Talk:Derry

Note to editors: the agreed compromise for the Derry/Londonderry name dispute is that the city page shall be titled Derry and the county page shall be titled County Londonderry.

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

Why is the official name of the city of Derry/Londonderry second to the unofficial one? Lolitsmeyo (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion above. Wikipedia policy, rightly or wrongly, is to use the most commonly used names for articles rather than official ones. See WP:COMMONNAME. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is complete nonsense. No-one calls "newcastle" "newcastle upon tyne" yet shock and horror wikipedia's article lists that as the main name!89.242.104.138 (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles

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

---

Do you believe that Derry/Londonderry and County Derry/Londonderry are more preferable names to the current Derry and County Londonderry articles to resolve the Derry/Londonderry naming dispute? Italay90 (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Note:

• Please do not comment in the support/oppose sections
• Comments which express a clear opinion for one of the solutions set out below will not be considered unless you sign directly underneath one of the sections (Support/ Support for Derry/Londonderry, oppose for County Derry/Londonderry/Oppose)
• You may sign multiple solutions.

Support

1. Italay90 (talk) 11:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Chris ☮^(Talk) 11:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

89.242.104.138 (talk) 00:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Support for Derry/Londonderry, oppose for County Derry/Londonderry

- support changing the name of the Derry article to Derry/Londonderry yet oppose changing the name of the County Londonderry article

1. Italay90 (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
2. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Nicknack009 (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
2. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
3. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
4. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
5. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
6. Mo ainm~Talk 15:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
7. Valenciano (talk) 15:46, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
8. ONR (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
9. --Tóraí (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
10. Finnegas (talk) 23:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
11. Hugh (talk) 17:10, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
12. HighKing -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Undecided so far

1. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:24, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments

(note- any support in the comments section will not be considered, please sign below one of the solutions above so that your views are definitely taken into account should a name change occur):

In this unique case I feel that the neutral standpoint guidance from wikipedia is more applicable than the common name policy as both are obviously common names. Chris ☮^(Talk) 11:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

From the previous discussion I would like to add that it is my belief that this is the best neutral solution which will take both sides into consideration. Wikipolicy suggests names should be neutral, official and common: there is no clear common name for the articles and although the official name is Londonderry, it is still regarded by many to be Derry (and is referred to as Derry in the Republic of Ireland) - as such I feel that given the sensitivity surrounding the issue an exception should be made to use a dual name. There are some examples of dual names on wikipedia - Kingdom of Israel (Samaria), Imia/Kardak and Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Whilst dual names are discouraged they are not prohibited when appropriate. Wikipolicy is simply set down as guidelines as opposed to rules. This is about finding a solution which is accepted by all sides as opposed to one which has a bias depending on the reader (ie. one reader may find Derry to be biased whilst another could find County Londonderry to be biased). Italay90 (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

From the previous RfC's it was pretty clear the current names were the common names by quite a margin, I find it annoying that straight assertions are made like that without any study of the evidence. Anyway as far as I can see what is being asked for here is that the name be 'neutral' and that an exception be made on that basis. The applicable policy on that is WP:POVNAMING which is part of WP:Neutral point of view but I think I'll sit this out and not insist on policy and see where it all goes. Dmcq (talk) 12:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Londonderry/Derry for the city could work in my view but County Londonderry should not be changed because there never was a "county derry" historically. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@CofE - This isn't about finding a name which is official but rather a compromise which will be accepted by most editors: the only possible arrangement which could be accepted by most contributors which includes Londonderry in the title of the Derry article is by similarly representing Derry in the County Londonderry article. I would like to stress that this choice is between using Derry/Londonderry or the status quo which does not work for so many contributors: you can abstain from this vote and risk having Derry/Londonderry being used in both articles or risk not having Londonderry represented in the title of the Derry article. Italay90 (talk) 10:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't see why you jumped straight into a single proposal on this issue. Instead a proper test/discussion on where the community lay on the matter should have been done first to see how strong consensus actually is for the present solution. If there is a weak consensus and desire for a change then several proposals should be proposed to see where everyone involved lies on the matter.

The proposal does have ever growing usage in television and radio advertising and news and even in some papers. The problem is this is an encyclopedia that should be based on reality. The county and city belong to the UK which officially calls them both Londonderry. Judges have upheld this decision every single time it has been taken to court. This is all I am saying for now without going off on one about bigotry and racism. Mabuska ^(talk) 11:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Have to agree with C_of_E. To call the County "Derry" would be to acknowledge a political bias that has no historical basis. County Londonderry should not be a consideration at the page.Dubs boy (talk) 14:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose County Londonderry change There is no such county as County Derry. Is not supported by an official documents. No plebiscite or other such thing has taken place to change it from its original name. Mealy-mouthed attempts at NPOV does not permit Wiki to make history. It is what it is. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Keeping that all in mind (and the quite considerable support for it) I'll open up a third alternative for the renaming of this article whilst keeping the county Londonderry article as is. If you wish to sign multiple options then that is fine. The proposal with the highest support will (hopefully) be taken forward. Italay90 (talk) 16:11, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Even if you have expressed views towards one of the solutions set out above, this will not be considered unless you sign your name below one or more of the said solutions found above.Italay90 (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment Sorry, Italay, this RFC is a mess. It was/is entirely unclear what you are actually proposing. I saw this earlier today, read the lot, and only now does it dawn on me that what you are actually proposing, i.e., moving Derry to "Derry/Londonderry". Given the limitations of the Mediawiki software and the nature of URLs, what you're proposing isn't actually technically possible - an article name cannot have a forward-slash character. (A secondary issue is the language: "please sign below one of the solutions above". What?! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@ Bastun - Imia/Kardak Italay90 (talk) 16:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is an article with a forward slash in its name - Derry/Londonderry name dispute.

Maybe what you're seeing there is an article called "Derry/Londonderry name dispute" and it is actually possible to use slashes in article names with newer versions of Mediawiki software; however I think what's actually happening is that what you're seeing is an article called "Londonderry name dispute", which is a sub-page of a page called "Derry", in the same way that I have a page called "sandbox" which is a sub-page of my User:Bastun page. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You're right up to a point, but it is a small problem not a PITA and it is not a blocker on its own. See WP:TITLESLASH. Dmcq (talk) 10:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:NC-SLASH. —sroc 💬 01:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Nicknack009 (talk) 08:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC) The current compromise is well-established and works fine. Changing it will resolve nothing. Leave it alone.

There will never be a version of these articles that is acceptable to everybody - ever. Derry for the city and County Londonderry for the county has been an established compromise. It would be great if there was some sort of "silent" redirect where you could type Londonderry into the search box and get the same article with the names changed, but we don't have that feature and probably never will, so what we have is as close as we're ever going to get.. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Oppose The current compromise is well established and has been relatively stable for several years now. Leave as is. (Why doesn't the RFC just use "Support" and "Oppose" like every other RFC?) Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not a case of COMMONNAME or "neutrality". It is a case where a convention was adopted early on in the project and has served very well for over ten years. The same convention is used by Irish Historical Studies, a prestigious academic journal. There is no need to change it. Scolaire (talk) 17:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes the current arrangement has been in use for a while, but that does not necessarily make it more stable simply as a result of it's long-term use: the article has been vandalised on a number of accounts with a series of debates taking place across the talk page: although some may be satisfied with the current arrangement it fails to consider both views. As mentioned earlier the use of County Londonderry as some sort of "weight" for Derry is preposterous, their is a readership bias and no clear grounds which suggest 'Derry' is suitable. @ Scolaire - your prestigious academic journal takes a - what we can assume to be - slightly biased Irish view on the situation: the city is indeed referred to as Derry in the Republic of Ireland yet both views from the United Kingdom and Ireland should be considered to ensure that the article represents the views of all people. Italay90 (talk) 18:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that after some consideration, I have decided to sign both the support and the support for Derry/Londonderry, oppose for County Derry/Londonderry: I understand that the usage of County Derry in the County Londonderry article is not appropriate for many and I tend to agree with this should it be the case. Articles containing either Derry or Londonderry which have no historical basis for the other have been given the most suitable name (eg. river Derry, Londonderry Port, Derry City Council) - although my preferred alternative would be to use both I can see that this appears to be the less popular solution and brings the names of aforementioned articles into question. The city on the other hand is currently known as both Derry (in the Republic of Ireland and across some sections of local government) and Londonderry (in the United Kingdom/officially in the UK): using one name as opposed to the other is open to bias and conflict which is not what Wikipedia stands for. This is further made worse by the religious and political attachments of both names which again makes the use of Derry without the inclusion of Londonderry biased. Italay90 (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The article has been vandalised on a number of accounts with a series of debates taking place across the talk page. That's not the way I would put it. A number of people over the years have edited in good faith to change "Derry" or "County Londonderry". In some cases they were simply reverted; in others there has been a discussion. But every discussion on the question has ended with a consensus in favour of retaining the status quo. That's why it is still the status quo. Now, you have every right to open a new discussion, on the basis that consensus can change, but be aware that there is every likelihood that it has not changed.

Your prestigious academic journal takes a - what we can assume to be - slightly biased Irish view on the situation: this is an unnecessary slur. The journal, like any journal worthy of the name, maintains strict political neutrality, and many of its contributors are unionist in outlook. I'll say no more than that. Scolaire (talk) 21:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

This RFC will not gather any sort of support because it is so badly written. Close the RFC and open a fresh account of the situation.

Suggested options for this page:

a. Derry - nothing changes

b. Derry with infobox official_name=Londonderry(only)

c. Derry~Londonderry as used by City of Culture page - www.cityofculture2013.com (or an equivalent Derry/Londonderry)

d. Londonderry - use the official name as is common with this template at Newcastle upon Tyne and Kingston upon Hull

e. Derry, Northern Ireland

Dubs boy (talk) 15:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

There are good reasons why the Tyneside Newcastle is at Newcastle Upon Tyne. There are numerous other Newcastles around, in particular the Australian one and, in England, Newcastle Under Lyme, which is one quarter of the size, not to mention many smaller ones, including others in England, Wales and Ireland. Hull can refer to the part of a ship, the river or several other places of the same name, I think in that case, they decided there was no primary topic. Valenciano (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I would imagine Newcastle, England is the most prominent of any of the other namesakes so I'm surprised that common name is NOT applied here. Seems like the lesser prominent names are appended with a 2nd location value such as Newcastle, New South Wales or Derry, New Hampshire.Dubs boy (talk) 16:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Most prominent, yes. But Newcastle Under Lyme, with 75,000 people (compared to 280k for the Tyneside one) is not of insignificant size and if you need a disambiguation anyway, an ambiguous one like Newcastle, England isn't as good as Newcastle Upon Tyne, which at least is clear enough. Valenciano (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would be worried about ambiguity between Newcastle(officially Newcastle upon Tyne) and Newcastle Under Lyme. Certainly any concern of ambiguity has not been noted here in regards to the use of Derry. I've added a 5th option to my suggestion because Derry, New Hampshire is roughly a 3rd of the size of Londonderry which is not insignificant either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 17:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This RfC is failing :P if I open another RfC there's little guarantee a solution will be found due to a split vote which would not represent a solution which most people would prefer: there are so many alternative names that the status quo will have the natural advantage even if it is supported by the minority of contributors. Does anyone else support a re-written RfC or should I simply close this and let it lie? Italay90 (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I think close and open a new RFC with the suggestions I have made. I have not voted on the RFC because I don't exactly know what I'm voting on. Dubs boy (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Italay90, the RfC is not failing. There have been eleven !votes in just over 24 hours. Even better, a clear consensus is beginning to emerge. Leave it be. And Dubs boy, you leave it be as well, please. All it needs is to be allowed to run until there's enough discussion to allow it to be closed in the normal way by a neutral closer. Jumping from one thing to another achieves nothing. Scolaire (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire The RFC is a mess. What exactly are you opposing? The name change of this page or the County Page or Both? 4 of those opposed have not even given a risen for opposition. That is not a discussion. I've been reminded in the past that an RFC is not a voting system or a poll. I would hope that this RFC could be used to gather all the options before going to a poll. Is anyone going to reach out to all the users who have come by this page, queried the article name before being told "status quo" rules? I'm sure they would have an opinion aswell.Dubs boy (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Its an old discussion but does have a tally system of drive by editors who opposed and supported name change [[1]].Dubs boy (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

And probably off topic and been raised before but the article lead is somewhat bias. The original compromise on the naming dispute had the lead begin with Londonderry. If you look at Newcastle upon Tyne. Official_name as Article header, Lead: Official_name commonly known as Common_name. Kingston upon Hull has Official_name as Article header, Lead:Common_name officially known as Official_name. It seems only here where Common_name is both the Article name and article lead. Someone has clearly gone out of their way to set hierarchy and go against the original compromise. Dubs boy (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I think of this as a request for WP:IAR, which is one of the core policies, to have a title which is less one-sided and divisive rather than just go by the letter of WP:TITLE. I'm a rules person but I can definitely see the point so I've abstained as is my right, it would be nice if people gave reasons for their decisions. As Dubs boy says an RfC isn't supposed to be a straight vote but based on the weight of the arguments. Dmcq (talk) 09:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Four people gave reasons for their !votes. These were removed from the polling area to the Comments area, and a notice was added saying "Please do not comment when signing support - there is a comments section below". This goes completely against established RfC procedure, and has apparently given subsequent participants the impression that it is purely a head-count, and that giving reasons is forbidden. Taking all the above posts into consideration, I am inclined to change my mind: the RfC has failed, it is a mess, and Italay90 ought to close it, and just let it lie. It is clear that, no matter how well any RfC is conducted, there is not going to be a consensus for change at this time. Scolaire (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

"This goes completely against established RfC procedure..." Absolutely agree. I was a going to leave a reason but was a bit taken a back that practice here was not to. But there's plenty of discussion here and the question is a well-worn one. The RfC suffices to demonstrate that there's no consensus to move from the current solution. --Tóraí (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Tóraí, Agreed, its badly written. What was a request for comment has turned into a poll where no one is entirely sure what they are voting on and with no associated space for users to explain their vote. Though there is nothing to stop people providing a reason in the comments section. I suspect the usual guff will be provided. Dubs boy (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• This RfC is poorly explained, poorly executed, does not follow standard procedures, calls for headcounts without comments contrary to WP:!VOTE, and has WP:SNOW chance of passing in its current state. Italay90 should withdraw it and move on. —sroc 💬 01:14, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC: Renaming the Derry article

An attempt to execute an RFC that offers users a chance to explain their reasoning opposed to the previous RFC which was poorly explained. I believe as it stands that the page no longer holds a neutral stance in the naming dispute, with many drive by editors expressing the same concern.

Possible options for this page:

a. Title:Derry - nothing changes

b. Title:Derry with infobox official_name=Londonderry(only)

c. Title:Derry~Londonderry as used by City of Culture page - www.cityofculture2013.com (or an equivalent Derry/Londonderry)

d. Title:Londonderry - use the official name as is common with this template at Newcastle upon Tyne and Kingston upon Hull

e. Title:Derry, Northern Ireland

And as before but the article lead is somewhat bias. The original compromise on the naming dispute had the lead beginning with Londonderry. If you look at Newcastle upon Tyne. Official_name as Article header, Lead: Official_name commonly known as Common_name. Kingston upon Hull has Official_name as Article header, Lead:Common_name officially known as Official_name. It seems only here where Common_name is both the Article name and article lead. Someone has clearly gone out of their way to set hierarchy and go against the original compromise.

I think that it is also worth noting that the Council is no longer known as Derry City Council, following the formation of the super councils.Dubs boy (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the procedural flaws with the previous RfC, the consensus that emerged is pretty clear - stick with the current compromise. There is no need to change it. It works. Leave it alone.

And yes, the Council is no longer called Derry City Council. It's called Derry City and Strabane District Council. Hard to see how that supports your proposed change. --Nicknack009 (talk) 21:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Nicknack009, on the name of the council, it was not a supporting statement, merely a note. As for the last RFC, it was neither clear nor did any of the objectors present a reason for their objection, though I'm not sure they knew what they were objecting to. If the current situation works so well, why do so many users question it? Can you present a reason as to why you think the current situation is neutral rather than the same auld guff of "consensus hasn't changed"?Dubs boy (talk) 00:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

There is a real-world dispute over the name of the city, and as has been proven time and again, there is no solution that will satisfy everybody. The current naming conventions are an agreed compromise, not a victory for one position or another, and not a result of someone proving they're right. It is supported by a broad consensus, and that consensus is clearly reasserted every time the issue is raised. Read the archives. --Nicknack009 (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll find that even in the real world, elected representatives have been unable to change the name of the city only that it remain "Londonderry". Are you suggesting we follow suit? The famed original consensus has decayed with the page having seen Londonderry demoted further. I've made some suggestions. Do you agree or disagree with any of them and why? Dubs boy (talk) 15:13, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

[2] The original compromise had Title:DERRY with lead starting with "Londonderry". Title:Derry was also supported by a 2-1 favour of Common name plus Council name vs Official name, though the Council no longer reflects the city only.Dubs boy (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I really don't think something from 2004 takes precedence over all the discussion since then. I also think action like you just did sticking your preference in the lead whilst the RfC is in progress will only harden peoples attitudes, so from your point of view it is counterproductive. I see it as just you wanting to establish your credentials rather than as a constructive act. Dmcq (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Apologies. I've reverted. I couldn't find a discussion whereby someone decided to open the article with "Derry" as the lead instead of the agreed consensus. I suspect this maybe the result of an edit war or POV as it clearly demotes Londonderry further in my opinion.Dubs boy (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Dubs boy your "original consensus" argument has a big flaw. Concensus can and does change, and unless I'm shown otherwise, this "original" consensus has been long superceded by subsequent discussions and agreements. Then again maybe it hasn't, and I'm sure someone will soon provide the evidence if it did. The "2-1 favour" thing is also a load of dung and was a poor way to make a judgement on the matter back in 2004, eleven years ago. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

And I agree with you both that a discussion from 2004 is not a great base, however this discussion is quoted in WP:IMOS believe it or not. I've read through reams of discussions on the naming dispute where many many users have quoted the "consensus hasn't changed" guff rather than a reason as to why they think the article is still neutral and that the original 2004 consensus is still valid.Dubs boy (talk) 00:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

That 'compromise' was based on a very simple version of the WP:COMMONNAME argument and that is what the title is really based on and I'm pretty certain the argument for that is solid. The business of always using Derry in references to the city however is down to WP:DERRY in WP:IMOS and not any more general Wikipedia policy or guideline. Whatever about the chances for this this RfC a separate discussion on the lead or that part of IMOS would be perfectly reasonable afterwards as a separate topic. Dmcq (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think WP:COMMONNAME was even a policy in 2004. lol. You only have to look at the discussions on this page from 2004 til now started by Users who have queried the naming of this article only to be told that consensus has changed on a decision made in 2004. The number of users must be nearly a 100. That would tell me that the current format is no acceptable and requires a rewrite. I think you also have to consider that the 2004 discussion also used the County Londonderry page as some sort of make weight in neutrality which I think we can agree should be considered completely separate to this page. Either way I would still like to see people consider my suggestions.Dubs boy (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

IMOS says, "A compromise solution was proposed and agreed in 2004 regarding the Derry/Londonderry name dispute, and has been generally accepted as a convention for both article titles and in-article references since then" (italics added). The discussion behind that wording can be found here. "Convention", rather than "consensus", is the key word, and the 2004 "discussion" is only historical background, not the basis of the convention. A convention (which has consensus) has been established over the years, and it is fully policy-compliant. The onus is on the party wanting to change the title to prove (not just state) that the current title violates policy – and remember that WP:IAR is a policy as well. Failing that, he or she needs to show a clear consensus in favour of change. Three and a half months of discussion on this page has failed to show any such consensus. Scolaire (talk) 13:51, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire, surely you can see that the number of drive by editors who have queried this convention opens up the debate for change. How can one change a convention when objectors simply state "consensus hasn't changed"? The convention was based on a historical discussion which included a trade off between City and County. What policy is that compliant with exactly?Dubs boy (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire The convention was based on a historical discussion which included a trade off between City and County. What policy is that compliant with exactly? Still waiting.Dubs boy (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Consensus. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The article violates WP:NPOV by way of demoting Londonderry to secondary status below Derry in the Article Title, Article Lead and Article infobox where Derry is stated as Official name. That is not neutral.Dubs boy (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The number of drive by editors wanting to change it doesn't say anything if we don't know the number of drive by editors who would do it the other way round if it was changed. All it really says is that there is quite bit of interest in it. Dmcq (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

True. Hypothetically if it were changed to Title:Londonderry. All I would have to do is say to drive by editors wishing to change it would be "consensus hasn't changed", and continue to say that for 10 years. I think you can see why this is very frustrating. But I look forward to Scolaire presenting me with policy outlining how 1 articles neutrality can be balanced out by the content of a separate article.Dubs boy (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Which bit of WP:NPOV do you think is not being fully met? Are you referring to the County Londonderry article? That has nothing to do with this, there is no name conflict. Dmcq (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the County Londonderry page was named as such as a compromise in the naming dispute, as in The City be called Derry and the County be called Londonderry. I'd agree that it has no basis on this page. I believe the page goes against Naming and Article Structure within WP:NPOV noting that "alternative names should be given due prominence within the article". The name Londonderry has been demoted with Derry clearly more prominent in the article.Dubs boy (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

@Dubs, the lead says "Derry, officially Londonderry", so no, Derry is not stated as the official name. Valenciano (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In the infobox Derry is located in the official name space.Dubs boy (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The phrase "drive by editors", repeatedly used by Dubs boy, says it all. What does "drive by" mean? It means a loner firing off a shot. If there was a consensus for change, there wouldn't be a series of loners firing off shots, there would be a chorus of support for change. "The number of drive by editors who have queried this convention opens up the debate for change." Yes. It repeatedly opens it up. And the repeated closing of the debate after a reasonable period demonstrates that the consensus remains the same. I'm not questioning your right to open the debate again (though opening it only a month after the previous one died the death does seem to me to be overkill), but in the absence of any significant support it can only have one outcome: no consensus for change. Scolaire (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that seldom do loners congregate. As I've said many users have queried the convention only to be told that "consensus hasn't changed"(in other words "go and do one") by a small group of users maintaining the status quo. Is there any policy that would forbid me from contacting this long list of drive by editors and uniting them in chorus? As for the last RFC, I'm not so sure it demonstrates that the consensus remains the same given that you noted that the "RfC has failed, it is a mess".Dubs boy (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

(1) No, loners don't congregate. That's why they're loners. The mass of users remain silent. That's because they're content. One or two loners every so often with no support = no consensus. (2) There is a guideline called Wikipedia:Canvassing, which says that it is not appropriate to notify people "with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way". However, there is nothing to stop you contacting every participant in every discussion over the years: that would properly test consensus (if anybody responded, which they probably wouldn't). (3) The last RfC was a mess, but there was still a clear majority (11–4) in favour of leaving things the way they are. Scolaire (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

How can consensus be collected from an RFC that failed? Unless youre now saying that the RFC was a success? Backpedaling. Let's be honest, those 11 users would of objected to any change regardless and without reason, though I'm not so sure they knew exactly what they were voting on. I didn't vote as there was no clear objective from the RFC hence the re-write I have put forward. Though if the silent majority of 11 users is maintaining the status quo, there are certainly more users who would like to see a change. Also from a previous post, The convention was based on a historical discussion which included a trade off between City and County. What policy is that compliant with exactly?Dubs boy (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The 11 weren't silent. We !voted. The silent majority stayed silent. 11–4 against, and silence from the rest of the project = no consensus. I'm not going to go round in circles with you. Scolaire (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You have blatantly back tracked and contradicted yourself. How can you consider the results of the last RFC valid if as you say the RFC failed? And its rather arrogant to think that the silent majority rest with those who are happy with the status quo when there have been so so many people querying this convention. Ridiculoso!Dubs boy (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

To note that Scolaire refuses to engage in rational discussion only to offer up contradictory statements then ignore anyone whos dare to question him [3]. Dubs boy (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note that in a report carried out by Derry City Council on changing the city name from 'Derry' to 'Londonderry' the vast majority of respondents to an Equality Impact Assessment (EQIA) on the proposal were against any move to expunge ‘Londonderry’ from the official record. More than 9,000 people said they were broadly against the proposal; this was three times the number of people who said they were broadly in support of a move to change the city’s name to ‘Derry’. This is a report that offers no bias or POV. I would of thought that a report like this would be best used to settle this dispute rather than a head count of users who don't even have to offer up a reason as to why they are against a motion.Dubs boy (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Quite right too and I believe we should follow them by using Londonderry in any appropriate place where the majority of the major citations says that. However that doesn't include this article's name. Note we haven't the figures on any move to expunge Derry from anything - those figures you have are not comparable figures they just show that the inhabitants have a better attitude to getting along with each other than WP:IMOS has with its business of using Derry practically everywhere. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the best method and removes any POV. For the record I do not want to erase Derry from the records either. As for this page, the title was not determined by Common_name. Though in the discussions that have followed since 2004, the title has remained Derry based on peoples interpretation of google results claiming Common name which is next to impossible using google.Dubs boy (talk) 17:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Should probably point out what some editors already know - that Dubs boy is trying to confuse the issue by taking it to individual editors' talk pages. I don't know if there is a rule against this fragmenting of discussions, but it seems bad form and disruptive to me. I have checked his history, and I am no longer prepared to assume good faith with this editor. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

How am I trying to confuse the issue? I have made 5 suggestions and you have not passed comment on any of them. Please refrain from personal attacks and comment on the merits of my proposal. Nick there is no need to muddy the water. If you have a specific complaint then please bring it to AN/I.Dubs boy (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Nicknack009, it may be indirectly my fault. I posted to his talk page just to say that I wasn't going to continue a circular argument here. This was followed by him posting on my, your and Mabuska's page. There is no rule against it, and I don't think he is trying to be disruptive. He's just too emotionally invested in this now and he's taking everything personally, even silence. Scolaire (talk) 18:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

But when I post to his talk page, he blanks it even before I've had a chance to read his reply. I think he just needs to stop and take a deep breath. Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire, I tried to discuss at your page but you blanked it. Why then would I want to discuss with you further? This all going off topic.Dubs boy (talk) 18:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Damned If I Do Ya (Damned If I Don't)Dubs boy (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• dCbEa - This would be my preferred order of choice of change to this page. As it stands I believe the page is unfairly weighted and gives precedence to Derry over Londonderry and violates WP:NPOV. As a compromise given that the page has been named Derry for 10 years, we could have the page named Londonderry for the next 10. lol. This is in line with an Equality Impact Assessment carried out in the city. As a 2nd choice I would settle for Title:Derry~Londonderry. Though wikipedia discourages this naming notation, it is not forbidden and would offer a similar view of neutrality as taken for the year Londonderry was the UK City of Culture. Dubs boy (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I remember that it was the London prefix that made the name of the city so interesting. The fact that there is also a famous city called London. Why would anybody want to change it to just plain Derry? There used to a rhyme that went "Londonderry, Cork, and Kerry, spell that without a 'K'". The answer was T-H-A-T. Why not just stick with the full name. The London prefix is what makes it. Ring Julian (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Section break

• Comment - Summoned by bot, whatever the intention, the effect of this section is to confuse 'outsiders' like myself. Where and on what are we being asked to comment.Pincrete (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

• B, or E - Summoned by bot, B seems to reflect reality, that the city has a legal name other than its 'commonplace' name. I'm afraid I don't understand why people are upset about which name comes first in the lead (so long as the legal position is made clear and the character of the debate on this issue). Pincrete (talk) 08:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Common name has never been proven. The only thing that is true is that the city is called Londonderry. Pincrete this is a case of politics. Irish Nationalists prefer to call the city Derry on the basis of an anti-London bias. British Loyalists prefer to call the city by its official name of Londonderry. Unfortunately the current article gives precedence to a particular Irish Nationalist POV. Local government still call the city Londonderry and the locals were polled with the results in keeping with a city name of Londonderry also. However as its stands the page is not neutral owing to years of edit warring and head counts vetoing any change to fix the imbalance. So far you and I are the only 2 to vote on my suggestions.Dubs boy (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's too simplistic (unless you're painting just about everyone who lives in the city of Derry, the Irish government and associated departments, and most people living south of the border as "Irish Nationalists"). -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you not topic banned? Regardless, an Equality Impact Assessment was carried out in the city, with those who polled, opted to keep Londonderry. Plus city councilors(or elected representatives by the people of the city) were unable to agree on a city name change, with the city remaining as Londonderry. I'd imagine those 2 sources would be as neutral as they come on the naming dispute. I'm not labeling anyone as an Irish nationalist, but what the government of another country refer to Londonderry as is neither here nor there. Though given that the Irish Government only recognized "Londonderry" in [Irish Passport] applications as recently as 2009 would suggest an anti-London bias. Dubs boy (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The EIA reported 77% of Nationalists preferred a name change. Now, bear in mind, this is 77% of Nationalists who actually live in Derry. So 23% of Nationalists (who actually live in Derry) said they preferred Londonderry. And 21% of Unionists (who actually live in Derry) prefer ... Derry. Roughly the *same number* of "Irish Nationalists" who live in Derry would prefer Londonderry as "British Loyalists". So yeah, it's too simplistic to say "Irish Nationalists" prefer Derry and "British Loyalists" prefer Londonderry. What is clear is that more than 75% of the Derry population prefer the name Derry. But, as the same report says "the refusal to resort to majority-minority mechanisms to resolve cultural disputes is critical if we are to find a way forward in Northern Ireland" and there's merit in taking that principle on board (wherever possible and practical) here as well. But wikipedia doesn't have a mission or objective to "right wrongs" or "create definitions", etc. It exists to reflect and this article does just that. The Derry/Londonderry name dispute page exists to capture the name dispute. If and when current "thinking and reality" changes this article will too. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 00:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight I can take from your comments given that you are topic banned and for good reason. I agree, it is too simplistic to say nationalists favour using the name Derry, and unionists using Londonderry, but thats exactly what it says at Derry/Londonderry name dispute page. In reference to changing the name from Londonderry to Derry and the EIA, the EQIA held two consultative forums, and solicited comments from the public at large. It received 12,136, of which 3,108 were broadly in favour of the proposal, and 9,028 opposed. So a majority of people would prefer to keep the status quo which is to have the city remain as Londonderry. It would seem that current "thinking and reality" have met, however that is not reflected here. If the page were to be changed to Londonderry, [Derry/Londonderry name dispute]] page would still exist to capture the name dispute, so that point is null and void.Dubs boy (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, "the public at large" means the whole of Northern Ireland. 15,000 out of a total of ~1.1 million eligible to vote is a relatively small sample, and very likely to be biased. All it tells us is that supporters of "Londonderry" were four times as likely to respond as supporters of "Derry". Scolaire (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about that, though you could say the same for any poll conducted on wikipedia. Generally speaking, unionists are more likely to call the City Londonderry, and given that there are more unionist voters in Northern Ireland than Nationalist, it seems only appropriate then that the page also go by the title Londonderry. Do you agree?Dubs boy (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I don't agree! Why do you keep asking when you know the answer? Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you agree? What is your preference?Dubs boy (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I decline to answer further. Please respect that and don't continue to pester. Scolaire (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I would add that a poll of 15'000 people is probably a better representation of the current naming convention, over a poll of 15 users on wikipedia, but then you would probably disagree with that aswell. Dubs boy (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I fail to see how this RfC is going to change anything or provide any new ideas. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of my suggestions? Do you have a preference? The old ideas are just as valid today as they ever were. It just depends on the pov of the audience. If an EQIA report is not considered neutral or a basis for this page then what is?Dubs boy (talk) 15:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Consensus would be a basis of change. There is not a consensus to change. The comment regarding the EQIA has been there for ten days without it changing anybody's mind. There is still not a consensus to change. Scolaire (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

2 people have voted. Everyone else has abstained, even to the suggestion of keeping the page the same. Do you have a preference to the suggestions I have made? In regards to the EQIA, that is a neutral assessment. Surely an assessment with no hidden pov would be best followed rather than the make up of wikipedia users?Dubs boy (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Do the two people who have !voted (is that including you?) add up to a clear consensus for change? If not, then the lack of !votes indicates no consensus for change. A Request for comment is nothing more than what it says: a request for people to comment on an issue or a proposal. You cannot compel people to comment, or compel people who have commented to then !vote. You know what my preference is, just as you know what everybody else who has taken the time and done you the courtesy to participate thinks. Let it rest. And especially with the EQIA thing: we have read what you wrote; we haven't changed our minds; don't keep flogging a dead horse. --Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have cast my vote and an impartial user has also cast a vote. I've requested comment on my proposals. You have not commented on my proposals. If users abstain from voting or passing comment, or do not feel compelled to add their 2 cents then we can assume they are no longer active in the debate. Based on the 2 votes I think B can be made. Dubs boy (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have been patient enough to engage with you on this. You repay me by giving me the third degree. If you think that one person besides the nominator "casting a vote" makes a consensus for change...well I just don't know what to say. Now, I'm really not going to take any further part in this. Please respect that and don't pester. Scolaire (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire, I suggest you look up the meaning of engagement. All you have done is skirt the issue. I made a proposal, and you have yet to cast a vote on that proposal, nor provide a reason in support/reject of said proposal.Dubs boy (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment from voter, I cannot 'prove' that 'Derry' is more commonplace, but claim that in the UK - in my experience - it is the more common name in all but legal contexts. Even BBC, I believe use this name quite happily, which is an indicator of general use. Whichever name is used is going to offend somebody in NI, I opted for the name which I believe is most commonplace OUTSIDE NI. Again in my experience, most Irish people (N or S), don't actually give a damn which name is used.Pincrete (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I have a friend from Cornwall who calls the city Londonderry. He always believed that Londonderry was the most commonly used, even by the bbc. The BBC guideline for news broadcasts is that the city should be referred to as Londonderry during the initial reference, and then both terms interchangeably. Account may be taken for the context. Other UK broadcasters tend to follow suit. The problem here is that Derry is almost exclusively used, regardless of context. The issue I believe is only in Northern Ireland. People care enough to remove the "London" from road signs and to block attempts to make the article neutral.Dubs boy (talk) 19:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubs boy, I stand corrected re: BBC, that sounds plausible. UK use may relate to age/contacts (we are more likely to meet RC Irish in mainland UK, which of course is not synonomous with 'Republican/Nationalist', but they are more likely to use the short form). I don't know how to be helpful beyond saying one form is clearly the 'legal' name, the other is actually used, at least as commonly, therefore I was not persuaded of the need for a change.Pincrete (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it depends where you go. If you were to go to the Famous Three Kings pub in London, home of the Northern Ireland national team supporters club, you may get a different answer. In saying that 'legal' name can be proven, common name can not be. I disagree with the use of Derry exclusively across wikipedia when to use the name is leaning in a particular direction. I think its easy to say something is more common than another, certainly many users have said just that. Very difficult to prove.Dubs boy (talk) 17:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Showing it is the common name is not very difficult and has been done in the past here. Saying it is difficult is just denying the evidence that has been provided. However I agree with what you say about using Derry exclusively across Wikipedia being wrong. I don't think there is any support in any general Wikipedia policy for what is in WP:IMOS about that, WT:IECOLL is the place to discuss changes to that. Dmcq (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll maybe raise it there. I'm pretty sure the BBC policy was not without a certain amount of research and equality impact assessment, which is why it seems that something similar could be done here. In the past it has been 'proven' that Londonderry is the more common name. Its also been 'proven that Derry is the more common name. Both sides will argue for the the validity of their results. Raised before but doing a google search is not accurate and doesn't take into account 300 or so town lands in Ireland that have Derry in their name. Old ground no doubt.Dubs boy (talk) 03:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The BBC does not follow Wikipedia policies about names! However it does count as a reliable source. The policy on Wikipedia is to use WP:reliable sources as the basis for content and a good assessment of them can be made by carefully checking Google returns in accordance with WP:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia has no policy or guideline about using equality impact assessments as a way of determining content, and it could be seen as conflicting with WP:Wikipedia is not censored. Dmcq (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And if you'd check what has been said before the only other city or town called Derry which appears with any weight is the one in New Hampshire in the US, and yes we do have to be careful about removing it and references to the county and to people named Derry. And we have to do the same too with Londonderry in New Hampshire and the county and the Marquess. There was also a few other uses of both but not very many. And that's what was done. Dmcq (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am aware of previous conversations and in accordance with WP:SET it was proven that Londonderry was the more common name in relation to Google Results. Those results were in rebuke to the argument that Derry was the more common name (insert wiki policy reference). Like I've said both sides claim common name and that their results are valid. There is no way to prove common name. I don't see how using an Equality Impact Assessment report could be deemed censoring given that it takes in more views than the number of editors who are concerned with this page. If anything this page has been censored by those of a particular POV.Dubs boy (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Now you're just trolling. First of all you didn't check the results applied to the city or the county or whatever, and second of all even by the way you did it the word 'Derry' occurs more often than 'Londonderry'. If you actually believed you had done the checks anyway right you would have claimed it is possible to check which is the commonname and that you are right whereas you claim that it isn't possible to check. Dmcq (talk) 19:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ffs, I try to present a neutral rationale and I get called a troll? As I said before, both sides claim validity of their results. And both sides have different interpretations of policy. Lets be honest, you see what you want to see. But there is just no way anyone can prove common name. And lets not lie about it either, look at this past discussion, where so many of the users have said that common name has not changed but then had no results to prove that Derry was the common name in the first place. Here is a google trend result that says that Londonderry is more common. You had presented counter results. Who is right and who is wrong? We can't call that. But this article was not called Derry based on common name. It has remained so based on common name, with out anyone actually proving this. Ridiculouso.Dubs boy (talk) 14:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that's a little bit of my life wasted on looking at your comparison of "Londonderry" against "Derry City" instead of for instance using "Londonderry City". Dmcq (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you are out of your depth if you actually think anyone uses the term "Londonderry City".Dubs boy (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

dCbEa I'm a bit late on this but i'll add my 2p. Londonderry is the official name as confirmed by the courts and the problem we have is that commonname isn't really helpful here given the differences so that being the only argument to use derry, really would support using Londonderry. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

-So after all this palaver, what is the reason for making any change? And is Derry really more commonplace beyond those little islands off the west coast of Europe? (I'm thinking here of an alternate title for the tune Danny Boy, just sayin'.)Mannanan51 (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I am very happy with it being called the Londonderry Air and I really really wish the IMOS was changed to stop people thinking for example that it should be changed to the Derry Air. Dmcq (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

See:Beijing canard! or Mumbai muddle.Pincrete (talk) 08:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Londonderry is the common name. This stand up proves it beyond any doubt. A very pretty young speech therapist was getting nowhere with her stammerers Action group. She had tried every technique in the book without the slightest success. Finally, thoroughly exasperated, she said "If any of you can tell me the name of the town where you were born, without stuttering, I will have wild and passionate sex with you until your muscles ache and your eyes water. So, who wants to go first?" The Englishman piped up. "B-b-b-b-b-b-b-irmingham", he said. "That's no use, Trevor" said the speech therapist, "Who's next ?" The Scotsman raised his hand and blurted out "P-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-aisley". That's no better. There'll be no sex for you, I'm afraid, Hamish. How about you, Paddy? The Irishman took a deep breath and eventually blurted out "London". Brilliant, Paddy! said the speech therapist and immediately set about living up to her promise. After 15 minutes of exceptionally steamy sex, the couple paused for breath and Paddy said "-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-d-erry". Text Julian (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment: We've an "RFC" by from a block-evading user banned multiple times, with a total of under 400 edits since 2012 - most of which are on this talk page, or ANI, or similar. Said user is able to state that a particular policy didn't exist in 2004... what other name(s) has "Dubs boy" edited under? We've two other participants, "Text Julian" and "Ring Julian", who have a combined total of seven edits, ever. Quack? Can an admin close this as a waste of time, there's clearly no consensus for change. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

What block am I evading exactly? "Said user is able to state that a particular policy didn't exist in 2004..." What are you smokin? One look at your contributions Bastun paints a clear picture. You have all the credibility of OJ Simpson. I've no knowledge of "Julian" but seems like a stand up guy.Dubs boy (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Previously, these ones. And, no, I'm still not HighKing. And his cheque bounced! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Londonderry, Cork and Kerry, spell that without a 'K'. T-H-A-T. That was a rhyme in Newtownstewart in the 50s. I've read through all of this discussion. If Derry ever was the common name, as some people are wrongly trying to suggest, then why is there a photograph of a Londonderry signpost with the London bit painted out? That ought to be all the proof that is needed that the whole Derry thing is a lie being promoted by political activists, and that they fooled wikipedia back in the early days with the canard that Derry is the common name. The truth is that a political minority hate London and wikipedia needs to see right through that and get their facts straight. Text Julian (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as the city is within the United Kingdom, its article title should be changed to Londonderry. If that's not to be done, then no loss. Afterall, no matter what you call it, it's still the same city. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Second section break

Looks like there is some consensus for change here.Dubs boy (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any change from the current convention. It has worked well for over ten years, despite being nobody's ideal, and there is no alternative convention that would not lead to divisive editing. I have decided to register a !vote because there is a small danger of somebody doing a count of posts with bold letters or words in them and deciding there is a consensus for change. For the record, I believe that Nicknack009, Dmcq, Mabuska, Valenciano, HighKing and Bastun (long-term and productive editors from across the unionist-nationalist spectrum) have all made crystal clear their opposition to any change, and that their rationale is similar to mine. Scolaire (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I would score out your across the spectrum bit too seeing as my removal greatly diminishes the reality of it :-D Mabuska ^(talk) 14:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Has the compromise worked? Really? With the number of people who have questioned the naming would make anyone think its time for a change. "nobody's ideal"? I'd say its pretty ideal, from a nationalist POV. And certainly it seems to be the same users down the years that have blocked a change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubs boy (talk • contribs) 15:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

(1) Yes, it's worked. (2) I'll repeat: these are long-term and productive editors from across the unionist-nationalist spectrum. Scolaire (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

From what I can see you have listed only 1 editor of unionist persuasion. And I'm not so sure Highking can be considered a productive editor.Dubs boy (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to name names, but I make it two (of seven) "of unionist persuasion", and one or more of an "a plague on both your houses" persuasion. Across the whole spectrum, as I say. Scolaire (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that a small group of editors, of have retained the status quo of this page. Any wonder the page is weighted towards a nationalist pov. Dubs boy (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose as Scolaire notes, the current compromise has worked well and these arguments regarding common name have been done to death many times. I suspect the reason that more people haven't weighed in is that many of us are fed up with this constant raising of this issue every single month. Valenciano (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support changing the article title to Londonderry, see comments above. GoodDay (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you not topic-banned (or is/was that voluntary?). Just curious. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The TB-in-question expired in April 2014. PS- Would appreciate it, if you'd ask me this at my talkpage :) GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose making any change, (in case my comment above was too abstruse). Mannanan51 (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support The current situation has only worked well for those political activists who are trying to push the name change from Londonderry to Derry. Their argument seems to be, that since wikipedia has allowed them to get away with their mischief for so long, they should now be entitled to continue with it permanently. An encyclopaedia should reflect the facts and not the political aspirations of a few activists who can call on a group at any moment in time in order to create an artificial consensus. If that kind of behaviour were allowed, the project would be a farce. If Derry were the common name, as these people try to argue, then nobody would be painting over road signs in order to mask the word London. Text Julian (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't see what the road signs point has to do with it. The signs read "Londonderry" because that's the official name. Some nationalists paint over the "London" because they prefer "Derry". Neither tells us much about what the common name is. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

The point being that there is never going to be an edit war over whether or not something is a common name. Even the remotest doubt would be sufficient grounds to use the official name. This ongoing dispute has got nothing to do with 'common name'. It's exclusively to do with Irish republican activists abusing wikipedia for propaganda purposes, and sadly many well meaning wikipedians can't see that. Do you seriously believe that all the editors here who are hell bent on using the name 'Derry' are motivated purely to ensure that a common name is being used over the head of an official name? You need to open your eyes a bit more. Text Julian (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

FYI, "whether or not something is a common name" is one of the most frequent causes of edit-warring on Wikipedia. The rest of your post is a personal attack of the most egregious kind. Please strike it out. I have interacted with all the editors you refer to, and none of them is an activist of any kind, still less a republican activist, still less a republican activist abusing Wikipedia. Continuing in this vein will get you blocked. Scolaire (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Text Julian, of course I understand that some people are pushing a particular POV, just as some people who prefer Londonderry have a POV. That doesn't mean that it's not possible to advance a policy-based case for either Derry or Londonderry, however. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly and it would help to confine the arguments to either policy grounds or grounds to ignore policy per WP:IAR because it would improve the encyclopaedia. The argument over whether it should be aluminium or aluminum was an extremely protracted one for instance - attacking the motives of people who disagree is not constructive.. Dmcq (talk) 11:21, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Text Julian have you ever edited under another account? Your only contributions are to this topic and it's fairly unusual for a new user to find their way straight to a contentious discussion. Most are unaware that talk pages even exist. Valenciano (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer that others didn't know about these secrets so that only those in the know can control the consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Text Julian (talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd prefer that sockpuppets and meatpuppets didn't try to dishonestly influence discussions. Now that I've answered your question, how about you answer mine? It's pretty unheard of for an account that's genuinely new to know about sandboxes, signing their contributions, article talk pages and indenting their comments, as well as Wikipedia concepts like "consensus" and "common name" yet, in just 6 edits, you've demonstrated all those skills. So what previous account did you edit under? Valenciano (talk) 16:38, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I presume you mean what accounts other than Ring Julian. At least that wasn't abusive sockpuppetry because RJ didn't !vote, and the two accounts weren't operating at the same time. Still, it does set alarm bells ringing, doesn't it? Scolaire (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, even with the other account, that's 9 edits in total, yet they have the editing skills of a seasoned user. No, doesn't smell right. Valenciano (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it very difficult to understand how those opposed, are opposed to everyone of my suggestions for change. And their reason for their opposition "current convention works well" when in reality it doesn't. Yawn!Dubs boy (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Apparently you don't even know what you proposed. The first of your options was "a. Title:Derry - nothing changes". Everybody who is opposed to any change is therefore agreeing to the very first of your suggestions. I !voted as I did because I do not wish to be told how to format my !vote. Quite possibly the others did too. Scolaire (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons stated above. The consensus of Derry for the city, Londonderry for the county has worked fine for a long time. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you actually prove that it has worked fine? Many many editors have questioned the naming so clearly there needs to be a change.Dubs boy (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd also add that the content of the County Londonderry page has no bearing here.Dubs boy (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Dubs boy, can I suggest you have a read of Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process? --Scolaire (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm only asking. I just can't see how you guys can keep making sweeping statements by saying that the convention works when it questioned so so often.

[Post redacted per WP:No personal attacks: "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks."] Scolaire (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

User:Scolaire, now don't be too hasty to state that I disagree with change. I just believed that this discussion had run its course and was pointless. Obviously it might not be.

For my two pennies I favour Londonderry for the city and county (no big surprise). I will however state that the "what we have works" reason is bogus and a poor argument. What we have only works because we have dictated what to call the city and county and it works because we enforce it when someone changes the name of either entity from that which we agreed on. If there was consensus to change the name of the city or county so that they match, i.e. both as Derry or both as Londonderry, the system will work just as fine because it will be enshrined in WP:IMOS and it will be enforced with the same excuse of "per WP:IMOS".

Not everybody is going to be happy whatever we choose to name both articles and we shouldn't bother trying as it's impossible. What we have only "works" is because it's enshrined in WP:IMOS and editors like myself enforce it. So for all those editors who like to throw out the baton that what we have works, it doesn't really. What we have is just a stick with which to beat editors with and vindicate our stance. Mabuska ^(talk) 16:10, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

For our disagreements, you have outlined the situation perfectly.Dubs boy (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

But that is only another version of the "cabal of editors forcing their will on the masses" argument. The convention evolved over a period of years, it wasn't just "dictated" by a person or group at a point in time. Take a look at Archive 1 and you will see how many people were involved (and how very few of today's participants were among them). The convention doesn't work because it's "enshrined" in IMOS, it works because there is always a majority in favour of keeping it. It's in IMOS because there was a consensus at IMOS to put it in and keep it in, because it reflects what the majority of involved editors want. Even if it were possible to change it to "Londonderry" for both, or "Derry" for both, or swap them around to "County Derry" and "Londonderry City", the result would be endless edit-wars, and long-winded and acrimonious discussions like this one, not only on the two main articles but on countless articles in which the city and/or the county are mentioned, because it would be viewed as one "side" lording it over the other "side", or (in the last case) as pure silliness. In other words, it wouldn't work. I make reverts like this one without even thinking. I don't have to swallow my pride or anything like that. If it ever came to the point where the convention was overturned, I wouldn't be bothered doing that any more, I'd just allow the edit-war and accompanying name-calling exchanges to go ahead. It would be anarchy. Sane people who like articles to be stable work this convention, not people who want to "dictate" to others or "enshrine" it in a MOS that nobody otherwise cares about. Scolaire (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Pride is not dented because County Derry is not historically accurate. It's never existed. That's not even an argument.Dubs boy (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose change to current naming conventions (Derry for city, County Londonderry for county). The convention has served the project well for over a decade. We've discussed other arrangements time and time again and no other permutation is likely to be as satisfactory or as long lasting. --Tóraí (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not a reason. Any reason related to "current convention works fine" should be ignored. Is the current convention neutral?Dubs boy (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support change. the only argument in favour of derry is commonname, however that policy is useless here when you have official names, governments using that name as well as a number of people using Londonderry. Without it since it cannot be reliable in a situation such as this, the official name should be the main one until such time as the city's name changes. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @The C of E: You have already !voted, here. Please strike through one of your !votes. Scolaire (talk) 06:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

(aec) The persistent strawmanning over commonname is breathtaking. Commonname is not what the supporters of the current compromise are leaning on. What we are leaning on is consensus. To repeat (again). The current policy is an agreed compromise. Whatever position Wikipedia takes, there will be disagreement, because some people are obsessive. So we cobbled together a policy that satisfies a broad cross-section of editors. It acknowledges both preferences by calling the city one thing and the county the other, and doesn't try to achieve a victory for one side of the conflict over the other. Those of you who dishonestly keep pretending the issue is commonname don't wan't a workable policy, you want to win. And you are tedious in the extreme. --Nicknack009 (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

It may have been a compromise but it is supported by the article title common name policy. Consensus can't in general override that except by appealing to WP:Ignore all rules on the basis that it would improve the encyclopaedia. Or someone could go through the figures again and show that the common name statistics are not quite so definitely in favour of County Londonderry and Derry. Dmcq (talk) 08:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, there is no way to definitively prove common name. Common name was not the foundations of this bogus compromise. The naming of County Londonderry was never in dispute so to use that as a make weight in a discussion is ridiculouso. The County Londonderry page should have no bearing on the content of title of this page here.Dubs boy (talk) 14:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See [4], County Derry seems to be slightly in the lead but the numbers are comparable so we should look at other factors - like County Londonderry being the official name and really it is the better name to use. Dmcq (talk) 17:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

See [5], based on raw data(smoothing = 0), County Londonderry seems to be slightly in the lead.Dubs boy (talk) 17:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this you saying there is something significant in the difference? If so guess what happens if you check Google Scholar from where that stops in 2000 to the present day. :) Dmcq (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Now who's trolling? :) As I've always said, we each look at the results in a different way. But I think here the common name argument has been made redundant.Dubs boy (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Nicknack009, Glad to see a bit of honesty, and that's my understanding of the situation too. The compromise was a compromise of consensus to avoid endless edit wars. It merely exacerbates the situation when certain elements pretend that it's a common name issue when it isn't. That is what I was trying to say above, but my comments kept getting dedacted. The truth is that it's a compromise between unionists and republicans. But should an encyclopaedia compromise between conflicting political aspirations, or should it stick to official names? Text Julian (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia articles using Wikipedia's policy WP:TITLE as agreed by a consensus of editors on Wikipedia? If you want to change that it has a talk page where you can propose changes to the policy. Dmcq (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Dmcq, The whole point is that this is not a common name issue, and at any rate, opinion is divided as to what the common name is. So you are missing the point. And that's what I've noticed here. Those in favor of dropping the 'London' never admit their true motives, but prefer to hide behind assumptions of bad faith against their opponents and deleting their opponents' comments. For example when Valenencio pointed out that GoodDay had been topic banned. He then defended doing that on the grounds that it were true. It may be true but it's very sneaky to divulge such information in the course of a discussion. It was a cheap tactic which told me more about Valenencio that it told me about GoodDay. Just because GoodDay has been topic banned by people like Valenencio, doesn't mean that it was justified. Text Julian (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I never mentioned Goodday being topic banned on this page and the imposition of his topic ban has got nothing to do with me, but thanks for reminding us of it anyway. I only mentioned it on my own talk page after you'd gone there to ask me why I suspected you of being a sockpuppet, I replied that it was due to you, within six edits, knowing all about sandboxes, signing your contributions, article talk pages and indenting your comments, as well as Wikipedia concepts like "consensus" and "common name." I noticed that after I called you out on that, you slunk quietly away. Using sockpuppets is the height of sneakiness, as well as against Wikipedia rules. Valenciano (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Not so sure the ability to sign a contribution or the ability to read past discussions is the sign of a sock master. We'd all be guilty. As for Common name and consensus. How many times are these policies quoted on this page? Aside from this Julian is obviously operating 2 accounts so he needs to pick one as so far I can see no collaboration to warrant holding 2 accounts.Dubs boy (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm only partly following all this, but is it worth requesting a sockpuppet investigation? Cordless Larry (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Opened a thread at ANI. --Tóraí (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Text Julian (or whomever your prime account is) - please don't ascribe political motivations based on how people have contributed on this issue. You've done so on a couple of occasions now, and are wrong in many of your assumptions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:42, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I think your lack of contribution has been the problem. Failing to give a reason as to why you think the page is neutral as it is perhaps the reason why someone may attribute a political motivation to your efforts. In saying that you had no issue with Scolaire doing just that. Julian is right. The motivation behind those opposed is clearly political and has been for some time.Dubs boy (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussing other editor's politics does not help the discussion along, see WP:NPA. If you want to change the title you have to either show a case for using Londonderry rather than Derry that complies with Wikipedia policies or explain why there would be an improvement by ignoring the policies. This is a talk page for discussing improvements to the article. Dmcq (talk) 07:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Scolaire felt comfortable enough to discuss users politics. DMCQ, I have provided a rationale for the change and potential options for that change in an attempt to reach a WP:NPOV. Can you explain why there would be an improvement by ignoring the policies? Users opposed have constantly quoted WP:CONSENSUS and the results of a 10 year discussion as the reason for opposition. Surely users opposed have to actually provided a genuine reason. If users can't then one can only assume that they have an alternative motive. Its not in the spirit of wikipedia that users requesting a change have to jump through hoops while those opposed just say "NO" with the reasoning of "just because". That is not good enough and you should know that.Dubs boy (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've stated my position once, clearly, a position backed by policy; and frankly, that's enough. It's not necessary to comment on every. single. contribution. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Good ole WP:CONSENSUS. "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia". By constantly referring to WP:CONSENSUS, you are not providing a rationale for why you think the page is neutral. How can you claim CONSENSUS mid discussion? So your reason for opposition is quoting the results of a past discussion? Dubs boy (talk) 14:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I do not have to provide "a rationale for why I think the page is neutral." I have to present my reason(s), preferably policy based, on why I believe the page should remain at Derry (and why the page on the county should remain at Londonderry). Yes, that reason is WP:CONSENSUS. There is a long standing agreement that the city is at Derry and the county is at Londonderry. You have not demonstrated that consensus has changed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest closing this RFC and starting it over again. This RfC is poorly organized and invites disorder. I'd suggesting a simple "What should the title be", subheadings for the various options and a single discussion section rather than have this chaos (deal with the infobox later). There should not be any "dCbEa" options and if it's a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT problem, deal with that rather than letting this become this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. It might be useful if the new RfC also aimed to collect evidence that can be used to assess WP:COMMONNAME. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Larry but your reason for opposition was WP:COMMONNAME. Don't you have evidence already? I think the policy we should adhere to should be WP:NPOV. Something that has been ignored for a long time.Dubs boy (talk) 19:13, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I do have evidence, yes (and I'm willing to listen to evidence for the claim that Londonderry is the common name), but quite frankly, this RfC is a mess and a fresh start along the lines suggested by Ricky81682 would offer a better opportunity to present evidence. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Surely if you had evidence you would of presented it by now? Makes it harder to assume good faith.

Feel free to set up an RFC that is correct. I presented options that were ranging in their degree of NPOV. I can't jump through anymore hoops.Dubs boy (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've only just re-engaged with this debate in the last few days, having initially backed "Derry/Londonderry" as a compromise solution but having got bored of the constant accusations of bad faith. As for evidence that Derry is the common name, WP:COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". So, what do sources most frequently use? Google Ngram suggests that Derry is found more often in books that Londonderry since 1979. Searching for "Derry" and "Northern Ireland" returns 15,100 results in Google Scholar, whereas "Londonderry" and "Northern Ireland" returns 13,200. Performing a search on Nexis for articles published in major world English-language newspapers in the past six months (any more than that and it exceeds the maximum number of results) gives 2,479 results for "Derry" and "Northern Ireland"; 1,625 for "Londonderry" and "Northern Ireland". None of those methods are perfect, but they do all suggest majorities for Derry over Londonderry. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

A Genuine thank you for this. Does the Ngram count books in issue or books issued on a particular year? Looking at the google scholar results. When you searched for "Derry"+"Northern Ireland", the 2nd result mentions (London)Derry which could be another option. The 3rd result references the District of Derry which I would imagine would be the city council(now defunct), another references the new district of Derry and Strabane, and another is a history book issued in 1997 though the topic is of the Siege of Derry(1689). Google scholar results for "Londonderry"+"Northern Ireland" returned a few references to the County instead of the city.Dubs boy (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries. On the county point, there are marginally more Scholar results for "County Londonderry" than "County Derry", so my presumption is that my original search slightly overestimated use of Londonderry in reference to the city (but I'm prepared to be proven wrong - on any of this!). I think that Google Ngram uses year of publication. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've said before that COMMONNAME is near impossible to prove. The Siege of Derry is a pretty huge historical event, so its to be expected that articles relating to this will not feature Londonderry. Its hard to remove this from a count. Also include the 300 or so townlands in Ireland that include "Derry" in their name. Derry City FC, Derry City Council, City of Derry Airport, Londonderry Port all skew the results. Notable is that elected representatives changed both the Council Name and Aiport to Derry but did not change the City name.Dubs boy (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to suggest that the margin in the newspaper search is big enough to more than account for any of those issues, but I can't prove that for sure. Another approach I considered was to look for studies by linguists into what name Northern Irish people use in everyday speech, although that probably doesn't conform to WP:COMMONNAME, because that refers to use in reliable sources, not by local people. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, which one was the newspaper search? Are we concerned with what people outside Northern Ireland refer to the city as? The Irish Government call the city Derry but then they hold a particular bias given that they have renamed most of the anglo towns and counties eg. Dún_Laoghaire formerly Kingstown. If there was a way to isolate searches to Northern Ireland? Though its been ignored before, an Equality Impact Assessment did seem to favour the name of the city remaining as Londonderry.Dubs boy (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The newspaper search was the Nexis one. We should be concerned with what the city is referred to outside of Northern Ireland, since WP:COMMONNAME states that Wikipedia "prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources", and presumably that doesn't just mean local English-language reliable sources? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The American town called Londonderry in New Hampshire and the Marquess of Londonderry are the reason for the high numbers for Londonderry in the 19th century. There is also a town called Derry in America just beside Londonderry and some people called Derry which contribute to the other side. Including Northern Ireland in the Google searches is good but one needs also to check a number of pages of results for the sorts of things Dubs boy says to get a more precise feel of the proportion that are relevant. We went though that a while ago for Google results, you could go though on the newspaper articles the same way, it would be interesting to see how much difference that makes. The different towns in Ireland called Derry do not make a noticeable difference to the results. Dmcq (talk) 21:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If it helps, I've uploaded the results from the last month of newspaper results (the download limit is 500 items, so I had to limit the search further than the six-month one I cited above) here and here. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Larry, I'm unable to see the results. Getting an error message.Dubs boy (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

What does the message say? I've made the documents publicly available, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't be accessible. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

"Google Drive The app is currently unreachable." Maybe its a firewall issue.Dubs boy (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Possibly. I've tried accessing it on two different PCs, including while logged out from Google, and it works for me. Is there another device you could try it on? Cordless Larry (talk) 15:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Not really. Maybe I could try my phone. Is there another way to display the results?Dubs boy (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

They're copyrighted, otherwise I would just post them on a user page here. Is anyone else having this problem? Dmcq? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I can access both links. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 08:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I've no problem with the links. Dmcq (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I can access them at home but not at work. It probably is a firewall thing. --Nicknack009 (talk) 10:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I do not see the supporters on the talk pages of Marion Mitchell Morrison, Geoffrey Arnold Beck, Paul Francis Gadd or Harry Rodger Webb demanding the use of the "official name". The consensus is to eschew even the more informative "official names" - Ian Richard Kyle Paisley, Baron Bannside, Alan Michael Sugar, Baron Sugar. Ulster-Scots and Irish Unionist Resource, a site dedicated to non-sectarian, non-racist unionism, has no problems eschewing the "official name" in favour of Derry - neither has the Protestant fraternal society, the Apprentice Boys of Derry. MyTuppence (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start. Ulster-Scots and Irish Unionist Resource and Apprentice Boys of Derry make historical reference to the city prior to its name change. Do you still refer to Istanbul as Constantinople?Dubs boy (talk) 23:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The "London" prefix was granted by Royal Charter in 1613. The Siege was in 1688, 75 years later. Two hundred years later, in 1814, the Apprentice Boys were founded to commemorate those events 75 years after the Royal Charter. Even Ian Paisley referred to the place as Derry (P144). MyTuppence (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the name of the city was not so contentious during the 1800's and has become a more recent development during The Troubles. Hence the debate here.Dubs boy (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Without comment on its rights or wrongs, the real world decided to encroach on our discussion last night:

• "Council efforts to change Londonderry name to Derry condemned" - http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-33647867
• "Council votes in favour of Londonderry name change" - http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0724/716882-derry/
• "Unionists 'disgusted' at council decision to drop 'London' from Derry" - http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/unionists-disgusted-at-council-decision-to-drop-london-from-derry-31401155.html

--Tóraí (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

And? Let's call a spade and spade. All that shows is that the anti-British racism of SF and SDLP continues to rage to the fore on the matter. They have no legitimate or logical reason for changing the name of the city. The only excuse they have is "that was what it used to be called". They only want to change it because it contains the word "London", just like their compatriots in the south removed references to the British monarchy from place names where they could: Queen's County, King's County, Queenstown, Maryborough, Philipstown, and Kingstown to select a few. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

No "and" at all to it. I merely posted links to news reports relevant to this discussion - and I did so explicitly without comment about the rights or wrongs of the situation.

However, if you would like me to make an observation, it is this: The debate here is often framed as being EITHER (a) Irish nationalists pushing an agenda OR (b) that Derry is the common name of the city. However, the vote in Derry last night brought something to my mind: It is possible that the matter is BOTH (a) Irish nationalists pushing an agenda AND (b) that Derry is the common name of the city. --Tóraí (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The last time the issue was raised at council level, the name remained Londonderry. An Equality Impact Assessment also suggested that the naming of the city should remain Londonderry. But lets ignore that and just call it Derry anyway. Sure common name and consensus etc. These are the 2 reasons why this page has remained Derry, but from the way people were talking you would think that no one uses the prefix "London" anymore which is just not true. I would settle for Derry~Londonderry, which was used during the UK City of Culture celebrations.Dubs boy (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose any change in the naming of Derry and County Londonderry. Djegan (talk) 15:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2015

In the "Culture" section and within the first paragraph, please add the following new sentences after the first sentence: "The accomplished Irish singer Mairead Carlin was born, and lives in Derry along with her parents and sister. Her most recent accomplishment is touring with the internationally acclaimed group Celtic Woman."

Also

In the "Notable People" section, please add a new line: "Mairead Carlin of Celtic Woman."

References

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BobConaway (talk • contribs) 22:38, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I added her to List of people from Derry, but not to the main article. As far as the main article goes, I added a quick mention, your wording seemed a bit undue Kharkiv07 (T) 00:14, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverted: the "Culture" section is not intended to contain a laundry list of artists, and this person is by no means a household name. Probably some other names already in the article could also be removed. In fact, I would suggest cutting it down to Seamus Heaney, Brian Friel and The Undertones. Scolaire (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Lonely Planet

The statement in the article that "many unionists prefer "Londonderry"" is sourced to a Lonely Planet guide to Ireland. Is this really a reliable source for this claim? Another, academic, source is also cited, so I suggest that we delete the reference to Lonely Planet. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

As I was typing that comment, I had a nagging feeling that something was familiar about the citation. Embarrassingly, it turns out that that was because I added this reference! In my defence, it was seven years ago, and I did eventually add the journal article as a second reference. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest adding something based on Kevin McCafferty's research into use of London(Derry) English? In footnote 3 here, he makes some observations on the use of Londonderry and Derry in everyday speech. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've now added this. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)