Talk:Yogurt

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: Page to be moved back to Yogurt per WP:RETAIN. The argument made in the nomination, while made in good faith, is not a sound basis for a move: as User:Jenks24 points out in their "oppose" statement, "COMMONNAME does not trump ENGVAR". Indeed, if COMMONNAME did trump ENGVAR, we would have to revisit these discussions every time one spelling variant inched ahead of another in Google hits, which, while not disruptive per se, is certainly a use of time that could be better spent elsewhere. WP:RETAIN instead gives us the guidance that to promote stability in naming, "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." As there is strong consensus for the move in the discussion, and more specifically strong support for the view that WP:RETAIN is the applicable guide to naming this article, the page will be moved back to the first non-stub spelling, which, in this case, is "Yogurt". 28bytes (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

---

Yoghurt → Yogurt – Reliable sources, the corpus of english language books (combined British & American english) prevail with the spelling of yogurt. This needs to be changed per WP:COMMONNAME.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 20:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Per no consensus on the title, WP:RETAIN applies, which says "used in the first non-stub revision" and does not say "frozen at its current name". See Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The only thing lame about this is that "yoghurt" is still the title of the article. The Turkish word that the English word is derived from doesn't have an "h" in it, and for many that would be good enough. The Telegraph article[1] that Viriditas found is quite telling indeed. Combine the populations of the UK and Australia and you've got about 85 million people. The U.S. has... a few more than that. I find it sad that this continues, but I trust that the simplest and most correct solution will not be implemented anytime soon (if ever). Doc talk 06:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

And before any supporters of the "h" want to bring the staggering population of India into it: in the article Indian cuisine the term "yogurt" is used 7 times while "yoghurt" is used only four times (with three times within the same section, whereas "yogurt" is spread throughout the article). While a Google search of "Indian yoghurt" yields almost 4 million results, a Google of "Indian yogurt" yields over 17 million results. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

So, Doc, every time we have an ENGVAR issue we should just go with the US spelling because the US has more people? Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

That's just one point I brought up, and is hardly the main reason I Support the move. I don't think it ever should have been moved, but I wasn't around when that happened. For me it's more about the corruption of the root word and its steady replacement all over the world (manufacturers, dictionaries, etc.) not just WP. To stand by an archaic spelling that is preferred by a relatively small percentage of the English-speaking world doesn't make sense to me. But I'm just one idiot with an opinion, and we all have one. Doc talk 04:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

An even better method is to go to www.google.co.in and limit your domain to .in (India) and repeat the search (search string would be "yogurt site:.in" or "yoghurt site:.in"). Yogurt is preferred 2:1. Now limit your search to within the last year... yogurt is preferred 8:1. I think that shows predominant usage, and trending towards increased usage. -Kai445 (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support moving page to yogurt. Repeating my rationale from above, that the reliable sources, the corpus of english language books (combined British & American english) prevail with the spelling of yogurt. After looking through other arguments in this lengthy debacle, the ones for retaining the h are not well-substantiated and certainly not enough to overcome the bulk sum of reliable sources.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Note to closing admin: this support vote is from the nominator. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually, the nominator was SmokeyJoe, and he was posting a comment by Berean Hunter that was made by ANI to start the move request. Both support the move, so lets make sure both their comments (and "Votes" of support, SmokeyJoe above and BereanHunter here) are taken into consideration, and not discarded because of the misguided attempts to diminish the views of others. -Kai445 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm not attempting to diminish other peoples views. Looking at the nom, there is no indication that SmokeyJoe is quoting Berean Hunter, it looks as if Berean Hunter has made the nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support seeing that yogurt is common (or at least acceptable) in both British and American english, using that spelling is an oppurtunity for commonality. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Are we voting again? I am always going to lend my voice to ending this. SUPPORT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Support Per the summary table above which shows clear support of move per WP:COMMONNAME, it is reasonable to move to Yogurt. Also previous NOCONSENSUS should have resulted in a move per WP:RETAIN. -Kai445 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. My only hesitation in voting at all is that lots of "my spelling vs. your spelling" votes tend to exacerbate the all-too-prevalent misunderstandings and tensions between people of different nationalities. I practice what I preach: I'm American, but I carefully check for British, Canadian and Australian spellings in the relevant articles (because I do a lot of copyediting ... but also because I really believe that we should all make an effort to make everyone feel equally welcome here). But I think we're dealing with a WP:COMMONNAME here, per Kai (above) and others: the "yogurt" spelling seems to be predominant internationally. My top goal here is to make less work for people, and whenever you use a spelling that a lot of newbies are going to revert ... regardless of who's "right" or "wrong" ... it just makes more work for everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC) and drives away good-faith editors.
• Support Yogurt is clearly the more common spelling, as supported by the above dictionary sources, as well as the total usage statistics from Google books. It was also the original spelling of the article title. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose The article has been stable at an acceptable spelling with a clear explanation in it of variations in usage. All proposals for moving it have ended in deadlock, and there has not even been one for two years. Now a group of editors reject the self-evidently appropriate close as no consensus—of which it is a textbook case—and threaten to keep on agitating until it gets moved. There is no justification for revisiting the same move proposal immediately. The situation remains no consensus and my earlier argument based on a careful search to examine whether usage had changed stands and is not affected by threats or all the accusations of bias that have been slung. I hope some of those who regard the current spelling as wrong will put some fraction of the energy into defending this article against vandalism or finding additional references for it, but since yet another move vote has been called, here's my own abuse of time and server space. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I've just come to this page within the last day or two and I have found a basis which is clear to me and apparently new information to these discussions. It is a new argument that is well-founded...one that I note you have not made an argument against. I also note that nothing in your opposition cites policy or guidelines....looks like "I don't like it" to me. Consensus can change.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not a new argument at all. COMMONNAME does not trump ENGVAR – otherwise aluminium would be moved to aluminum (and countless others). It is also worth noting that Google, as an American company, will have an inherent US bias. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

COMMONNAME is a policy...ENGVAR is just a guideline isn't it? I believe that Google has taken the measure of all english language books that they could get. Claiming that they are biased seems a bit far-fetched.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

See my reply to Dank below. And, yes, Google does have an inherent bias – try any common Brit Eng v Am Eng spelling difference in an ngram and you will find the Am Eng one always "wins" (generally by 2:1). Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Again ... I support ENGVAR, not just in theory, but in practice ... Milhist has a lot of Australian editors that I have learnt from (see!) and support. But this isn't a Google bias, everyone comes up with the same figures, AmEng spellings (particularly those shared by Canadians) predominate internationally by about 2 to 1. That's actually rather the point here ... the predominance is only 2 to 1, so when the ngram for Yogurt vs. Yoghurt (uppercase) through 2008 comes up at 7 or 8 to 1, with a clear trend that shows it's probably already more than that, that means we're not just talking about an American spelling. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you do, Dank (I've seen your great copyediting work). My reading is actually about 4:1, but I get your point. My question is: if this is moved to the spelling that is apparently also acceptable in the UK, will the spelling of other words in the article also change to Am Eng, or will we keep Brit Eng text with the Am Eng title? Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Might that be because about twice as many books are published in AmE than BrE? :-) ― A. di M.​  19:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm honestly curious, A. di M., is that true? Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't actually know, but the US has about five times as many citizens as the UK and I can see no obvious reason why the average number of books published per person wouldn't be the same order of magnitude in both countries. The fact that Australia, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand etc. (and, for certain words, Canada) usually use British spellings would bring the total ratio closer to unity. In other words, I can't be 100% sure that the “English” corpus in Google Ngrams is completely unbiased, but the evidence doesn't make me think it's likely to be biased by more than about a factor of two. ― A. di M.​  13:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: In the pie chart in List of countries by English-speaking population#List in order of native speakers the US slice does seem to be roughly twice as large as the rest, even though the data (according to the file name) are 14 years old, different countries likely use slightly different definitions of native speaker, etc. ― A. di M.​  13:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, can you explain why it was moved from another spelling to this one with consensus? Also please explain how you can say it is stable at this name despite the never ending requests to return the article to the original name per policy? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think that this argument has gone on more than long enough and hope it ends soon. 8 years of arguing is just too much! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support—I don't understand how it can stay here, given ENGVAR. ENGVAR enjoys broad community support. Also, in a world without ENGVAR, I would support per COMMONNAME and COMMONALITY. The latter is the point that yogurt is a more universal spelling; in regions in which it is spelt yoghurt the other spelling of yogurt doesn't seem odd, but not vice versa. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

  As an exercise, I just asked five of my mates how they would spell yoghurt. They all answered with y-o-g-h-u-r-t and all said that not using the h would be odd (and three actually told me that not using h would be equivalent to spelling colour without the u). I know that is OR-y, but your claim that yogurt doesn't seem odd to (at least Australians) is not true. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  That doesn't surprise me; I think there's evidence—not just anecdotes—in earlier discussions about this here to back up my point. But in any case, I'm not trying to argue that in some regions yoghurt is not the common spelling ala color/colour. In fact, I'm arguing that this is a regional thing, which is why it needs to be moved back. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  Fair enough, Erik. I guess we just disagree on whether the h spelling is established or not and will be unable to convince each other. Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support The conflict about this title has been raging for seven years, ever since the article was surreptitiously moved from Yogurt to Yoghurt on Christmas Day, 2003[2] for the most dubious and laughable of reasons ("I think it would be more phonetically accurate to use the yoghurt spelling in the article since it more closely suggests the proper pronunciation")[3]. See also: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. The "Yoghurt" title has never had consensus support, but consensus is clear that the ENGVAR "ceasefire" does not apply here, for a variety of reasons. The arguments supporting Yogurt overwhelm the arguments supporting Yoghurt. Restoring the original title per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN is the only way to finally end this seven-year-long conflict, because once the article is moved, there will be no basis for a Yogurt → Yoghurt move. Anyone genuinely interested in ending this crazy, crazy situation must support this proposal. Opposing this move, is, according to Einstein, the definition of insanity. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, most especially per WP:COMMONALITY. Why? Ngrams can be restricted to British results. When this is done, you can see that both spellings are accepted and acceptable in Britain. Given that, let's use the spelling that has the most common ground: "yogurt". Dohn joe (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Are British and American the only two varieties of English? Out of interest, why does Australian English have less weight than American and British? Is it because Australia has a smaller population? If so, we should just move all articles to American spelling (or perhaps Indian :) Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • You know, I was going to mention Australia, but ngrams can only be restricted to American and English results. I was hoping that I could make a broader point without explicit mention of every variety of English. Dohn joe (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, India does have a large English population. It does seem that Yogurt is prevalent there, though. As for Australia, the Australian Dairy Farmers Council has standardized on "Yogurt" and you will likely find pots of "Yogurt" at your local market (based on many, but certainly not all, labels I've found of products in Australia). -Kai445 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Per my previous comments on latest move proposal. --Laveol ^T 23:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support The arguments summarized above make everything very clear.--SexyKick 00:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to most common spelling. . .and a close of "no consensus" should revert this article to the original title. After all, if a consensus had been required from the beginning, this would have never been moved. "Yogurt" appears to be the most prolific form anywhere. Ridiculous, R. Baley (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oh, no, not again. Leave it where it is; we do not adopt American spellings just because there are more Americans than Brits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • PMA, that's true, and it would be a good rebuttal to the common name argument, except for two things. First, "yogurt" is not just the American spelling - it's recognized and used in all English-speaking countries (much more so, than, say, "color" is in "colour" countries). Second, this is not the reason this move is being proposed and supported. We also don't adopt non-American spellings just because one editor considers the non-American spelling to be more phonetically correct, yet that's the only reason ever given for moving this article from its original spelling at Yogurt, to Yoghurt[4]. That's why and how this conflict started, and why it has raged for almost eight years now. So the main reason for this move is to restore the original title in order to end this conflict. See Moriori's !vote just next. --01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, I know. But yoghurt is also American usage, if less common. Original editor is only intended to be decisive for articles which have never been stable so we cannot stick with established usage. This change removes a minor rhetorical point, that British spellings are welcome, in order to satisfy editors whose imagination of yog[h]urt does not extend beyond Dannon's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • • Hi Sept. I'm not following ... doesn't that graph show a 0.000003% prevalence for "yoghurt"? Here's the graph for both spellings. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC) tweaked my link to cover 1965 to the most recent year, why are some people using outdated info? 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • PMA: did you not notice my ngram above, which was restricted to British English, and shows that both spellings are quite common in Britain - and that, in fact, in certain years "yogurt" seems to have been more prevalent? Doesn't it make sense to use a spelling that is acceptable in all English-speaking countries? Dohn joe (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • It does make sense to use a spelling found on both sides of the Atlantic; fortunately, we already have one. These efforts to appease those too provincial to recognize this, or the people who have invented their own private policy, are not helpful to the encyclopedia. Educate those who can be educated; ignore those who can't.
  • If we do not adopt American spellings, then why should we adopt British spellings? This article was renamed to include the "h", it originally did not have it. Why should British spelling get extra special support? 70.24.248.23 (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Saw a mention of this at ANI but am previously totally uninvolved. Having spent a lot of time going through the copious history, I can't help but feel that only a rename might end this incredible saga. I agree with the poster who said that as long as the title is Yoghurt there will always be rename requests because the title was originally yogurt, and yogurt is clearly the most common spelling. But if the article was called yogurt there would be no reason to request a name change because neither original-title nor most-common-spelling would apply, and there are no other compelling reasons AFAICS. Moriori (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support, whilst imploring the closer to make clear that arguments centred around the number of US-speakers carry absolutely no weight. WP:RETAIN is the best way to sort out naming disputes where strong national ties to one variety of English do not exist, or where it cannot be shown that most of the world uses one form. In this case, the first significant contributor used American English, and there was no compelling reason to change to another form. If the reverse were true I would forcefully argue the reverse. —WFC— 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You misunderstand the guidance. It is to retain what we have, unless there has been continual edit-warring; that's why it's called WP:RETAIN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The only reason there isn't current warring is a technicality - editors without admin privileges cannot move these titles. But it doesn't say "unless there is current edit-warrning" anyway - it says "stable". What we do have is eight years of dismay, discontent, debate and conflict. In that context, to call the current title "stable", which has never had consensus support, is to use a definition of stability that is not very practical. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, we've had eight years of POV-pushing, of at least two sorts:
        • "We must use American spelling, because I use it, even though other people disagree."
        • "We must always use the most common spelling, because I would like the policies to say so, even though they don't." Other people disagree with this too.
      • Both these groups are harmful to the encyclopedia; both should have been squelched long since. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Again, that would all be valid if the well wasn't poisoned when the article was first moved, pointlessly, from Yogurt to Yoghurt. Because of that, whether people's reasons are what you say they are or not (and let's not forget to AGF), it doesn't matter. The fact remains that the original move violated ENGVAR, which has advised, even in 2003, against that kind of move precisely to avoid what has happened here since. That's what should have been rectified a long time ago. Better late than never. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • To add to what B2C said, both of the "points" made are simply false premises. Nobody has said either. Your argument is really not relevant to the discussion because it's not rooted in truth. -Kai445 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

          Spare me. Both are held in this discussion. But I should add the POV that we must undo a hypothetical wrong committed, if at all, in 2003. I realize that some editors are incapable of giving up; but Wikipedia would benefit from a statute of limitations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

          The wrong is not hypothetical at all. Not at the time, and not once in the eight years hence, has anyone justified that move. Because "yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct"? Please. Even if that were true, it wouldn't justify a move, I presume you agree. And yet that's all that has ever even been offered as a justification. You can't reasonably argue that this proposed move is wrong, without recognizing that the original move was wrong for the reasons you're trying to apply here (no, two wrongs don't make a right, but this is being done to correct a wrong). We shouldn't reward the wrong, no matter how long it has been.

          As to the statute of limitations... first, that is something that is hypothetical, because of course we don't have one. And if we were to have one, what should it be? Five years? Two years? One year? Regardless, grievances about the title were first filed within a few months of the move, and the conflict has been raging ever since. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • While I would question the extent to which you understand policy, I accept that further explanation would have helped. RETAIN is in this instance an unhelpful title. The point of RETAIN is to have a bright-line standard for cases where there is no other good reason for using a particular variety of English. In this instance stability is highly questionable, as is consensus. As a Brit I wish it were otherwise, but that bright-line test is very clear. "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." In this instance that means the US spelling. In cases where there is no good argument for a particular variety of English, an objective way of deciding takes the decision away from perennial, idealogically driven edit warriors (many of whom are supporting this proposal, I admit) and puts it in the hands of people who actually write articles.

    So much as I personally dislike that outcome in this instance, I think it is very important that the closer acknowledges this principle if the page is moved. A move without further comment will simply give the green light to future "discussions" which boil down to nothing other than like or dislike for one version of English. —WFC— 07:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

    You omit an entire paragraph. The bright line is:

    When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.

    There are occasions where no usage is established, and for them we fall back on first contributor, having nothing else; but the text of this article is in British English.

    There are no valid reasons for this change; yoghurt does not have strong national ties to the United States, and there is no ambiguity. Some might suggest that this explains the rash of procedural arguments here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

    • It is laughable to suggest that consistent usage has been established in the article. Regardless, the simplest way to resolve this sort of issue throughout the project is to create an environment where barring strong reasons not to, the variety of English is set in stone by the first person to bother writing about a subject. If this approach were applied more consistently and forcefully throughout Wikipedia, the majority RMs like this would die off overnight, and most of the rest would be SNOW closures. —WFC— 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support WP:ENGVAR -- first nonstub version was situated at "yogurt" before someone renamed it to the British spelling. Further per WP:COMMONALITY the version used in more types of English is "yogurt". And per WP:COMMONNAME, the more common version in most types of English that use both spellings is "yogurt". 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONALITY does not say that. Jenks24 (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. While I'm sure it is good faith, the nomination is completely misguided – COMMONNAME does not trump ENGVAR. Please see Talk:Yoghurt/Archive 5#Google results table, which gives a useful summary. As can be seen academic sources (the sources we should be following for writing an encyclopedia) in the UK and Australia still vastly prefer the h spelling (6:1 and 4.5:1 respectively). Also, the Macquarie Dictionary, probably the most authoritative source on Australian English, uses the h spelling. Many of the above have mentioned WP:RETAIN, but that is not me reading of the guideline. Here's what I see: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary." This article has been consistently at the h spelling for the past eight years (with breaks of a few hours at most). We have an established spelling, so there is no need to use the first non-stub version as a tie-breaker. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the previous RM, NOCONSENSUS should have moved the article back per ENGVAR. Established? You are ignoring the history of the article to delude yourself into believing that. -Kai445 (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "Per the previous RM"? Do you mean the RM established that (if so, I disagree), or per your comments at that RM? Anyway, as I've said the spelling has been established for eight years and that every year or so one or two people kick up a fuss does not mean that the spelling is somehow not established. Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit out of my depth here, but in general, policy (COMMONNAME) is supposed to trump guidelines (ENGVAR) where the two conflict or appear to conflict. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that, in general, policy > guideline, but if we take that as true in this case we may as well not have ENGVAR at all. The entire point of ENGVAR is that there are different varieties of English and we pick one and stick with it – if we say that COMMONNAME trumps it then it's pointless because we'll just end up counting google hits (e.g. aluminium will be moved to aluminum because, according to this ngram, it's twice as common). But there are countless examples of ENGVAR having precedence over COMMONNAME at RMs (they are a pain to find, though, as RM does not have an archival system). On an unrelated note, I see that many above are claiming that they have ngrams that show the non-h spelling to be more common in Brit Eng books, but looking at this ngram, I see the complete opposite. Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

"The entire point of ENGVAR is that there are different varieties of English and we pick one and stick with it". Yes, and the problem here is that we did pick one, "yogurt", but we didn't stick with it, and we had no good reason to switch. This proposal, if it succeeds, will rectify that, finally, and will settle this conflict once and for all. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Who cares if someone changed it eight years ago when ENGVAR did not exist? The point is, we've had this title for eight years, it is clearly established, and it is against ENGVAR to move it (for a very good reason – to try and avoid these ridiculously long debates). Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Try reading the policy. COMMONNAME is only one possible argument, of many. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and there are several other arguments favoring "yogurt", including conciseness and recognizability. But here's the thing, on a level playing field, where "yoghurt" does not have default/home advantage, there are no arguments that favor it over "yogurt". The only point favoring "yoghurt" is that it currently happens to be the title, but even that little point must be heavily if not entirely discounted due to the dubious grounds upon which it surreptitiously achieved that status. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, one letter less and it wins on conciseness. Good grief. Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. I thought it was worth noting in the context of PMA's point that there are policy based arguments other than COMMONNAME. You're not going to get a strong such argument for either name, because they're so similar. So, relatively speaking, the slight advantage one gets on conciseness is notable, especially considering that yoghurt does not answer any of the criteria questions better than does yogurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

If the "slight advantage one gets on conciseness" (that is, one letter) actually has any sort of traction in this discussion, then it is way too close to call and should be closed no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support as per above - I like eating Frozen yogurt or Soy yogurt over something called Yoghurt  :-) .Moxy (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I support Moxy's awesome userpage. I like it. -Kai445 (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - again. Taking out the "h" is just another example that English-users are getting sloppy and lazy. And this is not a matter of US/UK spelling, so to those editors who are trying to make that a point of contention, leave your nationalism out of this. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  Yes, let's move all our English language words back a couple years. Because obviously languages don't evolve or anything. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree with Hot Stop. Strange that you would oppose the move for those reasons, you are discounting a lot of evidence to support a bad transliteration that is falling out of favour. -Kai445 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • • Actually "yoghurt" is not a bad transliteration. The Turkish word was "yoğurt" note that the third letter is <ğ> not <g> and the standard transliteration (at least at the time, I'm not sure about now) for <ğ> (which represents /ɰ/ - a velar approximant, a sound not present in English) is/was <gh> not <g>. I know this is not the main part of your argument, but its still better to base your entire reasoning on facts. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm sure English will eventually "evolve", and I suppose there's already evidence of that in the texting dialect, but I don't see why it needs to be validated or endorsed. The re-direct and discussion in the article are fine as they are. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • "Yogurt" isn't a corruption of the English language, so comparing its usage to texting is a stretch. Dictionaries, dairy trade groups, and manufacturers worldwide use or prefer "yogurt", and if the word was being transliterated any time in the last fifty plus years from Turkish, nobody would be using "gh". Look at the prevalence of books using both spellings on Ngram, using the corpus "English One Million", which is a random sampling of books from each year across all varieties of English (http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=yogurt%2Cyoghurt&year_start=1900&year_end=2008&corpus=1&smoothing=3), so books clearly favour "Yogurt" across the English language. Calling editors who support the move lazy and sloppy is a baseless attack, and your opposition should be reassessed. -Kai445 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I said "English-users" not "editors", so it wasn't an "attack" so much as a "generalization", which still isn't nice on my part but not as focused, or aggressive, as an "attack". And not "baseless" - my opposition is based on a conservative view, but I suppose "baseless" is usually the adjective that often gets attached to "attack". Makes it sound better. Perhaps I will re-assess my opposition, but not today. I am satisfied and stand by it. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This comment isn't based on any Wikipdia policy. Is it even worth considering? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Support per Common Name and that the majority of Wikipedia readers would use this spelling variation.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've seen the arguments of both sides summarized above, and it looks reasonable to me to make the move to yogurt. Lets get on with it already. -Jcask (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)— Jcask (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Oppose, because renaming the article or leaving as it is is just covering the problem instead of actually solving it at its root. As has been said uncountable times before both spellings are correct in English dialects, and what is more common depends on where you live on this planet. Since the English Wikipedia is an international project, not a US-centric project (assuming the "Yogurt" variant is more common in the US than it is, for example, in European countries), there is clearly no way to solve the problem by emphasizing/forcing one spelling variant over the other. Therefore it would be an exercise in futility to rename the article and it is just a matter of time before the debate continues in the other way around.

The solution, as I see it, seems to be to have *two* seperate articles, one named "Yoghurt", the other "Yogurt". Of course, this is undesirable because they would look almost the same and it would increase storage space and more than double the maintenance time. But there are technical solutions to this problem, so that the two articles could still be edited in a single place.

For example, it might be possible to patch the Mediawiki software so that it becomes possible to add a pipe argument to a redirect as in this hypothetical example:

#redirect[[target_page|target_page_title]]

This could at least change the page title. All occurances of Yoghurt/Yogurt in the article could be replaced by a automatically defined system variable derived from the page title (I would have to look this up, it is likely that such a variable already exists). This way, we would end up with one generic physical article which has two "view modes", either as Yoghurt and Yogurt. Example:

Article "Yogurt" contents:

#redirect [[Yoghurt|Yogurt]]

Article "Yoghurt" contents:

Actual contents of the combined article with all occurances of Yoghurt and Yogurt replaced by {{PAGENAME}} (or a similar new magic word like {{TITLEPAGENAME}})

It might be possible to achieve the same without changing the software (if sub-pages were enabled in article mainspace -- currently, they are not, though) simply by moving the whole article's contents into a template/sub-page and transcluding its contents from there into two (otherwise empty) main articles named Yoghurt and Yogurt, which just invoke the template/sub-page. The spelling variant to be used would have to be defined as a template parameter. Example:

Article "Yogurt" contents:

{{:Yoghurt/Spelling_Variants|{{PAGENAME}}}}

Article "Yoghurt" contents:

{{:Yoghurt/Spelling_Variants|{{PAGENAME}}}}

Article "Yoghurt/Spelling_Variants" contents:

Actual contents of the combined article with all occurances of Yoghurt and Yogurt replaced by {{{1}}}.

Since sub-pages are not currently enabled in mainspace, we'd have to resort to something similar but more cumbersome. Example:

Article "Yogurt" contents:

{{:Yoghurt|{{PAGENAME}}}}

Article "Yoghurt" contents:

Actual contents of the combined article with all occurances of Yoghurt and Yogurt replaced by {{#if:{{{1}}} | {{{1}}} | {{PAGENAME}} }}. It should be possible to move this construct into a generic Template, but it might be a bit tricky since we'd have to define a named variable (by transcluding from self without recursion). I haven't tested the right now, but something along this line should be possible to implement so that usage would be mostly transparent in the end from a user's perspective.

This would not only solve this eight year old debate, but also all similar AE/BE/etc. spelling problems. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Matthias, you ignore the fact that we have countless articles in WP with titles that have a different spelling in another variant but yet are stable. Why the difference? Because most (if not all) of those articles never had their titles changed without establishing consensus for the change, and that's what happened here. Your opposition to this proposal is based on the assumption that "it would be an exercise in futility to rename the article and it is just a matter of time before the debate continues in the other way around", and, yet, the evidence indicates that other similar articles that are at the title originally given to the article, like Color and Aluminium, remain reasonably stable. Say what you will of the arguments made in favor of the proposed move, but you cannot deny that at least some of them are arguably reasonable. The same cannot be said for any arguments that might be made to support a Yogurt → Yoghurt move (disagree, what would such an argument be?). In fact, I suspect this is why the opposition to these proposals has always been so strong. Those who favor the "yoghurt" spelling must know in their hearts that if the article is ever moved, it will definitely be over, and they will have lost their precious h forever. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a US vs. UK issue, since Yogurt is used in the UK (and sold as Yogurt by top brands, and the UK dairy trade uses "Yogurt"). So the entire proposal is irrelevant. -Kai445 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't really approve of this or any other attempt to do an end-run around ENGVAR.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It is ironic and hypocritical to use an argument against ENGVAR end-runs in order to oppose a proposal which is a remedy per WP:RETAIN to the 2003 ENGVAR end-run [5][6]. Oh. I note from your user page that you're a British Wikipedian. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    • The edit in March 2003 couldn't possibly have been an end-run around ENGVAR, because ENGVAR wasn't enforceable until it was introduced into the MOS in October 2003 (and specifically in this diff). The "yoghurt" spelling then became the stable version. I'm somewhat amused that you're taking such careful note of my country of origin, but I assure you that I'm not part of the Evil British Plot To Confuse You With Weird Spellings.—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The original move was in bad faith even if the policy didn't exist yet. I assure you not everyone that is for the move is not part of an evil American Plot To Destroy The World By Renaming This Article. I am also an ardent supporter of Aluminium :). I feel this move has merit. As for B2C, I think he is frustrated and lashing out, he's been arguing a long time, try and pay him no mind. -Kai445 (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm intrigued. What makes you think the original move was in bad faith?—S Marshall T/C 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
          • My reasoning was basically... There are actions that take place that are frowned upon by the community, enough so that we need guidelines or policies (engvar) to deal with them. If someone performed those same frowned upon actions, but policy wasn't written, could they still have been acting in good faith? It would be obvious to me that people were causing enough of an issue for the rules to have been written in the first place... so those same actions must have been deemed negative, thus policy was drafted. Maybe I'm not being clear, but I think you should have an idea. -Kai445 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
            • I understand where you're coming from but I don't know if I agree with you. It's hard for me to view an edit from March 2003 in its proper context because I didn't even register an account until 2006, by which time ENGVAR was fully-formed. I can imagine that the person who made the edit back then might have felt that he was doing it in good faith. He seems to have been genuinely concerned about pronunciation. It seems bizarre to us now through the lens of all that's happened since, but maybe, back then, it all might have made more sense. Incidentally, the spelling I learned in school was "yoghourt".—S Marshall T/C 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
              • Struck my "oppose". Might as well let the yanks have this one regardless of ENGVAR; they just want it more.—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing break

• Strong Support It’s clear that the predominant English-language spelling isyogurt at a relative proportion of 140 to 44. Moreover, none other than the secondary American RS The New York Times always spells it “yogurt”. So too does Britain’s The Telegraph (a British secondary RS). In fact, searching The New York Times for “yoghurt” returns “Did you mean Yogurt?” Furthermore, the major manufacturers of yogurt (primary RSs) for English-speaking peoples Dannon, here and Yoplait, here spell it “yogurt”. Finally, most-reliable English-language secondary RSs such as the Food network and Alton Brown spell it “yogurt”. Since the dominant English-language spelling is “yogurt”, and since this is en.Wikipedia, the article should be moved (article title changed) to “Yogurt” and the body text should use “yogurt” exclusively. That there are other spellings on this pale blue dot would best be addressed as a near-parenthetical aside later in the article. Greg L (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. No, it's nothing to do with how many Americans there are. No, it's nothing to do with how much wikilawyering people can do over WP:ENGVAR, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RETAIN, etc. It's all about shutting up this utter waste of everyone's time that has been going in for eight <expletive deleted> years! "Yogurt" is the US spelling, it's common here in the UK (I have some "Lancashire Farm Yogurt" in my fridge - Lancashire!), and it looks like it's predominant in India. So, forgetting all the lawyering and obfuscation, "Yogurt" makes more sense - the article should be moved, and can have the alternative spelling in the opening sentence. Then we can go back to our lives - we do all have them, don't we? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Weak support per WP:COMMONALITY – yogurt is common enough everywhere, whereas yoghurt is rare in the US[7][8][9] (even though we do have article titles such as Industrialisation that don't follow my own reading of WP:COMMONALITY). ― A. di M.​  19:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support There appears to be a reasonable consensus for this move. The summary of arguments in support gives clear support for a move per WP:COMMONNAME. -TamaDrumz76 (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)— TamaDrumz76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Strong Support per overwhelming evidence of the lack of an 'h' in the vast, vast majority of usages of the word in the English-speaking world, and per WP:COMMON, and maybe per WP:COMMONNAME, but mostly per WP:COMMON and the overwhelming evidence part. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:Engvar, WP:Retain, WP:Commonality and WP: Commonname. It is clear that worldwide, "yogurt" is the most common spelling. It is also where the article was originally placed. Previous move to this location was done arbitrarily without discussion. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - The current title is a correct spelling of the topic of the article, in some variety of English, and it's been the title for a long time. Leave well enough alone. If you have to go digging in the history to determine that the current title is a problem, then it's not a problem except for those who are looking for problems. Looking for problems is not the point of Wikipedia.

  I support the strong discouragement of arguments about which variety of English is used anywhere on Wikipedia. Reviving such arguments should be grounds for blocking because of disruption. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • • Update: In the spirit of the original ENGVAR ceasefire, I think it's best if we refrain from arguing about any spelling difference between different varieties of English. Anyone who disagrees with that has a full right to do so, in this context or any other relevant one. I'll probably disagree, but there's no issue that we're forbidden from discussing. Sometimes, a bit of tumult is worth is for the long-term stability that it buys us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Bad faith! Very bad judgment. Too many i***ts bantering these terms around. I made the RM in good faith! If you think I was disruptive then block me for it and we'll have the review at ANI but bear in mind that if you do I will be asking for your tools. I gave you the good faith to defend your actions; at least you could have given me the same good faith instead of leveling accusations at me.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Goodness! I have no doubt that you made the nomination in good faith, and I have not suggested otherwise. If blocking were only for bad faith... we'd be on some other wiki. I'll never block you, either. I never, ever, ever consider blocking anyone when I'm involved in a dispute, and I'm clearly involved here. I've never behaved in that manner, and I've always opposed others who do. You have acted in perfect faith - no question. That's never been a question for me. Goodness, gracious.

      Good faith has nothing to do with this. I never said you meant to be disruptive. What a horrible conclusion to jump to.... wait for it... in perfectly good faith. I will never doubt your good faith, unless you start randomly vandalizing pages, which I seriously doubt you'll ever do. Thank you for understanding that I do not make accusations of bad faith ever. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment - If there's a problem, it needs to be solved. If there's no problem, why are you chiming in with an "Oppose" instead of a "Comment". -Kai445 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Because I oppose the move. That was easy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • The defenders-of-the-h must know in their hearts that there is no reasonable argument to support a Yoghurt → Yogurt move, so they must pull out all the stops to keep this article from being moved to Yogurt. But even knowing that I'm stunned by their willingness to apparently stop at nothing to keep their precious h in this article's title. First PBS prematurely closes/stops productive discussion for an unprecedented "time out" excuse, and then he locks the talk page (the talk page!!!) to prevent further discussion, and now GTB is floating the idea that editors who try to build consensus through discussion on an issue for which there has not been consensus for eight years should be blocked. Blocked for using the one and only time-honored method for building consensus in Wikipedia!!!

    When you're using or considering using unprecedented and extreme authoritarian measures to defend one letter in a title, it might be time to take a break. This behavior is absolutely stunning. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    • Stunning. For the record. I don't "defend-the-h". I don't give a damn about the 'h'. I oppose keeping this argument going, which is precisely what you've been pouring energy into. I think your participation on Wikipedia is disruptive, and generates more heat than light. You don't seem to care how much disruption your crusade causes - on this page and on many others - so I think you should go away. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't want to look too much into this, but why did PBS want F&K to look at his improper closing? Anyone? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fish_and_karate#Move_page_to_yogurt -Kai445 (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • And though I disagree with GTBacchus's viewpoint, I think it's unfair to group him (or anyone) in the same category as PBS. -Kai445 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Disagree with GTBacchus's viewpoint? You mean the part where he wrote Reviving such arguments [which variety of English] should be grounds for blocking because of disruption??? Uhm… Is there some un-written rule that editors active in discussing how best to serve the interests of Wikipedia’s readership should first consult GTBacchus as to what thought he approves of being shared? He must have perceived that such tactics have worked in the past or he wouldn’t be employing them here. Just thank your lucky starts, Kai445, that he employed such eloquent and thoughtful reasoning to accompany his “oppose” !vote (it sorta undermines that position). I thought the best way to articulate any given position and resolve this issue was via evidence pertaining to overwhelming usage; I predicated my !vote on that foundation. But, turning my old Betazoid telepathic Skill‑O‑Meter to “100%”, I’m now seeing that there has been some water under the bridge on this issue and some editors have their noses all bent out of joint. That can’t be helped. I came to this issue fresh and perceive no need to be drawn into the wikidrama. I do however, have little patience for those who would presume to dictate to others what they may think with regard to Wikipedia-related content issues and whether such thought may be shared with other editors on a talk page. Exceeeeedingly poor form, IMHO. Greg L (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Greg, I never have dictated, and never will dictate, to anyone what they should think. Never. I have no perception that any "tactics" such as you describe have worked in the past; you will find no record of any such interaction I've ever been involved in on this Wiki. This is new for me.

          My position is that this is a question regarding varieties of English, and that we agreed a long time ago to leave these things alone. I think the reasoning behind that ceasefire is still good, and it should be stuck to. I don't think that putting energy into arguments about changing from one acceptable spelling of an English word to another serves the Wiki in any way; on the contrary, I believe that it's actively disruptive, and generates NO light at all. Active disruption that generates no light has long been sufficient grounds for blocking.

          I doubt that anyone will be blocked for crusading to end the sensible ceasefire we call ENGVAR. However, I think they should be. My stating that opinion isn't compelling anyone to do anything. You seem to want to dictate that I not state my opinion. Well, that's yours, and you're welcome to it. I'm glad you've stated it.

          I would prefer, when you have a problem with me, that you directly address me, but I neither can, nor wish to, compel you in this matter. I can't compel anyone, and that's good. I can and will state opinions, and I encourage you to continue doing the same. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

      • I oppose keeping this argument going, which is precisely what you've been pouring energy into. - GTB

        ROTFLOL!!! Of course you oppose keeping this discussion going... because you oppose the move and if discussion keeps going consensus in support of the move, contrary to your wishes, might develop. We can't have that, now, can we? Hat's off to the audacity you express here; it's only exceeded by that of PBS, which is record-breaking as far as I can tell.

        If the proposal succeeds, there are no conceivable reasonable arguments for moving this article from Yogurt to Yoghurt, and you know it. When we return articles in ENGVAR situations to their original titles, that is what ends the conflict. And you know it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that that will not also occur here. The proposal, so far, has consensus support. Yet you oppose it. And you have the gall to claim that you're the one opposing keeping this argument going? You have been on the side of keeping this argument going for four and a half years. Regardless of the history, regardless of the overwhelming advantage "yogurt" has over "yoghurt" in terms of arguments, you refuse to acknowledge this, much less concede to the reason and logic supporting this move. Flying in the face of common sense, you argue the exact opposite. And the funny thing is, I really believe you're doing this in good faith. Stunning indeed. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

        • You seem to think that I care how "yogurt" is spelled. I do not, and I never have, and I never will. If it were at yogurt and the discussion were to restore the 'h', I would oppose on precisely the same grounds - we should not be messing with varieties of English, per the long-standing ENGVAR ceasefire. That is all.

          If a consensus develops to move the article and get rid of the 'h', I'll stay out of the way, and not complain. However, there's currently a survey on whether we should move the page, so I've registered my opposition, both to the move, and to the putting of energy into changing from one perfectly good English spelling to another. Fair enough? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

GTB, I appreciate that you want to leave well enough alone and oppose for that reason. However, it doesn't work because the H title is shocking to casual readers and results in endless questions on the talk page. When you look at the archives the endless questioning of the title doesn't come from established users acting belligerent, but from IP addresses and casual editors who stumble upon it. The title itself is disruptive because so many English readers will 'sound it out' like a new word. It's not simply different spelling, it affects what they expect. It's because of this shock to casual readers that I am supporting the move. It will end the bickering. Leaving 'well enough alone' will not, no matter how eloquently argued. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Hi Schmucky. :) I respectfully disagree with your dire prediction. There is a way to achieve stability at the slightly more surprising (to some English speakers) title. Stick a FAQ at the top of the talk page explaining that "yoghurt" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, and that we've got an agreement on Wikipedia not to ever argue about changes between perfectly acceptable spellings of English words. When the principle is explained clearly, and when the community agrees to uphold the principle, it can work.

I have sympathy for your position, and the only reason I oppose it is this: If we decide that COMMONNAME should trump ENGVAR, which is what is being suggested here, then there is nothing to stop Wikipedia turning into USA-pedia. Every non-American spelling will surprise more readers than the corresponding American spelling. Without the cease-fire, that's what we fall back on, every time. That is why ENGVAR was adopted in the first place, and if we aren't going to continue to apply it in precisely these situations, then we might as well scrap it.

I'm American, and I spell like an American, but I'm not going to insist that this international project do so by default.

It's possible that I'm pissing into the wind here. It's possible that there is no way to oppose the tide of "COMMONNAME at all costs", and that Wikipedia is going to turn into USA-pedia. If that happens, then I'll shut up, because it will be settled. I'd prefer to see it settled in a non-US-centric manner, and I still see a possibility for that, so I'm going to express my support for it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand your point, but I would disagree with it even if your point didn't interpret Engvar and Retain in a manner which defines the long clustermess here as "stable" and didn't ignore that commonality also argues for the move. No one is suggesting that Commonname trump Engvar...the arguments are that both those policies/guidelines point to the non-h spelling. No one is looking to change Engvar or redefine it in any way; the only point of dispute on Engvar is whether the article has been stable or not. You say yes while a majority of other editors say no.LedRush (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, sincerely. We've both got long-term stability in mind; that much is clear.

I do interpret ENGVAR as saying that, when it comes to regional varieties, we should ignore COMMONNAME. "Honor" is more common than "honour"; we ignore that.

Whether the article has been stable or not is a question on which people may disagree, I suppose. My understanding of ENGVAR is that, if the name has been one thing for a long time, which it has, then people should stop caring what the name is. It's fine; worry about something else - that's the spirit of ENGVAR.

I see that there's a majority against me here, and if that majority is taken to represent a consensus, then I won't fight it. I don't tend to contest move closures, you'll find. In fact, I admire the courage of whoever decides to close this beast, and I'm not going to challenge their judgment. I've stated my opinion, and I'm willing to wait and see what the outcome is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I'd like to add to this (since we're talking about USA-pedia, here), that I do personally support non-American spellings of articles (not across the board, but it depends, I'd like to think I'm a reasonable person). Off the top of my head, I would gladly defend "Aluminium" and "Theatre" (is there a discussion right now on either? I'll chime in and support them!) and to me this is not as clear cut as a US vs UK or a US vs World issue, I truly believe that it is more universal and more widely accepted. I would also like to remind users that you actually did say the following:

Quote: "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)".

So (unless that was you being snarky and I shouldn't be taking it at face value), I do believe you that you don't have a vested interest, and other editors should take note of this. I also understand you are turned off by the action of some editors (likely B2C), and would hope you could look past their actions. -Kai445 (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You can take everything I say at face value - I don't "do" snarky. You're right that I don't have a vested interest. I'm not even sure what that would look like. That 'h' doesn't owe me any money.

So it appears that, two-and-a-half years ago, I was worn down. Nice find. Now, in December 2011, I have renewed faith that we can maintain what I believe to be a good policy, and this page is kind of bellwether case for it. If, however, there's a consensus to change the spelling of this article, I'll respect and help enforce it.

You're right that I'm extremely turned off by the behavior of Born2cycle, and my past interactions with him are probably tainting my participation here. I think he's got a battleground mentality, that he's on a crusade, and that his contributions to Wikipedia consist almost entirely of Wikilawyering and disruption. I think he routinely violates WP:SPIDER. I think he does it in perfectly good faith, and I think he should stop. I think we need fewer lawyers around here. I think that carrying out this move will encourage him and other like-minded editors, and I oppose that. I think he's hurting Wikipedia, and that hurts me, because I love this project very much.

I've devoted many, many, many months of my life to work here, and never have I tried to make it run *my* way. I'm a servant to consensus, and I believe that there's still a broad consensus to leave regional spellings alone. We're not seeing it as well represented in this discussion because people are bloody sick of arguing about yogurt, and the lawyers are taking advantage of this situation, and winning by attrition, which deeply disgusts me. Nevertheless, if the lawyers win, I will be a servant to whatever consensus emerges. Wikipedia is bigger than my personal feelings about anything.

I hope that clarifies where I'm coming from. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I think the "numerical superiority" argument is a wash and would be even if it wasn't ruled out by ENGVAR. "American English" and "British English" are both misnomers---the correct term for the dialect where "color" is thus spelt is "US English" and the correct term for the dialect that spells it "colour" is "Commonwealth English". Commonwealth English is what prevails in India, so I suspect that the majority of English speakers spell it "yoghurt". But I agree that per ENGVAR numerical superiority shouldn't matter anyway.—S Marshall T/C 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle I expect better of you. I suggest that you look at this and then consider if you own me an apology for your statement. Whether you intended it or not you imply that my motives for closing were base, (because by linking me to one side of the argument you imply I am in favour of the current name). If so, the one time when I expressed an opinion on the issue which was back on 12 May 2005, I explicitly stated that I supported moving it back to primary author usage. My reason for closing this debate is what I stated it to be, because it was initiated too soon after the last RM. It sets a very bad precedent and I am amazed that in the interest of the project someone like yourself -- who has been in many of these debates -- would think it OK to reopen a debate, and then argue for it to be kept open for a short term tactical gain so soon after the last RM over this article. -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just who in the world do you think you are, PBS? Over 30 editors were debating in good faith and doing their best to figure out what microscope to use to best resolve this matter and you took it upon yourself to decide that some sort of precedent with “the way things are typically done” entitles you to 1) shut down discussion, 2) tell everyone here that they have better things to do on Wikipedia (literally; you really told that to us all), 3) that somehow, what we were all doing was “disruptive” (a clear threat), and 4) unilaterally declared that when at least six months have passed, then maybe you will permit the mere minions who labor in your shadow to again discuss this matter…maybe, depending on how high the furrow in your brow is and how pouted your lip is. You might as well de‑sysop yourself and save the community the trouble. Your actions were as arrogant as they were unconscionable and your efforts to posture your way to the high road on this are pathetic to even witness. Greg L (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It is not unusual for an uninvolved administrator to close a new RM when it is opened shortly after one has closed (as is true also for RfDs etc). See for example another example in the archives of this article: Talk:Yoghurt/Archive 5#No Consensus. Usually if such a close is made, and other editors think it wrong, rather than reverting the decision on the talk page of the article a request is put into ANI and if there is a consensus from uninvolved parties to revert the close then that is done. -- PBS (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty bad too, but at least it was closed after only about 12 hours of its opening, before more than a few participated, and when the previous closer did not explicitly condone an immediate re-opening. Again, that you don't see fundamental differences here is evidence of why you should turn in your admin privileges, as several people have recommended. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. PBS’s failure to exhibit contrition here betrays either an inability to see when he is wrong, or the inability to admit when he is wrong. I suspect it is more likely the later. It took me until I was in my early 40s to discover the power of ultra-quickly admitting fault to one’s boss when one really screws the pooch; it works like magic. PBS is damned lucky that the community can not directly recall admins; I understand that process is in place in the other-language Wikipedias and works quite well. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

PBS, a personal preference for the h is merely the mostly likely explanation for your behavior (your support of the move to yogurt in 2005 makes that less likely). But regardless of the true motivation, your behavior was totally and completely unacceptable. If I or any other previously involved editor started this new RM, then maybe a quick close would have been justified, within the first few hours. But even that would worthy of an AN/I challenge because not only was the previous close "no consensus", but the closing admin explicitly invited even involved editors to start a new proposal right away. But days later, with dozens contributing, and a proposal/discussion started by previously uninvolved editors? No. Way.

That you don't see what is so fundamentally non-Wikipedian with your behavior — and right now I'm not even including the locking of the talk page which was arguably even worse, if that's even possible — is just further evidence (as if any is needed), that you're probably not a good choice for having admin privs. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral on move (but oppose if it is based on the nominator's rationale). Some comments:

1. I have no strong opinion on whether this article should be moved or not; however, once again, I will reiterate that the decision must be based on WP:ENGVAR (not WP:COMMONNAME, as the nominator has suggested). That is, if the use of yoghurt in the article is deemed to be "established" (because it has used yoghurt since 2003, despite the controversy), it should remain at Yoghurt; if the use of yoghurt in the article is not deemed to be "established" (because of the perennial challenges that have occurred since the original yogurt→yoghurt spelling change), it should be moved to Yogurt. It is entirely unacceptable to use WP:COMMONNAME as the justification for the move, given that how "common" yogurt is judged to be depends on the variety of English one uses.
2. From discussions in recent months, it is clear that there is still disagreement about whether or not yoghurt has been "established" in this article (this includes multiple administrators who have argued either way). Whether or not the article is to be moved, a conclusion should be reached about whether yoghurt has become established, as applying WP:ENGVAR (WP:RETAIN) is dependent on this judgment ("When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary ... When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety."). WP:NOCONSENSUS ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept"), which has been argued to favour the status quo, has also been discussed above.
3. Yoghurt is not the "British" spelling and yogurt is not the "American" spelling: it is not a simple choice as with, for example, color or colour. Rather, as has been shown in the summary table above, yoghurt is more common in Australian and British English whereas yogurt is more common in American and Canadian English (per The Cambridge Guide to English Usage), but both yoghurt and yogurt are listed as acceptable and non-regionalized spellings by the sample of English-language dictionaries that has been presented in the table.
4. The first non-stub version of the article [10] consistently used yogurt, -ize (as in pasteurized), and -re (as in litre). If the article is to be moved to Yogurt, it would therefore appear most appropriate, per WP:ENGVAR, for the article to use British English following the Concise Oxford (because these are the forms preferred by the Concise Oxford).

Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm with you until the end... your conclusion that the article should use British English. The only British English spelling on the page is "litre", and I suspect that was a misspelling or typo, especially because the home page of user of the original version, Collabi (talk · contribs), mentions being a contributor to the Spanish wikipedia. Someone fluent in Spanish is likely to spell "liter" as "litre" even in American English. All of the other spellings on that initial version are consistent with American spelling, and were changed to be consistent with British English some years later[11]. So it's pretty clear that despite "litre" the original variant of English of the article was American English. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually that first non-stub version looks pretty consistent with Canadian English based on my limited knowledge and our article. The key thing to establish though is not which variety of English was used, but whether the article has been "established" here since 2003 or not. Once there is agreement on that question everything else should slot into place fairly easily (it would be mighty hard to argue that the page should be at yoghurt and that it should be written in American English, for example). Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And Collabi's page does not mention that he is a contributor to the Spanish Wikipedia, just that they have a basic understanding of the language (indeed there are no contributions recorded under that user name on es.wiki). I rate my abilities in German and Welsh at the same level as Collabi rates their Spanish (level 1). I am not fluent enough in those languages to be a significant contributor to either cy.wikipedia or de.wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nah, don't mind that. The most important thing is to comment on contributors, not on content. Especially if you could base every argument on the contributor's nationality. Sorry for the sarcasm but that must be the 10th time I see Born2cycle comment on someone's nationality like it is the centre of the whole argument. --Laveol ^T 14:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think Thryduulf is correct about the original style. By this edit I think that the user may have be Canadian. So that makes the article written as yogurt, -ize, and litre? That is reasonable. -Kai445 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. Well, then, perhaps we should revert the whole article to Canadian English spelling and add this to the talk page... Template:Canadian English. But probably not while this discussion is underway... --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Thryduulf, you are absolutely correct: by actual usage (not dictionary preferences), yogurt, -ize, and -re are all the most commonly used spellings in Canadian English; the same cannot be said for either American or British English.

Born2cycle: If the article is moved to Yogurt, brought into consistent Canadian English, and the Template:Canadian English is added, my only suggestion would be that the template should be modified (perhaps similarly to the one on Talk:Authorized King James Version?) to make it clear that "Canadian English" would mean "Canadian English following the most commonly used spellings in Canada", not "Canadian English following the preferred forms in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary". (Usually, of course, such a distinction would not be necessary, because when dealing with classical American–British spelling differences the Canadian Oxford typically prioritizes the most common Canadian spelling; however, on an article titled Yogurt and labelled as using Canadian English, I think clarification might be useful, because the Canadian Oxford prefers the bilingual yogourt over the more commonly used yogurt.) In the context of concerns that this article has become a place for "fighting the Anglo-American wars", the advantage of choosing Canadian English would be that it combines American and British spelling preferences: it would mean, for example, that British flavoured would be retained, but American diarrhea would be adopted (diarrh(o)ea is currently spelled inconsistently in the article in any case!). Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per my previous comments on this subject, the ngram graph linked earlier, and to end the cycle of disputes over this topic. –xeno^talk 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support due to WP:Engvar, WP:Retain, WP:Commonality and WP: Commonname. It seems that the only policy-based argument against the move is based on a reading of WP:Retain which (1) assumes that the last 8 years of discontent on this article are sufficient to call this article stable; and (2) assumes that this discussion will end as "no consensus". The first assumption seems silly to me, at best, seeing as this article is name-checked among the most hotly contested named articles on Wikipedia. The second ignores that both the weight of the arguments and the weight of the votes currently look like a strong consensus to move. As many have stated above, once this move occurs, barring a dramatic reversal in how English speakers around the globe use this term, there will be literally no argument which can be made to move the article back to the current spelling. This should put a wooden stake into the heart of this disagreement.LedRush (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support I'd instinctively spell the word Yoghurt myself, but going into a central London supermarket on Sunday, every single manufacturer I could see on the shelf used the spelling "yogurt" -- including Waitrose own brand, Rachel's, Yeo, Müller, Dr Onken, Danone Activia, Nestlé Ski, Weight Watchers, even the couple of small-scale farmhouse organic brands they had. That convinces me that this is not a matter of ENGVAR, and the article should be retitled. Jheald (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Observation - this has to be the lamest move discussion I have ever read. I really hope that it is archived for posterity. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't say it's the lamest; this is all pretty typical of the various move discussions. --moof (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per ENGVAR and RETAIN. 85.112.128.176 (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This single contribution IP seems suspicious, but I note it's registered in Norway, which makes it less suspicious, I think[12]. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Umm, how exactly is it less suspicious? What do you suspect it of? --Laveol ^T 21:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Just being a single-edit IP contributing to an RM discussion is always a bit suspicious, I think. Some kind of socking, perhaps. The issue has been raised with several other named accounts that have participated here; it's one of the subsections in the Yog(h)urt AN/I. So it made me wonder about this one. Probably more than enough discussion here about this. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thryduulf really has you seeing ghosts, doesn't he? Don't assume there is any wrongdoing on behalf of anyone. IP's make tons of helpful edits every day (and some vandalism... but obviously if the good didn't outweigh the bad, we wouldn't let IP's edit). Lets AGF of this IP. Just calm down. Jeez. -Kai445 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support move to yogurt. The number of RSs demonstrate that is the dominant spelling. 134.241.58.153 (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support move to yogurt. Not only the reliable sources (including the OED and The Telegraph) and the usage by the manufacturers, but the simple fact that the article originally used the spelling "yogurt" (without a clear distinction of national origin, since there is a mixture of spellings and measurements throughout the article after the first three edits by the article's creator), and the fact that the article was located at Yogurt for quite some time before it was moved (apparently without discussion) and since then, a small group of people have lobbied hard to block any attempt to return it to where it was originally located. The only reason it is located at Yoghurt is because of the out-or-process move, which NEVER had consensus support (witness the repeated attempts to move it back to where it started.) For what it's worth, User:Philip Baird Shearer (whose actions here have been widely criticized this week) was one of the editors who supported the first discussion to move the article back to its original location. Horologium (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thank you, Horologium; I didn’t know that about PBS’s original position on the details of the spelling. But what he did, despite that sentiment (waltz in here, pronounce that the scores of editors civilly discussing how to best apply Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines were actually being “disruptive”, admonishing everyone here that he would not allow anyone to raise the issue again for six months, closing the discussion, and—after thinking that someone who gave him guff wasn’t an admin—protecting a talk page from anyone but admins) was way out of bounds.

  If there had been only a handful of the same old mutual combatants starting this up after they had previously—and recently—been embroiled in flamewars and ANIs over this very issue, it would have been a different matter. But 30+ editors in good standing civilly doing their best to identify the best way to serve the interests of Wikipedia’s readership defines that it is proper to reconsider this issue in this manner at this time. His rolling his eyeballs and muttering to himself “Not agaaaaain?!?” does not and did not entitle him to pull his little stunt. It reminded me of the truism that “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Quite Freudian, really. I was gobsmacked that any admin would do such a thing. It was deeply offensive to me at many levels.

  He has so far not admitted to wrongdoing at the ANI. I still haven’t figured out if he really doesn’t *get it*, or if he knows he screwed up big time but is near‑genetically incapable of admitting fault. Whatever; down deep I suspect he has been humbled and I doubt he’ll try that again anytime soon.

  Anyway, back to the business at hand. I embrace Jimbo’s abiding faith in the principle that the consensus of the community is the right thing. Let *bad reasoning* be met with *better* reasoning so that a true consensus can be discerned. Greg L (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  • • Greg L you write "I didn’t know that about PBS’s original position on the details of the spelling". How could you not have known I had mentioned it twice at 05:38, 5 December 2011 the second time was at 23:01, 5 December 2011. In both cases you posted replies to those posts. -- PBS (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It's my impression, and I may be wrong, that PBS's viewpoint was something like this: Certain editors fail to respect a long-standing agreement to not argue about regional spellings, and are threatening to filibuster until they get their way. He was trying to break the filibuster.

    Now, actually doing that is extremely difficult and dicey, and the way he did it was indelicate and heavy-handed. I don't approve of the technique, but I appreciate the motivation. What's the point of a cease-fire if it's not respected? "We'll cease-fire, as soon as we get our way," is not a cease-fire. It's bullying (good-faith bullying, paradoxically), and it's very hard to respond to that without seeming to bully back.

    You seem to take the position that the cease-fire is history, and that we've already given up on it. Perhaps you're right, but I'd prefer if you weren't. I believe in the consensus of the community, too, and what I see is an end-run being made around it, by editors taking advantage of the fact that people are sick of the argument. I deplore that, and I seem to be one of the few remaining voices bothering to represent the long-standing consensus to leave regional spellings alone, to de-prioritize them, to ignore them... the cease-fire. Maybe it's over. :/ -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Fine. What PBS did amounted to being “abstruse beyond all comprehension”. Everyone from I.P.s to Xeno have now contributed to this issue. I can see, after the fact, that there had been water under the bridge on this issue. But *I* and dozens of others were new to it all and had posted well researched !votes when PBS announced that what I and others who were new to all of this and didn’t know about the previous hurt feelings on this issue were henceforth muzzled, admonished for being “disruptive”, and *PBS* would decide when it might be appropriate for the minions under his command to again discuss this matter (maybe at least six months from now).

  There is more to this than how to spell ‘yog(h)urt’, GTBacchus, and I suspect that some who claim this is WP:LAME know full-well that there is more to this issue as they endeavor to slyly shame editors into silence for being so *excitable* over the seemingly mundane. The perception of many is that the *process* by which the community decides to resolve the matter here at Yoghurt can serve as precedent for how to resolve similar issues with other articles. That’s why it interests so many editors. Some editors place great value in seeing their original spelling (their way of doing things) preserved even if later proves to be contrary to all the good RSs. Many other editors feel we best server our readership by following the RSs. Now…

  I had waltzed in here all fat, dumb, and happy, researched how all-manner of RSs handled the spelling, balanced that with concerns that it might be an ENGVAR issue, but decided since so much British usage was also “yougurt”, the proper way to best serve the interests of Wikipedia’s readership was to move the article and spell it “yogurt.” I did not appreciate having some admin drunk with the power of admin-hood (blowing a BAC of 0.31 at ANI and completely unrepentant at that) telling so many editors in good standing and who were civilly going about wiki‑business that they can *Shut the f---- up or there will be bashed skulls for disruption.* So…

  (*One moment while I scroll up to refresh my memory of how you !voted; real life makes some wikipedians forgetful…*) Ahhh. I note that in your “oppose” !vote, you wrote I support the strong discouragement of arguments about which variety of English is used anywhere on Wikipedia. Reviving such arguments should be grounds for blocking because of disruption. (Charming). You and I will just have to agree to disagree about that sentiment, M’kay? And it seems that well meaning contributors as disparate as I.P.s descending from seemingly nowhere all the way to a ‘crat like Xeno feel the same way. Greg L (talk) 19:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  
  P.S. I just now looked at your userpage and see that you too are an admin. That makes your above sentiments, which you wrote after at least 32 other editors had weighed in on this issue *double-charming*. Greg L (talk) 19:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow. I've yet to exaggerate anything you've said or done. I've not told anyone to "shut the fuck up", I've not threatened anyone, and I think you could calm down a notch or three. Are you even talking about me? It's not clear, because you didn't really bother to be clear. {No. I was clearly talking about PBS and the stunt he pulled (for which he went to ANI). Greg L (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)}

You say: "The perception of many is that the *process* by which the community decides to resolve the matter here at Yoghurt can serve as precedent for how to resolve similar issues with other articles." That's precisely my point. The long-standing precedent is that we endeavor not to care about regional varieties of English. I'm concerned about precedent, and that's why I'm trying to remind people that we made an agreement not to care about regional varieties of English. I think if this page is moved, it opens the door to a complete trashing of the ENGVAR cease-fire. That's the only reason I care about this. I sure as hell don't care how "yogurt" is spelled.

My tone and manner obviously got under your skin in a major way, so I think it's appropriate that I apologize unreservedly for that. I'm very, very sorry for the way I presented myself. After hitting "save" on this post, I'm going to go back and amend my original !vote. Your point is well-taken. My bad. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• • Speaking of charm, above GTB wrote about me, "I think he routinely violates WP:SPIDER.". I presume he meant WP:SPIDERMAN. That's pretty funny coming from the only editor I know on WP on a crusade to spread the good word about the ENGVAR cease fire. That cease fire applies only to cases where the title is stable, and there is no consensus on whether this title is stable. On the one hand it has been "Yoghurt" quite steadily since it was moved from "Yogurt" about 8 years ago. On the other hand, it has been repeatedly challenged since that move itself was a violation of the cease fire (which was already in effect in 2003 when it was moved never-the-less). So it's not at all a given that the cease fire applies here, but GTB acts as if it does, and charmingly vilifies those who have a different view, even though he convinced himself otherwise not too long ago.

    Just above, GTB also wondered whether the cease-fire is over. Of course it's not over. That's not even at issue here. All that is issue about the cease-fire here is whether it applies, and that's based on whether the current title is "stable". I don't know of any other article with this kind of turmoil associated with it's title. Not for eight years. This is really a special, unique case, and regardless of how it goes, this has no impact on the cease-fire. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

(What's up with the crazy indents?) I don't know the technical meaning of "crusade", B2c. I haven't started anything. I've only responded to what I see as disruption. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, and I'll respect consensus because I always do. I challenge you to find an example of a case where I haven't. We can keep trading barbs, or we can discuss the issue at hand.

I don't care whether you find me "charming". I find you completely obnoxious, on a personal level, but I respect that you're contributing in the best possible faith.

I appreciate your assurance that the cease-fire isn't over. However, actions speak louder than words. We'll see what happens.

You're right that I consider this title stable because it's been the same title for a long, long time. The spirit of the cease-fire is "find a way to not care", and I've yet to see you try to respect that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Born2cycle & GTBacchus: I see that GTBacchus struck the text in his 00:31, 5 December 2011 !vote that I found deeply offensive and posted an apology on my talk page that seems perfectly sincere and heartfelt. It takes a truly big man to apologize and not all wikipedians (regular or admin) are capable of doing so. His gesture means a lot to me. If there is going to be a “cease-fire” of any sort, let’s see if we can agree to not attack each other’s motives and manner of expressing their opinion. Hardly anyone remembers the details of tit for tat that amounts to nothing more than “His farts are way louder than mine” except the combatants duking it out. Let’s see if we can make posts from hereon that bring light and less smoke. Greg L (talk) 01:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

GTB, please try your best to understand and appreciate that the only reason I care about this title is because others care, and there has been no consensus. If there had been consensus about this title, I would not be so determined to find a way to build consensus. I too follow consensus, but when there is no consensus, what do you do? You keep assuming that in this case "following consensus" means opposing the move - but that presupposes that the cease fire applies here, a point which is itself at issue. I understand that your view is the spirit of the cease fire is to find a way to not care, even in cases like this. Well, apparently, that's not the consensus interpretation, and obviously hasn't been for eight years, and yet you say you follow consensus.

Following consensus is one thing, following what you think consensus is and how you think it applies in a given situation, with little to no regard to how others are seeing it, is something else, and, arguably, not really following consensus.

You weren't too happy with my approach at Talk:Sega Genesis recently either, arguing that we should give the compound title time to see if it will achieve consensus support. But there clearly was no consensus for that title, and when someone started a straw poll, it became clear that consensus against the compound title was overwhelming. So, we worked it out. It's called building consensus, and that's what a few of us have been trying to do here too. It's the way conflicts are resolved, instead of left festering. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per RETAIN; it should never have been moved from Yogurt. COMMONNAME is irrelevant given the history. It's just sad that people have spent so many years arguing about that instead of focusing on the real point and getting it fixed. Maybe the problem is that RM requires "consensus" to undo a non-consentual move. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Not sure ENGVAR really applies as the history is so tangled, so let's dispense with ENGVAR and return to the policy on common English names. That is clearly Yogurt, not Yoghurt, and so the article should return to Yogurt. Nathan ^T 15:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support Not much more I can say that hasn't been said...page was originally at the other spelling so lets put it back there and end all this bickering. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support removal of the unnecessary “h”, there is just no good reason to use “yoghurt”. MTC (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  According to that logic (especially your edit summary) you would spell ghost or honour or Thomas with no H either. :-) ― A. di M.​  11:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  You listed three very different words there: “ghost” is spelled that way in every dialect of English, so spelling it “gost” is unfortunately not an option, as it is wrong in all varieties of English. Equally, “honour” never has the h dropped in English so, again, doing so would be wrong (though I do drop the “u”, as “honor” is a better spelling and is actually used in English). And Thomas is a name, its spelling is nothing to do with use of language, if a particular person wants to spell their name “Thomas”, it is incorrect to drop the h in their name. MTC (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

  The difference is that those other words are actually spelled that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  Not a difference at all. This word is spelled with and without the h. Hence the move debates. there's also yaourt, yoghurd, yogourt, yahourt, yaghourt, yogurd, yoghourt, yooghort, yughard, yughurt, yohourth, yōghurt ... pablo 12:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  And "his honor" is sometimes spelled "hizzonner", and "Thomas" is spelled without the "h" in Spanish. Just as "yogurt" is sometimes spelled "yoghurt", et al. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

  a) irrelevant, b) irrelevant, c) more than "sometimes", ( and vice-versa). pablo 14:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Pablo, you never responded in our earlier discussion above, and now you're engaging here? The context here is WP article titles, not the English language in general. That is, when MTS says "there is no good reason for h", he means that in the context of deciding this title, not in the word in general usage. Whether there is good reason for the h in the word in general usage is a question that is not for WP editors to decide.

So, yes, this word is spelled with and without the h, but ghost is not spelled with and without the h. So there is a good reason to include the h in the title of Ghost, but that reason (without the h it is misspelled; gost is not even a word, much less an alternative spelling of the same word) does not apply to the h in the title of this article. That's the difference Bugs was specifically talking about, and to which MTS implicitly referred. You're saying this is "not a difference at all"? That makes no sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You had a specific question for me? And I never responded? How remiss.  pablo 23:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Perhaps some here think we should have a wiki-convention where all wikipedians who have an interest in the matter of silent “h”s in a wide variety of words can decide what is best for the future of the English language. With a little whole lot of luck, the rest of the world might follow our lead even though wikipedians are widely viewed as a class comprising everyone from Ph.D. college professors to kids with nothing much better to do. (Obviously, I am being disingenuous with that suggestion.)

The tradeoff we wikipedians have been faced with here is how to balance ENGVAR with COMMONNAME. It seems to me that ENGVAR is a little out of its element here. In my mind, the value of ENGVAR is to avoid edit wars and keep the act of contributing to Wikipedia an enjoyable hobby. Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where everyone is a volunteer. Because it would be discouraging to labor / labour on an article using a particular dialect of English, only to see its doorstep darkened with “foreign”-looking spelling, we avoid the tit for tat editwarring by instituting ENGVAR. ENGVAR is thus not a tool designed to directly best serve the interests of our readership, but is a tool to allow the project to be built by a diverse contributing army of volunteer editors with minimal bickering. But even ENGVAR is compromised a bit to better serve our readership because it has various modifiers such as “whether there is a strong national tie.” In my mind, ENGVAR is best applied to relatively less important building-block words in the body text, like color / colour and labor / labour. When so applied, it is a valuable peace-making tool in most common situations on Wikipedia.

But this article is not a “common” situation. The word in question is the subject of the article; it is not an unimportant building-block word in the body text. As has been well documented, a wide slew of RSs (from reliable to most-reliable, to American, to primary ones such as both American and British manufacturers) spell it “yogurt.” Furthermore, this article is no longer some backwater article where there are just a small handful of editors duking it out. This article has made it to The Wikipedia Hall of Lame because of seven years of bickering. So this is an atypical case. And now, a wide and distinguished spectrum of editors have an interest in it. Thus, ENGVAR’s original purpose (keep peace and avoid problems in the first place) is effectively moot. Even the original editors who were responsible for the dialects no longer give a darn.

In summary, I thought I would try to articulate why ENGVAR seems a poor fit: ENGVAR outlived its usefulness in avoiding this brouhaha. Thus, the proper spelling can properly be looked at from a fresh perspective with an emphasis on following the RSs. This, IMHO, best serves the interests of our readership for this particular article. Greg L (talk) 05:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:RETAIN, WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME. The comments are in the the previous discussions and above in this renomination. Put this back where it began which just happens to be a name with support in various versions of English. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment Like most of the previous move discussions, this has the same entrenched supports and opposes making the same arguments. However, thanks to the thread on WP:ANI, this has, for the first time, gotten a huge influx of new comments, which have almost universally supported moving to Yogurt. I would say that type of consensus among previously uninvolved editors should count for quite a bit. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually all editor comments have the same weight. What is suppose to matter is the strength of the arguments. So new or not, should not be an influence on the outcome. However if there are additional comments with strong arguments based in in policy and guidelines, then it can demonstrate that there really is a consensus, one way or the other. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Maybe in theory. In practice admins seem to count (or approximate the count) the votes and then let that determine their evaluation of how strong the arguments are. At least that's how the last RM about this topic seems to have been decided. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

      And we get significant flak for doing otherwise :( ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

    • I agree with the sentiments of User:Torchiest. Far too often on Wikipedia, weird (read: naive and unwise) little practices are instituted by little cabals of editors who are interested in a remote, backwater specialty subject. All it took was 20 editors some years back and we had “256 mebibytes (MiB) of RAM” instead of the “256 megabytes (MB) of RAM” the rest of the planet used. They were well intentioned editors, thinking that they could use Wikipedia to help effect change in how the real world worked by being first to adopt a proposed standard. All that idiocy with “mebibytes” and “kibibits”, which affected hundreds of articles nearly overnight, was the product of 20-to-6 vote to do something foolish. Even less-wise things are being done today on Wikipedia that are the product of still smaller cabals at RfCs. The only way to correct these wrongs is to widely advertise the RMs and RfCs so that enough editors might weigh in and drown out the cabal wearing their Star Trek uniforms. I am sorry if this simple inconvenient truth offends, but it is still a truth. It would be nice if there was a better way to get wider participation than someone getting an atomic wedgie at an ANI; but I’ll take the proper outcome, no matter how it came about. Greg L (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Wow, Greg, this is so good, I put it on my user page in the great quotes section. Another, and much broader, example of a unilateral cabal decision that was made way back in the early days was when a handful of editors decided to disambiguate all titles of articles about U.S. cities, whether they needed disambiguation or not. They did this because somebody wrote a bot to do it. A few years ago the decision was retracted slightly, by allowing cities on the AP list, like Chicago, San Francisco, etc., to not be disambiguated with the state name. But any other U.S. city, if it has a unique name, like Carmel-by-the-Sea, is never-the-less needlessly disambiguated (e.g., Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) all because of that cabal decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Move, NOT per WP:COMMONNAME which is indecisive, but per WP:RETAIN which applies when WP:COMMONNAME fails

My intended point of the above thread seems to have been mostly missed. I don’t think it was helped by User:Berean Hunter posting above my original post with an incompatible rationale.

The recent move discussion (archived to Talk:Yoghurt/Archive_5#Move_page_to_Yogurt) was well participated and properly closed as no consensus. There is little to be gained in repeating the merits of claim to the title for each spelling. It is established that neither claim can claim consensus. This means that the policy, Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, is indecisive in this case. The point of this post is that the closer of the above move discussion made an error of fact in what happens when there is no consensus on WP:COMMONNAME-based move discussion. Where WP:COMMONNAME fails, WP:RETAIN applies. However, the closer did not appear to be familiar with the wording of WP:RETAIN. He wrote: “there is no consensus that brooks such a move, and so the article must be frozen at its current name” However, WP:RETAIN actually reads:

“When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety. The variety established for use in a given article can be documented by placing the appropriate Varieties of English template on its talk page.”

In this case, there appears to be no dispute over the title of “ the first non-stub revision”, and so a simple reading of our longstanding rules is that the title of this article should be that title. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I support a move per WP:RETAIN in addition to WP:COMMONNAME. My original RFC a month ago about the improper close didn't result in much, but I think the existing move request is fine as-is. -Kai445 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
• Seriously? There's an emerging consensus above to move it, mostly on common name. Now you want to move it based on some misguided understanding of policy? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  Indeed, there are multiple facets of why a move should be made. I think WP:RETAIN should have been applied the last time, but the closing admin sought fit to do whatever he wanted instead. -Kai445 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  Hotstop, why is this a misguided reading of policy? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Well, it hasn't seemed to work in the past. And this whole section sort of undermines the arguments others have made that yogurt is more common. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This section doesn’t undermine anything. This section presupposes that the last RM discussion focused on COMMONNAME was thorough and that it resulted in “no consensus”. A subsequent development of the yogurt COMMONNAME discussion is independent of the point made here, not contrary to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'll just point out that all these arguments, and more, are covered in the summary above. As Kai says, there are multiple arguments, mutually reinforcing, that support this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Or rather, there are multiple editors, mutually reinforcing, who support the move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
        • COMMONNAME states, "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. "Yogurt" is most typically used in reliable sources, and "yoghurt" is technically correct, but is a rarer form of the word. A lot rarer, it turns out. It further states, In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." That's where the Google results and major encyclopedias come in. This isn't about "American" spelling: it's about the most common spelling. I don't really see how opposing this based on ENGVAR even applies, as both spellings are used in British English but with an increasing trend towards the "h-less" variety (as the editor who tried to find "yoghurt" in a British market discovered). And as I think someone already pointed out somewhere, even the Australian national services body for dairy farmers and the dairy industry prefers "yogurt" over "yoghurt". The times, they are a'changin'. Doc talk 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• You made your case, SmokeyJoe. But I disagree that your doing so was at all wise given that it flies in the face of the clear and developing consensus in this RM. Yeah, I hear your message. But in my mind, it amounts to “Always respect the style of the first major contributor.” While that makes editors who would otherwise fight until the heat death of the universe to retain the spelling he or she is accustomed to using in their little hamlet, that ship has sailed in this instance. I’ve seen editors voting “oppose” and “support” argue that RETAIN and ENGVAR supports their position. The community clearly seems to be of the mindset that we might as well just cut to the chase and ensure the article best serve the interests of the readership by looking at what the most dominant practice is in the English-speaking world, and go with that for this particular article, which is clearly a special case now. Greg L (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I find the underlying logic of the new post at the top deeply flawed. It seems clear to me that this move request could be closed right now with an absolutely overwhelming consensus to move back to the original spelling. The numerical "votes" seem to be somewhere in the 80% range (total guess) and the policy consensus is crystal clear. The merits of the previous close should not effect the deliberation of this move request (but, for the record, the last closure was made without regard to a strong policy-based consensus to move the article).LedRush (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Think about it for a second...

You pronounce yoghurt with a silent h. You don't say it as "yo" with "gurt" tacked onto the end.

Now that I have gotten that out of the way how about a nice cup of tea and a good sit down before we end up having the first world flame war? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 08:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a silent "h", you actually would be saying "yo" with "gurt" attached to it, because you wouldn't be saying the "h". It's not there because it's a silent H, it is there because of a shitty ancient transliteration (used before 1928) that has largely fallen out of use, but people insist on keeping. #firstworldproblems -Kai445 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. Eight years ago, on November 16, 2003, it was argued that the article should be moved from its original title, Yogurt, to Yoghurt, because it is "more phonetically accurate to use the yoghurt spelling in the article since it more closely suggests the proper pronunciation" [13]. At that time no one said anything (if anyone even noticed), and the article was unilaterally moved a month later. Now it is being argued it should be moved back because without an h is more phonetically accurate. Well, in case there was any doubt before, now for sure there is only one step left to finally go full circle, LOL. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

It makes no difference which spelling we like better or makes more sense or seems more appropriate. None. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Not at all; it can make a great difference. WP:COMMONNAME is only one of a multitude of factors; four or five others are at WP:CRITERIA, and that list is not exhaustive. The fundamental question is which title is most useful for the encyclopedia; and since there is no reason a literate anglophone reader should care (some will care because they are fighting the Anglo-American wars, but they should not), we can leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

You are, of course, missing the point and changing the subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The current spelling is a violation of WP:ENGVAR, since it was moved between different dialects of English without suitable cause. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Then go find the editor who did it and ban him. Moving it back without suitable cause is just as bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

So we should ban the user that messed up, but not revert the mess up? Doesn't that strike you as odd? -Kai445 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC).

Yes, and it's not odd. WP:RETAIN is procedural; its sole purpose is to prevent people having move wars for the "right" version of English. It doesn't say that Yoghurt is the wrong title; it says that moves of this sort are unprofitable, and tend to be disruptive (which is reason to ban, if you can persuade an admin to care about this somewhat stale issue). Having another unprofitable and disruptive move is -well- unprofitable and disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, WP:Retain is a great guideline. Its been used (and abused)thousands of times in countless debates. Yet it can be overridden by community consensus and good old down home common sense.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It is useful in part because it notes that consensus decides when we don't retain an established spelling. Is there consensus here? Who says so with a straight face? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

With all the crap flying around with British and American spelling, I have a great urge to propose banning US and UK spelling from being default, and instead make everyone choose Australian or Canadian spelling instead. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Support, although it will make little difference in practice.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Move the damn article to Laban. That'll teach it! Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's the dairy product that needs teaching... or even if it is teachable? Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Enough mad scientists, and you can teach anything! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I pronounce "yogurt" with a silent 'h'? How do I tell the difference between pronouncing a silent letter and not pronouncing it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about how to pronounce a silent "h" makes my yog hurt. Jonathunder (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page edit war

Is there currently an ongoing discussion about the edit war on this talk page to close the move discussion. The "talk" looked productive with new editors involed and new evidences presented. I am no expert when it comes to matters of this nature, but it seems to me the close was done by someone who has been involed in the past with a certain POV on the matter. I am sure it was all done with the best intentions, but there was "no consensus" last time, so as far as I understand it we are encouraged to proceed and find a consensus by way of introducing new facts and getting more editors involed? Moxy (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical close TIME OUT. I came here from Wikipedia:ANI#Yog(h)urt. See my comment at 07:45, 9 July 2009 "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". This is for two good reasons. (1) No Admin is going to bother to get mixed up in a mess like this unless it stops a dispute. (2) We all have better things we can contribute to the project than have our time consumed on this type of debate (if you disagree go and read WP:LAME). This debate is not going to be settled in the next month by keeping it open. A six month break gives everyone time to cool down and consider what is best for the project. Personally I think that "Yoghurt" looks like the "Correct" spelling, BUT I agree with the arguments on this topic of WP:AT#National varieties of English, and if I had closed the last one I would have gone with that as the close (but I do not question the decision of the last admin to close a Yoghurt debate). Given that traditional 6 month breathing space, having another RM over this issue when the ink is not dry on the last one is disruptive. So come back in a MINIMUM of six months and argue the point then and not before. I suggest that in future if there is another RM over Yog(h)urt in 6m+, as clearly no appeal to secondary sources is moving the entrenched camps, all sides put this down to a WP:RETAIN issue and agree to go with "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." (as any other version had clearly not been stable enough for an agreement to coalesce). If it is restricted to that then there may be a consensus on what the version according to WP:RETAIN we should have. HOWEVER I suspect that if anyone continues this debate here or in any other forum in the next few weeks and it is taken to an ANI it will be seen as disruptive. I hope that the next admin to close an RM over this issue will read what I have written and take appropriate action. I will not close the next one unless it takes place before June next year.-- PBS (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and it looks as if the admin involved with the edit warring has been subsequently blocked for 24 hours.--JOJ ^Hutton 21:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked by the admin who was revert-warring with him, in the middle of this discussion, and a covering discussion on ANI. I have no idea why people are being so partisan about this; but I find it deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree - I am new here (well this week) to this talk and I am also surprised at the stringent POV's that are causing even our admins to be in dispute to this extent.Moxy (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I blocked him after he wheel-warred and after he protected the Talk page against non-admin editing - forcibly shutting everyone up is not what admins should be doing. Anyway, I shall shortly be taking my actions to ANI for review, where all opinion will be welcomed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Protecting a talk page, where there was (for the most part) productive discussion on how to best apply policy to a move and there were no flamewars??? That’s utterly amazing to me; I’ve never seen such a thing. Sure, locking down an article when there was protracted editwarring. But protecting a talk page from civil discussion by the community? Unbelievable. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I have seen people banter that my suggested move is disruptive. Well, I first saw the thread at ANI a few days ago and had never been involved. In good faith, I read through all of the talk page history and the subpage of spelling history and never saw the Ngram results brought up. Seeing that as a clear and easy to interpret result, I brought it here with a move request thinking this should make matters easier to decide. Like Boing Said Zebedee states in the thread above, I'd like to see the matter settled once and for all so everyone can move on. I edit across articles of different engvars all the time with no problem. For me, this isn't about national preferences no matter how others try to make it so. I think people need to pack away their bad faith that I was doing something disruptive. Good block on PBS.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I bring notice to what the admin who closed the previous RM discussion said about it:

A strong consensus WAS NOT THERE. A close of "No consensus" is not a final sentence condemning the article to remain at that name for all eternity. Give it a few months and start another discussion. Or start one right now.

This was stated in a post-closing clarifying comment on his talk page [14]. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Do not question His wisdom; we cannot know it. He was clearly displeased that so many here were discussing this issue. It was his decision to dictate to us that we may only discuss this—maybe—six months from now; that much is perfectly clear because he quite literally stated that we all have better things we can contribute to. Don’t-cha-know? My WTF‑O‑Meter railed upon learning that he closed the motion to move and locked this page down so only admins could discuss things here. The proper place to address whether this was, uhm… *proper* is here at ANI (perma‑link). Greg L (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: The ANI thread has been closed. Any further comments about the conduct of PBS should (probably) be made here, if anything else needs to be said. If anyone felt like taking it to arbcom, it would probably be viable, but I'm not inclined to do so. -Kai445 (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• You know, when your 3-year-old sticks his finger in a light socket and his eyes bug out for eight seconds, it’s not really necessary to go make him sit in his room for the rest of the day to think about it. The formalities have run their course but the point has been made nonetheless. Greg L (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Original variety of English: Canadian English

It has been suggested above that this article was originally started not in American or British English, but in Canadian English. That would explain the spellings in the original version of the article: Yogurt (not yoghurt), litre (not liter), and -ize (not -ise). I don't think this has ever been explicitly recognized, appreciated and discussed. Therefore, in the interest of finally achieving stability and resolving this conflict, I suggest that if the current move proposal above achieves consensus support, we also restore the original variety of English in the article to Canadian English, and add this template to this talk page: Template:Canadian English. Thoughts? Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• I didn’t realise that fact. It colours the situation a little. But I would say rather than muddy the bloody situation, we keep it simple and address how to spell one word (yog(h)urt) before tackling how to spell the many others. ;-) Greg L (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I agree with Greg L. Lets take things one step at a time. -Kai445 (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree as well. This whole situation needs rectifying in small, individual steps. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see how digging in the history to determine which variety of English was used years ago is consistent with an attitude of not caring about varieties of English. What's so wrong with just not caring about varieties of English, and helping to maintain a community standard of just that? Address it in a FAQ, and walk away. We've managed not to care how many spaces occur after a period, and whether it's "6 December" or "December 6". Why does this have to be different? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I think B2C is trying to figure out how things would go down with an ENGVAR move per first contrib, but the current RM is pending for what amounts to COMMONNAME, so that would make first spelling irrelevant. Plus the words "litre/liter" and pasturi-zed/sed aren't even in the article as far as I can see, so the whole point is moot. -Kai445 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• He’s an admin who stated above that reviving issues like this “should be grounds for blocking because of disruption.” ‘Nuf said. The *community* speaks now. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

  Am I blocking anyone? Have I not vowed to respect consensus? Does my record indicate that I've ever blocked inappropriately, or failed to respect consensus? I'm watching the discussion with interest. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• • How many are in this self-appointed "community"? I see three: Greg, Kai, and Born2Cycle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Go up and count the number of editors who participated in this move discussion, PMA; that’s the “community.” And I’d tread very carefully if I were you given that you are restricted from weighing in on any article or talk page pertaining to technical aspects of English. The reason for that restriction was a long-standing pattern of making personal attacks on other editors with inflammatory crap like you just made here rather than offer up a thoughtful contribution. Greg L (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I shall write carefully. I have not attacked you; I have asked who an undefined community is. That is your answer; does anybody outside the three editors mentioned agree with that answer?
  • I do indeed recognize the claim that everybody who agrees with X in part (or on the basis of misunderstood policy or of WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is automatically a consensus for everything X wants. You don't like or believe that claim when it is made to you; why do you expect others to react differently? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• I don’t even know again what you are driving at. I embrace Jimbo's conviction that the community's will, subject to the five pillars, is *the right thing*. Sometimes I don’t agree with the community consensus but I generally accept it. The only time I don’t is when the “consensus” was the product of a small cabal busy off doing its own thing despite a much broader consensus to do otherwise (which is in full accordance with WP:CONSENSUS). This is a move discussion where a large and diverse spectrum of the community (members, for the most part, in good standing and in good faith) is now doing its best to resolve a long-standing issue where it had previously proven difficult to balance conflicting principles. Please just accept the process and the outcome. Greg L (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

This hunt of PBS is a classic instance of a small cabal "off doing its own thing". The spelling issue (while, as I've said, unimportant except as an instance that we do not favour any national variety of English) is a classic example of a small cabal pursuing the same complaint in the hope that eventually the dice will come out in their favor. Neither is sound process; neither yelling nor appeals to reputation will change that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Well… just pardon me all over the place for being utterly shocked at what PBS did. If I had learned of it first, I would have taken him to ANI all by my lonesome and wouldn’t have needed a cabal to invigorate me. As it was, another admin blocked PBS for that wild stunt and took it went to ANI himself for affirmation. That ship has sailed. You characterize it as a “hunt”. I see… Anyway, I’m done dealing with you for the next 24 hours since my “Been There-Done That” meter pegged again. Ample electronic white space is available below for you to get in the last word. Greg L (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘@Pmanderson: Hardly a witch hunt, the first AN/I post was started by Thryduulf (who Opposes), and then Boink! posted a section asking for people to comment on his own actions. Admins on ANI by and large supported Boink! and some appeared to have been calling for PBS's tools. Rightly so. Your acceptance of his behavior is not becoming of you. -Kai445 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so interested in questions of spelling on Wikipedia. I don't find them as theoretically interesting or challenging as matters of punctuation, or other semantically relevant domains like capitalisation. Is that just me? I don't think so. Spelling is by comparison so arbitrary, so buffeted by the accidental winds of history. I have therefore not taken part in the wrangling here. I favour "yoghurt", but I would not labour to advance anything beyond personal preference in support of it.

It does concern me when PMAnderson presses at the boundaries of his current year-long restriction. We have seen polemic incivility against MOS editors earlier, and now he is seen as arguing tendentiously in a proscribed area. Anyone unfamiliar with the history might be surprised at this sensitivity. Those who know the history will understand, and will want strict enforcement of the selective community ban – which is, after all, moderate compared to the alternatives that had solid support at the relevant dedicated ANI page, back in August. Noetica^Tea? 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize he was topic banned, or I would have just not acknowledged him from the get-go, and encouraged others to do the same. For those interested, you can read all about it here (AN:I/Pmanderson), as I have. Isn't his participation flying directly in the face of his censure? (or whatever it may be called... he did !cast an 'Oppose' without actually calling it 'Oppose'). Do you think that section of comment 'ought to be hatted with a notice? -Kai445 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Crikey, I forgot that I started that action against PMA because he was haranguing User:GTBacchus!

Ignoring PMA only works for about 24 hours because eventually, someone responds to his provocative posts and then half a page fills up with flamewar.

User:Elen of the Roads stepped up to the plate as PMA’s ‘caretaker’ of sorts with regard to PMA’s restrictions, which are (very) formally stated at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. As I recall, there was no clear consensus on whether to restrict PMA from all RMs so those were left up in the air. Those who advocated including RMs in the restriction (notably, me) did so because many RMs are like this one (solidly pertaining to technical issues regarding English). However, other types of RMs are not (e.g. Disgusting breakfasts of the U.K. → Toxic breakfasts of England).

When most editors are on such probation, they are exceedingly careful when treading into gray areas to keep their posts succinct and limited to pretty much a !vote amply supported with links to policy and guideline pages; you know: contribute to the project in a collegial fashion. But doesn’t take PMA long to revert to his old ways and ‘get personal’ and tendentious darn quick; ergo, my quick reminder to him that he was treading on thin ice here.

It’s quite unfortunate, really, because PMA has energy to spare and he freely devotes much of it to Wikipedia. Furthermore, his basic philosophy is one I agree with, which could be summarized as “Wikipedia is not in the business of trying to lead by example to change the English language because English is what it is.” But I saw that his intransigence on MOS and elsewhere had a deleterious effect on some valued wikifriends. I can’t tell you how many times I read something along the lines of “Well, it’s agreed then, but what are we gonna do about PMA if he objects?” I thought “What’s wrong with this picture?!? He’s just one editor.” Yes, but there is a near-infinite number of electrons at his disposal. Greg L (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

• To clarify and correct some statements by Kai445 above, I started the initial AN/I section in response to the (now hatted) incivility in the #What's yoghurt? section, this was several days before the closure that sparked the edit war and blockings - it was even before that RM was opened. I do not oppose the move, but neither do I support it. I supported the closure of the discussion because I believe that the best thing to do for everybody would be to accept that regardless of what happened in 2003 there was no consensus in the just-before closed discussion to move the page back and to on. There is a part of me that wants to oppose the move so as not to reward the tactics of attrition and accusations of national bias, but as that is as bad a reason to oppose as righting an alleged wrong in 2003 is to support I am not doing so. I am also mature enough not to let this affect my judgement when it comes to discussing facts, rationales given for supporting or opposing and actions of other users and administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean to put things in an incorrect context regarding the AN/I, I did not realize it originated prior to the move. I also assumed you were opposed to the move, but if your position is neutral I can respect that. I've struck out that portion of my comment, because I don't want to put any words in your mouth. -Kai445 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to do the honor?

Who wants to do the honor of removing this article from WP:LAME? -Kai445 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, with 8 years of dispute behind it over the letter "h", I really think it should stay there ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone should update it though. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

If I changed it, somebody is likely to revert simply because I did it. But someone should update to clarify that the lameness here was the 8 years of objecting to reversing the original bad (no consensus, no basis in policy or conventions) move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it should stay, given its history remains. Maybe I'll update it, if nobody else takes to it. -Kai445 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

What it currently says:

---

Yoghurt or Yogurt

Does it need the 'h'? Is "Yoghurt" the "traditional" spelling, and is it American cultural imperialism to not have it as such?[15] Apparently, the "correct" spelling is worth fighting for - again and again and again. And again. Etc. For over eight years. The first time around, this controversy spawned a thread on WP:ANI and led to a wheel war over a block placed due to a move of the page. Later occurrences involved arguments over the meaning of "stable" in the context of WP:ENGVAR, competing interpretations of WP:MOS, and LOTS of Google page counts. This active cultural war re-fermented in November 2003, June 2004, November 2004, May 2005, February 2006, October 2006, April–May 2007, June 2009, July 2009 (which spilled over into this ANI report), and again in November-December 2011, when it which spilled over into yet another ANI report and an edit war (with added full page protection and unprotection) over whether or not to close another requested move so soon after the last one [16],[17]. Apparently, some people don't know when to get the "H" out of there... or not.

---

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Change suggestion.

---

Yoghurt or Yogurt

Does it need the 'h'? Is "Yoghurt" the "traditional" spelling, and is it American cultural imperialism to not have it as such?[18] Was the 2003 move from Yogurt to Yoghurt justified, or should it be corrected and the conflict settled by moving it back? Apparently, the "h" is worth fighting for - again and again and again. And again. Etc. For almost eight years.

The first time around, this controversy spawned a thread on WP:ANI and led to a wheel war over a block placed due to a move of the page. Later occurrences involved arguments over the meaning of "stable" in the context of WP:ENGVAR, competing interpretations of WP:MOS, and LOTS of Google page counts. This active cultural war re-fermented in November 2003, June 2004, November 2004, May 2005, February 2006, October 2006, April–May 2007, June 2009, July 2009 (which spilled over into this ANI report), and again in November-December 2011, when it which spilled over into yet another ANI report and an edit war (with added war over talk page protection/unprotection) over whether or not to close another requested move so soon after the last one [19],[20]. Apparently, some people don't know when to get the "H" out of there... or not.

After the ridiculous history was laid out in detail and the overwhelming arguments in favor of Yogurt were juxtaposed with the relatively weak support of Yoghurt, the conflict was finally resolved in December 2011 when a clear consensus of participating editors supported moving the article back to its original title, Yogurt. Finally.

---

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

• I went ahead and amended it as I saw fit. -Kai445 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You seem to have done a fine job. Thanks. I was intimidated by the whole “moving” process. I took the liberty of deleting the IPA Turkish pronunciation (this is en.Wikipedia) from the lede since that is already covered in the Etymology and spelling section, where it is a better fit. Greg L (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
• No, sorry, I've reverted that. It should not be written from the perspective of the "winner" and should not express a judgment of who was right and who was wrong - especially not from such a clear non-NPOV view. If anyone is to amend it, it should be someone uninvolved and neutral it should be someone writing in an uninvolved and neutral style. You've won the "Move" dispute, now can you please let it drop? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Updated as per discussion below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. You let WP:BATTLEGROUND go to your head here. Next time, you should take a deep breath before demonizing another editor’s edit as being biased-based and flat stating that my edit would be more suitable if *some other* editor made it. Had you carried through with your stunt and actually reverted me under such a policy-defiant basis, I would have taken you to ANI. Greg L (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Erm, where did I even mention you? I was talking of Kai445's change to WP:LAME -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Good point. I really just wanted it delisted originally, I'm not looking to keep going. I propose nobody involved edit it, then. -Kai445 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (and now echoing Greg's point). Sorry, but this deserves a Facepalm. Even for something as important as a BLP, WP:NPOV applies to the material be added or changed, not to the editor who is making the addition or change. It's one thing to say only an uninvolved editor should decide some dispute, but anyone should be able to change or add the words to an essay, and all that should matter is whether the change or addition reflects a NPOV, not whether the editor himself is neutral on the topic of the essay or the particular section of the essay.

    In this particular case it's not that important, of course, but we have to nip this kind of reasoning in the bud. We don't want people reverted simply for who they are without any objection specific to the actual change being made; all objections upon which reverts are based should be about the change itself, without regard to who made the change. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, I can’t even fathom what would motivate User:Boing! said Zebedee to suggest that my actions on this talk page (and I’m new to this issue) has somehow now disqualified me from making otherwise proper edits. I note that in his “support” vote, he wrote that this bickering over the spelling has been going in for eight <expletive deleted> years! Perhaps he is deeply frustrated. But I suggest User:Boing! said Zebedee go read up on wiki‑policy before telling another editor-in-good-standing that he has no right to edit this article. Greg L (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• • (edit conflict)That said, this edit is arguably not exactly in line with NPOV, LOL, so I support the revert on that grounds, not because of who made the edit. In other words, Kai should feel free to give it another shot, and as long as the change reflects an NPOV, it should be acceptable. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• As I said, it *was* written from the POV perspective of the "winner", and that's why I reverted it. But I should have been clearer and said "it should be someone writing in an uninvolved and neutral style", which is what I meant to imply - I am not telling anyone that they cannot edit an article, just that they must always do it from an NPOV perspective -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  •  Like. By the way, the problematic statement was this: " If anyone is to amend it, it should be someone uninvolved and neutral. ". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Everyone must write in an NPOV manner; you have not cornered the market on that virtue. If you want to revert an edit *I* make because it is incorrect or is POV-pushing, then fine. But make a good case here on this talk page for how exactly my edit is incorrect so that your arguments can be held up to the sanitizing effects of public scrutiny. What doesn’t make the grade is writing If anyone is to amend it, it should be someone uninvolved and neutral. Just who in the world do you think you are to write such a thing??

    Like B2C wrote all objections upon which reverts are based should be about the change itself, without regard to who made the change. So drop the attitude please about personalizing this by contesting *who* is editing. All I expect to see in the way of arguments out of you, Boing! said Zebedee, is precisely is what is wrong with anyone’s edits here so we can debate them and arrive at a consensus. Consensus rules here; not some editor marching around telling others they have no right to edit. I suggest you go up and strike the out-of-order parts of your original post; otherwise, your protestations as to what you really meant seem hollow. Greg L (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    
    P.S. And, by the way, just where is this reverting you supposedly made; I can’t find it. And so far, I can’t see anything in the current article with which I take issue. Greg L (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    • It's the change to WP:LAME that we're talking about here - see this -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:53, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Would it be too much to ask that you refrain from making unconstructive edits here on this talk page, not BAIT others, and not revert edits (or threaten that you thought you did or might-sorta-dida revert someone) because you think some other editor somehow lost the right to do so?

  Might I point out that your declaration of “Lame” is intended to posture yourself as a *Big Picture* sorta guy. But if this is all so WP:LAME, just why are you here with your hair so very much on fire that you would dare to suggest that I have no right to edit because of who I am?

  As long as anyone makes an edit to the article that best serves the interests of our readership, I personally have no problem with it; I’m sorta funny that way. Ergo, I have no problem with you editing this article so long as you aren’t doing so just to be provocative, to make a point, or to POV-push. M’kay? Greg L (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Jeez - I HAVE NEVER EVEN MENTIONED YOU, let alone told you anything about what you can or cannot do. I reverted Kai445's edit to the article WP:LAME and explained why to him, and he accepted it - the entry at WP:LAME is what this section is about! You can edit whatever you want, and I have NEVER told you you can't - in fact, I would never even dream of it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oh dear. My mistake. I thought you were referring to reverting an edit *I* made. Well then. Go ahead and treat Kai445 differently and kick him in the nads. (← being facetious) I have no problem with you editing this article so long as you aren’t doing so just to be provocative, to make a point, or to POV-push. As I wrote before, if you have a problem with a specific edit please make a clear case in your edit summary. And if that results in your being reverted, then make a clear and rational case without personalizing it here on this talk page so your arguments can be subjected to the sanitizing sunshine of public scrutiny. And then please abide by the consensus view. M’kay? Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  P.S. The above thread was a whole bunch of talking past each other. Indeed, I entirely misconstrued who you were talking about and which edit you were talking about. Now I can at least see where you were coming from. Nonetheless, your suggested remedy (amounting to “You’ve lost the right to edit because of your close involvement with this seven-year-long cluster-pooch”) wasn’t at all kosher. Now that you’ve struck the offending text, we’re good. Greg L (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  P.P.S. Thinking I understand what Kai445 was trying to do as well as what BsZ was objecting to, I tried my hand at further updating the “yogHURT” entry at “Lamest”. I think I managed to do so in a manner that updated it with the latest but managed to do so in the over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek manner necessary to make light of the vitriol that comes from the seemingly mundane. I’m not sure why this entire thread was being discussed here; it really belonged over there on Talk:Lame. Greg L (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. And yes, all just a misunderstanding - but all's well that ends well. Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Not... quite. We've still got the issue of Strained yoghurt to address. MuuUUUHUUHHAAAHH!!! Doc talk 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Strained yoghurt

The following discussion has been moved to "Talk:Strained yoghurt". Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at the new location. No further edits should be made on this page.

---

Jeez, look at this discussion. I think all of you are fine editors, even Boing! who reverted me. As for strained yoghurt, I don't even know if I want to go near it... you can see me on its talk page, briefly. -Kai445 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully that strain yoghurt will remain harmonious, even though it's not the same ENGVAR as this one. By the way, sources do tend to use the /h/ more when it's strained. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think each WP:SPINOFF articles should be consistent with its respective main article, but I don't think there is community-wide consensus support for that view. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONSENSE, that seems, uhm… like a *common sense* way to handle it. It shouldn’t take an ANI and the input of 40 more editors to tackle these one by one. Dick, what do you mean when you wrote By the way, sources do tend to use the /h/ more when it's strained.?? According to your link (Google ngram), “strained yogurt” is used 22:4 over “strained yoghurt”; it doesn’t get much more lopsided than that. Now let’s talk about ENGVAR. The first non-stub version of the article used “yoghurt”. But, of course, that was entirely forced by the fact that the title of the article was “Strained yoghurt”. Even if we were to look towards ENGVAR for guidance on this, User:Black Kite was the first editor to expand the article from its previous stub status and he/she doesn’t write “realise” but instead spells “realize” so I assume he/she writes with American-dialect English. It makes ample sense that if “Yogurt” is the spelling on this article, then we best serve our readership by making it “Strained yogurt”, “Fruit-filled yogurt”, “Really sour yogurt”, etc. Greg L (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Is everyone fine with discussing “Strained yoghurt” here or should we take this to that article’s talk page? I motion to transplant this entire thread to there. Otherwise, someone might be able to make a good case that a decision to move descended from seemingly nowhere. Greg L (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion to move the thread to Strained Yoghurt. -Kai445 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Further discussion on moving that article can be found here: Talk:Strained yoghurt#Move to "Strained yogurt"? Greg L (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yog(h)urt is high in iron(y)

Did anyone else notice that the illustrative photo in the intro is called "File:Joghurt.jpg"? :) Dohn joe (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos and images can be uploaded with whatever file name the user who uploads the file wishes it to be. The file name could have been "File:Nudeguyonabeach.jpg" and it still would not have mattered, as long as the image is relevant to the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

And once again, my attempt at Wiki-humor fails miserably.... Dohn joe (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Unlucky. See Joghurt pablo 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Yogurt"

I propose that the only spelling that is used in the introduction paragraph, and standardised throughout the article, is "Yogurt". All alternative spellings should be relegated to the body of text dedicated to them. It's becoming annoying to have people adding minor variants, so lets agree to drop them from the lead altogether. Comments? -Kai445 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty standard to list all spelling variants and alternative names in the lead of the article. See Color, for example. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but where does it end? I am certainly comfortable with the two most widely used versions being in the title, there is no argument that "Yoghurt" still has a sizable number of users, but there is a wide margin between them and any other variant. As an alternate proposal, could we reach a consensus to retain the two previously used spellings in the lead (Yogurt and Yoghurt) but keep any other minor variant out of it? -Kai445 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that in British English, yoghourt is still a common spelling. Prior to 1970 it was in fact far and away the most popular spelling and anyone educated before that time would have been taught to spell it that way. It is still listed in all British English dictionaries. I do not think three variations excessive and I am quite happy for you to list the American spelling first. There is a fourth variation, Yogourt, but this has dropped out of use and disappeared from modern dictionaries so I don't see a need to list that.--Ykraps (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yogourt is used in Canada, albeit in a minor fashion. I've posted the ngram to your talkpage, there's virtually zero usage of "Yoghourt" in the corpus of the English language. Arguing that it was popular 40 years ago has no bearing on the article today (and if it was popular, ngram and ghits certainly don't show it). Give me an example of a major brand using it in more than one country, show me even a single national dairy industry (or council, depending on the country) using it in any English-speaking country (either defacto or de jure). The variant is simply non-notable. -Kai445 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see the relevance. If majority usage was a determining factor, we would all be using American English (or possibly Indian English). The fact is it is still used and deserves to be included and if Canadians want to include the spelling, yogourt, I will support that too. I suspect that encyclopedia (encyclopaedia) has become the dominant spelling but no-one appears to be arguing about that.--Ykraps (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC) PS This http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=yogurt%2Cyoghourt%2C+yoghurt&year_start=1940&year_end=1970&corpus=6&smoothing=3 appears to confirm what I was saying regarding British English usage prior to 1970.

This isn't as simple as saying, "Well, only 30% of people use it, so since America is dominant and 70% of the usage is their way, American imperialism reigns again." You are arguing for a word with practically zero worldwide usage. You can spell the thing Joghourt and throw in an umlaut somewhere, but arguing that someone, somewhere, uses it does not make it notable. You've made no case for its modern day inclusion, perhaps if this were 1955 your argument would be relevant. -Kai445 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I have given you three different citations from three modern and trusted dictionaries in order to demonstrate notability. The Australian yoghourt manufacturers, Jalna use that spelling[[21]]. Why do you want to marginalise older people?--Ykraps (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘One manufacturer in one country. I'm sure you can find many archaic words in modern dictionaries, but if there is little to no usage, what makes it fit to be in the introduction? Put it in the "spelling differences" paragraph. -Kai445 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The challenge was to find one manufacturer, which I have done. The usage may be archaic to you, whose experience spans perhaps a couple of decades and much of whose knowledge appears to have been gleaned from the internet, itself a comparatively recent innovation; but many of those people who were around in 1955, and whose opinion you wish to discard, are still around today and still use that spelling. I can't speak for foreign dictionaries but British dictionaries are remarkably good at adapting to changes in languages with 1,000s of new words and meanings being added with each edition. Archaic words are removed or labelled as such. 3 years ago yoghourt was still an acceptable spelling so not at all 'archaic'. I ask you again, why are you trying to marginalise older people?--Ykraps (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually the challenge was to find one manufacturer who uses it in more than one country, which you haven't done. Your argument for its importance is not compelling, and raising an ageism argument is ridiculous. -Kai445 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, so what was all that 'it's not 1955 so your arguments aren't valid' nonsense? What is ridiculous is your refusal to accept that 'yoghourt' is still a widely used and acceptable spelling. It appears in reliable sources: Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. p. 1781. ISBN 0-00-433286-5.  The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. p. 1822. ISBN 978 0050 10289 8.  Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 2044. ISBN 978-0198610571.  and is still used by 'yoghourt' manufacturers today. Although Jalna export a minimal amount of their product, they do export as do Loseley,[[22]] a British company that sell their 'yoghourt' in Hong Kong, Bahrain, Oman and Dubai. I don't really care whether you learn from this or not but to try to prevent others from accessing this knowledge seems to me to be against the spirit of Wikipedia and that of a self proclaimed inclusionist.--Ykraps (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Will this nonsense never end?! Treat it as we do all other ENGVAR spellings. The primary mode has been decided. So we use that for the title, and the variations in the lead....... and then WE MOVE ON to things that matter. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, like how over half of the references for Strained yoghurt (the Danish and other refs may not be so good for the English WP, BTW) use "yogurt" as the spelling. Strained joghoourt, anyone? Doc talk 10:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's include it in the lead and move on.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I think they mean to leave it as it is, which I support. "Loseley" is a poor example, because it's made by Dale Farm Ltd. and they spell it "Yogurt" every damn place other than a single product, "Loseley Yoghourt", which I believe is more about tradition than anything else. And it isn't damned 1955, I don't care if you're 25 or 105, your perception is warped if you think that "Yoghourt" is "widely used" today. Between Ghits and Ngram, you have to be blindly ignorant to believe that. -Kai445 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to really get toooooo involved in this again, but I'd like to remind people that a lovely table from the last time I waded into the Yoghurt Wars suggests that .IE usage is strongly "yoghurt" and the argument that "yogurt is acceptable in EN-UK was irrelevant from the start as there are more than two kinds of EN. Table here Talk:Yogurt/Archive_5#Google_results_table. Also I'm highly dubious that WP:RETAIN is intended to trump eight years of consensus as yoghurt... but maybe I should shut my mouth if I haven't read the last explosion... (I did once say that I would support a change to yoghurt as long as we could agree it was DESPITE WP:RETAIN in the interest of ending the Yoghurt Wars, because if it spends say, a year as yogurt, arguments to change it back will likely NEVER gain any traction due to all the other good (but not previously sufficient) arguments for using yogurt.) - BalthCat (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

BalthCat, No consensus on the preferred variation of the name now means that RETAIN, as written now, applies now. RETAIN as written now clearly specifies the first non stub version.

I agree with Kai445 that the lead sentence should specify "Yogurt or yoghurt" as prominent contenders for most expected spelling, with other spellings given below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

BalthCat, you say, "I'm highly dubious that WP:RETAIN is intended to trump eight years of consensus as yoghurt". When I researched the history of this article I could not find evidence that consensus support was ever established for Yoghurt. Every RM discussion prior to the most recent resulted in a "no consensus" outcome. See Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. We did however recently establish consensus support for Yogurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

SmokeyJoe, that make sense to me, but I still object on the grounds that accepted convention seems to be to list all spellings in the lead. Without a good reason to invoke WP:IAR, and I don't see what makes this case unique, I don't see a way to support going to this approach. A few examples of other articles that do that long enough to be have consensus support would be enough to get me to change my mind on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

"to list all spellings" is an absurdity if you consider the variations used on almost every word in pre-Shakespear English. Obviously, there has to be some criteria. I think it should be "what our sources do". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I said "to list all spellings in the lead", meaning "to list spellings in the lead, rather than elsewhere in the article". Spellings so obscure that they wouldn't be mentioned anywhere in the article are not relevant here. I'm just saying that if a spelling is sufficiently notable and relevant to be mentioned in the article, then the convention is to list it in the lead, not in a separate section. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

@BalthCat, you need to refer to the Google Hit Comparison table, which includes .ie at the bottom. Talk:Yogurt/Archive_5#Google_results_table_2. In the 2-3 year period between ghit analysis, there has been a swing towards the "no-H" variety, most dramatically in Ireland ("Yogurt" now a 2:1 favourite). Further, the latest consensus could have been a snow close in favour of COMMONNAME. I believe the closing Admin had closed using RETAIN so that the Yogurt article couldn't be used as a precedent to start changing all sorts of things and jeopardize ENGVAR (but regardless, the resulting outcome was correct). I also think it is absurd to list every variant just because it may have been in use at some point, there are generally two spellings in 21st century English, Yogurt and Yoghurt. Yogourt in Canada as an exception, but that is most likely a result of idiotic labeling laws (and this isn't French Wikipedia). -Kai445 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fruit is a yogurt starter

I can't find a source. I'm sure there are books on this kind of thing? Anyone? Badanedwa (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)