Talk:Côte d'Ivoire

Involved admin closed previous discussion - please re-open

In the ANI it has been noted that the admin closing the most recent discussion, User:billinghurst is not unbiased as is shown in a July 2010 comment in which he states about the "Ivory Coast vs. Cote d'Ivoire" issue, admitting, "the debate has made me form an opinion" [1]. Another admin closing the discussion recently, User:GTBacchus, has also admitted having participated in a previous discussion (which he forgot about).

The discussion should be re-opened so that a truly uninvolved admin can take a look at it. Would someone please re-open it? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Of course billinghurst has an opinion. It is unrealistic to expect him not to have one. That doesn't make him involved. His closings on this page have been disputed before, and this last one was certainly disputed. Once one of his decisions are disputed, the admin is considered involved in that topic, according to WP:INVOLVED. What's more, it can't possibly be coincidence that the same admin closes three times in a row. He must be gaming the system somehow, although don't know if there is a directly relevant guideline for that. Kauffner (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What's the difference between reopening the discussion and just starting an RfC? We need wider input. Why not call it an RfC? Is there a reason not to have an RfC? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: Re-opening the discussion has no real meaning. Anyone can move the page if they think there's a consensus to move it. Wikipedia does not run "by the book". Just say what needs to be said, and do what needs to be done. Be alert at all times regarding consensus, and you won't go wrong. Forget all this red tape.

If the article should be moved, then first a stronger consensus should be demonstrated. How do we demonstrate it? We get wider community input, and we clarify the arguments on both sides for maximum effectiveness. I suggest a sub-page to outline the case for each side. I would make that suggestion just the same in an RM discussion as I would in an RfC. Why not just do that, instead of opening and closing formalities? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine. I believe there is a consensus of valid arguments to move it. The name used by the UN is not valid or relevant; we have policy on that, endorsed by ArbCom decision in the case of the Republic of Macedonia; neither is the preference of a former government of the Ivory Coast - since, even if it were valid, it cuts both ways. Let whoso disagrees say so now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Often there are good reasons for formalities. The community has agreed that the way we determine consensus regarding page moves is via RM discussions closed by uninvolved admins. Involved admins such as yourself - as demonstrated by your belief that stronger consensus has to be demonstrated "if the article should be moved" (not to mention your previous direct involvement in these discussions) - have not allowed this to happen. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't care where the article is, Born2cycle. My only reason for opposing the move is that there's no sense bouncing it back-and-forth any number of times before there's a clear picture of what the community decides. Moves between two controversial titles are discouraged. If you move the page, we'll just keep having this conversation over at Talk:Ivory Coast, and there will be more Requests, until there's actually a clear answer.

What I'm suggesting is that we get to that answer, whatever it ends up being. If the consensus is for "Ivory Coast", then I'm behind it 100%. Now it's not clear; it's muddy. Let's make it clear. If we do that, then we can stop having that conversation once and for all. Clarifying what the community wants is worth doing, and whether we do it in an RM discussion or an RfC doesn't matter very much. Do you understand what I'm saying?

By the way, the process at RM is not, and never has been required for moves. At Requested moves, we offer one way to do it. There are many others, and RM as a formality has never been required here.

We determine consensus however we happen to determine it, and that is a major strength of the wiki. You never "need" a formal move request. Just do the right thing, and make sure you did your homework. Be smart about not surprising people, and describe what you're doing as you do it. It'll be fine; you're free here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree that bouncing between A and B is, and should be, discouraged. What I disagree with is treating A and B equal when the article has been at A for a long time, has never been at B (or hasn't for a long time), and there have been multiple attempts by many people to move it to B. In many such cases the argument for B is stronger, but only slightly stronger than for A, which is why it keeps getting seen as "no consensus". However, if the case is truly stronger for B, then once it moves it is likely to stay there. I believe it's likely that that is the case here, and you can never know for sure until the article is moved. So while bouncing is and should be discouraged, in a case like this moving it once to the alternative just to see how that goes, in case it does garner significant consensus support once moved, should be encouraged. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that, if you're right, an RfC would cement your point and make you "win". There is no reason for you to come out against an RfC, because all it can do is help you. You want another weak, low-weight RM decision, when instead you could get a significant, strong, well-supported RfC decision. Why you're opting for the lesser form of support is completely beyond me. You seem to want to prolong this for more months than it deserves. Let's just do it right, and get it done with. Why on Earth not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There have been dozens of comments since it was closed about the closure, and an ANI. I've re-opened it accordingly, for the reasons stated above. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Since you like formalities, an RfC would be a more appropriate one at this point. It's clearly a big-deal case that will probably set lots of precedents. Is there any reason not to "escalate" to an RfC, to get a broader base to whatever we decide? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

GTB, in controversial cases, as this title obviously is (and was before the latest discussion started given its history) the RM process is required, as required as anything can be in Wikipedia: "This [RM discussion] process is only necessary if there is any reason to believe a requested move would be contested. ... If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. " And for good reason I might add.

Until an uninvolved admin closes this discussion, I see no point in even contemplating an RFC. Once that occurs, if it's closed as no consensus, then I could see a reason to go to an RFC. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, quoting rules to me is a terrible idea. It's not going to lead to a discussion that you want to be a part of. I'm serious about this. An RM request is NEVER REQUIRED. Read our policy on ignoring all rules, and believe it. Treating a move as controversial DOES NOT MEAN that a specific bureaucratic hoop has to be jumped through. It means that we should be very careful. RM is one way to do that, but in this case, I'd say RFC is a better way. Don't start telling me how RM works, because half of the procedures on that page were developed by... hmmm, guess whom? How many thousand move requests have you closed, Born2cycle? Quoting rules to me that I developed is very unlikely to advance your position in a discussion with me. Get it?

You're being bureaucratic, and you should stop, forever. Being bureaucratic on Wikipedia is a Very Bad Idea. This case deserves an RfC, and you're arguing to deny that level of attention to this case. I might as well ask whom you're trying to hide it from. RfC is a Very, Very Good Idea in this case, and the only arguments against it are bureaucratic nonsense.

I'd say in general that any move request that goes to RM for a third time is already overdue an RfC. Maybe we should add that to the RM page. Then you could quote it later to someone else, as a "rule". God, I don't understand why people love "rules" so much... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, simultaneously arguing for an RFC and against bureaucracy is hilarious. In any case, until and unless an uninvolved admin closes this discussion as "no discussion", I see no point in even contemplating the additional bureaucracy of an RFC.. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not suggesting it because I think there's a rule to be satisfied. I'm thinking about the very pragmatic aim of attracting maximum participation. Arguing to apply one process when another is suggested by the bureaucracy is not bureaucratic, it's called cutting red tape, and using the system in ways it wasn't meant to be used. That's like anti-bureaucracy. I can not (nor would I) dismantle the structures we've created, so I'm suggesting we use them with an eye to their effects, and not with an eye to how well they satisfy some formal procedure.

If I knew a feasible way to drag this issue before a larger audience than an RfC would attract, I'd suggest that instead. Skywriting is expensive these days, so you understand we're working with limitations... Anyway, whether you see a point in contemplating an RfC won't stop anyone else from setting one up.

Also, as long as we're entertaining each other, I find it funny that you're actually arguing against advertising this discussion to a wider audience. What negative effect of an RfC do you fear? What's there to oppose? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I never argued against an RFC. I argued against starting a new discussion (via RFC or any other mechanism) instead of re-opening the active/ongoing RM discussion that was prematurely closed by one biased admin (you), re-opened (me), then improperly closed again by another biased admin. All that is moot since it was re-opened. We don't reach consensus by closing discussions. As I stated at the ANI, I have no objection to adding an rfc tag to this discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and my whole point has been that IT DOESN'T MATTER if the above discussion is closed or open. Everyone can still read it, and people can continue to discuss the issues raised there. It doesn't matter which section of this talk page the discussion occurs in. Since you were very adamant that it happen in a section labeled "Move request", that's happening. Good work getting your way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether the discussion is closed or open may not matter, but if it's closed as "no consensus" when there really is consensus, that does matter. As long as only admins obviously biased against the proposal are declaring "no consensus" - that's meaningless, and that matters too. At any rate the discussion is now an RFC - good work getting your way. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, tee hee. Shall we continue to snipe at each other? That sounds fun! Take it easy, Born2cycle, we're all okay here. The wiki abides, and everything will end up in the right place. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Just having another look at this I can't believe that this is article is still called "Cote d'Ivoire", that's a joke, should we rename Germany, France, Italy, Spain, etc because that's not what the locals call them? I've never heard anyone refer to Cote d'Ivoire in discussion, or news broadcasts, or in print, it's is always without exception Ivory Coast. Was this done by someone with an anti-English language agenda? MattUK (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ironic that your entire argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT LOL (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

My argument is about using the COMMON NAME, not I don't like it, the two just happen to coincide. MattUK (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Ivory?

One might assume that the name derives from the historic importance of the ivory trade. Is this assumption correct? The article does not appear to say anything about it one way or the other; there is no mention of the country or region trading in ivory. Certainly I'm no expert. For all I know, ivory was never produced in the region at all.

If anyone working on the article does know one way or the other (and can find sources) I would encourage adding the information to the article, as it seems like a natural question. If by any chance the name does not come from the ivory trade, then it would also be interesting to find out how it does derive. --Trovatore (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "The Ivory Coast" referred to a region that included Cote d'Ivoire ... I'm trying to properly reference that for an article as well, but keep getting distracted (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Name

Do we really need subheaders for a paragraph on english media usage and another subheader for a paragraph on official usage? The whole section is about the size of a decent subsection, dividing it up is a crude and unnecessary expansion of the TOC. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the headers. One-graph headers are unncessary. 06:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I would like to know why the article is called Côte d'Ivoire and not Ivory Coast. If we are calling it Côte d'Ivoire then why isn't the article on Spain called España or the article on Germany called Deutschland? We're not giving them special treatment so why is Ivory Coast differant? Furthermore the article on East Timor isn't called Timor-Leste however the Timor-Leste is mentioned in the article. I propose that the name of the article is changed to Ivory Coast but, like East Timor, the name Côte d'Ivoire be used in the article. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

At the very top of the page there's a link to the dozens of past discussions on the same question (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, the conclusion, after much discussion of the this issue in the past, seems to be that both Côte d'Ivoire and Ivory Coast are commonly used in English-language sources. So for instance the BBC will most often refer to the country as Ivory Coast, while The Economist will most often refer to it as Côte d'Ivoire. We have not been able to establish in any decisive way which of the names is most commonly used by reliable English-language sources. We are therefore staying with the current name, at least until decisive evidence can be shown that it is not the most commonly used name, as changing the name of this article would mean having to change the name of many other article to keep internal consistency within Wikipedia.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)