogurt" have been repeatedly undone. --Macrakis 16:23, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert at interpreting the page history/logs, but it looks to me like the original title was "Yoghurt", but the original article of 02:29, 11 December 2002 used the spelling "yogurt" consistently. If that's the case I'd vote for the title "Yogurt", but I'd like to be sure I'm reading things correctly first. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
In the history, the article title always appears as the current title. The way to tell what the original title was is to look at the spelling of the title in the text. --Yath 17:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by the idea that "yoghurt" is the British spelling. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives only the form without the h, and the spelling "yogurt" seems to be general on the labelling of the product as sold in the UK (based on my original research of supermarket shelves, hence probably not evidence for Wikipedia!) --rossb 16:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think yoghurt is an alternative spelling that is more commonly used outside of the U.S., perhaps particularly in the land down under. The only rational explanation for why anyone would support it for the title of this article is anti-US sentiment, but good luck getting anyone to admit that. --Serge 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dialect neutrality

There seems to be some confusion about the MoS's suggestion that the original dialect be used. The purpose of that guideline is to defuse friction between speakers of different dialects of English, and to show no preference to any particular dialect. As long as we allow each dialect to exist on Wikipedia, and not to be removed in preference of another, no one can accuse Wikipedia of favoritism, and there's no reason to feel marginalized. It may be an arbitrary way of deciding things, but it is definitely neutral. It allows us to edit in peace.

The flip side is that when we use a different, more preferential way of choosing a dialect, there needs to be an actual reason -- it can't be arbitrary. Reasons such as the location of the subject in question (e.g., London) are fine, because everyone understands why it needs to be in British English.

The issue for this article is that there's no such reason for the move from yogurt to yoghurt. It was arbitrary, yet not neutral. Where before, there was no room for anyone to complain, now there is. American English has been shoved aside for British English. Out of the many articles where this is an issue, instances of arbitrary dialect changes are very rare, which has contributed greatly to the overall tranquility of Wikipedia. There's no reason to tolerate the few flies in the ointment such as this article, which is why it should be moved back. --Yath 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please read the "Pronunciation and spelling" section above for the actual reason for the original move which had nothing to do with British/American English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please read it. It's quite creative. --Serge 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That reason is no more valid. Changing the spelling because you want to help people pronounce the word "correctly"? There is no "correct" spelling or pronunciation - in language, whatever uses are common are valid. That's the principle of descriptive linguistics, which Wikipedia follows. We don't employ prescriptivism because Wikipedia has no business telling people what to do. In fact, policy states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Yath 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary of arguments against

And rebuttals :-)

  • The MoS says to go with the first spelling used - People using this argument to vote against just have their history incorrect, and presumably they'd change their votes if they revisited this page to discover that "yogurt" was in fact the originally used spelling.
    Used by: Macrakis, CRCulver, Akhilleus
  • The article has been at yoghurt for a while, so it should stay there forever - There's no policy against this that I know of, but it's very depressing and defeatist. Nothing that is wrong shall ever be fixed again? Just give up? I hope not.
    Used by: Derek Ross, Beardo, Hroðulf, violetriga
  • People are pronouncing "yogurt" as if it should have a hard 'G', so putting it at "yoghurt" will help them mend their ways - How you think it should be pronounced is irrelevant. People are allowed to pronounce a word however they want, and Wikipedia has no business telling them they're wrong.
    Used by: Derek Ross
  • Moving the article to "yoghurt" was a small strike against systemic bias. - randomly changing AE to BE might please some people, but even the folks on that project page don't seem to advocate such actions. MoS "original dialect" rule is least likely to piss people off.
    Used by: Hroðulf
  • (no reason given) - I cannot rebut this at all. People are free to vote however they want for incorrect reasons or no reason.
    Used by: (unsigned vote)

--Yath 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that the "first usage" guideline is an option of last resort, when there is no stable version. It does not trump other, better reasons, and it is not a reason to move away from a currently stable version. Guettarda 18:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The assertion that the "first usage" guideline only applies when there is no "stable version" is false. The Manual of Style states quite clearly:
  • If no such [alternatives that are common to both dialects] can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used.
In case you haven't noticed...
  • No alternatives have been agreed upon.
  • There is no strong tie to a specific dialect.
That means the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used.. Frankly, I don't understand why there is even a vote about this. Regardless of how the voting goes, the Manual of style clearly dictates that the dialect of the first significant contributor should be used. --Serge 20:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you should familiarise yourseld with the difference between policy and guidelines. It's false to say that "regardless of how voting goes, the page will be moved". The MoS does not dictate anything. It merely makes suggestions. Guettarda 21:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Relisting Move Request

I have decided to relist this move request, extending it for five days, due to what appears to be some misinterpretation of the Manual of Style regarding national varieties of English. The first version of the article clearly uses Yogurt without the h and Collabi, the first contributor, is clearly a USAmerican (based on the occupation noted on his/her userpage). Thus, the Oppose per Manual of Style votes are apparently contradictory. Now, should one go with their bolded opinion or stated rationale? Well, since Wikipedia's "primary method of determining consensus is discussion, not voting" (see also Wikipedia:Consensus), I am inclined to go with the latter instead of the former. Nevertheless, I will contact the users with these contradictory comments in the hopes they will either clarify, expand, or otherwise alter their oppose !votes, point out a different manual of style that supports Yoghurt over Yogurt, or change their position to support. -- tariqabjotu 02:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Flaws in the above vote count

Latest comment: 18 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Apparently Hroðulf, Proteus, and Guettarda were just ignored in the above count since they fall neither into the valid nor the invalid oppose votes. I also feel rather sorry for Violet/riga and trialanderrors who were accused of making an invalid vote for no good reason that I can see. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I might add that although I initially thought the original version used "yoghurt", later commented that I thought that did not matter and expanded at some length. I don't think my vote should be counted as in the invalid count, since I acknowledged what the original version was and still opposed the move. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Dude. You used one rationale to vote oppose, then, when you realized that rationale actually supported the support view, you created a new (rather convoluted, I might add) rationale. That's not explaining the rationale for one's vote, that's blatant rationalization. --Serge 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the brilliant insight there. My initial vote was based on a reaction to some editors citing the move in February 2006 as evidence of what the original name was. I admitted that I made a mistake. However, my rationale was based on the fact that no one questioned that move for a very long time, and it had been stable for quite some time, until editors with little better to do than to request pointless moves started raising a ruckus. older ≠ wiser 12:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of a naming convention or guideline that says that consideration should be given to the fact that that's the way it has been "for quite some time". How is that even relevant? --Serge 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking there isn't any "Naming" convention that says to use the national variety of the first major contributor. That is part of the Manual of Style, and is the last resort guidance for settling controversies over spelling differences in an article. IMO, there should be a pretty strong rationale to overturn a stable version. National spelling preferences aren't an especially strong rationale. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm not clear on why the difference between "convention" or "guideline" makes any difference with regard to the use of the first version of the title. It's good advice, which arguably is the only thing that has stopped numerous bitter disputes, such as how to name the color article. Also, earlier you said it was a pointless move - do you really think it's pointless to defuse the nationalistic tendencies that arise in these dialect issues? Have you read the archives of talk:color? --Yath 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The distinction is not clear for most editors, and I doubt there is any concise description that would be universally acceptable. But, my point was not the distinction between guideline and convention, but between a "Naming" convention, which specifically addresses how to title articles and the Manual of Style, which addresses the presentation of content within an article. I did briefly venture into the color/colour morass, but I don't think I paid it too much attention as there was a surfeit of unpleasantness clouding the issue at the time and that held little interest for me. Yes, it (the style of the first major contributor) is an acceptable last resort for resolving intractable disputes. But I'm not so sure that was the case here. There was a stable version for quite a long while (at least in Wiki terms). IMO, a lot controversy comes from folks who just can't leave well enough alone and insist on arguing over trivial matters. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The close was ridiculous. In addition, I am curious why my vote wasn't counted. I gave extensive rationale. There were a whole lot of votes at the bottom of the page which were also not counted. The close was highly improper, and I have undone the move. Guettarda 18:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I love the imperious tone used in the close: "Please do not come to my user talk page with long monologues; I will not change my opinion if you write to me". Great "collaborative editor". Guettarda 18:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, rather than moving the article back and forth between the two titles which just gets everybody upset to no purpose, I suggest that we ask for the votes to be recounted and the move properly closed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure calling the decision of an administrator "ridiculous" qualifies as a reason to revert his move. I've moved it back. --Serge 04:58, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure it does. There was no logical basis for conclusion he came to. If someone does something that makes absolutely no sense, you undo it. His rationale for closing the discussion was simply incorrect. He picked a few votes which he said were "good enough" (7 support, 4 oppose), he discounted several others as "flawed" (despite the fact that at least one of them, Bkonrad's, did not rely on the so-called "flaw"), and he just ignored others without explaining why. He closed with a terribly rude and imperious "don't bother me, I am not going to change my decision", and then, apparently (as I just noticed) move-protected the page. If that isn't admin abuse, I don't know what is. You might chalk it up to his being a newbie admin. Guettarda 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Even by the logic expressed by the closing admin, there are at least six valid votes opposed to the move:

  • Hroðulf
  • me
  • violet/riga (there is nothing to say that he wasn't referring to the valid arguments above)
  • Proteus
  • Bkonrad (per discussion below)
  • Han-Kwang

Even if you accept his discount of violet/riga and Bkonrad, there are still four valid oppose votes. Guettarda 17:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

He gave his reasons. You and even I might not agree with them, but never-the-less there they are. I don't know what the policy is for what to do when an admin disagrees with the decision of another admin, but just reverting his decision because you happen to disagree does not seem appropriate. I humbly suggest you take this up with him. In the mean time, I believe the decision of the first admin has precedence, so I will try to move it back. --Serge 17:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
No. There is no precedence for "the first admin". His decision was flawed, and thus it was corrected. It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement - he acted improperly in moving the page against consensus and he acted doubly improperly by move-protecting the page. Your insistence on moving the page against consensus shows contempt for your fellow editors. Guettarda 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you participated in this survey, you should not be reverting what an an arguably less biased admin who did not participate has done. If you're correct, you should have no trouble in finding an unbiased admin to support your position. --Serge 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

My vote should no way be discounted, but even if it is then the support falls below the 66% guideline that used to exist on WP:RM and still makes sense. The result should be no consensus and no second (twenty-second?!) poll should be started again. violet/riga (t) 13:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Latest comment: 18 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

I was making my periodic jaunt through WP:LAME and noticed this one. How about going with the neutral term Fermented milk for the article name and have Yogurt and Yoghurt redirects to this article? Going with a neutral term has been used to solve national variation naming disputes for Airplane or Aeroplane (Fixed-wing aircraft) and Ice lolly or Popsicle (Ice pop). WP:NC(CN) and WP:MOS lists this solution as an acceptable exception to the use of common names in the case of disagreements over national variations. I will now dive into my foxhole and prepare for the shelling. ;) --Bobblehead 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"Solve" is a nice way of putting it. I would have went with "totally fuck up." Recury 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Sorry, meant to put quotes and a disclaimer around "solve". Better way to put it is that it tends to reduce the flames of the turf war over a particular spelling and focuses the discussion on use of the "Common name" which is generally disuaded by pointing out that CN makes an exception for spelling differences. :) --Bobblehead 18:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
That sounds like an interesting idea that I would support. It would not be trivial: for it to work, a volunteer would need to summarise material from Buttermilk and Sour cream at Fermented milk (and perhaps also Cheese and some other products I am not aware of.) As far as I know, yoghurt isn't the only fermented milk product. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh man, do we really need to learn Solomon's lesson all over again? Are compromised and contrived names like ice pop and fixed-wing aircraft and fermented milk encyclopedic? I don't think so. --Serge 15:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Many editors have learned Solomon's lesson. The MoS's first dialect guideline is the result. Many editors reject it, unfortunately... even though we have no better solution. --Yath 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
No, we do have a better solution - leave the article where it is. If it's stable, it stays. If it's unstable, then we have solutions of last resort. You are rejecting stability in favour of an incorrect reading of the MoS. The MoS is merely a guideline, not a policy. It cannot be used to argue against stability. That would be a clear misuse of it. Guettarda 21:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Since when is stability a Wikipedia value? Is that documented anywhere, or did you just make it up? --Serge 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This article should be moved to Yogurt without further discussion

Latest comment: 18 years ago30 comments15 people in discussion

This discussion is closed, decision was: no consensus

Because obviously no agreement can be reached regarding the dialect that should be used for the name of this article, or what alternative should be used, according to the Manual of style, "the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used". In this case, that would be yogurt, which was the original title until this edit. Please sign below if you agree, or, if you don't, explain why you don't. And please, no more lame claims about the "first usage" guideline being an "option of last resort". That falsehood was dispensed with without any response above. --Serge 22:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Nope. No consensus for change means no consensus for change. It's been here, and stable, for a long time. Lack of consensus for change means retain the status quo. Guettarda 00:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The stability argument is weak and irrelevant. On the other hand, we've already got a vote to determine consensus going, so we don't need another one. --Yath 02:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Yath, The vote has already established what we already knew: there is no consensus; we can't agree on which dialect to go with. With that established, the MoS is clear: "the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used". I just want to verify that at least a few people agree with me on this before I go and make the move in accordance with the MoS. --Serge 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC).
Guettarda - you're suggesting we ignore the MoS? --Serge 04:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ignoring the Manual of Style is not uncommon. In fact the MoS itself states in its opening section that:
Clear, informative, and unbiased writing is always more important than presentation and formatting. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do — the joy of wiki editing is that Wikipedia does not require perfection.
There are many examples where MoS rules have not been followed. This is one. Billboard (advertising) is another. I moved that one from the British title "Hoarding" to its current American title at about the same time that I moved "Yogurt" the other way. One move is controversial, one isn't but both go against the same MoS rule and both went through the RM process in force at the time. And while RM states that MoS rules should be considered in the discussion, it doesn't state that they must be followed. Only the RM rules themselves have to be followed. I've followed them twice now with this article and this is the third time. Now I don't mind being on the losing side of an RM -- the last time it happened was with the Vergil/Virgil debate -- and I wouldn't be surprised if it happens with this article too at some point. If it does I'll go along with it -- that's what consensus is all about. But the move to yoghurt was made in accordance with RM process and the move back to yogurt should be made the same way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Disagree with proposed move; out of respect for Derek Ross and his fellow editors who made a considered decision to move back in December 2003—there was consensus then, for yoghurt; there is no consensus now. It is not friendly collaboration to say that WP:MOS trumps consensus—it does not. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment: The consensus was (very, very arguably) due to his posting on the UK Wikipedians' board about the issue. The edit wars on this topic are pretty infamous. Not that facts enter into the matter at all, but I see 14.9M hits for yogurt, 3.2M for yoghurt. --moof 02:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The fact that consensus was reached some three years ago is irrelevant to the fact that consensus cannot be reached today. When consensus cannot be reached - regardless of whether it could be reached some years ago - on which dialect to go with, the rule is to go wih the dialect of first use. Why is this so difficult to understand? --Serge 15:36, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Obviously the fact that consensus was reached three years ago does not mean it cannot be revisited. So does that mean that you have repudiated your position expressed in the naming of this section, in which you called for the move without consensus? Guettarda 21:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Serge—no, it is difficult to understand why . The process at WP:RM is that when there is no consensus, there is no change. Why reverse editors' decisions when there is no consensus to do so? The guideline can't be used to overule the WP:RM process since conventions are set at article level, and recorded by the manual of style. Dogcow/moof—Not arguably. Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board wasn't created until October 2004, 10 months after the consensus to move to Yoghurt. The first move war seems to have been in February 2006. See #Pronunciation and Spelling --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Hrm, so it was. I stand corrected. --moof 20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Moof, you are a gentleman. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Disagree My vote remains Keep at Yoghurt, though for different reasons than before: I was unaware of the history the Derek Ross brings up in my previous comments. --Macrakis 13:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Hroðulf, I understand that in general per WP:RM moves are not made unless there is consensus. However, I believe this is a special case where the editors cannot reach consensus on which dialect to use. In that special case, the MoS indicates to go with first use, which the pro-BE gang members were also arguing until they realized that the first use was in AE. --Serge 22:16, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Disagree, leave dialectical variants alone I use yogurt myself; but the proper solution, recommended by MoS is to let a mess like this alone. If it makes anyone happier to write Fermented milk, that's fine too. Septentrionalis 21:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that there is a lot more to fermented milk than yog(h)(o)urt. Guettarda 21:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Disagree per WP:STYLE#Disputes_over_style_issues. The phrase "when in doubt" applies to rectification of inconsistent spelling. Han-Kwang 21:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
That's irrelevant since no one is suggesting the move be made based on that section. For the relevant section, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. --Serge 02:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to this phrase: In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. I don't see a substantial reason. However, I would propose that a section is added explaining who uses the four different spellings. That's all I have to say here, I have better things to spend my time on. Han-Kwang 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
lukewarm agree. If the original article used "yogurt", per WP:MOS I'd move to that title. However, my feelings about this are anything but strong, and if the article stays at "yoghurt", that's fine with me. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Strongly Agree. The yoghurt supporters are exposed as hypocrites. These are the same people who said it should stay yoghurt because they claimed yoghurt came first, due to the MoS. Once it was proved, that in fact, yogurt came first, and not yoghurt, they now say the MoS doesn't matter. That's hilarious. They just don't want to move it because they're British and like *their* spelling. Btw, it's also inconsistent with the article frozen yogurt. It should be moved. 216.86.38.14 15:18, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
This is possibly the most asinine argument I have ever seen on a wiki page. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:07, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, see WP:LAME; this is nothing. Septentrionalis 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, you have a point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Eh? The vote was split 8 to 12, which isn't a consensus. In addition, the majority were against following the MoS. --Yath 07:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Time to archive the talk page?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With all the discussion back-and-forth about what the article should be named, perhaps it's time to archive the current Talk page and start anew. --moof 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I stuck some of the older sections into /Archive 1, anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What was the "original" title?

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

There appears to be considerable confusion in the foregoing discussion about what the original title of the article was. A lot of this confusion can be chalked up to the difficulty of parsing early article histories. I'm not sure when things changed, but early on, article moves were not recorded in the article history in the same way that it is now. In this particular case, it appears that what happened was that Marcus2 (talk · contribs) moved Yoghurt to Yogurt on 20:33, May 7, 2005 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Yoghurt. Then on 13:08, May 8, 2005 (UTC) Proteus (talk · contribs) moved it back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Undelete/Yogurt. I believe that those claiming that the original title was Yogurt are mistaken. older ≠ wiser 21:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, it appears as thought the original title of the article was "yogurt" and was spelled that way consistently by the original author, Collabi (talk · contribs). On March 18, 2003 Mkweise (talk · contribs) altered the spelling in the lede so that "Yoghurt" was mentioned first, although the "yogurt" spelling was used throughout the rest of the article. [6] On December 25, 2003, Derek Ross (talk · contribs) "Standardised spelling of yoghurt within the article". [7] According to his version of what happened [8], the article was also moved from Yogurt to Yoghurt in December 2003, although there doesn't appear to be any record of the move in the logs.
  • There were no objections raised until June 1, 2004 [9] when it was first suggested that the article be renamed from Yoghurt to Yogurt. The internal spelling remained fairly consistent at yoghurt until September 18, 2004 [10] when Neutrality changed the spelling in the article to use American spelling throughout. The spelling of yogurt was quickly reverted to yoghurt, although curiously, the article remained a mixture of British and American English until October 29, 2004. [11] The internal spelling has remained at yoghurt for the most part ever since. On May 7, 2005, Marcus2 moved Yoghurt to Yoghurt (as can be seen in the deleted page history for Yoghurt). He also changed the spelling in the article [12] and was quickly reverted. On May 8, Proteus moved Yogurt back to Yoghurt (as can be seen in the deleted page history for Yogurt). Then aside from some petty vandalism (or misguided efforts) there were no other moves recorded. On July 26, 2005, (Sortan (talk · contribs) engaged in a revert war over the spelling with several other editors.
  • I realize much of this has already been hashed and rehashed many times over, but I saw various conflicting claims, some refering to the moves in February 2006 as if those were the first moves. My opinion, FWIW, is 1) the article was moved without objection from yogurt to yoghurt way back in December 25, 2003, about a month after being suggested on the talk page and the first objection to the spelling wasn't until June 2004; 2) the article has used the Yoghurt spelling pretty consistently since December 2003 and has had a consistent and uniformly British spelling for the most of the time since October 29, 2004; and 3) despite what some might think, and depsite how they might use the systemic bias in favor American spelling inherent in Google to prove otherwise, "yoghurt" really is a common and accepted spelling. For these reasons, I don't support moving this from Yoghurt to Yogurt. Now couldn't we all find some more productive way to help make Wikipedia better than arguing over such a trivial thing like this? older ≠ wiser 01:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
For what little it may be worth, it might be that we are talking of two different products here. My own experience of American Yogurt is a rather bland sweet confection easily enjoyed frozen. In Europe (but not always the UK) Yoghurt tends to be more acidic and characterful, firmer in texture and less prone to being frozen in mixtures with Boysenberries. Mrs Trellis 18:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Good point, but if we're going to have separate articles for U.S. and European yogurt, then we should have separate articles for U.S. and European cheese, wine, beer, chocolate, and even milk and potatoes. I'm serious. Even the milk and fries are significantly different over there. I can't wait for my next trip! Oh, and the Italian ice cream sold all over western Europe! It's something else again. --Serge 18:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. 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 debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep at Yoghurt. -- tariqabjotu 01:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move revisited

Latest comment: 17 years ago79 comments38 people in discussion

There has been quite a bit of controversy along the lines of my closure of the move request above. Therefore, I have decided to reopen discussion for a little while. I ask that no one move the page again until this discussion below is completed.

Assume it fact, as proven by this original edit, that the creator of the article/the first significant contributer used the spelling "Yogurt". If there is consensus for one spelling or the other from the discussion below, the page will be moved there. This move request will be closed in 5 days. —Mets501 (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has been watching this article since shortly after its creation, I can confirm that the creator of the article did indeed use the "yogurt" spelling; that I suggested the move to "yoghurt" in November 2003 and made that move after a month during which no objection was made to the suggestion; that a request to move it back to "yogurt" was made in May 2005 but that that request was rejected for lack of consensus; that a second request to move it back to "yogurt" was made in October 2006 which has so far had one vote whose result was a matter of dispute. The result of that vote is thus being set aside in favour of the result of this one. I too request that no one move the page again until the discussion below is completed-- Derek Ross | Talk 03:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The vote is about the recent move of the article from yoghurt to yogurt.

Support means: prefer the article at Yogurt
Oppose means: prefer the article at Yoghurt

Survey

Please add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~.

Which one was the original your refering to? Yogurt or yoghurt? semper fi — Moe 02:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Yogurt, see here [13], the 1st edit. -Ravedave (help name my baby) 02:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying :) semper fi — Moe 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I'm coming here from an impartial POV. I've just come to this because it was listed at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. I believe that this debate is unnecessarily divisive and it is a genuine waste of time. Changing the name back and forth is totally inappropriate. You can all be more productive by simply accepting that one spelling is a redirect that points to the page at the other spelling. I believe that this article should be permanently move locked and further debate banned as there is never going to be any point in oscillating a move and a redirect. --AliceJMarkham 02:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Discussion at this website is very important and isn't something we ban editors for. And another thing, we can never permanently move protect articles, as thats against our protection policies. semper fi — Moe 02:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. In hindsight, I realise that my comment was more strongly worded that it needed to be, but probably because I was effectively trying to balance the 'constant arguement' scenario that appears present. Perhaps this type of arguement needs a cooling off period? --AliceJMarkham 08:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Here are the results of a Nexis World News search (which does not count the U.S.) covering major print media sources over the past six months. In each region, the first number is "yogurt," the second is "yoghurt."
North/South America region, U.S. not included: 516 to 21
Europe region: 931 to 419
Asia/Pacific region: 136 to 198
Middle East/Africa: 22 to 23
Even if we normalized the results for each individual region, counting each region by its population (thus giving the pro-"yoghurt" Asia/Pac and Afr/Mid-East regions much more weight), "Yogurt" still comes out ahead almost 2 to 1, even outside the U.S. Andrew Levine 21:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Well I don't quite understand how got got those stats and there are lots of reasons why an article might use both spellings just like this talk page for example (or the single misspelling on this BBC page for another). But I just did a simple one from that site - "Major World Newspapers" over the last month (includes US papers) - Search Results for: yoghurt - 255 , Yogurt 214. I don't claim that this search is in anyway scientific, I tend to believe the old adage about Lies, damned lies, and statistics when people do these kinds of things. Jooler 14:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Yogurt, forever and always. And next month come back and paste my response in again so I never have to participate in this spelling war again. SchmuckyTheCat 21:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Mzajac, Metamagician3000, Septentrionalis. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Yogurt not only seems to be the most common spelling, but it's also how the word is pronounced (yo-gurt). TJ Spyke 22:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The article has stood at "yoghurt" for long enough now for it to stand. It was at the title "Yogurt" for 11 months, and has been at this title for almost 3 years. Nothing at all is to be gained by shifting it back, as there's no compelling evidence here that one use is more prevalent around the world than the other. Just leave the damn article titles alone and concentrate on editing them. - Mark 15:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I have given my reasons ad nauseam and see no need to state them again. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Flip a coin for crying out loud. ~ trialsanderrors 19:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong support Yogurt as it is clearly the most common spelling. Search results show a 42.5 to 1 usage ratio in favor of "Yogurt", as opposed to "Yoghurt". That means on the internet, the word is spelled without an "h" about 97.7% of the time, which is above and beyond supermajority. It is conceivable that the variation outside the internet "in the real world" may be less pronounced than the figures I found but I doubt, seriously, that it would drop from 40:1 to 1:1 or even 10:1. This is assuming it's possible to measure off-web usage at all. — CharlotteWebb 23:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you get 42.5:1? I get about 3:1 (9,020,00:3,340,000). --Serge 00:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
This is what I got:
Results 1 - 10 of about 17,300,000 for yogurt [definition]. [14]
Results 1 - 10 of about 407,000 for yoghurt [definition]. [15]
Not sure why your numbers would differ so drastically. — CharlotteWebb 00:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Clicking on your links I get 1.1M for yogurt, 5.9M for yoghurt. Just shows how unreliable Google counts are. ~ trialsanderrors 02:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah. The number of hits depends on what languages and "safesearch filtering" level you have selected in google search preferences. I get 17M for yogurt and 5.8M when using "all languages". When restricted to English pages, I get 7.8M for "yogurt" and 2.8M for "yoghurt" and "do not filter". So whether you look at all languages or just English, "yogurt" has several times more references than "yoghurt". --Serge 00:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Reopening this question within days of the last discussion and poll strikes me as an abusive procedure and a complete waste of everyone's time. Guys, this is a simple spelling difference, nothing terribly important. Get over it and STOP!! --Macrakis 01:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Macrakis too. But I would add that making this move encourages this sort of divisiveness. Septentrionalis 03:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Fair point. It shouldn't be necessary to reopen this yet again. In fact we can now estimate consensus (or lack of it) on the basis of quite a large number of Wikipedians by counting the various votes pro and con over the last three years. People have given their opinions in several surveys and generally those don't change (although there are a few exceptions no doubt). For instance people should know my opinion by now even though I don't add it to a survey for the 4th time. All in all the name of this article has been under consideration for around 50 days during the last three years and will have been under consideration for 55 by the end of this survey. That's far more time than has been given to most articles and should surely be enough time to get a good feel for the general opinion of Wikipedians. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

So far the opposition justification ("leave it alone") seems to advocate that nothing about Wikipedia that has been stable for a particular amount of time (unstated, but perhaps a year?) should be changed. Is that in fact the argument? Are you prepared to apply it in all cases? Is there any guideline or policy that applies? --Yath 05:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There was no point in changing it. "Yoghurt" is how I, for one, have always seen it spelled, even if it is not the most common spelling in the English speaking world. However, now it has been changed why not just leave it alone? Does it make that much difference whether the article begins "Yogurt or yoghurt" as opposed to "Yoghurt or yogurt"? Metamagician3000 08:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does make a big difference. It's simply unappetizing if not morally wrong to have the word hurt as part of the name of a food. --Serge 08:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
LOL. Metamagician3000

[De-indent.] Really, though, the article had been stable for a long time at an acceptable spelling which had been introduced without opposition after plenty of time had been given for people to object. That should have been the end of the story. It doesn't matter what spelling is used, but if this blows out of proportion I think the people who created an issue out of it by seeking to change away from what it had been are stuck with the moral low ground. That's my opinion as an uninvolved admin who came across this by chance. However, I'm not going to take any action, because the discussion is relatively civil and it really doesn't matter. Metamagician3000 08:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, indeed. What is the basis for this "stability" argument that keeps being used? Since when is the length of time an article has been at some name become a factor in determining the validity of that name for that article? Is there any policy, guideline, MoS, undocumented convention, anything you can cite? --Serge 08:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
How about WP:CONSENSUS as a basis for the stability argument? Like the MOS, consensus is a guideline: the consensus in 2003 was to ignore the MoS, as evidenced both by the talk page and stability. In the survey, it is up to the stability folk to make a persuasive argument that a former consensus outweighs the MoS, and vice versa. In my view, holding a new survey nullifies the stability argument, and we have to fall back onother arguments; but that is only my reasoning.
Now, I am wondering whatever prompted me to add this article to my watchlist. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
WP:CONSENSUS is no longer applicable, it is outdated since user:Carnildo was promoted to admin without the support of a significant portion of the community. Juppiter 00:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I only see Derek Ross making comments about the page move in 2003. Is this what you are referring to on the talk page? --Yath 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, Yath. That is the diff. You will notice that no-one replied to him, so he moved the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:17, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
OK, so three years ago there was consensus of one to move it. For what reason? Regardless, it's immaterial, since there is conflict today, for whatever reason. This is so predictable that the MoS clearly says what to do in such situations: go with the original dialect. --Serge 16:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I abstain this time. My previous oppose vote was to support the 2003 Derek Ross consensus. Since the outcome of all previous decisions can be set aside by this new survey, I no longer have strong feelings. Although the yogurt spelling is becoming more common, there are strong etymology arguments for yoghurt. This time, after thoroughly thrashing out the process, we are all working from the same ground rules; if there is no consensus in this new survey, the article does not move to Yogurt. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:39, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't these both just as common? Done a search and so produce similar results. Simply south 14:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC) so may oppose

The 'Let's keep having votes until we get our way' policy

Latest comment: 18 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

There must be some way to overcome this ridiculous tendency of people to keep bring up the same old issues time and time again. Jooler 01:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

First, be civil about this. You may not like American English, and thats your choice, but don't go around and start labeling people who disagree with you. If it's been changed that way before, they must have a reason. I suggest you find out why they are changing that way, and then fix the problem. If you can't, then go make a request for comment about it or make an arbitration case about which title to be prefered. Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other, but it's not right for you to call people 'linguistic imperialist' because they disagree with you. semper fi — Moe 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Who's being uncivil? If you couldn't care less - then why the hell vote for one option over another? I have been on Wikipedia for 5 years and have seen time and time and time arguments about spelling on aluminium, humour, grey, theatre, orange (colour) and countless other pages with the same arugments ranging time and time again, using bogus stats from Google etc and it is ALWAYS people wanting to move to American spellings from non-American ones. I think I know what I'm talking about. Jooler 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Why did I bother voting on side or the other above? Because most articles use the American English version of the title over the British English version, simple enough (i.e. Color, not colour and other articles too). Yes, I think you have a valid point, but yes your comments like the one above I stated are uncivil and you should try to remain as calm as possible. I know it may seem like this great injustice to you, but you shouldn't take things so personally. semper fi — Moe 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I did not call anyone a linguistic imperialist. But the homgenisation of language on Wikipedia to conform to the style of the 800lb Gorilla that is the US because '"Google hits counts say so" campaign amounts to the same thing - and now you have stated quite clearly that you favour homgenisation. Or should I say "favor homogenization" - does it make you happier to see it written that way because that's how most editors on Wikipedia would write it? Jooler 02:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Happier? No, can't say that it does make me happy. All I said was it was common practice, and yes, I'm in favor (or should I say favour) of common practices. semper fi — Moe 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
It's not common practice where I come from. Jooler 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
And let me guess, you're from Britian, right? Of course it's not common practice in Britian (Or other areas that use British English) to use American English. Wikipedia isn't your battleground to go and try and dispute things because it's against your countries common practices and such, nor would I do it for America. semper fi — Moe 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
But you're suggesting that because the majority of people do something one way (the majority in this case being American English speakers who edit Wikipedia articles) that we all should conform. Am I correct? Or am I misinterpreting your comments? BTW As a Brit I have absolutely no Idea what "Semper Fi" is intended to mean. - It's latin I suppose - something to do with American colleges - but beyond that I'm at a loss. It's not a common expression in this part of the world. Jooler 02:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I would feel the same way that you do if I was living in the country that the majority of editors are not located, trust me. But theres not really a way to change what the majority of editors think. I'm not saying we should be conformed to one particular way of changing it, but the majority of editors who come on this site are going to be using American English, not British, theres really nothing I can do to help you in regards to changing everyone else's mind. If I did have it my way, I would make it where both common English versions were in the article heading, but it wouldn't gain enough consensus and it would get shot down without a furthur thought. Oh and "semper fi" means "always faithful". semper fi — Moe 02:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Wrong. The majority of editors are actually from the rest of the World and are not native English speakers. Increasingly, English usage by non-native speakers is being dictated by their word-prosessors and spellcheckers which default to American English. (Why would some 12 yeard old in Bhutan change the dictionary to British English). Nevertheless there are a signficant number of not-native non-American English speakers out there and possibily a majority and this is a global encyclopaedia. Why do you want to take away their little corner of wikipedia? 04:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Somehow you missed the rather contentious attempts to move color and gasoline in the opposite direction. Here's a question for you: how many articles can you name that started at an American English term, but are now at the Commonwealth English term? (I know of two.) And just for completness sake, how many started at the Commonwealth English term, but are now at the American English term? --Yath 02:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
football (soccer), Athletics (track and field), Sulfur (earliest edit now at [16] ), fetus. What's the one other than yoghurt then? Jooler 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps I should clarify - do you know of any article moves from CwE to AmE where there was no specific reason to do so, and thus going against the MoS's guideline? I'm sure there are a great many articles moved from one dialect to another due to the usage rules of IUPAC or other reasons. As for the other article than yoghurt, it's humour. --Yath 03:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Humour moved by User:Daniel C. Boyer of Michigan, USA, for whatever reason. BTW I don't see any votes to move for color in the history of that talk page. Given that the number of articles in American English exceeds those in British English one would not expect to find parity in the number of articles that have changed from one to the other using your criteria above. However in our brief survey it appears that a larger number of articles using British English (which is in the minority on Wikipedia) come under seige from attempts to move them, as a consequence of that minority position. Jooler 04:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
However, there was a brisk move discussion/edit war on Orange (colour), which was originally so written; also Jewellery. Septentrionalis 04:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Spotted it for you. So, do you know of any article moves from CwE to AmE where there was no specific reason to do so, which thus went against the MoS's guideline? --Yath 05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Hardly "rather contentious" re: color it was rejected out of hand. No I don't know of any page oves from CwE to AmE where there was no specific reason to do so, but as stated above the probability of there being one is less than the other way round. Jooler 07:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
We know of two arbitrary moves from one dialect to another. I say hey, why not fix them, since that's exactly the kind of divisive, disrespectful change that the MoS's original-contributor guideline was made to prevent. --Yath 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Undoing an arbitrary page move in this manner is just as arbitrary. - Mark 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Who cares?

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Really? Why do people care so much about this. It's petty. Spelling wars are for fools with too much time on their hands. Tim Starling had it right. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Theresa, you've got a fair point there. --SunStar Net 10:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Agree. Fuhgeddabaoutit (TM). There is no way Wikipedia is ever going to be consistent on this issue. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 11:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Yogurt or Yoghurt

Latest comment: 17 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

Either way, shouldn't the article use the name consistantly? It bounces between both spellings all over the place. I do notice that most of the linked pages (both external and internal) use the yogurt spelling. Bytebear 02:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you should go with 'yogurt'. It does seem to be the most common spelling of it. Of course, I'm just passing through, so perhaps my opinion might not be as important as, say, a regular to the page. HalfShadow 02:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The inconsistent spelling is a direct result of premature moves during the current dispute. Once things have settled down the spelling will be made consistent again. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding spelling preference, the Wikipedia Manual of style says this: "If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."[17] Since the first major contributor used yogurt,[18], the article ought to be so named, and spelling within the article standarized to the same. Nick Graves 05:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Regarding itself, the MoS also says "This manual, along with the supplemental manuals linked from it, provides guidance for those seeking it, but does not prescribe rigid rules that must always be followed"[19]. Please read the lengthy discussions above to discover why the MoS rule does not apply in this case. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I did read the discussion, and found in it no good reason to set aside the conventions suggested by the MoS. The relevant MoS guideline is intended to end the cycle of continual reversions between variant spellings. There is definitely collective doubt as to whether yogurt or yoghurt ought to be used for the article, and all previous attempts to achieve consensus and end reversions have failed. Therefore, for the sake of ending the cycle, the convention offered by the MoS ought to be observed, and the article title changed to that used by its first major contributor. Nick Graves 16:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
What, again? Can't we just end this cycle with the no consensus close less than three weeks ago? Strongly oppose stitting this up again. Septentrionalis 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The policies and guidelines we have are designed to decide, in a logical and reproducable fashion, this exact sort of question. There is an objective standard which can be applied to decide which spelling variation to use. Any one of us should be able to look at that standard, look at the evidence, and come to the exact same conclusion without needing to discuss the issue or take a vote. To me, this becomes important not because of the spelling issue itself, but because we as a community can't manage to follow our own standards. That so many recognize this simple problem and keep asking about it is only a sure sign that it is terribly important. -Anþony 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Shut up? The discussion is over. 80.229.232.218 22:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is inconsistent, non-deterministic, and driven by consensus. I think most of us prefer not to waste our time changing the title of this article, again, when there is no version that would clearly make everyone happy. —Michael Z. 2006-11-24 22:33 Z
Certainly Wikipedia is all of those things. In particular, it is frequently inconsistent. But if we do not attempt to correct that inconsistency when see it -- through discussion to affect consensus -- it will only spread until Wikipedia is completely unmanageable. If we do not have that drive to make Wikipedia better than it is, it will only get worse. -Anþony (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
In what demonstrable way would moving the article to Yogurt make Wikipedia better than having it at Yoghurt? older ≠ wiser 02:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
To be clear, my interest in this matter is not specifically directed to the yogurt vs. yoghurt debate, but rather the issue of adhering to the guidelines or not. That being said, I do believe that adopting the more common spelling would be an improvement which would improve readability and reduce confusion on average. I won't bother to make the claim that it would be a significant improvement. It is not something I care to debate because, as I said, it is not central to my interest in this case. -Anþony (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
One doesn't always "adhere to guidelines". That's the difference between a guideline and a rule. How would the removal of a single leter (ironic typo) from a word "improve readability?" - Maybe you want to improve the readability of your username "þ?" first. And who are these really confused people who can't register the fact that the word is can be spelt in more than one way? Get Real. Jooler 04:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
"a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin..." etc. Best learn to live with it. —Michael Z. 2006-11-25 14:54 Z
I'm trying to assume good faith, but the "..." part of that quote is a clear personal attack. I'll await an explanation or an apology. -Anþony (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not, and I'm sorry that I let you misunderstand. I was just trying to make the point that attempting to draw every guideline to its logical conclusion in every single case in editing Wikipedia is an impossible mission, and if you think it through you will recognize this. I wasn't alluding to simple minds, rather trying to avoid looking like I was calling anyone names by leaving out the rest. If the remark bothers you, then please remove my comment from the talk page. Again, apologies for letting myself seem to be insulting, it was not intended. —Michael Z. 2006-11-25 23:52 Z
I accept your explanation, but I caution you against quoting so selectively again. It is far too easy for to confuse the original author's intent with your own.
Back to the issue, I don't doubt that making Wikipedia completely consistent is a fool's errand, but I maintain that the constant pressure to increase consistency is a positive and corrective force. To give up is tantamount to encouraging inconsistency. Emerson clearly has no problem with that, but then again, he never wrote an encyclopedia.
To Jooler, who remarked on my username: Anþony is a stylized logo, no different than the backwards R of Toys "Я" Us or the colors and text-effects many others use here to dress up their usernames. In the normal orthography I use every day, my name is spelled Anthony. Of course, I know that Anthony is easier to read than Anþony, but that was of little significance when it came to choosing a username. If some day I were to warrant my own article on Wikipedia, I would expect that my name would be spelled Anthony, just as Toys "Я" Us is at Toys "R" Us. -Anþony (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Accurate Information added

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have added accurate information about the name and spelling. Don't remove it! Cevair Zufer 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A) what's our source for this information? B) How is it relevant to the English-language article on the subject? -Will Beback · † · 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
The information about the silent, [γ], and [g] (Balkan) pronunciations is now in the article in a logical place. --Macrakis 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The name

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As Yogurt is Turkish this page should be redirected to Yogurt which is the correct spelling even if they today in Türkiya change the G with Ğ and hence spell it Yoğurt. Cevair Zufer 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopedia, and we use the English names here (though it is disputed whether it should be yogurt or yoghurt in English..., see above). --Macrakis 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

the original title was "yogurt"

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

see for yourself

and, as per the MOS, since a consensus can't be reached, the original spelling must be used. this isn't brain surgery. Joeyramoney 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Find something else to do

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I can fully understand the democratic process behind this, but this is way too much discussion over legitimate alternate spellings of a word. Seems to be more of a US/UK power struggle. Stick in a redirect, explain the different spellings close to the top and move on to the next discussion. ByteofKnowledge 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yogurt/Archive_2&oldid=1142783693"