Talk:Yogurt/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

One of the picture captions says: "Bihidasu, a Japanese edible brand of Ayran."

I'd imagine it's just phrased badly, but... is there an inedible kind?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.205.16 (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Also, this caption is for an image of File:Yogurt.jpg which is not illustrating yoghurt in any shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.216.58 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Turkish Word

It was mentioned in BBC's Rick Stein's Food Heroes that yoghurt is a Turkish word which means what it is - yoghurt. Rick Stein also said that Americans irritatingly pronounces it "yo-ghurt" which I thought was funny and very true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.151.126 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Yogurt is not a turkish word, but a turkic one, make a difference, people ! - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yugur is a Turkic word, Yogurt is Turkish.. as long as Turkish is a Turkic language, it's not so important.

Yogurt-mak also a verb, "to have something tickened" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Javascript solution

In order to attempt to facilitate a compromise everyone can live with, I'm working on a script for monobook.js to allow people to see the article in their preferred spelling. In order for this to work, i have had to add markup to sections that discuss the spelling issues. Please do not remove these tags for at least the next few days. --Random832 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - although the last solution which did almost the exact same thing was deleted ({{sp}})--danielfolsom 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

My solution is intended to have the minimal invasiveness to article content - a span class around sections that discuss spelling differences [to tell the script to leave them alone] and the rest of the logic is entirely in the script. It's at the bottom of my monobook if anyone wants to test it out [it uses an error handling script, just remove the try/catch lines to remove the dependency on that. it also depends on the function $() as an alias for getelementbyid] --Random832 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I still find it absurd to use a lesser spelling for the main and use such methods to accomodate the more common one as an alternate, but I think this isn't a bad idea. --65.206.50.107 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Solution - suggests that there is a problem. I'm staggered that some people can't seem to grasp that us Non-USAsians have learnt to accept that there are going to be articles written with an unfamiliar spelling and that learning about alternative spellings in such a way is just part of life's rich tapestry and not a problem. Jooler 00:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I am a american, and frankly I have seen simmilar reactions from non-americans on pages like color (though not to this extent) - but I think any reactions to these spellings should be reverted and shunned, thus I agree with you --danielfolsom 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

"Suggests there is a problem" - of course there is a problem, regardless of whether you think the problem is the spelling or ignorant people complaining about the spelling. --Random832 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And "any reactions should be shunned" is an overly simplistic way of thinking of it - this case is special for two reasons - because the spelling without 'h' is more common _even in the UK_, and because the article was standardized on the other spelling first. Those, and not "americans are more boorish" as you seem to think, have been the source of the increased controversy here. --Random832 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"because the spelling without 'h' is more common _even in the UK" - I suppose you're using Google hits support this assertion. Google hits are determined by page links to pages containing the word not the number of pages with the word itself. Thus a page in the UK that links to a US page with the word 'yogurt' will show up under 'yogurt' and not 'yoghurt', and if the page itself contains 'yoghurt' it will show up under both. A better way is to use Google searches http://www.google.com/trends?q=yoghurt%2C+yogurt&ctab=0&geo=GB&date=all&sort=0 Jooler 07:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ahh -that's right- because wikipedia policy definitely dictates what spelling should be used based on popularity! --danielfolsom 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I was merely countering the assertion that "the spelling without 'h' is more common _even in the UK". Jooler 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok - the comment was more so directed at dscarth though--danielfolsom 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

If the "established" spelling was johgort or some other minor variant instead of "with an h", would you still be arguing that point? Popularity is the issue here. --Dscarth 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No - it's not, Wikipedia guidelines are the issue here. And I'm from the u.s. and I use the yogurt spelling - so don't try to act like it's a British conspiracy or something - if jogurt was the established spelling and it was part of the English language then I'd support that too.--danielfolsom 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Some people have Javascript disabled due to some sites abusing javascript like disabling keyboard and mouse buttons, popups, browser hijacking, etc. Dave Rebecca 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

spelling

yoghurt is definetely the more traditional spelling so this spelling should go first as well as be the article name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.47.75 (talk • contribs)

Take a stroll through the archives. Already been covered and recovered. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Should not we have the license to close down threads bringing up this point again... ALTON .ıl 05:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should. Consensus has not been reached on the issue, and even it it had, based on WP:CONS, 'consensus can change'. I'm not sure what 'closing down threads' means exactly since deleting talk page text is usually frowned upon, unless you are suggesting treating such comments as vandalism and blocking those editors. Antonrojo 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is still no consensus. I had argued the last time and we had not managed to gain a sufficent majority of opinions to warrant a change of name, nor had we come to an agreement. For some reason the yogurt discussion seems as polarizing as an abortion discussion, there's little middle ground, and frustrating to both sides. --Dscarth 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

As Dscarth says people will recognise no possible compromise or centre ground and it becomes a matter of honour to protect their neighbourhood favourite spelling irrespective of the colour or flavour or if the yoghurt is savoury, sweet or sour despite the furore caused.

As Dscarth says people will recognize no possible compromise or center ground and it becomes a matter of honor to protect their neighborhood favorite spelling irrespective of the color or flavor or if the yogurt is savory, sweet or sour despite the furore caused.

The whole thing becomes a matter of theatre and humour to many. It has caused me to snigger to analyse the maths that has been used in the past as people labour and manoeuvre with each instalment in defence of a point of view, I am just grateful it is not packaged in grey aluminium.

The whole thing becomes a matter of theater and humor (or humour) to many. It has caused me to snicker to analyze the math that has been used in the past as people labor and maneuver with each installment in defense of a point of view, I am just grateful it is not packaged in gray aluminum.

One little titbit in closing; the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following spellings in citations:

One little tidbit in closing; the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following spellings in citations: 1625 Yoghurd - 1687 Yogourt - 1837 yahourt - 1883 yaghourt - 1912 yaghourt - 1925 Yoghurt - 1970 yogurt - 1980 yoghourt

If forced to express an opinion, for this article it is Yoghurt because that is the established spelling.--Drappel 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Let me fix that for you: center, neighborhood, color, flavor, yogurt, theater, humor, laugh, math, manouver, installment, defense, aluminum. I may have missed something obvious, but this variant of the spelling has been contested for quite awhile. Established is merely POV. Dick. --Dscarth 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And, as for the Oxford English Dictionary, regardless of what they cite as historickal spellinges, they lead with "yogurt". --Random832 23:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Fellas - we just had this discussion, so can we not flatter an obvious troll?--danielfolsom 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi people, this is an unrelated point- I know that in India, people say yogurt with the short 'o'..could we edit to include this information? Also in India, yogurt has been eaten for generations and it partly orginates from this area as well; it is known as dahi in much of the subcontinent and is referred to colloquially as khata, "sour" in many a Punjabi village. Can we please include the former? Thanks! :)

Could we add a note about the Canadian spelling? Many packagers use the term 'Yogourt' because it can serve both the french and english spellings. Many US made products carry two different spellings, but those that are made in Canada almost always contain just 'Yogourt'.

Not that it matters at this point, but I have never, ever seen it spelled any way other than "yogurt" until I have read this article. Zarggg 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any cultural or sentimental attachment to any particular spelling for the product which one dictionary defines as "A custardlike food with a tart flavor, prepared from milk curdled by bacteria, especially Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus, and often sweetened or flavored with fruit," as I mainly started eating it about a week ago. Growing up, I don't recall any of my family or friends eating it, and I haven't paid much attention to it until aforesaid time.

But a short while ago today I noticed that there are a number of spelling variations of the product. So I decided to investigate further to figure out the preferred spelling and because I enjoy learning about words. Whereupon I noticed Wikipedia's spelling for the entry, which I found to be curious given my investigations. What follows are the results of my investigations.

OneLook Dictionary Search lists 26 dictionaries altogether, and 19 dictionaries in the "General" dictionary category, for the spelling of yogurt.

Whereas OneLook Dictionary Search only lists 18 dictionaries altogether, and 14 dictionaries in the "General" dictionary category, for the spelling of yoghurt.

Each of the following dictionaries by major dictionary publishers have the entry for this product under the spelling of yogurt, with yoghurt being given as an alternative spelling: Compact Oxford English Dictionary; Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary; Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition; and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).

Google Search currently lists 16,700,000 results for the spelling yogurt.

Whereas Google Search currently only lists 5,650,000 results for the spelling yoghurt, which is only 33.83% of the total results for the former search.

I have three different brands of this product currently within my residence. Those brands are as follows: Dannon, Publix, and Coburn Farms (a Save-A-Lot brand). They all spell the product as yogurt, but not yoghurt.

Based upon my investigations, I conclude that the preferred spelling for this product, to an overwhelming degree, is yogurt, and not yoghurt.--209.208.77.247 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I've got a brand of Yoplait with me right now that says "Yogurt". Klosterdev (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your independent research. I have checked it out, and it appears to be conclusive. I don't feel that a consensus is an appropriate course of action anyway. Unless you are an etymologist, yogurt producer, yogurt reseacher, or have similar qualifications, you have no business voting on the spelling of the term. It also appears that voters were not evenly distributed (geographically), and are likely a group of friends. Anyone could call a simple consensus on the spelling of any term and have all their friends vote for something unusual. It is neither objective nor appropriate. This is compounded by the fact that the evidence for the spelling "yoghurt" is nothing more than people calling the evidence for "yogurt" into question by citing ethnocentrism. And yes, I have read all of the discussions on it. Quite hypocritical if you ask me. [User:Laplacian54|Laplacian54]] (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect: Fermented milk

Does anyone know why Fermented milk was redirected to Yoghurt? Fermented milk can be any number of products in the English speaking world such as yoghurt, cultured buttermilk, sour cream, crème fraîche and a host of other fermented milk products that are made internationally and have no English name, e.g., kefir and filmjölk. It would make more sense to have a Fermented milk products page that lists all of the various types of fermented milk products (such as yogurt, etc) that link to more specific pages that address each type of fermented milk product. Anyone against removing the redirect, and perhaps creating a page called Fermented milk product (and then redirecting Fermented milk page to Fermented milk products? A good reference page from Canada to start the new page: Fermented Milk Products apanda 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It was redirected because someone thought it was a good idea. If you think your idea is better than be bold. SchmuckyTheCat

See Also

WP:STEAM (in other words, every time this comes up, you crush opposition and keep more than one person from gathering, and sacrificing everything at the altar of "pre-existing consensus" - "license to close such discussion" wtf. --Random832 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Colombo

It should be noted that it was not Dannon, but Colombo which first introduced yoghurt in the US.

Yogurt didn’t debut in the U.S. until 1929, when Armenian immigrants Rose and Sarkis Colombosian and their sons hand-filled the family recipe into 8-oz. glass jars and distributed them via horse-drawn wagon throughout the Northeast. http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2004/177.html

Not sure when the distribution itself began, but NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E7DA133BF93BA35751C0A967948260 states that Rose Krikorian Colombosian, who with her husband founded the first yogurt manufacturing plant in the nation, in her obituary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.209.59 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yoghurt?

I fail to understand why this article is titled "Yoghurt" instead of "Yogurt". Every photo on the WP Commons of a package of this product says "Yogurt" -- which makes "Yoghurt" a confusing title for the article. Never in my life have I seen the spelling "Yoghurt". I went down to Food Lion, Wal-Mart, Lowes, and BP, and I could not find one single yogurt product labeled "Yoghurt". So from what I've been able to learn, "yogurt" seems to be the modern spelling, which would seem to make it the most appropriate choice for the article. Pierce Phillips (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam. WP is international; "yoghurt" is a perfectly good spelling, even if it is not the most popular in the U.S. --Macrakis (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

But as the folks on Conservapedia point out, Wikipedia was founded by Americans, is hosted in America, and the majority of its userbase is American. Besides the fact that dropping the silent H is progressive -- it's part of how languages evolve to meet the needs in the most simple way possible -- and aren't you folks all about change and progressiveness and evolution? Pierce Phillips (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"is hosted in America, and the majority of its userbase is American." - quotation needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.222.87.41 (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

So if you want yogurt you look at Conservapedia; if you want yoghurt you look here. Everybody gets what they want -- no tyranny of the majority. Isn't freedom of choice wonderful ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...you didn't make yourself at all clear, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that your point was somewhat silly. Back on track: if "yogurt" is such a widely-used, modern spelling -- to the point that it appears in every picture here on Wiki showing a package of yoghurt -- then why isn't it the title of the article? Why are we hanging on to an archaic silent 'h'? Pierce Phillips (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Please go back and read the Talk archives. All this has been argued before. --Macrakis (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Pierce, different variants of English as accepted, per Wikipedia policy. The assertion that Wikipedia is an "American" project is a misconception - it's always been an international project. In fact, the target audience for Wikipedia is people who can't afford to pay for encyclopaedia access - in other words, the target audience is decidedly non-American. All English - regardless of region - is dominated by archaic spelling...things like "ie", "c" and the final silent "e". Kwibling ova a singl letu yogut is sile. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

in other words, the target audience is decidedly non-American

This also is incorrect. English Wikipedia is a reference for all English-speaking individuals. Whether they want to pay for an encyclopedia is not the main issue (maybe it is for some, but there are more important reasons for creating Wikipedia).

« D Trebbien (talk) 17:22 2007 December 28 (UTC)

Image usage issues give me headaches and I usually do my best to not involve myself in them but couldn't a suitable "yoghurt" package image be added to commons simply by someone snapping a picture of such a package and uploading it? Is formal permission required from the product manufacturer? Surely a simple e-mail response from the manufacturer would be sufficient to grant such permission?Zebulin (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Rather bizarre digression, but to answer your question, taking photos of brand name products is creating a derivative work, which is still subject to full copyright law. It's less of a hassle to have these unlabeled products. ALTON .ıl 03:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is rarely going to be a derivative work, but in any case it is fair use to take a photograph of a packaged product including artwork, brand name, and trade dress and publish it without the copyright and trademark holder's permission. --Macrakis (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the usage of yoghurt for the entry title has nothing to do with internationalism. As I point out in my above post under 209.208.77.247 at 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC), yogurt is the preferred spelling for even the British dictionaries, and yogurt is a far more common term for this product on the internet (based upon Google searches).--206.148.136.37 (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I firmly believe the proper and preferred spelling internationally is "Yogurt" and as such should be the title of the article. Go to the Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com) and type "yoghurt" and they classify it as a misspelling (see: address bar redirect), and reccomend the usage of "yogurt". Go to the Merriam Webster English Dictionary (m-w.com) and "yoghurt" is classified as a variant of the main entry of "yogurt". Cambridge International Dictionary of English (at dictionary.cambridge.org, which by the way uses 'colour') prefers "yogurt" as the main entry. A cursory search of google (non-scientific) shows: Results 1 - 10 of about 19,700,000 for yogurt, Results 1 - 10 of about 5,780,000 for yoghurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscarth (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, this article should be moved. Who will propose it? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No one with any sense. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the title of this article has been contentious ever since it was first changed from its original name, in violation of the MOS which says, "the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic". The original name used for the title of this article, and within this article, was Yogurt. [1], and I don't see that there was any "reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic". The fact that it was changed never-the-less is arguably the root cause of the controversy (similar articles which adhere to this simple rule don't seem to have such a contentious history over their titles), and can be easily remedied. Why would it have to be someone without sense to propose a simple remedy? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you not read all the archives (listed at the top of the page) and the failed attempts to move it back? It's been thoroughly debated several times in the past and the end result has been no consensus to move it back. It would require someone without sense to propose the move anew because they would get shut down pretty swiftly by those of us who are sick of arguing the point and have accepted that maintaining the status quo is less disruptive than starting a fresh argument about the Americanisation of articles and the spirit of the "first major contributor" rule. - Mark 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

If this article had originally been named yoghurt you would have a point. But since it was originally named yogurt [1] this is not about Americanisation of articles but about Britishization of articles. If there are repeated attempts to move yoghurt back to yogurt without achieving consensus, but yet the attempts keep coming, have you considered that the nonsensical position is to continue supporting leaving the article at yoghurt, and that what probably does make sense is supporting moving the article back to its original name, yogurt? Consider this (assuming stability is what you truly seek): if consensus is achieved to move the article back to its original name yogurt, what grounds would anyone have a year or two or five later to argue that the article should be at yoghurt? None. But, as long as the article remains at yoghurt, the argument can be made, and will be made, over and over, that the orginal rename from yogurt to yoghurt was unfair and contrary to WP naming policy, conventions and guidelines (not to mention that the yogurt spelling is used in Great Britain but the yoghurt spelling is virtually unheard of in the States), and, so, the article should be moved back to yogurt.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that since this article was originally at yogurt, and because by every reasonable measure yogurt is the more commonly used name, people will justifiably seek to have this article moved back to yogurt, until it is moved back, or forever, whichever comes first. Mark. My. Words. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting aside all rationalizations and posturing in support of a given perspective, what Born2cycle states here is the social mechanic that is at play- and should be accorded appropriate (primary?) consideration when determining the naming convention.Mavigogun (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the main point I was making was that, contrary to Derek Ross' point, someone would not have to lack sense in order to propose that this article be moved back to its original title at Yogurt.

For those who may not know, Derek is the one who originally moved this article from Yogurt. He did make a note at the time on the talk page, but there was no discussion about it, and apparently no one even noticed until a month or two later. But that hardly establishes consensus for the move, and we've established many times since then that while there is no clear consensus to restore the original, there has never been consensus favoring the new title either. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I still support a move back to Yogurt. Dscarth (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I've moved back to Yogurt. 16.6 million hits vs only 4 million for Yoghurt. –xeno^talk 04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

pH

whats the ph (range) of yughurt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chendy (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

From the National Center for Home Food Preservation - Fermenting Yogurt at Home: "We inoculated our entire batch of milk ... Our yogurt reached pH 4.7 in approx. four hours, pH 4.6 in approx. five hours and pH 4.5 in approx. six hours." --4wajzkd02 (talk) 20:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Don't know if this has been raised before but I think it maybe better to merge Frozen yoghurt to the the Yoghurt page although the Frozen yoghurt has enough references/notability to stand on its own I believe it may flow better if it it was incorporated into this article. I don't think the article is too long to merge either. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge I think the yoghurt article is long enough, and if we merge in all the other yoghurt-related articles (frozen yoghurt, strained yoghurt, lassi, etc.) it will be much too long. --Macrakis (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to list Frozen yoghurt in the Varieties section rather than the See also? A more informative heading and a better list of varieties, it seems to me. Should I? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Frozen yoghurt isn't a "variety" of yoghurt -- it is a dish prepared with yoghurt, just like tzatziki, lassi, Azerbaijani yoghurt soup (yogurtlu aash), etc. They should be listed together somewhere, perhaps near the top of the article. --Macrakis (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, but with Tarator, Ayran, Lassi, and Yop on the list, I read "variety" to include such.

But again, I can also see those in a seperate list, also including Frozen yoghurt.

And then, why is Kefir on the list of varieties? The fermentation of Kefir is not by bacteria only, so it is not even a yoghurt, is it? And if by some definition it is, is also Blaand and/or Cheese?

Hmmm ...— the Sidhekin (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm planning on removing the merge tag unless someone believes there is some merit on merging? Although I personally thought the flow maybe improved with a merge I also don't think it is such a big deal and am not going to make a huge fuse over such a minor merge. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Correcting one word

The following sentence has been changed:

"The use of yoghurt by ancient Turks is recorded in the books..."

to

"The use of yoghurt by medieval Turks is recorded in the books..."

because ancient implies an era from 30th century BC and finished 5th century AD (with the fall of the western roman empire) while in the sentence it talks for the period of 11th century AD and that's 5-6 centuries after the end of anything ancient! A.Cython (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Culture

The section on culture states that yogurt is not pasteurized. While it is true that the yogurt is not re-pasteurized after culture fermentation, the source milk is pasteurized beforehand. See http://www.aboutyogurt.com/lacYogurt/facts.asp#q3 24.243.128.189 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Patalingus

I do not believe that this section is a necessary part of the article. I think that it does not contribute to the knowledge of yogurt and is simply inappropriate. Furthermore, the picture is even more inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.142.211 (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Addition of fruit jam

"Yoghurt with added fruit jam was invented to protect yoghurt from decay."

Does the addition o fruit jam protect the yoghurt from decay or deos the sugar protect the fruit from decay. 78.151.174.92 (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the use of fruit jam, versus the use of sliced or crushed fruit, increases storage time due to the preservatives in the jam. By comparison, raw fruit (particularly berries) often have yeasts/fungus in the folds of the fruit, which leads to spoilage of the yogurt/fruit mix. I'm looking for a citation on this point, and then will slightly rewrite that part of the article. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarator vs Cacik

I am under the impression that variations of this kind of food are named Tarator in Bulgaria, Albania, and central Balkans, Cacik in Turkey, and Tzatziki in Greece. I don't think that Cacik is an alternative name of Tarator. Yet the article currently says "Tarator (or Cacik)" suggesting that both names refer to exactly the same food (or maybe it means both Tarator and Cacik, it which case the wording should be something like "Both Tarator and Cacik"). Of course my knowledge on this food is limited, so I would like to hear from other more knowledgeable people whether Cacik is truly an alternative name of Tarator, and whether you think we should change the wording in the article. NerdyNSK (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, to my knowledge they are very similar, probably just regional variations. Even from looking at the articles, one can see that they are almost the same. Basically, you would be served Cacık in Turkey, but not Tarator, and in Albania et al. you would be served Tarator but not Cacık. I have reworded the passage in the article. BalkanFever 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is true that all of these foods are just regional variations (which could be explained in the article if we can find references), with only slight or even no differences, maybe being derived from the same source, but they do have different names on each locality. Great re-wording, thanks! NerdyNSK (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

you can find tarator in turkey with the name tarator, cacık is yoghurt + especially cocumber +water Girayhan (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Word Cacik (Bulgarian - Катък) is used for two products. First type is youghurt created when white cheese is used for milk fermentation. It's used in the past. Now Cacik is type of appetiser or salad made with strained yoghurt, white cheese, bell peppers and spices. Tarator is soup with water, youghurt, cocumber, oil (or olive oil), dill, salt and sometimes with nuts. Don't mess them.--Gandalfbg (talk) 08:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're terribly wrong about the usage of Cacik (катък) in Bulgaria. I've never seen a salad made with strained yoghurt, bell peppers (or cucumbers) to be called "катък". -- Nedyalko Radev —Preceding undated comment added 08:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC).

Pronunciation

This section seems a bit simplistic, e.g. the long "o" is predominant but not exclusive in the U.S. so I've amended that. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

bacteria in yogurt is killed by metal, requires use of glass for fermentation

You will have to put the following into your own words but this is what needs to be edited and why.

In the "Homemade" section
Bacteria in yogurt is killed by metal, requires use of glass for fermentation, this is true of many fermented foods. -- To an Editor: This is known but you will have to decide what citation you want to use for it.

Add the requirement of non-metal containers (ie plastic or glass), also you may add that it can be made in a dehydrator that has a low enough setting.

People that know how to ferment can catch this and because current speculation about the "possible" correlation that aluminum may have on internal probiotics and the ("2nd brain") enteric neural / nervous system, this will be caught, especially by those researching from that angle.

DreamWeaver (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all utter nonsense. Fellow editors, please ignore. --macrakis (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

strange font face

there's some strange fonting in certain parts of this article... stuff spaced out too much, etc. anyone know why? –xeno (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Yogurt.jpg

The image File:Yogurt.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

yonitattva and origin of dahi-yogurt

In an archeology book I read about 8 years ago yogurt creation was attributed to a juice (yonitattva/texts about this practice) from the semen of the yoni during yoni puja (yoni worship)(more yoni worship) being added to milk and allowed to ferment thus creating a holy food. The text mentioned this along with the usefulness of douching with yogurt to restore the natural balance of the vagina because the yogurt was created from the bacteria of a healthy vagina. I can not find the text online nor the public library. I suppose a trip to Washington University of St. Louis library might turn up the text. Hopefully someone else has found this sourced in their research? Alatari (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

An article about the Harrapans suggest yogurt came from their period starting with their domestication of cattle from 7000bce. No mention of religious practices and the 'holiness' of yogurt. Started search through Google Scholar for clues. Alatari (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

history of fermented foods doesn't go back far enough. Alatari (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

tells of a twig used as a starter but doesn't name the plant Alatari (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Recent move

Xeno's move, without discussion, in an article that has a history as contentious as this one, is disruptive and contravenes one of the principles oput forward in a recent arbcomm case. Since the article was stable at the BE spelling for the last few years, can we just move this back and avoid the fuss? Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I found some compelling arguments at Talk:Yogurt#Yoghurt? to justify making this move, but I'm not particularly fussed either way. –xeno^talk 05:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

And what part of that argument did you find compelling? The rationale you used in your edit summary was that it was "most common". Well, current policy does not accept that as a reason for switching between AE and BE spelling, and a recent arbcomm case has described actions like this as "inappropriate". In addition, the issue has been discussed in the past here, and while consensus can change, no move request was made. So - policy says "either is valid", consensus says "leave it here", the arbcomm says "moves like this are inappropriate"... So why move it? Guettarda (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because there was substantial reasons to move it - a) it was originally started as Yogurt b) it's an international subject so BE vs. AmE doesn't really help and c) there are four times as many references to "Yogurt" as there are to "Yoghurt". But again, if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead and move it back, but I don't feel the arbcom principle justifies it. –xeno^talk 06:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

(a)Yes, it was originally started at "yogurt", but it has been at "yoghurt" for the last 4+ years. Its move to yoghurt predates the development of rules regarding issues like this, so that argument doesn't have much weight; (b) it's only in the case of international subjects that spelling debates matter, so I don't see your point; (c) the frequency of one spelling over another isn't a valid argument when it comes to issues like this in which policy permits either spelling, and (d) it's precisely issues that this that the arbcomm is talking about, and it's precisely about issues like this that they have ruled in the past (e.g., the two (iirc) Jguk cases related to BC/BCE/AD/CE). If you believe there's a case to move it, put together a proper move discussion. Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm don't think we need to worry about everything arbcom has ever said before making editorial decisions in good faith. Your rallying cry is unhelpful here. –xeno^talk

Let's see...you chose to act against consensus (several past move discussions have supported leaving the article here), policy (which allows different varieties of English) and a recent arbcomm decision (which describes actions like yours as "inappropriate"), but my pointing that out is "unhelpful"? Interesting. And "rallying cry"? Care to explain what you mean by that? Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom rulings cannot (and should not) be gathered together to create a Wikipedia rulebook. If yoghurt ever goes before arbcom (heh) they can tell us how they feel their e.g. in "date delinking" applies to this case. I still think there were substantial reasons for the change, so I don't think the principle holds nor do I find it worthwhile even bringing it up. Bold is the first step in establishing new consensus. After you raised a concern, I invited you to revert. And here we are discussing.

The article was originally created as "yogurt" and there was significant opposition to the unilateral move to "yoghurt" way back when. As for the past move discussions - I don't really see that there ever has been a consensus reached, more like "no consensus" every time - so doesn't that mean the original title should be restored? Just because the less common spelling has been held on to so strongly over the years doesn't mean we shouldn't apply our newer, better rules ex post facto and restore the status quo.

Personally, I don't care about the end location of this article - that's just how I see it. Please visit my talk page if you want to discuss the meta-concerns further. –xeno^talk 03:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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 page not moved. There is not enough consensus over the idea of Google tests overriding the regional variant ceasefire. I think this idea should be discussed at a larger scale. Of course, the page name debate for this article can be revisited a while from now, when there may be more consensus over whether or not this article title should have an 'h' in it. —harej (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

---

Yoghurt → Yogurt — To restore the status quo that existed before it was moved to the less common spelling. –xeno^talk 06:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - the article was moved over four years ago, and has been stable at this spelling for several years. Policy and common usage permit the existence of multiple variants of English as long as there is consistency within articles. Back when the article was moved, the rules about moving between different spellings were still fairly flexible. When this became a problem, the community and the arbcomm developed firmer rules. At this point in time, switching between different accepted variants "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". The mere fact that one spelling gets more Google hits than another isn't "some substantial reason". To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet come up with a way to determine the level at which a difference in Google hits indicates a "significant difference" usage in English. Not to mention "American spellings are more common than English spellings" isn't, and has never been, an acceptable reason for switching from one spelling to the other. Guettarda (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Move this spelling is ridiculous. Nobody uses it in the real world. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose. No reason to move arbitrarily to another regional English title. --DAJF (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per what Guettarda said. Although "yogurt" might be slightly more common, both terms, "Yogurt" and "Yoghurt", are generally equal in their prevalence worldwide. The article has kept the same title for years, and although the length of something's existence is not a determining factor, there is no compelling reason why we should switch to another nationality's term when this is not a clear case. Jamie^☆S93 15:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - we don't need to be messing around w/ regional varieties of English. It's fine where it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

  I'm surprised to be saying it, but I'm convinced. Enough factors are aligned in the "no h" direction, that I think moving this page will actually be in the interest of stability.

  If this move goes through, let's remain alert to potential use of this case as precedent in order to change more regional variations into the numerically dominant version. As a general policy, that would be greatly at odds with NPOV, and problematic in other ways as well. This case is a bit of an outlier. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Can anyone point to a valid spelling (preferred spelling) in a regional language as yoghurt? Firefox spellchecker uses it for UK, but apparently that is incorrect, and allows both (plus yogourt) for Canada. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Have you checked the archives? There are tens of thousands of words already written on this question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • And all of them say this spelling is obscure and weird. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
      • Ok, until someone provides a link that states otherwise I can accept that. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Schmucky is wildly misrepresenting the archives. Obviously the discussions that led us to keeping the article at the current title amounted to more than "this spelling is obscure and weird". Schmucky insults you to expect you to believe such tripe. Schmucky - please. We both know you're cleverer than that.

          Replying to 199.125.109.99, I think the argument for not messing around w/ regional varieties of English is hashed out pretty thoroughly in Archive 4. Look for the conversation beginning with "GTBacchus, I don't know what your argument is." It's a bit long-winded, but I think it's pretty clear if you read it.

          It boils down to: The Regional-varieties-of-English Ceasefire is a Good Thing. It's like the Date Formats Ceasefire, that says "don't go changing "BC" to "BCE" or vice-versa. Leave such things alone. Leave "honour" at "honour" even if you think you can make a good case for "honor". Don't spend your time building such cases.

          That's good policy, and we shouldn't look for ways to pick at it. Race each other to see who can stop caring about it first, instead. Then you're following the spirit of the ceasefire.

          Or, more briefly, "this spelling is obscure and weird". -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

          • Ok, so you agree that the spelling is obscure and weird. Do you agree that policy states that the first national version of an article prevails? By the way, that is not always the case, for example theater and theatre have flip flopped for reasons other than original sin. Bottom line though, is that yoghurt is not even recognizable to most people, so I am quite content to use the original spelling of yogurt. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I only just saw this reply. I thought it would be obvious that I don't agree with the "obscure and weird" remark. I certainly don't agree that "policy states" anything other than what one of us wrote down one day. Nothing about what "policy" says about this case is sacred - I don't even read the stuff. It rots your brain, you know.

              Policy is this: "Write a good encyclopedia. Decide what that means by consensus. Use a wiki."

              I find the claim that "yoghurt is not even recognizable to most people" to be bizarre. I think any English speaker familiar with "yogurt" would recognize the h-version as another way to spell the same word. Are we going to be lost in the supermarkets, unable to locate any yogurt among the stacks of "yoghurt", whatever that could possibly mean? We're humans, not poorly written OCR software. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support since the original article was created at "Yogurt" and per the policy on varieties of English, that is where the article should be. The original move was the one that was against policy and this move simply corrects that oversight. --Polaron | Talk 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • This view is profoundly anachronistic, and calling this a "policy" is misleading. The idea that Wikipedia does not endorse one regional variety of English over another has been there almost from the start, but the first injunction against switching between different styles "optional styles" only dates (to the best of my knowledge) to the Jguk arbcomm case and was accepted by the arbcomm on June 30, 2005, after this article was moved to "yoghurt". More importantly, the article included a mixed spelling style since January March 2002 (less than a three months after it was originally created) and "yoghurt" was used in the lead since early 2003. The mixed spelling style was standardised (to yoghurt) in late 2003, and has pretty much remained that way since. All of this predates the arbcomm ruling that calls it "inappropriate" to move from one spelling to another. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • The history of this article is really messy (it includes moved to Joghourt and Yoghurt. and Yogurt.) but after restoring deleted revisions, the oldest move that I can find is this one, a cut-and-paste move from yoghurt to yogurt by User:Marcus2 on May 7, 2005. As far as I can tell, the oft-made assertion that this article was originally at "yogurt" is something of an urban legend, and is not supported by the page history. (Granted, it's an honest mistake, since parts of the history were deleted) Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually disregard that last comment of mine. I knew that the current way of recording page moves in the article history wasn't an original feature, but I didn't realise that they weren't recorded at all in the article history. Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
      • The earliest version of the article that I can find, in 2002,[1] clearly uses "yogurt", regardless of how the page name may have been misspelled. The first yoghurt spelling I can find was introduced in March of the following year.[2] 199.125.109.99 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
        • But if someone wants to make an argument based on where the page was originally, the only thing that matters is where the page was originally. But that argument is both anachronistic and wikilawyering. As Derek Ross said somewhere in the archives - you can't complain about something being done "against the rules" if it was done before those rules existed. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the "policy" that Polaron is talking about doesn't exist. Guettarda (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
          • There are two questions here, while the article in 2002 clearly used the word "yogurt" 21 times, what was the article named, and two, if it was named "yoghurt" do you revert to the first use going by how it was spelled 21 times or how it was spelled 1 time. It seems that in March of 2003 the article may have been renamed at the same time that the alternate spelling was introduced, and in the years since some bizarre explanations have been posited to justify that alternate spelling, all of which in my opinion should be rejected. And yes RM does exist to fix "hypothetical" mistakes whenever they occurred, even if they occurred centuries ago. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Is it necessary to point out that RM has existed for less than five years? However, the position that Wikipedia exists to fix the mistakes of centuries-old history is the fundamental doctrine of all of our nationalist factions. Rather than lend any comfort to them, I will upgrade my !vote, immediately below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
              • My point about centuries, is let's say that someone has among the two million articles, created one called Septentrionalis, but they spelled it Sepptentrionalis, and no one noticed that for three hundred years, and take your pick, in the article they spelled it right/wrong. I am saying that whatever guidelines WP has in place then affect all articles, even ones that are three hundred years old, and that no one dusts off a three hundred year old copy of the WP guidelines and says, ah but back then we always spelled i before e except after c, or whatever, and so we have to preserve that article about stardrives, or whatever it is about, at Sepptentrionalis, just because three hundred years ago it would have been done that way, and we can never fix the misspelling to move it to Septentrionalis. What I am saying, is that WP:RM exists to fix problems where ever and when ever they occur. 199.125.109.102 (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Long stable here, which is what policy actually prefers. RM does not exist to fix hypothetical mistakes from 2003. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose : why fix something that isn't broken? +mt 17:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As judged by the constant question about this weird spelling, it is broken. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The spelling is not debatable, since there are many spelling variations. It is spelled correctly. It is easiest for us to keep as is. +mt 04:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not this again. older ≠ wiser 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Care to give a reason? Admins generally ignore comments like yours since you haven't given a reason. TJ Spyke 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Read the archives. I don't see that anything substantial has changed. older ≠ wiser 03:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • TJ, speaking as an admin who closes a lot of moves (though obviously not this one), I see this opinion from Bkonrad, and I think, "better read the archives; this guy tends to make well-reasoned arguments." We don't simple-mindedly ignore established editors with good reputations, who indicate familiarity w/ the history, by saying, "not this again". -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support. Yoghurt isn't even the british spelling as far as I'm concerned, the Oxford English Dictionary lists "Yogurt" as the primary variant. This should have been moved back *years* ago, when the first discussion took place. Ridiculous to leave it be. -Dscarth (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support By far the more common spelling and what the article was originally known as. TJ Spyke 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support The original page spelling has been destroyed by various moves/deletions on the 'yogurt' article history but the very first article incarnation spelled it 'yogurt' throughout. Since the English language arguments are a wash, google searche counts are ignored and so are the spellings in other language wikipedias then we fall on the original spelling. Lock the Yoghurt page permanently after the move. Alatari (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• very weak Oppose The usage is common for both spellings and the internal spelling is 'yoghurt' and I've come around to the understanding of WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English. This argument seems unnecessary to me now and a waste of time considering WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English. Understand that I am also supporting the 'enemy' because I'm a strong believer in simplification of the English language to fonetik (:p) spellings only and eliminating tradition. Chang 'caught' to 'cawt' IMO. Alatari (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't believe that the argument that it started as Yogurt is relevent here: the MOS rule may not date back to 2002, 'Yoghurt' first appears in the article in a March 2003 edit (ten edits into the history), the spelling was standardised to Yoghurt that December (around 30 edits in), it wasn't reverted to 'yogurt' until the next September (ironically by some one named Neutrality), and was then reverted and left until the next May. Over the span of a full year, a consensus appears to have been established here. To my knowledge (as I refuse to go through 2005-2009 tonight, sorry) it's been maintained ever since. - BalthCat (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

First, yoghurt isn't the most common spelling (See: Google searches, which I realize aren't scientific, but they are a good informal polling as far as I'm concerned)... plus "Yogurt" is the primary entry of both Merriam-Webster (US) and the Oxford English Dictionary (UK) and "Yoghurt" is classified as a variant. This isn't a AmE vs BE issue, this is a stupid "h" issue. Furthermore, there was no consensus then either, I've been at this for years. -Dscarth (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: As per WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English: No variety is better than any other. Internal consistency has been maintained. There are no strong national ties to the topic. Retaining the existing variety is preferred. There is no alternate common word, only a more prevalent spelling. The ArbCom statement only reinforces the MOS (dating back at least to 2007) Regardless of the google hit prevalence of "Color" or "Realize", the MOS does not support changing the spelling of "Colour" or "Realise" unless there is a national tie. There is none in this case. (Besides: site:.uk, site:.au, site:.ie additions to the google string actually reverse the results, dramatically from .ie sites.) I'm sorry to say that I'm irked. It looks to me like xeno went ahead and changed the spelling with insufficient cause (google results) despite a specific MOS preference for maintaining status quo. It doesn't help that his description for this move request essentially dismisses four years of consensus. I am having a hard time not seeing it as flagrantly dismissing the concerns of another admin AND years of consensus in the archives. - BalthCat (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't dismiss his concerns, nor did I ignore consensus in the archives - since consensus does not exist therein. –xeno^talk 12:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"...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." (User:Bkonrad, October 2006) The majority of support for the move is based on two things: either the irrelevant argument that one usage is predominant, or that article creation trumps all. More specifically, that article creation trumps peaceful article evolution. Do you really think it's sensible that some one can come along (let's say) ten years later, and say that because an article was moved from AE to BE (or other) in the archives the entire article must be rewritten? It's pretty dangerous to let this technicality rule. Are you really supporting less than three months of (early Wikipedia) article time as justification to dismiss six YEARS of established use? The more I read the archives, the more I want to retract my weak support below. - BalthCat (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• However...: At the moment I believe that this may be an appropriate time to consider breaking the rules. This article has been moved, nominated for move, complained about, edited to change all the spellings, etc. countless times in the past few years. Frankly, I'd like to take it off of my watchlist. Perhaps, since 'yogurt' does appear to be most prevalent, it may be worthwhile looking into going against the MOS in this particular case. To save us all time and headaches. But that needs to be the context of the discussion, rather than "It started as Yogurt" or "It's just more popular!" I think we really need to phrase this in terms of "Is this worth the aggravation". Maybe that's me giving up on standards or principles. So be it. I have weak support for going against the MOS and burying this FIVE year old battle. (Not that I've been in it the whole time...) - BalthCat (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That would be more convincing if there were any reason to believe this would end it. But there isn't; people who write "yoghurt" will come along in a few weeks or months, and protest that this was done "against the rules" - and they will be right. For what it's worth, I write "yogurt"; I'm writing for the enemy here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If you read the archives, and this debate itself, it is never argued that "yoghurt" is a correct spelling. There is no large contingent of editors making the case for "yoghurt" The only argument ever brought to bear against this move is "this is the status quo location." This is a WP:ZOMBIE argument. It is arguing for an outcome that nobody actually wants because of several years of procedural wank. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
      • Then I will supply that alleged omission myself; of course it's a correct spelling, as the Oxford English Dictionary attests - so is yoghourt, which the OED cites from Waugh and from the Sunday Times. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • That would be because it essentially goes without saying that yoghurt is a correct spelling. And yes, BOTH sides are relying on "procedural wank". One side likes the predominant spelling of 'yogurt' and wants to impose it based on a 2.5 month head-start technicality in the MOS. The other side doesn't like an MOS argument that relies on ignoring a line higher up (order-wise) in the MOS (and/or objects to the "most used" argument on principle) and is relying on lack of consensus to change and established usage (since 2003) to resist. - BalthCat (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
    • PMAnderson, if this proposal succeeds then, say, six months from now, you think someone is likely to propose a move back to yoghurt on the grounds that this move was made "against the rules"? Such an argument is weak since this current proposed move is justified on many other grounds too - including most commonly used name, original usage in this article and that the current spelling is not the most common spelling even in the U.K. It's no guarantee, but I think there is plenty of reason to believe this move will end it. There is, however, no reason to believe that this proposal failing will end it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, there are provincial speakers of British English, who will use this as an excuse to get what they're used to; they show up on other articles. This article is useful in persuading those subject to reason that we do not endorse mindless employment of American English; one reason to keep it as it is. (It would be helpful if its talk page had less mindless endorsement of American English on it.) Those who are not subject to reason can only be dealt with by declining to reward their behavior.
      • The analogy with provinicial speakers of American English may be too obvious to draw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Dear closing admin, as long as this article remains at Yoghurt there will be good reasons to move it (from original usage in this article, to most common usage, to the "stupid h" argument), and proposals will continue to be made accordingly. Once this article is moved to Yogurt there will no longer be any justification to move it. Disagree? Say this proposal succeeds... six months from now, what would a justification be to move it back to yoghurt? I can think of none. And PMAnderson's concern about this move not ending the debate can be addressed in your closing comments, if you explain exactly how this move does not break the rules (at worst it's an exception to WP:MOS, a guideline, not a policy; but arguably it's not even an exception to that). In the name of true stability, please approve this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Your argument makes sense, to an extent. The fact that you can think of no reason to move it back, though, does not begin to convince me that nobody else will. I've been here too long to believe that. What convinces me that we should leave it here is stability is a larger scale than you might be talking about.

    There's a principle that we apply to a lot of style conflicts here, and it boils down to a "ceasefire". Because we're not going to convince everyone to spell words the same way, and because time spent arguing about how we spell words is not time well-spent, we reached an agreement long ago to just not mess around with them. This applied originally to British versus American spellings, for words such as honour and color. It was later extended to apply to formatting of historical dates: the "BC"/"AD" system versus the "BCE"/"CE" system.

    The ceasefire is good policy because it ensure stability across the project. If we start going back into the histories of articles and trying to decide which was used first, or if we start trying to decide which style is more common for each topic... then little fires break out all over Wikipedia. "If they moved "yogurt" after so long, why not move "honor", too? Why not standardize to American spellings project-wide?" (Note: I'm American)

    That's the argument for "leaving well enough alone", and if we were able to learn it for honor/honour and for BC/BCE, then we can learn it here, too. I don't think it's the most compelling argument in the world, but I find it more convincing than the other one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• I see your point and agree it can and should apply in many similar cases. But I think there can and should be exceptions, for good reason, and I believe this is one of them.

  It is true that just me not being able to think of a good reason to move this article back to yoghurt from yogurt is irrelevant - but my point is that nobody has been able to provide a justification for such a move, not in this discussion, nor in any of the previous ones. While that does not guarantee no such justification will surface, given that there has been so much discussion and it hasn't yet surfaced does strongly indicate that it probably won't, ever.
  I think the fact that this article was originally at yogurt is very significant, perhaps not unique, but limits the scope of potential copy cat cases drastically from the potentials alluded to.
  No one, AFAIK, has argued or even implied that this article should be changed because all articles with BE titles should be changed to AE, and I just don't see how this move would provide basis for such an argument.
  Finally, given how many times this move has been proposed (which also differentiates it from almost all other situations), I think it's time to give yogurt a shot as a solution to ending the strife, once and for all. It is almost certain that this proposal will be made again, sooner or later, if it does not succeed this time.
  For those who are genuinely interested in stability and ending this debate, it is time to give yogurt a chance. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• An additional point, GTBacchus, is that naming policy clearly states, "you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result". Since the Google test result (see below) is strongly in favor of the no-h variant, that means anyone in the future proposing a change back to yoghurt is not only going to have to present an argument, it will have to be one that "strongly goes against" these Google results. I just don't see how anyone will be able to meet that hurdle. It is time to give this article a chance at yogurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• You may be right. I don't like the idea of setting a precedent that Google tests may supersede the regional variant ceasefire. I realize that Wikipedia doesn't run on precedent, but we all know that it's a force at work. The entire reason for my opposing the move is that we should learn not to care about it, and that is still a very strong reason for me. However, unless I'm in a position to actually convince people not to care about it, the solution is a non-starter. The ideal solution would be that people just realize that the 'h' is not hurting anyone, that it does no harm, and that lobbying to remove it is a terrible use of our time on Earth. Despite all the Google tests in the world, nobody advocating for the more common spelling has indicated that anything is at stake other than their own comfort level with the presence or absence of an 'h'. I think that moving pages for no good reason is a Bad Idea, and I don't accept "we'll hold this issue hostage until we get our 'h'-less yogurt" as a good reason. I don't think that's anyone's intention, but it sure is the result. Can you tell me what is worse about a world in which we keep the 'h', that doesn't boil down to, "because we'll keep clamoring until it's done"? If that's all there is... is that really something we want to capitulate to? Is this a principle that's worth taking a stand for? Why is it worth it to those who want the change. That's my most serious question: why is it worth it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I actually agree with everything you say here, GTBacchus. Where I do disagree with you, apparently, is whether this argument applies to this article and to this proposal. If yogurt was not an acceptable correct spelling in all English speaking areas, including the UK and Australia, then the argument would apply. But since yogurt is an accepted correct spelling in all English speaking areas, the "regional variant ceasefire" argument doesn't apply, because, although the current name, yoghurt is a regional variant, the proposed name, yogurt is not a regional variant. That's the whole point here. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• You argue

your point well. I'm going to sleep on it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

B2C. some clarification. Above you say—naming policy clearly states, "you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result"—but I can fin d no such text in the linked naming convention page. Where is that being quoted from? older ≠ wiser 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The current, perfectly good, spelling has been stable here for a long time, and pace SchmuckyTheCat, is in fact common in some English-speaking parts of the Web (and perhaps of the world...): Google search [site:uk yoghurt] (334k) vs. [site:uk yogurt] (172k) etc. Too much time on WP is spent on silliness like this.... --macrakis (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• The fact that the no-h variant is more than half as frequent as the h variant on UK sites (the ratio is merely 1:1.8) supports the argument that this is not a British vs. American variant issue at all, but, rather, a most commonly used name determination. In contrast, the no-h variant is 7 times more frequently used on .com sites than is the h variant (7:1). On .org sites the ratio is about 6:1 in favor of no-h, and on .edu it is 11:1. While the ratio on Australian sites (.au) is 1:3 in favor of the h variant, on Canadian (.ca) sites it's 8.5:1 in favor of the no-h variant:

Results 1 - 10 of about 348,000 for site:uk yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 189,000 for site:uk yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,900,000 for site:com yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,850,000 for site:com yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030,000 for site:org yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 172,000 for site:org yoghurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,800 for site:edu yoghurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000 for site:edu yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 74,700 for site:au yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 233,000 for site:au yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for site:ca yogurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 18,900 for site:ca yoghurt.

Again, these WP:GOOGLE results clearly show that the application of the WP:MOS mere guidelines (not policy) here as if this is a locality spelling issue is largely a red herring. That is, while in some localities the h variant is more commonly used than is the no-h variant, the no-h variant is widely (relatively speaking) used in those places too, but in other places the h variant is relatively unused as compared to the no-h variant. This is a simple case of most commonly used and even most easily recognized, and the no-h variant is easily favored by both of these naming policy criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Not one person I have seen in the archives of almost five years has said that 'yoghurt' is the majority spelling. Google all you want, but you only need ONE location with a prevalence of a spelling in order to trigger locality issues. You've just proven .uk, .au and above I showed a significant increase in .ie. We can all google if we need to, but it won't help us in this argument. - BalthCat (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not about majority spelling. The issue is about whether there exists a spelling that is universally used and accepted as correct in the English speaking world. Ireland appears to be a unique anomaly with respect to yogurt fitting that bill, but yoghurt does not even come close. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, as note above, this is a valid spelling and has long been the spelling of the article. Pahari Sahib 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, as both seem to be correct, there will be a next move of undoing the renaming etc etc. I think it is well described in the article where what is being used and that both versions are correct. Renaming is unnecessary and does not solve the problem. Or rename it to Yogurt/Yoghurt (but maybe we get a motion to rename that into Yoghurt/Yogurt....) :-)) Knorrepoes (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support - (All the Yogurt I've ever eaten has not featured an H in it.) -TamaDrumz76 (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Support the article has never been stable at the current spelling. the "Yogurt" spelling has the advantage of no reasonable justification for further move proposals or discussion. The current yoghurt spelling is and always shall be an unstable open wound on wikipedia. The article will have a much better chance of achieving stability under "Yogurt". Zebulin (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Support based on the contents of the first version of the article. Clearly yogurt was used throuhout the article so that should be the basis for the article name. The fact that the article name was different is more an indication of a typo or other issue. Clearly the intended name was yogurt. If the closing admin needs a tie breaker, consider the etymology used in explaining the history of the word as coming from the Turkish yoğurt.Merriam-Webster Online - Yogurt entry Add to that the summary below that shows yogurt even being primary in the OED! Even if you could argue that at one time it belonged at a different spelling, the current state of the entry in the OED clearly tilts the playing field to not using the H. I'll also take issue with thet claim that the spelling has been stable. If it was, then explain all of the page moves and the extensive discussion? Let's rename to the spirit of the first version which probably means we follow the MoS, just a different section then being used to argue keeping at the current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The Turkish alphabet does not map perfectly to the version of the Roman alphabet used in English. The Turkish "ğ" is sensibly rendered as "gh" in many English transliterations, so I would not call that etymology a tie-breaker. As far as I am concerned, the various spellings are equally useful, and this whole discussion amounts to a tempest in a teapot. __Just plain Bill (talk) 20:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I've read through the various points and comparisons and agree that the no-h version is more prevalent. I also think if the article started out at the no-h version, it should be returned to it - If the national English variations policy (guideline, however it is parsed) wasn't in place when it was moved, it is now and we should follow it. Also, English is a living language, spellings change over time. It appears the h version is going the way "ye olde country shoppe". --Jeremy (blah blah) 10:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support I never see it with an h. Ostap 00:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• Support --4wajzkd02 (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
• It really doesn't matter either way. Knepflerle (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2009 (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.

Discussion

At a brief glance, it seems like it's mostly the same people hanging onto the "h" over the years, but lots of new faces piling on to support moving it to the more common spelling. It might be a useful exercise if someone had the time to generate a list of all the folks in the history who a) support yogurt b) support yoghurt and c) support no change due to the status quo. (Of course, most b) folks use c) as an argument to hold on to their preferred spelling, but c'est la vie). –xeno^talk 15:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I went into this one on the side of inertia, and came out no longer on a side. I just like when there's fruit in the bottom of the cup. And granola on top. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

General

Is one of the present supporters planning to suggest this again in a few months? If not, I see no reason to expect a continuous stream of protests; most people will accept "we use both British and American English". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Yogurt" is British and American english. "Yoghurt" is a bastardized spelling. And for the record I've been at it for years. -Dscarth (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bastardised? Uh, not to be cheeky, but ^{[citation needed]} - BalthCat (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the yogurt/yoghurt idea has some merit if no comprimise is reached. Alatari (talk) 03:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If this proposal fails again this time, I personally will not propose it again in a few months, but I think that since yoghurt is so widely perceived to be incorrect, it can be virtually guaranteed that someone will propose this move again, sooner or later.

The framing of this debate as if it's about "British and American English" is a red herring. This is about most common usage. While yoghurt is used somewhat more than yogurt in a few select places like the U.K. and Australia, both variants are widely used in such places. But in places like the U.S. and Canada, yoghurt is virtually unused, relatively speaking. See Google test results above. So in all places yogurt is commonly used and generally recognized while yoghurt is a specialized variant with limited usage, relatively speaking. That's the reason this title should be changed (not to mention that it is the original usage for the title and content of this article), and why the issue will be raised over and over as long as it remains at yoghurt. It is time to give yogurt a chance. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT "virtually unused, relatively speaking" in Canada. I spell it that way, and I didn't just dream it up. Pretending that Google results would correlate to population, 10% of a population is significant, and not "virutally unused". You also need to be careful in assuming that yoghurt's web presence, driven by corporations with international outlooks, isn't actively being homogenised, especially in Canada, where a tenfold larger population lies directly to our south. If you google .coms in Canada (option at google.ca) the ratio drops to 4:1. At .gc.ca the ratio drops to 3:1 with 4:1 at .agr.gc.ca. You can do lots of things with google, but proving 'yoghurt' is a fringe variant isn't one of them. BalthCat (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from that, AE/BE isn't the only locality issue. That BE generally represents a quick example of commonwealth English doesn't mean the MOS is telling Ireland to go pound sand because it's not one of the Big 2 Anglos. As I read it, it is actively saying that if both uses are valid, NO English speaking regional variant needs to be replaced. Ireland's 13.5:1 ratio in favour of yoghurt implies that this is the situation that applies. The ratio of preference in Ireland is actually higher than any other ratio you quoted, and from what I can tell it's second only to .us (20:1), showing that Ireland uses 'yoghurt' about as much as America uses 'yogurt'. Or perhaps more tellingly, Ireland only uses 'yogurt' about as much as America uses 'yoghurt' BalthCat (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm...why are you still using Google hits as if they mean something? Especially raw Google hits? The first set of numbers that Google gives you are basically meaningless - for example, if you look at the .int search for "yogurt", Google gave me 1370 (close enough to the 1400 in the table, but not identical). But if you actually go through the results, there are only 98...and that includes sites where there are multiple hits (which is often multiple versions of the same page). There's the old joke about interpreting research results "correct within an order of magnitude" mean "wrong". Well, these are off by over an order of magnitude. And ratios between results that are known to be off by an order of magnitude? You might as well be making numbers up. So, umm, why present them? And seriously - B2c is aware of the meaninglessness of GHits - I've had this conversation with him/her before. Yet s/he persists in using these deeply bogus arguments. Guettarda (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it would stands to reason that all the numbers would be off but that the ratios would probably work out basically the same. Not sure why you feel the arguments are bogus; what other easily-accessible metric should we use to determine the proper COMMONNAME ? The naming conflict policy suggests Google as one way to make this determination. –xeno^talk 14:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just updated WP:LAME's entry to reflect this current round of kvetching about yog[h]urt. --moof (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Google results table

	yogurt	yoghurt	ratio (to half)
site:edu	111,000	4,800	23:1
site:gov	70,200	1,950	36:1
site:us	158,000	7,890	20:1
site:mil	2,360	246	9.1:1
site:com	12,900,000	1,850,000	7:1
site:org	1,030,000	172,000	6:1
site:ca	161,000	18,900	8.5:1
site:hk	14,500	2,650	5.5:1
site:jm	800	197	4:1
...subsites:gc.ca (government)	5,340	1,470	3.5:1
site:sg	16,400	6,810	2.5:1
books.google.com/books.google.co.uk	5,670	2,560	2:1
site:in	16,400	8,070	2:1
site:int	1,400	2,220	1:1.5
site:za	13,200	30,300	1:2.5
site:uk	189,000	348,000	1:2
...subsites:ac.uk (academic)	2,450	4,910	1:2
...subsites:gov.ie (government)	14	34	1:2.5
site:au	74,700	233,000	1:3
...subsites:gov.uk (government)	8,610	29,100	1:3.5
...subsites:gov.au (government)	2,600	10,700	1:4
...subsites:edu.au (academic)	1,890	8,180	1:4.5
site:ie	9,460	126,000	1:13.5

Arguments supporting "Yogurt" as a preferred spelling

• The article was originally titled "Yogurt" and was edited primarily in the "Yogurt" form until this edit in 2003.
• The word "Yogurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (m-w.com), Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com), American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.com), and the Cambridge University Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org).
• The word "Yogurt" is the primary encyclopedia entry for the word in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (britannica.com) and MSN Encarta (encarta.msn.com).
• It's frozen variant also uses the "Yogurt" spelling, right here at Wikipedia.
• WP:GOOGLE results clearly show the no-h variant is more than half as frequent as the h variant on UK sites (the ratio is merely 1:1.8) supports the argument that this is not a British vs. American variant issue at all, but, rather, a most commonly used name determination. In contrast, the no-h variant is 7 times more frequently used on .com sites than is the h variant (7:1). On .org sites the ratio is about 6:1 in favor of no-h, and on .edu it is 11:1. While the ratio on Australian sites (.au) is 1:3 in favor of the h variant, on Canadian (.ca) sites it's 8.5:1 in favor of the no-h variant.
  • While in some localities the h variant is more commonly used than is the no-h variant, the no-h variant is widely (relatively speaking) used in those places too, but in other places the h variant is relatively unused as compared to the no-h variant. --- WP:Google courtesy of Born2cycle
  • Comment: Writing this off as a common name issue because it does not appear to be a clear cut US/UK issue implicitly writes off other anglophone nations (Canada, Ireland, Australia, South Africa) as trivial. I do not believe that is the intention of the national variations section of the MOS. - BalthCat (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Of the 4 countries you list, Canada also uses yogurt more prevalently than yoghurt (by a ratio of 8.5:1), while the ratios in Australia and South Africa are merely in the 1:2, 1:3 range. Only in Ireland is the h variant clearly dominant (1:13), but even there the ratio on their government sites is also only about 1:2. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of the ratios as I put them in the table myself. Everything you said there is evident in the table above. (I'm going to pretend you didn't actually bring up a sample size of 60 to make a point about Irish government spelling. I only included the line to show I checked.) It remains the case that if you ignore Ireland's firm regional variation you are essentially saying Ireland isn't important enough to matter, not like America or England. Are you prepared to say that the UK gets a chance but Ireland doesn't? - BalthCat (talk) 23:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's just say I think it's worth noting that the total number of references to yoghurt among the .ie sites is almost exactly only one percent of the total number of references to yogurt among the .com sites alone. One percent! That should matter. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it is, according to the MOS on National Variations. BalthCat (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe common sense needs to be applied when interpreting all WP guidelines, including the MOS. When there are two choices, and one of them is almost universally accepted, while the other is not even close, it doesn't make sense to favor the latter over the former. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe that is exactly what the MOS is saying: That there is no reason to change national variations to another variation regardless of its prevalence, unless there is a national bias in the article. If some one with more experience in the creation and interpretation of the national variations section would like to correct me, I'm open to that. As I see it now, it is intended to PRESERVE national variations in order to prevent linguistic hegemony. - BalthCat (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• "Yogurt" is also the simplest spelling and all other spellings can be derived from it. "Yogourt" (Canadian spelling) cannot be expanded from "Yoghurt". –xeno^talk 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Simple spelling" is not the goal of Wikipedia, or the English language. If it were, we'd be using something like Shavian rather than making jokes about the spelling of ghoti. I don't believe anyone has come to yoghurt and been clueless as to the article's content, but rather more likely been mildly confused (or vexed) when faced with a variant spelling. - BalthCat (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Per WP:MOS, "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.". The word yogurt is commonly used in all but one variety of English, while yoghurt is commonly used in only a few. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments supporting "Yogurt" on other merits

Comment: I have taken the liberty of moving these comments to another heading. It says below that there are no arguments demonstrating yoghurt's superiority, only reasons to leave it as it is. Fine, but these two comments don't demonstrate yogurt's superiority either, and rather rely on it. As such I feel they are not in the vein as the other arguments. I would not get snitty over a revert. - BalthCat (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. Similarly, I created a section for arguments favoring yoghurt on spelling merits. Its emptiness speaks for itself. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Because of all of the above, this move will continue to be proposed, sooner or later, over and over, as long as this article remains at yoghurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Because of the dearth of arguments in favor of yoghurt being the preferred spelling (the only argument presented is simply against change, not in favor of yoghurt over yogurt per se), if the article is moved to yogurt it will be stable there for there will be no reason with which to argue it should be moved to yoghurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments Supporting "Yoghurt" as a preferred spelling

• The usage ratio of the h variant over no-h in Ireland is 13.5:1, 3:1 from .au, 2.5:1 on .za sites, and 2:1 on .UK sites. As such, for individuals from these countries it is expected that the h variant is preferred usage. - BalthCat (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: What does the apparent increase in usage by government and academia on non-US (.ca, .uk, .au, .za, excluding .ie's small sample of 33:14 for gov) national TLDs imply, if anything? - BalthCat (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Beats me, but it should be noted that on U.S. government sites the ratio is 36:1 in favor of yogurt, so whatever significance might be gleaned by the apparent increase in usage of the h variant by the government sites in non-US countries, it pales in comparison. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

American TLDs, composed entirely (or almost) of American organisations and the American government (unlike the wide open org/com/net - which we forgot) are even more American in their usage? You keep adding new countries... but no one is contesting that "yoghurt" is used more often. That's not one of the arguments I've made below. You can relax and stop googling. I also googled .in, Google Books, and Google Scholar, but decided that the list was long enough. There's obviously no hidden trove of google hits that will unlock 13 million hits for yoghurt :P (It doesn't matter anyway!) - BalthCat (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it matters to show that Ireland is the only anomaly - everywhere else yogurt is not a highly unusual spelling, and that in many places yoghurt is highly unusual, much more unusual than in yoghurt is in Ireland. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Ireland appreciates being called an anomaly. - BalthCat (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please. An anomaly is just an irregularity, relatively speaking. When every English speaking place but one recognizes and accepts a given spelling, the one exception is an anomaly, by definition. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Arguments Supporting "Yoghurt" on other merits

• Based on the ratio of usage of yoghurt in Ireland 13.5:1 yogurt is arguably not universally used in the English speaking world and this is a local variant issue subject to the WP:MOS guideline: "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic.". --Born2cycle (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• While the article was created as Yogurt in December 2002, yoghurt was added to the beginning of the lead in March 2003 as the "traditional" spelling and was standardised through the article in December 2003. (Both edits look like they were in good faith, the first potentially implying primacy, and leading to the second. The second was preceded by a talk page call for comments.) I believe the current usage has existed, if tumultuously, since that December 2003 standardisation. For me this says two things:
  • The short timespan and number of edits before this conversion, compared to the years and edits since, severely weakens the first-edit merit. I essentially view this article as starting in the Yoghurt position for that reason. - BalthCat (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Secondly, if we chose to overrule the first argument in this section (based on WP:RETAIN) does this mean that any time consensus shifts we default to the first non-stub editor? What if there was never a clamour for change during the years preceding? What if the article is ten years stable? Would a few die-hards from nominations of the past be able to rally consensus and unseat 10 years of precedent based on a first-author technicality? - BalthCat (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
    • It's for the above concerns that I am currently only offering weak support for the move to Yogurt, and essentially I only support the action if admin in question believes that it will stop the editwarring. I don't, but I'm willing to try if some one else does. (Obviously you can'thold them to success though, as promising to revert it could encourage people to cause a ruckus.) - BalthCat (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• The familiar spelling here in England is "yoghurt". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Familiar, as in among those without access to a dictionary? If I bought a yogurt there, what would it say on it? Scratch that, but read this.[3] 199.125.109.99 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
    • A-HA!! I knew it! - BalthCat (talk) 04:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

yogurt/yoghurt

Isn't yogurt/yoghurt a serious possibility to resolve this? This debate is being made fun of by other Wikipedians at WP:LAME. Let's settle on a compromise and move on. Alatari (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I think yogurt/yoghurt might be worth trying, but only after we give yogurt a chance, and if it fails. I believe there have been about a half dozen attempts to rename this article to yogurt, each time initiated by a different person, and each resulting in "no consensus" to move or to stay, but each time the article has stayed at yoghurt. I just think it's time to give yogurt a chance. If that fails to put an end to the nonsense, then we can try yogurt/yoghurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can, or should, try that. I see from AC/DC that slashes don't appear to cause problems, even though they often indicate subpages in other namespaces. That doesn't mean we should compromise by referring to it as yogurt/yoghurt throughout the article. Not doing that would make the article title look silly. You'd end up with something like Yogurt (yoghurt) and I think that's even less sensible than the squabbling. Honestly once it goes to 'Yogurt', I don't think it will ever go anywhere else (successfully). I can't imagine there will ever be sufficient consensus to move it, as there will be no justification under WP:ENGVAR: moves go against the WP:RETAIN section, 'yogurt' is sufficiently common, there are no national ties, it was technically the first usage, and 'yogurt' is the most prevalent google result to boot. ...Keep in mind that doesn't justify the move to 'yogurt', as it is contrary to WP:RETAIN. The question is whether a move will stop the editwars or not. If it will, we should ignore WP:RETAIN for the sake of harmony. If it won't, we shouldn't do it, because WP:RETAIN (as I see it) specifically doesn't care about who has the bigger search results. - BalthCat (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, just change it to yogurt. One of my rules of thumb is that if a move request comes up repeatedly, no matter how overwelmingly it gets shot down, move it, and see how many times the reverse move comes up. If never, keep. 199.125.109.124 (talk) 19:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
  • That's a pretty reasonable rule-of-thumb. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You people won't change the spelling to yogurt, simply because yoghurt is the more obscure, more recondite spelling. Face it, that's what Wikipedia's all about: presumed exclusivity, rarefied atmospheres, superior attitudes. Wikipedia always prefers the obscure option and fights relentlessly to maintain it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.111.116.106 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"You people" ? What are you ? One of our Martian overlords ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the article I send people to when they ask me why editing Wikipedia is a waste of time. I want it to stay just the way it is. 192.223.226.5 (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And what a wonderful waste of time it is! Editing Wikipedia is like messing about in boats. As that great Scottish philosopher, Kenneth Grahame, said: Nothing seems to matter, that's the charm of it. Whether you get away, or whether you don't; whether you arrive at your destination or whether you reach somewhere else, or whether you never get anywhere at all, you're always busy, and you never do anything in particular; and when you've done it there's always something else to do, and you can do it if you like, but you'd much better not. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Mail article

IP:199.125.109.99, the charmer, has linked us to a terrifically relevent article from the UK's Daily Mail here. Particularly salient bits include:

Almost unnoticed, manufacturers and retailers have been moving to the alternative, Americanised spelling of yogurt over the past 15 years, to the annoyance of traditionalists.

— Sean Poulter, The Daily Mail

'I really think that given the fact the industry has decided to go with yogurt that it is about time for others to fall into line. It did not occur to me that this would be following the American spelling; that was certainly not my intention. Rather it just seems sensible to drop the "h" to avoid any unnecessary confusion.'

— Clare Cheney, Privision Trade Federation

Personally I've come around from being a prescriptivist (especially in the absence of an Academy or Institute to direct it), but it sure still sticks in my craw that here is an industry telling us (or in particular, the UK) how to spell. This article shows that the process of the H's obsolescence is ongoing, and as per the results from Google, far from complete. I don't plan to take language orders from a trade federation (or for that matter a dairy farmer), and I don't think Wikipedia should either. As such, I think arguments should not rely heavily on the wounded dominance of 'yoghurt' in the UK, whether or not this process is inevitable. (I rather suspect it is.) - BalthCat (talk) 04:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• That article has a fact wrong. The Turkish original spelling is neither "yoghurt" nor "yogurt", but "yoğurt" with the "yamusak ge" letter. The letter used in the Ottoman Turkish spelling was غ . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that, especially in English, people do not always differentiate between a letter, and what appears to be an accented letter. Not agreeing with that. I noticed the mistake myself. - BalthCat (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

No Consensus

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

---

Delisted. Submitting a new RM purely because the previous one didn't reach the conclusion that you wished is (a) a waste of everyone's time, and (b) borderline disruptive. We don't do it at XfD, RM should be no different. Black Kite 19:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Yoghurt → Yogurt — As silence may imply consent, I wish to make it clear that I continue to support the move to "Yogurt". -68.196.104.31 (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore as the article was moved from "yogurt" with no consensus it would appear that the appropriate response to "no consensus" would be to revert that earlier move rather than attempt to head off the reversions of an article move that was made without consensus.Zebulin (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. I've questioned the closing admin on his talk page, and he replied on mine, but I still don't understand his reasoning. He seems to think the lack of "drama" about his decision is evidence that he did the right thing. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Added the move template to the top of this box. Why not. -Dscarth (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The way we've been doing Requested moves for quite a while is that "no consensus" = "keep the status quo". The principle is to avoid moving from one controversial title to another, even if such a move was made in the past. The regional varieties ceasefire is all about inertia, and about sending the message that fussing over different regional spellings is not worth our time. Nobody is being led into any kind of harm by the "h", and agreeing to move it would be consenting that we really are unable, as a community, to leave well enough alone.

I don't care how this stuff is spelled, but I do agree that everyone has got better things to do with their time on Earth than care about this. Stop caring how "yoghurt" is spelled. If you say that you'll stop caring once it's moved to the h-less version, that means you still care. Stop, please.

I'm removing the template because you don't follow a move request, the closure of which you disagree with, with another move request immediately. WP:RM is not for trying again and again until you get the answer you like. If this bothers you, open an RFC, please. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the removal of the move template which was removed as I was adding my Support comment below. The previous closing admin encouraged further discussion, and his reasoning for choosing to not move the page ignored the arguments provided in favor of moving the page. This is the only means of appealing a WP:RM decision, as far as I know. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The way to appeal an RM decision is not to initiate another RM discussion immediately. That is specifically not how you appeal. RFC is how you appeal it. Why ignore procedures that exist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know what makes this important. -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued annoyance. (Let's have lunch.) SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I'd love to, Schmucky, but I've moved back to Texas! -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support It should be noted that, after I asked for additional explanation [1], the closing admin of the discussion above clarified his decision on my talk page with the following statement, "I don't see it as wise to rename the article until there is a lot of support from people from countries that traditionally add the 'h'." [2] That seems very unreasonable to me, and ignores most of the arguments made (over and over) in favor of this move. I don't know of a WP:RM appeal process, except for starting a new proposal and hoping for a more reasonable evaluation of the arguments made. The closing admin did encourage further discussion. The basis for moving this page from Yoghurt to Yogurt is:

1. The original title of this article was Yogurt.
2. There has never been a clear consensus to move this article to, or keep this article at, Yoghurt.
3. The number of times this proposal has been made is probably over half a dozen, and each time it is rejected due to lack of clear consensus in support of the move. In this case the standard required to be met was, apparently, "a lot of support from people from countries that traditionally add the 'h'". That's unreasonable.
4. A reliable source cited above notes that usage of the h-variant is disappearing even in the U.K.
5. The MOS states that, ""Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English." The h-variant is not used in many varieties of English, the no-h-variant is used in all varieties of English, therefore the no-h-variant meets the MOS guideline while the h-variant does not.
6. Keeping this page at Yoghurt has not resulted in a ceasefire. There is a lot of reason to believe that moving this article to Yogurt will finally achieve an end to this simply because there are no strong objective arguments that support Yoghurt over Yogurt as there are supporting Yogurt over Yoghurt.

--Born2cycle (talk) 17:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Born2Cycle, I recommend the RFC. That's the RM appeal process.

To your points, I would respond: (1) Doesn't matter. (2) Doesn't matter. (3) I agree that it requires a strong consensus to bother messing around with a regional spelling. (4) This one is a Very Good Point. (5) Is interesting, I guess, but doesn't outweigh the ceasefire. (6) No it hasn't "resulted" in a ceasefire, because one side won't stop shooting. The idea that has been presented is, "Hey, why not respect the ceasefire?", to which the response is "BANG! BLAM! KAPOW!". Thus, I agree that people have been blowing off the ceasefire, because how we spell "yogourt" is clearly very, very important.

That's the part that gets me. Why care? Seriously. We all choose our battles in this life. Why choose this one? Can anyone tell me why they care? How does this "h" grieve people so? What's up with that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, the RM request was closed in the usual fashion. You don't like the closer's rationale. You're the one who's upset. Appeal the decision.

Trying to put something back through RM after it's just come out is inappropriate. That's now how the process works. Clearly you disagree, so I'm going to seek outside input. I'm not going to start an RFC over your complaint with a process that was resolved in the usual way.

The most likely outcome of re-listing at RM now is that you'll upset people, who will then be less inclined to agree with you. Why would you do that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You're missing the point. I'm not the instigator. Take it up with him. Don't ask me these questions. People care. I'm just saying that as long this article remains at Yoghurt, someone, sooner or later (this time it was very much sooner), will propose moving it. It's not like it's the Hatfields and the McCoys with someone on an established side making the proposal each time. Yes, I want it moved. I want it moved so that this will end! --Born2cycle (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What? The "instigator"? What does that mean? Relisting a move that's just been closed will not go well. It will turn people against you. You want it to end, don't do this. This will prolong it. I'm willing to support the move, but this is not how you get it done. If we have procedures that are supposed to work a certain way, why not follow them? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that when someone comes around from requested moves saying, "this isn't how the process works," your reply is basically "take a hike". Why bother to have processes if they're going to be treated as dirt by those who aren't happy with the outcome? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You're arguing with the wrong guy. Don't do what? I just undid your undiscussed delisting of someone else's relisting of it. This is stupid. I'm done here. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Undiscussed delisting? We never do an RM right after another one. I'm just doing ordinary janitorial work. "Someone put this template in the wrong place; better move it." It's not undiscussed, because I'm here discussing it. Actions that go against established procedures are undone all the time. Why have procedures if we're going to ignore them, or enable others to ignore them? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Does it really matter? Both spellings are valid English usage ... there are redirects for the others. Just like the arguments surrounding British English versus American English, let's just drop it and don't worry! Is this really something worthwhile having continued arguments about? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support move to Yog(h)urt and end this silly discussion once and for all. howcheng {chat} 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Move template

Hi. It seems very irregular to me to list this at RM when the previous RM is not even cold yet. The argument that this is a "special case" seems to boil down to "the closer was wrong", which is claimed in the case of every disputed decision, so it doesn't seem very special to me. I propose that we follow the procedure at WP:RM, and take the move template down until something seems to have changed. We've avoided immediate relistings at AFD, DRV, XFD, RFC/U, RFC, RFA, and certainly at RM for years, and this has never been controversial. It would seem to me that consensus is required to go against usual practice, and to keep the immediate relisting active. This has been disputed, so I'm posting here for feedback. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

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

user:Black Kite wrote "We don't do it at XfD, RM should be no different." We have a long tradition that after a WP:RM is closed that it is not re-listed for six months after the last listing. --PBS (talk) 07:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why not summarize all the discussions over the years to see how the two sides really shape up?

If there's one thing I've noticed in various "perennially debated" subjects is there's always a core of folks who will stick around a talk page for years, always showing up to defend their preferred version. Meanwhile, new faces continually show up to try and make a move to a more logical position. As I said, I don't really care much about where this article resides, but I do see that this RM keeps coming up (sometimes consecutively ^ ;>). If someone has the time and inclination, why not do something like what I did over at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review and gather a summary of all the people who have weighed in on this dispute and see where consensus truly lies? That is, generate a list of all the folks in the history who a) support yogurt b) support yoghurt and c) support no change due to the status quo. (Of course, most b) folks use c) as an argument to hold on to their preferred spelling, but c'est la vie). I would hazard a guess there will be a strong majority when looking at the entire history to move to Yogurt, but I'm prepared to be wrong. –xeno^talk 23:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That does sound cool. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I see no point in such a timesink. I've already invested more time and effort than sensible into reading the archives and making my perspective on this issue known, and I'm pretty sure that everything mentioned in the past was mentioned again this time. (Including all of the pointless stuff.) This issue was raised and no consensus to move was reached. You can't drag dead bodies out of a grave and give them a vote, and I don't think you can assume people from four years ago want you to count them today. I'm pretty sure that's not in the spirit of evolving consensus. I think it's time to let this have a rest for a few months. (Keep in mind that I supported the move were an administrator confident it would end the constant challenges. While I don't agree with the move otherwise, I'm honestly a little disappointed.) If you feel the need to pursue this now, I think it would be more productive to bring it to a wider audience than continue it here. Is there a next step that can be taken calmly in the spirit of resolving this? - BalthCat (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You really want to bring Yogurt to a wider audience? It'll get laughed off the stage. It's freaking Yogurt =) That being said, RFC is a possible step, but I don't see that it has had any success gathering opinion at Talk:Press-up#RFC (though admittedly it was run concurrent with an WP:RM, so the participants filtered up to there I guess). I just think an examination of the history in its entirety would be a good next step. You could always ping the old participants to ensure you haven't misrepresented them. –xeno^talk 00:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The history might be useful to convey the point that we know leaving it at Yoghurt is not working, and might convince enough that Yogurt, finally, should be given a chance to see if it will settle things down since it is universally used throughout the English speaking world, and "Yoghurt" is not. So I would do it before any RFC. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like the right way to do it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

We need to reread the history to establish that there is a protracted problem here? No, I think that this article's inclusion in WP:LAME has already established that. I'm also a little exhausted from you constantly misrepresenting the google search results as some sort of proof that the entire planet (all of it) uses yogurt, when Ireland's results prove otherwise. You also completely missed the point of the article from the UK, in that UK corporations with international biases are thrusting a spelling change onto the UK people, and instead use this as "evidence" that usage of yoghurt in the UK is going down. Just leave the stupid google results out of this and we might actually get somewhere. - BalthCat (talk) 01:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is already featured on WP:LAME. No matter how trivial the face of the issue is, it's creating friction and wasting time. And since neither side is inherently wrong, neither side is going to go "Oh well, this is lame... lets forget about it." That's why I think the question should be something like: "Regardless of the MOS guideline on National Variants, should we move to yogurt for the sake of stability." (ie: None of the other garbage... it's all arguable at best and irrelevent at worst, and distracts from a straightforward question we MIGHT get an answer to.) As for RFC, I honestly don't know what all the options are to go from here. I'd like to have some one put forth some comments on the MOS, myself. - BalthCat (talk) 01:28, 9 July

(after ec) I agree that the best solution is for everyone to stop caring. I'm pretty much there, but I don't think that my example will suffice to actually make it happen for others.

It's a shame, if you ask me. We really are going to go 12 rounds over what color the bikeshed ought to be painted. I've always been a fan of the traditional, conservative, lime-green w/ bright orange leopard spots. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC) 2009 (UTC)

Canadian spelling

According to the article, Canada uses both "yogourt" and "yoghurt". Is this true? It's not sourced.

Google hits don't support it. In fact Google hits for domain .ca support the spelling yogurt.

Weekly grocery store sales flyers. A&P - here. Spelling is yogurt. Loblaws has two brands on page 10 - yogourt and yogurt.

Shouldn't it read Canada uses both "yogurt" and "yogourt"? --Elliskev 01:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Too bad we haven't got a source discussing how often it's spelled which way where. That would be better than doing our own comparisons. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada uses yogurt > yogourt > yoghurt or somesuch. I believe the point of that line is to provide the two alternate uses in Canada, not the two primary uses in Canada. - BalthCat (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I believe most products use yogourt because it's correct in both official languages. Both brands of yogourt in my fridge (Astro and Yoplait) are spelled as such (lol, WP:OR)). –xeno^talk 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Yogourt" is the primary entry in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary but I believe that is, as xeno says, because it is often used by producers as a handy bilingual word. I think that BalthCat's listing of yogurt > yogourt > yoghurt is more reflective of the common use amongst English-Canadian writers. The CanOD could make some dent in that as its advice gets followed by major publications. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

A crusty old-timer weighs in.

I claim "crusty old-timer" status by virtue of having fooled around here for nearly 8 years. And for the record, I personally spell it "yogHurt".

Now, these regional variant spelling disputes are among the oldest and most blood-spattered on Wikipedia. Trying to establish which is "more used" or "more correct" is only asking for pain. Appeals to Google are irrelevant, as are appeals to consensus and any other mechanism you might wish to employ. We have a case where there are two equally valid spellings. Declaring one as "approved" will automatically arouse the ire of those on the other side of the fence. And unlike the aluminium debate, there is no IUPAC-type higher authority to which Wikipedia can defer on the spelling.

Hence there is only ONE rule which applies here - Section 16.10.3 of Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English. I shall quote it in full:

“ If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor. ”

The profound wisdom of this rule must be venerated, because it circumvents all discussions of national pride, etymology, cultural imperialism and the inalienable fact that, for the most part, Americans are annoying. (And also have no sense of humour, as will be proved by the people who will take this quip seriously).

Here is the original version of the article as created by User:Collabi on Dec 11, 2002. Collabi is indisputably the "first major contributor". A scan of the actual content of the first article indicates that Collabi used "yogurt" (no-H) exclusively. The article persisted with this "no-H' spelling for one year and 14 days.

On Dec 25, 2003 User:Derek Ross changed the title and revised the spelling. Now I know Derek Ross, and he is a FINE editor who has been here since the very, very beginning. However, he clearly broke the policy about titles on this occasion.

Side question - Did the policy or the article name change happen first?. One could possibly argue that Ross's actions in changing the name precede the existence of the policy about "first major contributor". I refute that. The article name was changed Dec 25, 2003. I joined Wikipedia in Sept of 2001 and the policy about "first spelling is the official spelling" was already in operation back then. (I haven't found direct evidence of it yet, but I know it's in Nostalgia somewhere. Please take my word for now. If I am specifically challenged on this point I shall go and research more thoroughly.)

National ties clause - I assert that there is no reason to argue that yoghurt/yogurt is inherently British/American/Australian/Turkish/Timorese. Hence this clause does not apply.

So again, all discussion about "which version is more used/is more correct" is completely irrelevant. The first variant is the correct variant. And although I personally prefer "yoghurt", the "h-free" variant is the one we should use here. Hence "yogurt".

Manning (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response to this argument above, Mr. Ano...Manning. While I personally prefer this article find a permanent home, whatever it is, absolute obeisance to the first-contributor technicality doesn't seem sensible. It's been spelled this way for what, four years? five? - BalthCat (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes it has been spelled this way for four/five years. However the dispute has also raged for most of that time. So I do not see how "sensible" is a factor here - as long as we do not have a clear policy-driven basis to settle the dispute then the argument will continue, which I regard as "not sensible".

As far as I see it, the article name change was a clear breach of policy at the time it occurred. Whether that policy breach is corrected the same day or five years later should not be an issue - policy simply should NOT be breached without an extremely good reason, and I do not see any compelling reason here. Unless there is another policy which over-rides this issue (like the IUPAC aspect to Aluminium) then the "first contributor" clause of WP:ENGVAR should be applied. Manning (talk) 03:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is a guideline, not a policy. It's not a "clause" of a policy - it's a "general principle" of a guideline. So there's no "clear breach". Moreover, where this is expanded on a little (at WP:RETAIN) it says "In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used". Again, it's improper to parse a guideline this way, but if you want to do so, you should do so in the proper context. Guettarda (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair comment - it is indeed a guideline, not a policy. However it is not a guideline worth following if there is no better precedent to follow? Appeals to consensus, Google, and anything are bound to fail if Wikipedia history is any guide. Manning (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)While I appreciate your input, you've got the sequence off a bit: The article persisted with this "no-H' spelling for one year and 14 days - actually it persisted in the "no-H" spelling for only total of 79 days, and the first word in the article was "yoghurt" for almost 9½ months before Derek Ross moved the article.

As for the idea that the first spelling should stand - yeah, I would like some evidence that such a rule was in place in Dec. 2003. My earliest recollections are that either variant is acceptable, that you should be consistent, and that you shouldn't change from one to the other. I remember that there was a lot of debate about "how to decide" around the time of the Jguk arbcomm case in 2005. While that case was BCE/BC/AD/CE-related, I remember the discussion was as much about variants of English was it was about date systems. I'm not disputing your experience, but I'm surprised to learn that such a rule existed in 2003. In fact, if you look through the archives of this page, Derek Ross makes exactly that point - that there wasn't any rule like that when he moved the page. So yes, since your recollection differs from mine, differs from anything I've been able to turn up, and differs from what Derek Ross said in one of the earlier move debates, I think we need some evidence to back that up. Guettarda (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I clearly recall that the "first contributor" aspect was in existence as far back as 2001, and I'll respectfully disagree with Derek on that claim. I will dig to find evidence of this 2001 aspect. However here's a version of the MOS dated Nov 11, 2003 which backs up my claim that the "first major contributor" notion was already very much in existence: Nov 11 2003 Manual of Style. Granted it is not rigid in its prescription, but also bear in mind that our general attitude towards policy in those days was to not word things in a "draconian" manner. (The more rigid approach to policy wording began in 05). Manning (talk) 03:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been deliberately not taking part in the current round of this debate because I have up till now had nothing new to add to it and to be frank, I didn't want to spend any more time on it. However since my name is coming up again I suppose I should say something. However Guettarda has already said most of what I would say, so if you've read his comments you already know most of my thoughts on the matter. I'll just comment on Manning's point about the first editor's spelling policy usage. Modern editors should bear in mind that, as Manning says, spelling/naming policy in those days was not quite the ironclad matter that it has now become. In fact the Manual of Style was originally someone's "pet project". Initially following its precepts was optional. Hence many of us only adopted its prescriptions as it became increasingly obvious that not to do so would cause friction with those who took it as gospel. So at that time we did occasionally move articles from one regional variation to another. For instance I moved British "Hoarding" to American "Billboard" where it still remains without any complaint from anyone about "first contributor". So, yes, "first contributor" is an excellent way to solve these types of dispute. However it wasn't always and isn't always applied as the Hoarding/Billboard example demonstrates. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey Derek - I'll largely agree on all points, although I do recall the manual of Style being a bit more than one person's "pet project". Ortolan88 certainly started it (at least the revised version) but as I recall after a short time a number of others joined in. Regardless I also recall a couple of disputes in the very early days in the regional variant category and LMS weighed in to say that "first version wins", which is why I've always adhered to that. But I've dug through Nostalgia though and can't find any record of it, so I'm stuck until I find evidence. Anyway for the most part I was looking for a way to kill off this entire absurd debate and this "first contributor" looked like a strong argument. Manning (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the MoS quickly grew to be much more than a "pet project", no doubt about that. The idea resonated with a lot of people. On your other point, "first contributor" is a strong argument and should certainly be used where there is no strong reason for preferring one variant over another. I originally made the move because I thought that I had a reasonable rationale and that it was unlikely to be controversial, an opinion bolstered by the lack of response to my original suggestion. I still think that my original rationale makes sense but it is too weak to be worth the energy which has been wasted on such a trivial matter, If I had known then what I know now, I would not have made the move. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

a crusty arbitrary break

Whether "first version wins" was the rule at the time would be relevant if Mr Ross were at trial right now. That's not the case. I suppose it is also relevant if the question is whether the original move from Yogurt to Yoghurt was legitimate at the time it was made (because if it wasn't, then that is arguably a reason to correct that now). But the whole point of first version wins is to have a rule to end the very type of conflict that we have now. That is also the point of preferring inertia to change, but trying that for four years has proved to be a dismal failure. That's why we have to fall back on first version wins, regardless of whether it should have been followed back when this article name changed from the original Yogurt to Yoghurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

So, deciding you don't care is just not an acceptable option to you, huh? You're in this for keeps, are you? What if people who think this move request is stupid threaten to bring it up every six months, and then point to that as proof that it's not stable with the "h"? Would that be "cool"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For good reasons stated multiple times repeatedly, I don't think that will happen, because there are no good objective reasons to support Yoghurt over Yogurt except for the inertia argument, which, again, is not working to end the battle. If I'm wrong, we'll find out, but until the name changes, we won't be able to find out. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... you're probably right. I dislike it, and I think that's how spoiled children and terrorists get their ways, but I'm forced to support it, because people will not be convinced to help enforce a sensible cultural norm. If you, Born2cycle, and very few others, simply helped out by replying to questions about the spelling by explaining that we don't change between regional variants, it would be stable where it is. But you won't do that for stability, will you? I still don't know why you chose to take it upon yourself to champion the removal of the "h". Why? Of all the things to do with your time on Earth, why this? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that trying to fix a six year old mistake (if a mistake it is) is justification for disrupting this article repeatedly. - BalthCat (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

For whatever accidental reasons of history and incomplete information, I learned about the ceasefire, not preferring the original version to subsequent versions, but preferring inertia to change. I think this page has inertia at "Yoghurt", but I'm willing to try a switch. I just don't like that some will see it as a precedent to let WP:COMMONNAME trump WP:ENGVAR. That way lies madness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The multiple challenges to the name of this article since it has been at Yoghurt doesn't establish the kind of stable/unchallenged inertia that would be relevant to preferring inertia. The whole point of the inertia rule is to end the very type of naming conflicts we have been having because this article is at Yoghurt. Obviously, it's not working.

It's time to apply first version wins. This is why the rule first version wins was established. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. Inertia hasn't worked because enough people took it upon themselves to make damn sure it didn't work. Heroic. And for what? Did you ever answer the question about why this issue matters to you? Who are you helping by doing this? What's the real deep-down motivation for giving a hoot about this "h"? That's what I want to know.

I'm not happy with a "petulocracy", or rule by whoever is willing to complain longer, with or without cause. We'll probably have to move it to the h-less version, because a group of people has promised to pitch regular fits until they get their way. Don't you wish everything worked that way? This is beginning to disgust me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, inertia didn't work because NEW people kept coming here and going, what's with the h? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

New people keep coming along and asking "how can you have an encyclopedia that the public can edit?" and "How can you have a rule that says 'ignore all rules'"?, and "Why can't I post my biography - it's verifiable!?" We deal with these recurring questions by explaining our community standards, and not by capitulating. In this case however, screw community standards. This one goes to mob rule. Lovely. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not so negative. I'm not as crusty as Manning and Derek Ross, but I was around for the jguk Arbcomm and this projects cultural turning point when guidelines and policies become culturally prescriptive even while they continue to say they are not procedurally prescriptive. These are two guidelines. One is not trumping the other. In the past, when these guidelines and policies were being written as statements of intent, not rules, it was intended that Wikipedians would use commonsense and reasonableness to interpret them and weigh the value of using them versus some other solution. Neither inertia nor formulaic rules interpretation are Wikipedian values. Here we have an obvious problem of recurrence, with dozens of people over the last six years asking why this spelling is being maintained. Don't be upset about "mob rule" or capitulating. Reject instruction creep, reject formulaic reading of rules, and reject the idea that this is capitulation. Wikipedia is meant to be flexible, not rigid, and renaming this is a reasonable and common sense solution. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That's why I think this will only be solved if we actually ask the question: Do we want to ignore the MOS? (Rather than appealing to it, as that isn't working.) - BalthCat (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

BalthCat, no one is suggesting we ignore the MOS. We argue that the "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety" part is obviously not helping, and arguably does not apply anyway (because throughout the evolving it has been challenged repeatedly), and try to adhere to the parts that offer promise of resolution here ("Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.", "the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used.") --Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• I* am suggesting we ignore the MOS, because you the MOS doesn't agree with you! (Opinion) The MOS is specifically speaking about early in the article creation (re: first contributor). - BalthCat (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) You're right, Schmucky. I do reject formulaic reading of rules - I'd say I'm one of IAR's biggest cheerleaders. I haven't supported inertia because I think it's written down somewhere; I've supported it because it seems to me to be common sense. "Just don't edit regional varieties," seems very common sense to me. I don't read rules, so I don't even know what they say.

This is a borderline case, that tests the gray waters just at the edge of the relatively peaceful ENGVAR lagoon. Any solution is an IAR solution. Meh.

It is what it is. I'm done bitching about it now. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) GTBacchus, yesterday you wrote that you support me regarding the name change. Here you seem vehemently opposed. I'm confused.

Supporting the move to what was the original spelling of the word in this article is not screwing community standards - it is upholding them. Similarly, recognizing that upholding the rule to favor interia is not working here (and has not worked for four years), and that is what appears to be a solution, is also not screwing community standards, but is adhering to common sense.

Misconstruing support of the move to what is the only universally recognized spelling of this word as capitulation and "mob rule" is a big part of the problem.--Born2cycle (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't oppose the move, but I'm not happy about that. I feel it's a position I've been forced into. I tried to make my previous comment my last one, and now I'm trying again. Move your page. Don't ask me to be happy about it. I note that you've repeatedly declined to answer why you have a stake in this. Enjoy. Goodbye. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday it was "I support you" and yet you deleted the active move request. Today you're not happy with the move, but say go ahead and move it, now that you've delisted the request. I continue to assume good faith, but am having a hard time putting all these contradictory pieces together into a rational good faith explanation. So I'm assuming you are acting in good faith, and I'm just missing something. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

God damnit, can't you see! He's a man divided! There are four lights! –xeno^talk 20:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly the same situation I'm in. I don't agree with the requests to move, but I'm tired of it, so I'd sooner see it get moved. - BalthCat (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec - and thank you Xeno and BalthCat.) Born2cycle, I'm trying to leave. What you're missing is that I'm a human and not a list of logical propositions. You may assume that I'm acting in good faith, but frustrated, and quite possibly inconsistent in my feelings. Humans are often inconsistent. My position is that, ok, apparently the only way to have peace is to assent to the move. Thus, I withdraw my opposition, and I'll shut up (already tried to shut up, but you asked another question, so here we are...) about the terrible taste in my mouth from it.

Do you want me to explain precisely what kind of mood I've been in for each of my statements, and help you unpack the emotional content, which all but drowns out the literal content? That doesn't sound fun to me. Is this therapy? I foolishly let myself become personally invested in the argument, and that's why I'm experiencing emotional distress. Shall I continue? Do you want to know about bruised pride? Is this fun for you? I hate it, and I'm forced to keep talking.

I deleted the "active" move request because that's not how RM works. I suggested, and still suggest, that you get your demonstration of consensus clear, and then move the page. I observe, as someone who knows a teeny little bit about move requests, that you'll fail to achieve your goal by running one RM right after another. Want to fail to achieve your goal? Be my guest.

Run an RFC. Make it clear (and not just to those who already agree) that the community really wants to decide that "yoghurt" is an uncommon enough spelling to merit exception from the ENGVAR ceasefire. Then, move the page. If you move it right after an RM was closed against it, without doing some kind of legwork, people will not believe that you have consensus. Get it?

May I leave now? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey xeno got me first :P - BalthCat (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

eat some youghourte, that will get the terrible taste out of your mouth <ducks> –xeno^talk 20:45, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well... only if we can put a circumflex above the final "e" indicating there used to be an "s" after it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Confusing sentence.

Some time ago, this edit added the following: "In 1917 Orla Jensen proved that the production of yoghurt except Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus participate coccus (globe organisms) called Streptococcus thermophilus." Huh? What is excepted (and is "except" meant as an adjective or a verb here), and what does "participate" mean here? bd2412 T 02:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This sentence is not conprehensible. I am deleting it. bd2412 T 17:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Corner/Compartmental/Divided yoghurts

I would think it worth mentioning these as a variety. 91.110.188.225 (talk) 11:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Machines

There is nothing about yoghurt machines! --Error (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

What's so rich about the amount of nutrients in yoghurt?

As this article says there's only 3 grams of protein per 100g of yogurt. That's hardly rich. Adults need 50g of protein each day, a bit less for women. Nuts have far more protein than yoghurt and although plant proteins aren't complete, neither is yoghurt. I'm surprised to see a lower amino acid score on Nutrition Data. 9% of the daily value isn't rich either. You can find foods with far more B2 and B6 in them. I checked on Nutrition Data for B12 and that's also not rich, but it doesn't matter that much for B12. Our body will filter it out and reuse it. I know all nutrients add up when you eat a variety of foods each day, but in this case it's not good to say this specific food is rich in nutrients. People that are less literate in nutrition will take the word "rich" as a fact and use it as their nutrition guide, instead of looking at the numbers first. Vitamin C content per 100g of kiwi has 155% DV and that's rich. An apple with just 8% DV per 100g is not rich. HyborianRanger (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

There were some vandalism with vulgar words. I do not have an account and instead of trying to change all the words, I tried to copy and paste the words and code from an earlier version. I hope this has helped and please keep an eye on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.12.134 (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Lassi

We do not need Lassi mentioned in 2 consecutive sections, the second time less informatively than the first. But the question arises of where it belongs. The 2 paragraphs on yogurt-based foods are about sweetened smoothies. The section on beverages where it is already mentioned talks about it as salty. Are there variant kinds of Lassi, some sweetened and others not? I agree it is important to mention Lassi, but the article already says more about it than is in the sentence that is being re-added. So is the problem that the 2 sections are not mutually exclusive and Lassi could be classed in either? If that is the reason 2 editors see it as "vital" to add Lassi to the second section, perhaps the section on beverages should be merged together with the section on yogurt-based foods? Yngvadottir (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see that as I was writing this, User:Betsyblume combined the 2 by eliminating a subheader. So unless there are sweet and non-sweet variants of Lassi, it's in the section. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

for info there are both sweet and salted variety of Lassi. A very popular sweet lassi in indian restaurants outside of Indian sub-continent is the 'mango lassi'. Salted lassi varieties are more common within India. Due to regional variations lassi sometimes refer to different yogurt beverages in different parts of India. AuM01 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Other uses

I think I remember hearing somewhere that yoghurt was once routinely used to perform colonic irrigations and enemas? Is this true? If it is, is it worth mentioning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.96.22 (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitelye worth mentioning. 98.141.248.50 (talk) 17:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated Information regarding Turkish alphabet

I have removed the below sentence from the introductory section as the below statement has nothing to do with the fact that the turkish letter 'ğ' is used for yoğurt.

.. which used to be written in a variant of the Arabic alphabet until the introduction of the Latin alphabet in 1928.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hektormidas (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

This pages mentions Pliny as the earliest textual mention of Yogurt but this substance is found in the pre-christian Pali Buddhist texts and there are also several words for yogurt in Sanskrit (sarpis, yagu) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.126.160 (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Page Pertection Due to Vandalisem.

Someone has Vandalized this page and made it say Yoghurt instead of Yogurt. Also, someone has posted a pointless picture of someone or himself on the page. Please do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.172.244 (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

^ I think it's safe to assume this guy Support's a move. -Kai445 (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguments in favor of Yogurt / Yoghurt.

Google results table

	2009			2011
Domain	yogurt	yoghurt	ratio	yogurt	yoghurt	ratio
site:edu	111,000	4,800	23:1	194,000	8,280	23.5:1
site:us	158,000	7,890	20:1	169,000	17,000	10:1
site:com	12,900,000	1,850,000	7:1	11,800,000	1,850,000	6:1
site:org	1,030,000	172,000	6:1	1,280,000	260,000	5:1
site:ca	161,000	18,900	8.5:1	1,390,000	102,000	13.5:1
site:hk	14,500	2,650	5.5:1	15,900	2,530	6:1
site:jm	800	197	4:1	1,350	41	33:1
site:sg	16,400	6,810	2.5:1	284,000	70,900	4:1
books.google.com/books.google.co.uk	5,670	2,560	2:1	12,770	631	20:1
site:in	16,400	8,070	2:1	194,000	90,800	2:1
site:za	13,200	30,300	1:2.5	22,600	38,200	1:1.5
site:uk	189,000	348,000	1:2	388,000	530,000	1:1.5
...subsites:ac.uk (academic)	2,450	4,910	1:2	1,380	8,300	1:6
site:au	74,700	233,000	1:3	318,000	304,000	1:1
...subsites:edu.au (academic)	1,890	8,180	1:4.5	1,210	5,280	1:4.5
site:ie	9,460	126,000	1:13.5	87,700	40,300	2:1

Numbers in tens, e.g. 3,800,000 shown as 380,000. Ratios rounded to nearest half.

Key:
Strong Yogurt (10:1+)	Dark Green
Yogurt (10:1 to 5:1)	Green
Light Yogurt (5:1 to 2:1)	Light Green
Neutral (2:1 to 1:2)	Peach
Light Yoghurt (1:2 to 1:5)	Light Blue
Yoghurt (1:5 to 1:10)	Blue
Strong Yoghurt (1:10+)	Dark Blue

I think this table says it all. More people search Yogurt then yoghurt, this site is about accommodating the average user, and the average english language user uses Yogurt.Meatsgains (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Arguments supporting "Yogurt" as a preferred spelling

• The article was originally titled "Yogurt" and was edited primarily in the "Yogurt" form until this edit in 2003. This is the original WP:ENGVAR violation.
• The word "Yogurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (m-w.com), Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com), American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.com), the Cambridge University Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org), and the Collins English Dictionary (collinslanguage.com).
• The word "Yogurt" is the primary encyclopedia entry for the word in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (britannica.com) and MSN Encarta (encarta.msn.com).
• Prescriptive sources agree, the word "Yogurt" is specified in the current Oxford Style Manual (2003) which explains to use Yogurt and to not use -hurt or -ourt, on page 1000. This is in concert with the latest New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2005), again, listing "yogurt", on page 424.
• Groupe Danone, the largest manufacturer of Yogurt in the World, spells it "Yogurt". Canadian label, British label.
  • The world's second largest manufacturer of yogurt, Yoplait, also spells it "Yogurt".
  • The world's third largest manufacturer of yogurt, and largest organic yogurt manufacturer in the world, Stonyfield, spells it "Yogurt".
• Noted etymologist and writer Michael Quinion believes "Yogurt" is the "correct spelling".
• Its frozen variant also uses the "Yogurt" spelling, right here at Wikipedia.
• Its soy variant also uses the "Yogurt" spelling on Wikipedia.
• Its strained variant (Greek Yogurt) also uses the "Yogurt" spelling on Wikipedia.
• WP:GOOGLE results clearly show the no-h variant is not only more frequently used, but is trending usage among a variety of locales. This supports the argument that this is not a British vs. American variant issue at all, but, rather, a most commonly used name determination.
  • While in some localities the h variant is as commonly used as the no-h variant, in other places the h variant is relatively unused as compared to the no-h variant.
• "Yogurt" is also the simplest spelling and all other spellings can be derived from it. "Yogourt" cannot be expanded from "Yoghurt".
• Once the article is moved to Yogurt, there will be no legitimate justification for moving it back to Yoghurt, and so these requests to move the article will finally end.
• At spellcheck.net, four varieties of English are supported: Aus, Can, UK, US. "yogurt" is universally accepted as correct in all four varieties, but the acceptance of "yoghurt" is limited to three of the varieties.

Arguments supporting "Yoghurt" as a preferred spelling

• The article is currently entitled Yoghurt.
• Academic sources in Australia and the UK still prefer yoghurt by about 5:1 (see above WP:GOOGLE).

Dietetic Value Of Yogurt

I really need to know the dietetic value of yogurt! Could anybody tell me? Who should eat yogurt etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.252.223 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this necessary? Is Wikipedia a dietary advice board --Jehan60188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Soy Yoghurt in the lead

This doesn't deserve to be in the lead as this information doesn't have any particular importance to the subject of yoghurt as a whole. It should be in a small subsection somewhere in the main body of the text.

Spelling

The most common spelling, as per Google, is "yogurt". Why does "Yogurt" redirect to "Yoghurt" ? --81.174.47.74 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LAME#Yogurt. –xeno^talk 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I agree wholeheartedly that the article should be Yogurt, and I think a strong case was made to move it, but I think that even in light of the strong arguments for the move BACK to yogurt, consensus is that people are fucking morons, so it's going to stay as-is. Yay. Morons. -Kai445 (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I got a WP:PA notice. I wasn't criticizing Xeno personally (who I don't know), and my comment was not intended to be directed towards Xeno either. I am critical of the whole of the contributors that were on the pro-status-quo side of the debate. -Kai445 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You should display that WP:PA notice with pride. "consensus is that people are fucking morons" is probably the most insightful comment I've seen on any talk page ever. -Elliskev 04:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, the most common spelling is yogurt, not yoghurt, in my personal experience the ratio of the former to the latter is 4 to 1,i.e 80% versus 20 %. Google hits carried out only in the English language internet space give approximately the same picture 42 million versus 11 million. The vast majority of fast food restaurant chains( Subway,McDonalds,Starbucks etc) cites yogurt, not yoghurt in their menus . In addition to it all, all the online dictionaries(sic) give the main spelling of this word as yogurt, yoghurt being secondary in all the cases). So please let's stick to the mainstream and respell this word in the article.

I have reverted your change. You did not wait for responses, and you appear to be discounting the evidence presented in the article itself - Etymology and spelling section - that there is international variation in the spelling of the word. As that section states, yogurt is the spelling in the US - which will normally dominate in Google hits - but in other parts of the English-speaking world, yoghurt either predominates or is equally common, and yogourt also occurs. (I don't know what country you are drawing your fast food evidence from, but from the list I suspect the US.) Yoghurt is an acceptable international spelling to compromise between differing regional usages; there is no reason to change it, especially since the article has a section near the start that clearly explains that there are regional differences. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument has been made - and proven - several times that the vast majority of visitors to this page use only the spelling "yogurt". Your continual defense of the spelling "yoghurt" is an overt act of narcissism and reeks of anti-US sentiment. It is completely irrelevant that there is a section on the variant spellings of the word within the article - the spelling of the word outside of that section should reflect the most popular spelling and not your short-sighted unwillingness to admit that other people are right. Unfortunately, it will take an actual administrator to take notice of this and actually care (again) in order to fix this problem. I do, however, find it amusing that you have so little else to do that you must check this page every day for reversions in order to further your anti-American agenda. Laplacian54 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted because it gets vandalized a lot. Assume bad faith, much? The article's spelling needs to match where it's at - changing it would require a move (and consistent changing throughout the article - the last change only went part of the way through the first section). What's your evidence that yogurt is the most popular spelling? All we have so far here is occasional assertions about personal experience, which is not a strong argument for moving the article in the face of long-term stability and reasoning clearly made within the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter in the slightest that the Oxford English Dictionary lists it as "yogurt", as well as the Cambridge International Dictionary of English and the Collins English Dictionary, leading to a 100% agreement between the three major British and International English dictionaries listed in the Comparison of English dictionaries? Actually, Webster's and American Heritage ALSO concur. It seems that Kai445 is undoubtedly correct. The insistence of "yoghurt" over "yogurt" smacks of elitism and absolute ignorance. Either there is, as has been pointed out, a considerable anti-American sentiment amongst the editors of this site, or there is a fierce effort by culinary elitists in an attempt to alienate regular people. It is totally absurd, and irresponsibly foolish to adhere to your spelling of "yoghurt" in the face of insurmountable evidence that it should be "yogurt". What you're suggesting is that the unanimous decision by the editors of these dictionaries, who are professionals in the field of study relevant to this debate, is anything less than "insurmountable evidence". DTXBrian (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite WP:LAME#Yogurt, moves based on WP:COMMONNAME are quite normal. What's problematic with the current title is that it is regularly challenged because it so blatantly violates WP:COMMONNAME. That would not be the case if the title was changed, because there would no longer be a WP:COMMONNAME violation if the article was at Yogurt. Perhaps it's time for another move proposal and discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We could have overwhelming, kumbaya hand-holding, worldwide public support, and a select group of assholes would still gum up the works. I'm all for it, but good luck. -Kai445 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realise that Webster's (all dictionaries using that name) and the American Heritage Dictionary are purely American - and also known for being descriptive rather than prescriptive? And the Cambridge International Dictionary of English, likewise, is avowedly showing what's out there. I checked, and found recent British sources using the spelling yoghurt (in addition to Australian, of course), and specifically found this use of Webster's Third listing 3 spellings for the word as an illustration of its legendary non-prescriptiveness, contrasted explicitly just below that with the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors requiring the use of the gh spelling. So the situation has not changed: it is still only in America that the g spelling is the preferred one. Still not a violation of WP:COMMONNAME, therefore, but rather a good compromise with the situation explained in the article itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter that the largest manufacturer of yogurt in the world, Groupe Danone, spells it "Yogurt". I guess it doesn't matter that the second largest manufacturer of yogurt in the world, Yoplait, spells it "Yogurt". I guess it doesn't matter that the world's largest organic yogurt manufacturer, Stonyfield, spells it "Yogurt". I guess it doesn't matter that google searches, most dictionaries (including the OED, including your own link to Webster's Third that lists 'Yogurt' first) and all of the other evidence supporting in the last 'Move' movement, shows 'Yogurt' as preferred. If it's listed first in the order, then it's clearly the most primary spelling, regardless of whether you want to dismiss it as "showing what is out there". And saying "only in America" is blatantly false, and smacks of simply anti-Americanism as previously alluded to. -Kai445 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter to you that Webster's is an American dictionary? Google hits are not a valid basis for decisions - nor are marketing labels. This is a matter of WP:ENGVAR and the current title - with explanation of how usage varies - is a good compromise solution. The size of the US market does not mean US usage is normative. In a case such as this, a compromise with explanation is best. And I note that after being raised multiple times in the past, this issue was quiet until suddenly, a couple of people who apparently cannot accept that English varies across the globe, want to change it. I looked at the evidence in case usage in the UK had changed as you implied; I see no sign that it has. So you have not persuaded me, and the numerical argument is invalid anyway. In cases such as this, a compromise that is clearly understandable and clearly explained in the article is objectively best, and this is demonstrated by the fact things were quiet on the issue for a couple of years. I appreciate your concern that your usage looms largest in your world, but I oppose the move because there is no compelling evidence that it has won out worldwide, or that the present solution is a bad one. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't catch the spelling of the company, but Groupe Danone is a multi-national congolmerate, headquartered in Spain, and they spell it "Yogurt" (Canadian Label, Great Britain). I would think that the largest, worldwide, manufacturer, branding it "Yogurt", should have some sort of relevance (again, regardless if you dismiss it).

"Silence is the weakest form of consensus" according to Wikipedia. I can come back here every day until it's changed if you'd like, and continuously voice my opinion, to preserve lack of consensus. It's not been consensus, it's been a cease-fire.

How about coming up with reasons to be Pro-Yoghurt, instead of Anti-Yogurt.-Kai445 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not entirely true, Danone South Africa uses the H-variant, as can be seen here UbuntuElphie (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, with regards to "you're looking at American and internationalist dictionaries".... isnt INTERNATIONAL the point of Wikipedia. And with regards to "I find no change in international usage to justify changing it", what research has led you to such a conclusion? Did you conduct a random multi-national telephone poll with a large sample size? How about an internet poll? Or did you dig up an original research article that studied the modern day etymology and usage of the word "Yogurt"? No? None of those things? Well, I guess it's alright to be a dick then. -Kai445 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Internationalist dictionaries list all the variants found in all varieties of English. As the article already explains, there are places where yogurt, yoghurt, and yogourt are found as spellings. Look again at those two links I gave you. One shows a US dictionary known for being non-prescriptive saying "These are 3 spellings that are used". The other - explicitly contrasted with it - shows an Oxford style guide requiring writers to use yoghurt. I've given you the justification for being pro-yoghurt: it's the best compromise. Combined, of course, with an explanation that usage varies, and how. Since you had listed dictionaries, I checked online and found the style guide reference I cited in response; and tons of bibliographic references to recent British publications (including agricultural/food science/economics) using the spelling yoghurt. Sheer numbers of people in the US are greater, but that is not decisive in matters of English variation. Other places publish authoritative English books too. And it is noticeable that the debate has stilled because it was such a perennial in the past, so I believe it justifiable to point to that. I will continue to oppose the move you propose;it isn't the case, as you asserted, that dictionary and usage authorities agree, so it doesn't fall under WP:COMMONNAME. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the debate continues, and there is no consensus support for the current title. It may well be that if the article was moved, Yogurt also would not achieve consensus support. But, just the same, it well might achieve consensus support for the reason I stated above - there would be no reasonable argument based in policy or guidelines to move it to Yoghurt. Either way, we won't know unless we try it, by moving this article to Yogurt. To me, the chance of finally settling this issues is the strongest argument in favor of moving it to Yogurt. Who will propose it? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I will second any proposal :). An etymologist and noted scholar did weigh in on this exact debate. "There is no right or wrong here, but evidence suggests that yogurt without the 'h' will become dominant," writer and etymologist Michael Quinion said. "It is more crisp and short, the word is spelt as it sounds ... The Americans have been using yogurt as the correct spelling for at least 150 years." Someone who isn't just an armchair expert thinks no-H is the way to go. -Kai445 (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that American seems to use the -h already for over 150 years, when it was only introduced in the US around 100 years ago (see the main article)... little overestimation ? I wonder when the word first pops up in English ? 1910 ?Knorrepoes (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

what about gogurt??? - steven smead

Move page to Yogurt

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. On headcounts (which we don't do), there's a slight percentage fermenting in favour of retaining the article at "Yoghurt" (which doesn't matter in any whey). To be parfaitly honest, there are strong arguments in favour of both. There has been some actively cultured debate from all the lads and lassis below, the outcome of which looks to me like there is no consensus that brooks such a move, and so the article must be frozen at its current name. I suspect this discussion will go on and danone, but hopefully this close will have smoothied the debate somewhat. fish&karate 10:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Yoghurt → Yogurt – 19:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC) I suggest we move this page per WP:COMMON. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been much discussed, but the present spelling is a liveable compromise and the article itself fairly explains the variety of usage in different English-speaking countries. Moving it to the US spelling would only reflect what is common in the US. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is incorrect. You can refer to the WP:GOOGLE below. It clearly shows no-H is not only dominant, but that usage among a variety of countries are trending towards it. -Kai445 (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Anybody searching for the alternative spelling will end up here. I do not see any reasons to move it since, as Yngvadottir already pointed out, the spelling is explained in the article.--Laveol ^T 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: You avoid addressing the issue by explaining that a redirect is suitable. Why is +H more suitable? -Kai445 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much (electronic) ink has been spilled over this trivial issue. The status quo is fine. "Yoghurt" is the most common spelling in some parts of the English-speaking world, "yogurt" in others. (PS, I think you meant to refer to WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:COMMON) --Macrakis (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Which parts? -Kai445 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying too much ink has spilled, and the status quo is fine are contradictory. If it is a trivial issue, fix it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Support According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, "When no variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, adopt the variety used by the first major contributor; or equivalently, the first contributor to a non-stub article to edit in a way that determines the variety." If you go back and look, the article was established using the spelling "yogurt". And I think it's pretty clear that "no variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue"... DTXBrian (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeAgree with the upper three arguments. I see no reason why to change it.Knorrepoes (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support. There are so many reasons to support a move. It is certainly not a US-only spelling, and framing it that way is disingenuous. The largest yogurt manufacturers in the world spell yogurt "Yogurt". The article was originally "Yogurt". More people worldwide use "Yogurt". A noted British etymologist believes "Yogurt" is both superior and correct. This issue has been coming up perennially ever since the move to yoghurt... obviously there is a problem. Look at Arguments supporting "Yogurt", there is a clear consensus here. -Kai445 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - unless you think WP:COMMON means 'common in the USA.' Feh. There is not one good reason for moving this page. → ROUX ₪ 06:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Several other languages also use "Yoghurt", for instance in Swedish, Norse (2x), Dutch. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: That may be true, but this is not Swedish, Dutch, or Norse wikipedia. I have no problem with "Yoghurt" being used on sv.wikipedia.org, and it doesn't appear to be an issue over there. -Kai445 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the change, and oppose the US-bashing as well. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Again? I should not be surprised. As I've said before, as long as this article remains at Yoghurt, these requests will be made, and this issue will remain unresolved, because there will always be these two arguments for moving it:
  1. this article was originally at Yogurt, and
  2. the name "yogurt" is much more commonly used than "yoghurt", it's even commonly used in the UK.

On the other hand, if this article is moved to yogurt, neither of those arguments will apply, nor will any new ones. It will therefore be stable at Yogurt, because there will be no reason to even propose moving it to "Yoghurt".

So if anyone seriously believes it doesn't matter whether this article is at "Yogurt" or "Yoghurt", but just wants the debates to stop, he or she should support this move. On the other hand, if ones real motivation is to oppose any move that favours the US spelling simply because its the US spelling, he or should should oppose this move. It's really the only reason to oppose. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article has been at the current spelling for a while now; some disagreeing does not mean there is consensus for a move, regardless of what motives may be imputed to those of us pointing out it is in fact stable. (I'm also bemused at the low threshold for what is considered anti-Americanism; but I won't myself impute motives here. My reasoning remains what I have stated above - including my response to claims made, after performing a search myself in case I was out of date.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Stability" has been long used as a reason to keep the article as-is, but there is no evidence to support that. A couple of Pro-H people come by and keep things gridlocked... that's not a consensus, that's a ceasefire. Silence does not imply consensus, so any time between the move requests is not necessarily "stability", it's a cooling off period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.253.66 (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, I will not repeat my points (and questioning of your sampling, and links) half a dozen or more times, or fill out a form, just because you do. I have amply explained my reasoning; there is no consensus to move the article, in my opinion it is better left at the current spelling, and I do not see any merit to people repeating their points of view, much less making tables and lists. Your point of view is quite clear, Kai445, but so are the opinions of those who have not repeated themselves. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Just know that these requests will keep coming as long as the article remains at Yoghurt. Take for example the use who started this discussion. Been around since 2006, presumably knows what's what, but has never been involved in any of the previous move discussions here. You can maybe persuade this user it's not worth it, but what about the next? And the next, and the next and the next? Do you enjoy playing Whac-A-Mole? Why not end it by moving the article once and for all? What's the downside in doing that? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Giving in to bullying and mockery? Nah, I have to assume those doing the belittling, equating any view other than "go with the US spelling" with US-bashing, and the spurious filling in of the other point of view with "dearth" and so forth - and making endless demands for restatement - don't perceive it as bullying. I also don't see it as very productive to compare wiki-reputations. A user who's been here roughly twice as long as me started this move discussion - at the suggestion of a user who's been most active in it who's still quite new. At least one other poster here is very new. And one's an IP. I've been here since mid-'08. Quite a cross-section. Things like this are decided on the merits. Not by arm-wrestling, boasting about longevity, or insulting the other "side". The present title is fairer, the alternate spelling redirects, and the article has been stable for years where it is - until someone came along who dislikes non-US spellings (and doesn't realize Encyclopaedia Britannica is now owned by a US corporation '-)). So we're discussing it again. But it isn't a debating contest. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not bullying. As far as I can tell, no one is engaged in a pro-active campaign to change this title. The simple fact is that the issue keeps coming up, over and over, naturally, because the title is so obviously, well, wrong, to so many. That's just a fact. It's not bullying. It's not mockery.

Now, given that fact, that means requests to move it will also keep coming up, and so will these discussions. It should be obvious that that is going to keep happening as long as this article remains at Yoghurt. That's not a threat. It's an observation.

I mean, look at your reasons for not changing the title.

"The present title is fairer". Fairer? What's fairer about Yoghurt?

"The alternate spelling redirects." That's an argument for preferring Yoghurt over Yogurt? You can't be serious. Of course this point is neutral regarding the two choices.

"The article has been stable for years." Yes, "stable", if you want to count sufficient obstinacy to moving this title the countless times this issue has been raised to prevent a consensus from being achieved to move this article. Is that really stable? If the article was moved it would be at least as stable, almost more stable, so this point too is neutral regarding the titles.

As the section below indicates, you've got nothing bottom-line to support keeping this article at Yoghurt. Nothing. Except obstinacy. Suit yourself. --Born2cycle (talk)

• Oppose. As the google stats below show, academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt. Clear case of WP:ENGVAR to me. Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support WP:ENGVAR, the original article, written in 2002, was spelled as "yogurt". Clearly a case of WP:ENGVAR violation in moving it to "yoghurt", where someone violated it to use British spelling instead of North American spelling. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Way back in 2003... Jenks24 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on ENGVAR. Strange that you are using ENGVAR to then justify it staying where it is. So is it an ENGVAR violation or isn't it? When it gets changed the ENGVAR scorecard resets in your favor, and everyone else is out of luck? Strange world you live in. -Kai445 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Calm down, mate. My point was that for eight of the nine years this article has existed, it has had the h in the title. The spirit of ENGVAR is to avoid discussions such as this, where the title is at one variety of English, and has been for a considerable amount of time, it is pointless (and often counter-productive) to repeatedly try to change it. Some will be for, some will be against, and the end result will be 'no consensus'. By the way, there is no "scorecard" – this is not a game, and there are no winners or losers. Jenks24 (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
        • The funny thing about consensus, and I think some people (yourself included) may be confused, but this is not a voting process. 100 people can say "Support" and 100 people can say "Oppose", and that doesn't equal "no consensus". -Kai445 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Jenks, I've pointed this out so many times I think it's disingenuous to just ignore it ("Some will be for, some will be against" - as if that's all there is to it). This is not simply a case where there are two spellings and no particular reason to favor one or the other. In this case, because one side is strongly favored by a preponderance of arguments (see below), as long as it remains at the other name, the conflict will continue to exist; but if it is moved, the issue will be settled, because there will be no reason to argue it should be moved back. Please acknowledge or refute or something. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I do understand how consensus works. However, if 100 people vote (or "!vote" if you want) support and 100 people vote oppose, I can tell you that the result will be no consensus, unless a) there has been a lot of sockpuppetting, b) the closing admin supervotes, or c) the WMF (or possibly ArbCom) gets involved. We may like to look at our practices through rose coloured glasses, but that's the facts.

            B2C, I think you've actually hit the nail on the head – people will continue to make queries on the talk page whether the article is moved or not. As if to evidence this, the comment right below says "I've never seen it spelled without the 'h' until today" – there are two (possibly even three) valid spelling alternatives and I feel we should just stick with what we have. As I said in my vote, I do not believe those google stats actually support moving the article, the opposite in fact. Jenks24 (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. I've never seen it spelled without the "h" until today. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I have also never seen it without the h, so it should be in it.137.224.252.10 (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support All of those who say no reason to move it are simply ignoring the monthly talk page queries regarding the odd name. It's listed at WP:LAME because maintaining this name is the source of consternation. There is no policy based reason to keep this name other than being stubborn. Being stubborn is obnoxious to those who read this talk page or maintain the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Support per WP:RETAIN, WP:ENGVAR and any other number of policies like WP:COMMONNAME. This article was created on December 10, 2002 (yep, 9 years ago) clearly using yogurt. So any change from that spelling needs to be justified and supported by consensus. I'll also add that this page has been the subject of probably over 20 or more moves, some to the two versions here, some to either typos or names I don't understand and to apparently other spellings like Joghourt. This discussion needs to be put to bed and the best way is to simply put the article back where it started 9 years ago. Add in the fact that usage worldwide supports yogurt as the title and I really don't see how we can keep the article at the current spelling. WP:ENGVAR seems to be the primary reason to oppose the move yet, WP:ENGVAR screams that it should be moved! While some argue that it has been at this name for several years, that ignores the move wars and the various discussions. So claiming that the current name is stable appears to be an illogical conclusion based on the facts. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment regarding regional variation: I see that only the preferences of American and British dictionaries have been considered here. As has been shown, British dictionaries, like American ones, usually prefer yogurt; this is reflected by, for example, the UK-published Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage (which describes yogurt as "the preferred spelling" but acknowledges that yoghurt "is also common"). However, Australia's Macquarie and New Zealand's New Zealand Oxford both prefer yoghurt. And, interestingly, Canadian Oxford prefers French yogourt over both "American" yogurt and "British" yoghurt (in that order).

The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) addresses the regional variation of the spelling of this word in some detail, based on an analysis of corpus databases. To summarize, while "In the US yogurt is standard" and yogurt "is by far the most common" in Canada, it states that "British writers clearly prefer yoghurt" ("by the evidence of the BNC where it outnumbers yogurt by almost 3:1") and yoghurt is "ahead on database evidence" in Australia.

The omission of .nz from the table is surprising, particularly given its ratio in support of yoghurt over yogurt—while certainly not in the "Strong Yoghurt" category—is stronger than any of those for .au, .uk, or .za.

Also note that Michael Quinion says "There is no right or wrong here" when referring to the use of yoghurt or yogurt.[4] This seems to sum up the arguments for and against this RM ... at least unless, one day, yoghurt begins to "disappear for good".[5]

Finally, note that Strained yoghurt was recently inappropriately moved to Strained yogurt on 2011-07-09, based on a wholesale yoghurt→yogurt edit made on 2011-06-28 (which, unsurprisingly, also broke external links, etc.).[6] Based on WP:ENGVAR and this article's much simpler history, Strained yogurt undoubtedly needs to be returned to Strained yoghurt for now and the spelling change reverted; any reasons for it to be re-moved to Strained yogurt can then be outlined, if necessary, through a RM. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am also really amazed at some of the arguments in the section bellow. Especially the "Wikipedia article on this or that type of yoghurt uses the spelling I prefer". Since when is Wikipedia a source used to determine the naming of Wikipedia articles? I am also yet to understand the ""Yogourt" cannot be expanded from "Yoghurt"" argument. What should that mean, really? Nor there is any evidence that one version is overwhelmingly predominant globally. Moreover, as I already pointed out, readers looking for the article on "Yogurt" (strangely enough the spell-checker on my google chrome underlined the word) will inevitably end up at the right article. The wiki article is the first hit in google, even if one types "yogurt". So why exactly should we change it? --Laveol ^T 07:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the other articles using the same spelling... it's a matter of consistancy. If all varieties use "Yogurt", and you didn't know the spelling of the primary article, would you automatically assume the primary article is entitled "Yoghurt"? I wouldn't. You wouldn't either.

Regarding New Zealand... they're what, the 37th most populous English speaking country, certainly a distant one. Mexico has more english speakers (and they vastly prefer the no-H variety). NZ is a beautiful country, but if they are a justification for keeping H, then you're grasping at straws... I might as well bring up Fiji (Which prefers "Yogurt"). India has more English speakers, and they are on the list. (India has more English speakers than the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ put together... and they use "Yogurt" with a vast predominance.) -Kai445 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to both Laveol and Kai445: I have simply tried to show that the section below needs an overhaul if it is to be an accurate summary about the spelling of this word; I have not advocated the use of either spelling and am certainly not using .nz Google hits as "justification" for anything. Regarding the move itself, because regional variation is clearly present, the main reasons both for and against it are surely based on WP:ENGVAR: the main case for moving the article to Yogurt is that the article was first established with yogurt; the main case for keeping the article at Yoghurt is that it has since been established with yoghurt. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, although first established is part of the case for supporting this move, it is not the main case. At least as important is that "yogurt" has much wider -- nearly universal -- acceptance the world-around, that since the article was moved to yoghurt it has not been stable (because of all the proposals to move it and discussions), and if it is moved back to yogurt then the reasons to move it again will not exist, and so there it will be stable.

But I agree the main (really, only) case for oppose is the (disputed) claim that the article has been stable at yoghurt --Born2cycle (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose My copy of Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred over Yogurt - that's good enough for me. PeterWD (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The concise oxford is based on an older edition of the OED, as it is from 2004 (assuming you have the latest available). The current OED shows Yogurt as the primary entry, and Yoghurt as a variant. Languages evolve :). -Kai445 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - In Australia we use Yogurt, Yoghurt and Yoghourt. Dairy Australia, the coalition of national dairy farmers uses the shortest one as that is how we spell our pronunciation (Yoh-gert). Brands such as Dairy Farmers, Gippsland Dairy and Yoplait Australia use the same also. Nestle Australia currently uses the second variant but as Kai445 wrote below, they are switching to "Yogurt" (cite needed?). Vaalia does however does use "Yoghurt" though. As for "Yoghourt", Jalna is the only company that I know of who uses that particular spelling but only for marketing reasons as they use the traditional method of pot-setting, which doesn't require using artificial additives, such as colours, preservative, gelatines, emulsifiers etc.

SO, in a nut-shell, I support the move. Here endeth the lesson... AnimatedZebra (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support—ENGVAR, COMMONNAME, WP:COMMONALITY, etc, etc all suggest this should be at Yogurt. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)