Talk:Yogurt

Soy Yoghurt in the lead

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

Dietetic Value Of Yogurt

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

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

Spelling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what about gogurt??? - steven smead

Unrelated Information regarding Turkish alphabet

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

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

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

Requesting Page Pertection Due to Vandalisem.

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

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

Move page to Yogurt

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also note that Michael Quinion says "There is no right or wrong here" when referring to the use of yoghurt or yogurt.[1] This seems to sum up the arguments for and against this RM ... at least unless, one day, yoghurt begins to "disappear for good".[2]

Finally, note that Strained yoghurt was recently inappropriately moved to Strained yogurt on 2011-07-09, based on a wholesale yoghurt→yogurt edit made on 2011-06-28 (which, unsurprisingly, also broke external links, etc.).[3] Based on WP:ENGVAR and this article's much simpler history, Strained yogurt undoubtedly needs to be returned to Strained yoghurt for now and the spelling change reverted; any reasons for it to be re-moved to Strained yogurt can then be outlined, if necessary, through a RM. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arguments in favor of Yogurt / Yoghurt.

Google results table

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

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

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

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

Arguments supporting "Yogurt" as a preferred spelling

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

Arguments supporting "Yoghurt" as a preferred spelling

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

Pronouncing in Oz

I live and work in a supermarket in Australia but I'm not sure what the most common way we spell it as (I'll check tomorrow hehe). However, I do know that we all pronounce it as "Yoh-gert".

Here's a link to an audio pronounciation on the Howjsay website (here), just hover over the pink "yogurt" text to hear the UK version (first), followed by the Australian version (second) and please forgive me UK-ians if you don't all pronounce it that way. AnimatedZebra (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dairy Australia, the Australian coalition of national dairy farmers (of which there are over 5000 members), uses the word "Yogurt".

http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au

Yoplait (www.yoplait.com.au): "Yogurt"

Gippsland Dairy (gippslanddairy.com.au): label "Yogurt"

Nestle (http://www.nestlediet.com.au): It appears that Nestle used to use "Yoghurt" in Australia (on existing product lines, e.g.: 'Nestle Ski Activ Digestion' Yoghurt), but is now switching to "Yogurt" (see their new 'Nestle Diet Yogurt'). Strangely you can find both spellings on their website.

Dairy Farmers (http://www.dairyfarmers.com.au): "Yogurt"

Between the largest brands in Australia using "yogurt" and the WP:GOOGLE results split 1:1, it's fair to say that both are common usage, but that usage is trending towards "yogurt". -Kai445 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff there Kai445, I wonder though, where did you get the numbers for Dairy Australia? Is it on there website somewhere? Anyhoo, I agree that "Yogurt" is more used here rather than the alternative, which is good as that's how we pronounce it. AnimatedZebra (talk) 11:59, 21 October 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.

The inevitable is delayed once again, inexplicably

Once again Wikipedia is declared to not be a democracy but treated exactly as if is one never-the-less.

The closer claims, "To be parfaitly honest, there are strong arguments in favour of both" [4]

Strong arguments in favour of both? Honest? Really?

This is an astounding claim in light of the fact that the proponents of yogurt listed thirteen points in favour of the move, including "Once the article is moved to Yogurt, there will be no legitimate justification for moving it back to Yoghurt, and so these requests to move the article will finally end", while the yoghurt contingent could only muster up two, and one of them was the pathetically weak, "The article is currently entitled Yoghurt".

What's going on here? Rarely are the arguments so much stronger favoring one side, and still it's declared as "no consensus"?

Yet again the inevitable is delayed, inexplicably. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As you also posted this to my talk page I will reply here as well - Inexplicable means something that cannot be explained, but closing a requested move discussion is simple to explain. I really don't care where the article sits; I just closed the requested move discussion as an uninvolved administrator, and tried to judge where the consensus, rooted in policy, lay. And yes, there were strong arguments in favour of both article titles; whoever assembled the "arguments supporting "Yogurt" as a preferred spelling" just didn't really try very hard in assembling the "yoghurt contingent" arguments, only those of Team Yogurt. The arguments in favour of retaining the article at "Yoghurt" were in the comments made by the 11 people who opposed the move. fish&karate 09:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I just read those 11 oppooses and I'm not seeing those strong arguments in opposition. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Exactly.

Fish&Karate, I was under the impression that that argument summary section was developed collaboratively. Regardless, whoever added the one valid point (not amounting to a "strong argument" in my view) regarding the oppose arguments could have added the others, if there were any. In the comments section, as far as I can tell, each of the other points made by those opposing was soundly refuted. No?

This is important, at least for me but presumably for others too, because, if there really are strong arguments on both sides, I too would oppose this move, and all future attempts to move. So, I'm curious which of the oppose comments presented an argument you consider to be "strong".

So far, in your closing and now here, you've been curiously vague about what exactly you found on the oppose side to be compelling. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, after the discussion took place, it does seem strange that it was closed for lack of consensus. Even if you go through the comments, which ones were a particularly strong argument for 'Keep', and how do they outweigh the 'Move' arguments? Just because a roughly equal number of people posted "Support" or "Oppose", certainly doesn't mean there is a lack of consensus. -Kai445 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, three of us have now expressed concern about this close, and yet we have no response of substance from the closing admin. Since the closing admin can't explain his close -- can't specify what strong arguments there are on the oppose side -- I suggest that justifies reverting the close. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, all that means is that three of you cannot accept that there is no consensus for a change after all this time. Reverting the reopening. People have had ample opportunity to try to persuade each other. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We're simply asking for substantiation of something the closing admin asserted -- both sides have strong arguments -- because the whole conclusion of "no consensus" was based on that assertion.

I'm not going to re-open, but I urge others to do so. This is ridiculous. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, responses like "I've never seen it spelled that way in my life, so I oppose it" is a completely invalid reason, and the one used to support the stay. "Other languages spell it this way" was another. I am not going to go through them with a fine tooth comb to throw out all the invalid responses, because that was the job of the Admin to do, and he has failed. -Kai445 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no experience with this controversy at all, but it certainly seems to me like the above discussion failed to produce any policy-based justification for leaving the article as "yoghurt." Doesn't that mean that there's a consensus in favor of a move? It's not a vote and the original article was yogurt. Perhaps I'm missing something critical, but isn't that all that matters? Following the rules is the only way to prevent similar future discord. AgnosticAphid talk 00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yogurt

I believe that an inappropriate close was instituted for RM:Yoghurt. Admin "Fish_and_karate" was the closer. Please review the RM, and the ensuing discussion below the RM on the talk page. -Kai445 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that both sides used WP:ENGVAR as a primary point of support should be looked at. Only one side can be right. ENGVAR prefers the first usage of the article, which in this case is "yogurt". Retaining it at "yoghurt" because it is currently at that title isn't what ENGVAR says. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• The close is inappropriate because the closer said it was "no consensus" based on both sides having strong arguments, but when asked to specify what the strong arguments were on the oppose side, he had no reply. If no outside view steps in to review this based on this rfc, the next step is to make the same request at WP:ANI. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• This is a textbook case of lack of consensus. Disagreement persisted over whether a change should be made. Therefore the change does not have consensus support and the close was correct. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  Decisions do not have to be unanimous for there to be consensus. The fact that disagreement persisted does not mean there wasn't consensus. In fact, a position does not even need to enjoy majority support at an RM for it to carry the day: if, as is asserted to be the case here, many editors wish to sidestep ENGVAR, then wp:LOCALCONSENSUS suggests that they should not be able to—even if they are in a strong majority! We don't count votes in RMs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has suggested there needs to be unanimity, and I am not suggesting !votes should be counted. Despite your denial, persistence of disagreement = lack of consenus. Those of us who disagree with the move have adduced reasons, although no, I am not going to either repeat myself ad nauseam or fill out a table. The closer evaluated the arguments and saw lack of consensus. I agree. Finish. No attempt to "win" by denying that disagreement equals consensus. There was and is no consensus. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement conflicts with itself. "No one has suggested there needs to be unanimity" and "Persistence of disagreement = lack of consensus". You are stating that conflict can result in consensus and lack of consensus. And you repeatedly stating that there is no consensus does not mean there is no consensus, just as you saying "Finish." does not end the discussion. -Kai445 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kai, that is indeed what I am confused about. You agree that there doesn't need to be unanimity, but then how can we conclude that persistent disagreement must mean no consensus? Isn't lack of unanimity the same thing as persistent disagreement? Perhaps it would help if you rephrased, Yngvadottir. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• My understanding of ENGVAR and how it is applied here is that it trumps considerations of commonname, etc, etc. There's commonality, but nobody has suggested an alternative title based on commonality. So, we're left with ENGVAR. When someone moves a title to another regional name, ENGVAR says move it back. This is supposed to avoid debates like this. That is the whole point, as I understand it. I'm not a big fan of it even, but it's what we do. I don't really understand what is going on with this closure; we roll with ENGVAR around here, and that means it goes back to yogurt. /thread ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Although no one argued this in the RM discussion, it could be argued that the spelling with the h is "established" in this article, and, thus, per WP:RETAIN, which is part of ENGVAR, it should be retained. However, at best, that's a weak argument, because the counter-argument to it is that the repeated and regular challenges show that it's not "established", discussion cannot resolve the issue, and therefore "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default", which is yogurt.

    This is why I think you have to look at all the points in support and opposed to the move, including common name, and we did that, collaboratively, above. But the closing admin appears to have ignored all that and just counted !votes. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary of oppose !votes

Okay, I've gone through all the !votes, and this is a summary of all the points made in the oppose !votes above, categorized as strong arguments, salient points, weak arguments, true but irrelevant, baseless opinion, and incorrect.

That's it, and I'm confident I didn't miss anything because I just culled out signatures and follow-on comments. How the closing admin found "strong arguments" here is inexplicable. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

strong arguments

-- note that this section is blank --

• Note that this section was left blank by someone on the other side of the argument, in a flagrantly biased attempt to 'prove' that they have the stronger arguments. Frankly, this is fucking sickening behaviour and I wish certain users would just accept that NO CONSENSUS means NO CONSENSUS and get the fuck over it. → ROUX ₪ 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit this list to include a strong argument made in the above discussion, preferably one that references a guideline or policy. Then we can talk about it. AgnosticAphid talk 20:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, those of us on the support side can't prove no strong arguments were made in favor of the oppose side in the RM discussion, despite the closing admin's assertion that they exist, because you can't prove a negative. However, we can assert, as I did here, that there were no strong oppose arguments (we agree with the closing admin that there were strong support arguments, and no one has challenged that point). This assertion, if false, can be easily disproven. When an assertion that could be easily disproven if it were false is not disproven, given sufficient time and opportunity, that means, for all intents and purposes, its veracity is proven, per evidence of absence. That is, the assertion holds up to scrutiny.

  Here we have the closing admin (Fish and karate (talk · contribs)), Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) and now Roux (talk · contribs) all expressing disagreement with the simple assertion, and yet none have actually identified any such strong oppose arguments in order to actually disprove it. We've analyzed and summarized all the oppose !votes, explaining why each falls into a category other than "strong arguments", and none have even argued to the contrary. So, this is all grist to the mill. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm sick and fucking tired of you banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on and fucking on about this goddamn issue, to say nothing of your flagrant and disgusting bias every time you summarize your side of the argument versus the 'leave it alone' side. A move was proposed, yes or no? A completely uninvolved admin looked at the arguments and found there was no consensus in favour of the move, yes or no? What the actual fuck is the problem here then? Do you not understand how consensus works, or are you just whining because you didn't get your way? These are--despite the nonsense I know you're going to start spewing--the only actual explanations for your behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 21:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

salient points

• the article itself fairly explains the variety of usage in different English-speaking countries.
• "Yoghurt" is the most common spelling in some parts of the English-speaking world, "yogurt" in others.
• As the google stats below show, academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt.

weak arguments

• As the google stats below show, academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt. Clear case of WP:ENGVAR to me.
  • Foundation: academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt as shown by ghit counts
  • Conclusion: This is a clear case of ENGVAR.
  • Weak because: ignores ENGVAR guidance to go with first use, which is yogurt in this case
• My copy of Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred over Yogurt - that's good enough for me.
  • Foundation: Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred
  • Conclusion: this is good enough to oppose move to Yogurt
  • Weak because: by this logic dictionaries that show yogurt as preferred are good enough to support move to Yogurt

true, but irrelevant

• This has been much discussed
  • The fact that this issue has been much discussed is not a reason to oppose the move
• Anybody searching for the alternative spelling will end up here.
  • That's true in any RM discussion and not a reason to oppose
• I do not see any reasons to move it since, as Yngvadottir already pointed out, the spelling is explained in the article.
  • The fact that the spelling is explained in the article is not a reason to oppose moving it.
• Several other languages also use "Yoghurt", for instance in Swedish, Norse (2x), Dutch.
  • This is an English encyclopedia - usage in non-English is irrelevant

baseless opinion

• the present spelling is a liveable compromise
  • Whether the present spelling is a "liveable compromise" is a matter of pure opinion
• Too much (electronic) ink has been spilled over this trivial issue. The status quo is fine.
  • How much is "too much"? Status quo is fine? Pure matters of opinion.
• Agree with the upper three arguments. I see no reason why to change it.
  • To dismiss 11 clearly stated reasons without explanation as "no reason" is the epitome of stating an opinion without basis
• There is not one good reason for moving this page.
  • To dismiss 11 clearly stated reasons without explanation as "not one good reason" is the epitome of stating an opinion without basis
• Oppose the change, and oppose the US-bashing as well.
  • Simply stating you oppose without giving a reason is of course baseless opinion
• I've never seen it spelled without the "h" until today.
  • Sample of one
• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR.
  • How does ENGVAR apply and indicate this should be the title? Ignores without explanation the argument that ENGVAR says to go with first use, which was yogurt.
• I have also never seen it without the h, so it should be in it.
  • Sample of one

falsehoods

• Moving it to the US spelling would only reflect what is common in the US.
  • It's common spelling in many English speaking places besides the US, including the UK.

Discussion of oppose !votes summary

I cannot accept this biased summary any more than I could accept the one previously presented here. Please recall that this is not a debating contest. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• How is it biased? If you think some of the points are mis-categorized, move them. If you think the name of a category is biased, fix it. If something was said in an oppose !vote that I missed, add it. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is a strong argument for WP:COMMONNAME based on the fact that so many reference texts (every major English dictionary as a primary entry as do the dictionaries Encyclopaedia Brittannica and MSN Encarta, and prescriptive texts such as the Oxford Style Manual say to use Yogurt and to NOT use Yoghurt), industry groups around the world (USA, UK, and AUS), the largest manufacturers of yogurt, and WP:GOOGLE results showing worldwide usage of "Yogurt". There is simply no COMMONNAME determination available for "Yoghurt". -Kai445 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:WIN that was cited by Yngvadottir has nothing to do with any "debating contest". You cannot debate facts. Everything I had previously mentioned is a fact. -Kai445 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's ironic that Yngvadottir is citing WP:WIN when all we're doing is trying to achieve consensus via facts and arguments, and part of that process is pointing out that the opposing side has no strong arguments, contrary to what the closing admin said. WP:WIN cites WP:CONSENSUS, which states: "the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages.". Well, reasonable people should be able to agree whether there are strong arguments on both sides or not. But not if one side refuses to discuss. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've added explanations for why I've categorized most of the points the way I have. I've tried to be as objective and unbiased as I could, but I'm human. Again, corrections are welcome. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see the relevance of WP:WIN. It seems like WP:NOTAVOTE is the more appropriate guideline to invoke. Plus, WP:WIN is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Unless you can come up with a policy-based reason for leaving this article with the title of "yoghurt," that means there is a consensus in favor of change. If that leaves you feeling like you've "lost," I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you shouldn't. I don't see any policy-based explanation whatsoever for this article being titled "yoghurt" rather than "yogurt." If there is one that's been missed in the above list, go ahead and add it. As far as I can tell, this article should be called 'yogurt' per WP:ENGVAR. I think that's the end of it under WP:NOTAVOTE, but if I'm wrong and you have a policy-based explanation for why there actually isn't a consensus, let's go ahead and discuss it like we're supposed to. AgnosticAphid talk 17:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "If there is one that's been missed in the above list, go ahead and add it".

    Well, let's remember this is a discussion about the closing decision, which is based on arguments and points actually made in the RM discussion. So let's not add arguments/points to the list above that were not part of that discussion - as they are not relevant to the question of whether the closing admin's challenged presumption that the oppose side had "strong arguments" is supported by what was actually discussed there.

    However, if something that was said there was missed in the summary, yes, by all means, please add it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, my statement was poorly worded. AgnosticAphid talk 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Like --Born2cycle (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)