Jump to content

Talk:Yogurt/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Longevity Myth?

The article makes mention of the early 20th century research attributing the slavic [?] peasants' longevity to their eating large quantities of yogurt. however, this newsgroup discussion, naturally not definitive by any means, points to something perhaps closer to the truth, which is worth looking into or expoudning upon by those in the know [i've seen this yogurt myth-debunking argument come up a few times, but as yet not in a credible source]: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.thyroid/browse_thread/thread/d7ce44d3582bc34f/1189512a53cf6421?lnk=st&q=longevity+yogurt&rnum=2&hl=en#1189512a53cf6421

almost takes the magic out of eating yogurt. - cl


As correctly stated in the article the longevity myth dates back at least to Prof. Metchnikov if not locally earlier. Eastern professors indeed like myths (we believe in them). So this discussion might be talking about some later exploiter who spread it in the US.Koliokolio 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


What are the sources of the historical myth (that bulgars brought yoghurt to europe)? I am bulgarian and the only place I`ve seen it before is a stupid TV ad by Danon! Basicly, they came recently to Bulgaria and are trying to sell yoghurt full of the typical western chemistry stuff and even put processed fruit in it (a disgrace!) and consequently nobody likes them. So they are really trying to sound very native and work on myths. Koliokolio 18:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Curdled

NB: whether yogurt is "curdled milk" is dependent on what's meant by "curdling". If you use "curdled" to mean milk that's solidified through acidification (as milk curdles when mixed with lemon juice), then yogurt is indeed curdled milk via lactic acid. If "curdled" means "spoiled", as in toxic and no longer fit to eat, then one should hope yogurt isn't curdled! =) -- collabi

Pronunciation and Spelling

Many people mispronounce Bach as if it should be spelled Bac and likewise many people mispronounce yoghurt as if it should be spelled yogurt. However in neither case does this seem to be a good reason for changing from the traditional spelling despite the fact that, in both cases, many English speakers have difficulty in forming the correct consonantal sounds. Some of us can, particularly those of us from Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I think it would be more phonetically accurate to use the yoghurt spelling in the article since it more closely suggests the proper pronunciation. -- Derek Ross 08:06, 17 November 2003

The Anglicized pronunciation of "yoghurt" is indeed pronounced, correctly, with a hard G.- Jordan 05:56, 14 February 2004

For many people with American or English accents that is true. However there are two common Anglicised pronunciations -- one with hard G, one with fricative G. Which one you use depends upon your accent. -- Derek Ross 06:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

In Turkish, the word has a soft g, and is pronouced [yaw- ghurt], where the gh is similar to the ch used in loch but voiced, and thus the European/ American pronunciation of the word comes from a misunderstanding of the Turkish soft g.

No, the European and American pronunciations of the word comes from the fact that the language being spoken in those places is generally not Turkish, and thus Turkish pronunciation is irrelevant. 18.24.0.120 03:49, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
European and American aren't the only pronunciations. Don't forget Australian and Scottish. Anyway different Europeans have different pronunciations depending upon their native languages (French, German and Spanish speakers all sound pretty different when they're speaking English).
Presumably you believe that the similarities between the English pronunciation and the Turkish pronunciation are a coincidence since the Turkish pronunciation is irrelevant. I, on the other hand, believe that the English pronunciation is based on the Turkish pronunciation with the replacement of unpronouncable phonemes by pronouncable equivalents. Most native English speakers can't pronounce /GH/ so they change it to /G/, giving the commonest English pronunciation, just as they tend to change /WH/ to /W/, or /CH/ to /K/ or to /TSH/. Nothing wrong with that, we all do it to some extent but some English speakers have to do it more than others because their accent has a smaller range of phonemes. Admittedly the statement needs rewording though. Misunderstanding is not the right word to use. -- Derek Ross 06:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It should somewhere be mentioned that the variation in the spelling is caused by the silent g in Turkish. Both the variation in the spelling and the silent g in Turkish is mentioned, but somehow the link between them is curiously missing.

a similar example is the word "baghdad" where the "gh" is originally a "soft g".--81.215.215.115 13:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Absurd argument

I'm sorry, but I missed the section in Wikipedia Naming Conventions where it says articles should be named so as to be "more phonetically accurate", and where such accuracy is determined by the opinion of Derek Ross. I can't believe this absurd argument was used to warrant the name change from the original yogurt to the BE spelling, yoghurt. I can only surmise that no one was paying attention to common sense in those days. --Serge 00:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed those sections too. Perhaps they'll be added next year, <grin>. I was aware that others might not agree with my suggestion. That was why I waited a month for people to object or to point out holes in the "absurd argument" before making the move. People (with or without commonsense) had plenty of time to say "That's just your opinion" but no one has until now, two and half years after the move. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Better late than never. --66.27.72.134 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Microbes

the most commonly used microbes are Streptococcus salivarius and Lactobacillus bulgaricus, although sometimes another member of the Lactobacillus genus is used, such as Lactobacillus acidophilus.

This clearly depends on where the yogurt is produced. Most US yogurts are cultured primarily with L. acidophilus (or at least, that is the only one mentioned on the package), although some add S. thermophilus, L. bulgaricus, and/or L. reuteri. (Typically the more granola-oriented brands contain more live culture species.)

emulsifiers & stabilizers

Clipped from the article:

Note that the resulting mass should be manipulated as little as possible after preparation; unlike commercial products, which contain gelatin or pectin to make them stirrable, homemade yoghurt will break down when agitated.

Mine has a beautiful, creamy texture and is indistinguishable from commercial yoghurt in every regard except price. Moreover, the commercial yoghurt I buy to use as a "starter" doesn't have any ingredients besides milk and yoghurt culture either.

It might be an issue if you start with raw (unhomogenized) milk, but that's not available in my part of the world so I can't try it.

What does list pectin, gelatin and/or other stabilizers/emulsifiers/preservatives/etc. as ingredients is "fruit yogurt" - but I'm pretty sure all that stuff is in there because it was in the fruit preserves or jam that was added to the yoghurt. Mkweise 18:58, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Actually I have seen gelatine used in plain yoghurt as well in Canada at least, which I find a bit furstrating / nerving, as I would like to one without it, the only one I can find in the local supermarket though is the high priced "bio" yoghurt.

Name of article

Google finds 226,000 uses of the phrase word "yoghurt" and suggests a respelling of "yogurt"; then it reports 1,270,000 uses of "yogurt." I have never in my life seen "yoghurt" put forward as a standard. Jdavidb 17:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have made the argument for use of the current spelling in an earlier paragraph on this page and see nothing in what you say that would persuade me to alter my opinion. Wikipedia policy is not to change spelling without good reason and the sheer number of hits on Google does not constitute "good reason" in my view. -- Derek Ross | Talk

PS Maybe it's just a coincidence but I have never in my life seen "yogurt" put forward as a standard.

Ah, I see. The issue of the spelling of yogurt is your baby. I see where you went all through the article to make it yoghurt. Well, if it means that much to you, keep it, until someone else comes along and makes an issue of it. Jdavidb 18:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I see the google test used all the time here. Jdavidb 18:48, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, when using Google to check spellings remember to find only documents in English. In this case, the proportion is similar but the quantity is smaller. -- Error 00:08, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I have never before seen "yoghurt," either. If you review VfD or RfC, you'll see that Google results are often used as the standard for settling Wikipedia disputes. I'm not going to engage an edit war over this article, but I think it appropriate and wise to change the spelling and relocate the article. Save yourself the hassle of being dragged through RfC. Cribcage 19:40, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Threats because this article doesn't use the American spelling ? Wow! -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:29, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

Yogurt was the original name of this article. Articles should stay at the original in cases like these. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 14:06, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and yogurt isn't an American spelling. It can also be used in Commonwealth English, according to Fowler's Modern English Usage. That and it is basically a diacritic-less version of the original Turkish word. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 16:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yawn, yawn, yawn - this old chestnut again. Just leave the article where it is - there's a redirect from "yogurt" anyway, so no-one's going to not find the article or get confused, jguk 17:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

The name of the article should clearly be yogurt. The spelling yogurt is MUCH MUCH more common than this nonsensical yoghurt. The people who chose yoghurt are purely doing it to be annoying. All the encyclopedias I have list it as yogurt. Is it really that hard to stick with the standard? Sheesh.

Dessert or not?

Marcus2 may not consider yoghurt a dessert, but obviously some people did. Should it be included in the desserts category? Jdavidb 14:17, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's a dessert. It's a salad dressing. It's a breakfast food. It's a snack. And that's not all. It's a highly versatile foodstuff which can be used for savoury or sweet purposes in recipes or on its own. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:33, 2004 Jul 2 (UTC)

Is it a floor wax? -- Error 00:33, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Taste differs drastically

It should be noticed that there are many different tastes of yoghurt. For instance what is sold as yoghurt in Germany and in Serbia it is deffinitly not the same. No one exports yoghurt from one country to another, so we are probably discussing practically different things. What is most similar to Serbian (ex-Yugoslav) yoghurt in Germany (and I hear same for Canada) is the thing called butter-milk. But Serbian yoghurt is more fluid than both butter-milk and their yoghurt. -- Somebody

One reason for different flavours of yoghurt is the different types of bacteria used to ferment it. Cheese can be pretty variable in texture, in colour and in flavour from one country to the next, in fact from one farmhouse to the next. Yet it's all cheese. The same goes for yoghurt. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:55, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

Also Greek (and many similar) youghurts are strained, which changes the taste (less sharp), depending how long this is done for. Justinc 11:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Medical use

The article could do with a mention of [live] yoghurt used medicinally (as a pessary for yeast infections)... I don't know enough about this myself (would need to check how effective it is, and if yoghurt is used for anything else in this vein). fabiform | talk 18:12, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Page move

Barring objection, I'm going to move this page to the more common term [1] in a few days (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 01:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

I object. Google has nothing to do with it. This is an alternative spelling issue not a naming convention issue. (see Wikipedia:Spelling#Usage_and_spelling). If the Google test is used as the justification to force the American spelling in this case then it could be used to force the American spelling in all cases and non-American spelling would be removed from the Wikipedia. That is not the intention of the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) policy. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:46, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
I object. Neutrality is misunderstanding what "common name" means in the context of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). It's also clear he has chosen not to read the comments earlier on the page, to which he should be directed.
First Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) does not apply to spellings, just names. Wikipedia does not prefer one form of English over another (and certainly not based on a google search). The Wikipedia:Manual of Style, which is explicit on this. I will quote:
Cultural clashes over grammar, spelling, and capitalisation/capitalization are a common experience on Wikipedia. Remember that millions of people may have been taught to use a different form of English from yours, including different spellings, grammatical constructions or capitalization. For the English Wikipedia, there is no preference among the major national varieties of English.
The article is in UK English (as allowed by WP:MOS). Since there is nothing against it as it now stands, it should stay as it is. Although not strictly relevant here, I also note that "Yoghurt" is the most common UK English spelling (though "yogurt" has a small amount of usage per Burchfield in Fowler's Modern English Usage (3rd ed.)). jguk 09:03, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As long as there's a redirect I don't see the problem. I think this article is being dragged into the "Americanisation of Wikipedia" debate when really it shouldn't be. If yogurt is the more popular spelling internationally, even if some people think it is wrong, then that is what the page should be called; there is a precedent for this, in the case of Occam's Razor. As for the Americanisation issue people really should look at pages like Apple pie, where there is a genuine problem. Rje 16:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well over at apple pie it's even worse. A user over there was banned by a sysop against normal Wikipedia policy because that sysop wanted to continue promoting a "let's keep it all American" approach without dissent. Let's hope we can be more sensible over here. The google searches restricted to UK sites clearly show that "yoghurt" is the preferred spelling for UK English. (151,000 [2] to 98,500 [3]). Keep the article where it is. jguk 17:48, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
That page, apple pie, was blown out of all proportion. I used it to highlight how major problems are being caused over minor issues. The general rule of thumb is that the most popular spelling in general (international) English, with no bias to one particular form of the language, is chosen as the name of the article, in this case yogurt, rather than any perceived "correct" spelling. For example: Occam's Razor is the most popular name, and therefore the most likely title under which people will search, so that is what that article is called, even though it should "properly" be titled Ockham's Razor. Rje 19:05, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Let's not blow this page out of all proportion too, please. There is no need for change. Plenty of other articles need far more work done on them than this one does. As pointed out earlier there is a redirect and it is a minor issue. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:36, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
This article should be moved: Google, Yahoo!, and even Yahoo! UK all say that "yogurt" is more common. -- Tony Jin | (talk) 23:02, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

THIS SECTION IS SUPERSEDED. Please see #Requested move further down the page

Spelling classification

I disagree with Coolcaesar's decision to label the h-less spelling as American English. This spelling is hardly limited to the US, as clearly demonstrated by the Google search numbers presented above, and it seems like a poor precedent for general policy.

How high must the percentage of use in the US be for a spelling to be labeled American? How low must the percentage of use in other countries be? Should we apply these criteria to every article, for every English speaking country, so that each alternate spelling is labeled with a list of countries where the spelling is and is not used more than some arbitrary threshold? Are we to expect such a policy to be applied accurately and consistently?

More importantly, why does this information matter? If wikipedia is not a dictionary, why are we including such a picky and uninteresting, yet possibly contentious, piece of trivia?

Regards, Pekinensis 15:14, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good points. I'll remove the link. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:31, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)


Requested move

Please vote below if you think the spelling should be renamed to yogurt or remain yoghurt. I have requested that this page be moved to "Yogurt", please see May 12th for requested moves for more information - Requested moves bernlin2000 ∞ 01:05, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Note that the original location of this page was at Yogurt. This is a request to move it back.

Yoghurt → Yogurt ? This spelling is common in the UK and a few other English speaking countries, but it is internationally uncommon. A google search yields 929k yoghurt results and over 3 million for yogurt. I live in America and I find it rather odd that this UK spelling has been preserved, when it clearly is not the most common spelling. Please message me at my talk page or at the article's talk page for discussion. bernlin2000 ∞ 01:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Those stats are wrong, "yoghurt" gets 2.38m and "yogurt" gets 3.01m ed g2s • talk 14:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Today's figures, for me, using ed g2s's links: 1.18m for yoghurt and 4.29m for yogurt. One key point of information, however. The number one site returned for "yoghurt", on my browser, is this selfsame Wikipedia article under discussion. --ℬastique▼talk 19:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It's strange that the numbers should be so different over the course of a few days. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:40, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
An argument in and of itself for not using Google as a determinant - SoM 21:58, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation and sign your vote with ~~~~
  • Oppose "Yoghurt" is extremely popular on Google and Yahoo! Derek Ross | Talk 01:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support "Yogurt" is much more popular on Google and Yahoo! Tony Jin | (talk) 20:33, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Keep where it is. Kiand 01:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. The primary author used Yogurt See Disccussion below -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: primary author (as per PBS) and more common name rubric (per MoS) seem to point in the same direction in this case. This article was Jonathunder 02:22, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Oppose the only argument seems to be a Google results count. Lame. —Michael Z. 2005-05-12 04:23 Z
  • Support There doesn't seem to have been a valid reason to move it from the original title, so support putting it back. Demi T/C 07:23, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Google and Yahoo are estimations of the popularity of a spelling and not meant to be directive. For purely linguistic reasons (which I shall outline below), yoghurt is the more appropriate spelling. --Gareth Hughes 10:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 12:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The argument that it should conform to American rather than British spelling is not a valid argument to move it in my opinion. -- Joolz 13:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support It is the most common, and it was the original. SchmuckyTheCat 17:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. It was the orginal spelling and by far the most common. Neutralitytalk 20:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Article is in British English and should use the most common spelling in Britain. It's also the original spelling (as the article notes at the bottom), jguk 22:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The main objective of any article is to be written in common English, not American English or British English; there's no need to start a fight over that. The simple fact is that "yogurt" is more common than "yoghurt". You should only oppose if you believe that "yoghurt" is the more common term used around the world, not in any particular English speaking country. bernlin2000 ∞ 20:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
    One shouldn't vote to support or oppose your own suggested move. James F. (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - SoM 00:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Yogurt is the most common spelling according to both Google and, more importantly in my opinion, the Oxford English Dictionary. As much as "Yoghurt" appears more natural to me, I must support this proposal. Rje 01:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Clawed 12:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. violet/riga (t) 20:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose - arguments against seem very weak. --Neo 00:07, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, preference for original spelling should govern. "Yoghurt" looks odd to me (of course, because I use AE), but it's common enough that I would favor putting the article there if the original author had done so. I recognize that the move to Yoghurt was done in good faith, not as a sneak attack, but the listing here has obviously attracted more attention. The move should go through if supported by a majority. There's no reason to require a supermajority for reversion of a change that didn't have much support or opposition. JamesMLane 07:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. P.S. the original title is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ed g2s • talk 14:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. James F. (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Flyers13 01:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose for all of the usual reasons. Jooler 19:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I Oppose this move... no...wait, I Support it, no..um... Oppose...Support Oh, to hell with it, I'm Abstaining. You've all made a very good case! (And I doubt there's going to be a consensus anyway...sounds like this one will come back) --ℬastique▼talk 19:42, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support moving it back to yogurt which is closest to the original Turkish spelling and the most common on google. NoAccount
  • Support moving it to the more common spelling according to google. CDThieme 01:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Support moving it back to its original name. Wikipedia policy is not to switch from one acceptable spelling variant to another, so Yogurt should never have been moved to Yoghurt in the first place, and that move needs to be undone. --Angr/comhrá 10:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Yoghurt is the spelling commonly used in Commonwealth countries. Yogurt spelling is only used in American English (I think Canadian English has a different spelling). – AxSkov (T) 11:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. MPF 14:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Votes after voting closed

  • Support moving it back to its original name. If the original article was "Yoghurt" so be it, but it should never have been moved without a consensus or compelling reason. Simple majority should be sufficient to undo a consensus-less change. --John Kenneth Fisher 01:17, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support for reasons explained below. ~leif ☺ (talk) 00:47, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support since yogurt was the original title. --/ɛvɪs/ /tɑːk/ /kɑntɹɪbjuʃ(ə)nz/ 17:18, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


Result

There are 14 "Support" votes (plus 1 for the proposer) which is equal with 15 "Oppose" votes. No one side has at any stage been more than two votes ahead. It's a tie - and it looks like remaining a tie as well. I therefore suggest closing the vote, I doubt much will change. It seems we couldn't be more equally divided on this one! So the proposed move to "yogurt" has failed to reach consensus - so presumably the page remains on "yoghurt" with a redirect remaining on "yogurt". Kind regards, jguk 19:14, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggested application of the rule of consensus. The article was at Yogurt. One person's suggestion on the talk page, coupled with some disagreement but disinclination to make a fuss about it, were cited as supporting a proposed move to Yoghurt. The fuller discussion and greater participation that have now occurred, though, have shown conclusively that there is no consensus, so the article should not have been moved. There is no basis for disturbing the original title. JamesMLane 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
But disturbed it was, and the Requested Move failed. There is no no basis for moving it to Yogurt. Kiand 20:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. If you wanted it moved to "yogurt", you had to support moving, rather than oppose. Thus "Yoghurt" is the status quo, and for it to change, the consensus had to be actively pro-move, rather than merely not anti-move - SoM 21:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
You say that there was no support for the proposed move from yogurt to yoghurt but more importantly there was no objection to the proposal during the month before it was implemented. The disagreement that you mention was only raised a month or so after the move. That stands in marked contrast to this proposed move from yoghurt to yogurt which provoked instant objection. Under the normal rules for making moves (both before and after the advent of the RM page, the move from yoghurt to yogurt was perfectly above board. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Nobody was watching the article the first time. But clearly someone was watching it this time, because it was posted instantly on the Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, and there is an unusually high number of people opposed to moving it back. I assure you, that if Brits dominated Wikipedia, and there was an American users of Wikipedia group, then there would have been instant objection to the move from yogurt to yoghurt. Perhaps the discussion should go on the main page and then we'll see how the vote goes? ℬastique▼talk 21:41, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Well this move has already been publicised on WP:RfC (with a rather unflattering view of my original actions) in order to garner "support" votes in much the same way that you suggest the Main Page could be used and that the UK noticeboard was used ... even though I know that not all UK wikipedians supported yoghurt ... so I wonder if these actions would really make the difference that you imagine. Perhaps so, perhaps no. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:09, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
Oh and the reason for the instant posting on the UK noticeboard ? Basically because a move was made to an obviously controversial page without any discussion. I would have moved it back myself but I had to leave for a real-life appointment immediately and only had enough time to mention it somewhere that I would be sure to get some sort of response on it. You'll note that I was in such a hurry that I didn't even sign it. To be clear, I'm talking about the original May 8th edit. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:18, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
I noticed no unflattering remark about you on WP:RfC (which can hardly be called publicized, considering that it seems a place that only attracts moderators and people searching for controversy--frankly, I've never even heard of it before). The comment merely mentions that the article was moved initially without a clear consensus. Which it was. ℬastique▼talk 22:29, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say that there were any unflattering remarks about me on WP:RfC -- merely about my original actions -- and "no objection" after a month of waiting for comment seems pretty clear to me. That's the hallmark of perfect consensus -- no objection. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
It only demonstrates how few people are interested in reading about yogurt. I'm sure you could move Mime to Myme, leave a comment on the talk page and not get an objection for months at a time. It does not excuse the impropriety of the original move. Consensus requires participation ℬastique▼talk 22:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
And what percentage of page moves get an official consensus? (even discounting vandalism) That sounds very like an argument to remove the "move" option altogether and force all page moves to go through WP:RM, which would swamp the system. - SoM 23:02, 18 May 2005 (UTC
That's a good point, SoM. Furthermore people were reading (or at least editing) the article during the period between the original proposal and the original move as you will see by checking the Page History for the article so it's unlikely that no one read the proposal. No one is disputing that the more participation, the better but people can't be forced to participate and in the absence of comment after a considerably longer notice period than was normally given for moves at the time, I took it that people either agreed or at least didn't object. Given that, I fail to see how the move can be characterised as improper. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:38, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
For my part, I'm not saying the first move was improper. The information available at that time was extremely limited, so the absence of consensus for the move wasn't clear. Now, with greater participation, we know better. You want to take a particular moment in the page's history and designate that as the status quo, which can't be changed without consensus. One could just as well take the moment after what I think was the second move, in which Neutrality restored the page to its original title. There was no consensus for the third move, that from Yogurt to Yoghurt, so that move, unsupported by consensus, should be undone. Out of all these versions when a page gets bounced around, which one is the default, in the absence of consensus? The first one, because it's the distinguished one, because giving it the privileged status will reduced edit wars (and disputes about the status of version #3 versus version #4), and because the MoS accords default status to the original contributor's choice among styles of English. Here, the original contributor's version, at the end of the first day of the article's existence, was no stub, but a decent article that used "yogurt" throughout. There's no consensus for overturning the original contributor's choice of English style. JamesMLane 02:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
The "arbitary moment" was the moment the vote was started. Once the first person votes, no move should be made until and unless the vote has ended with a consensus in favour of moving, since to move it before the vote has ended renders the pre-existing votes nonsensical. - SoM 02:37, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
There are ten users here who are members of the UK Board. Of those ten, only 2 voted to support it. The remainder voted to oppose it. Furthermore, from what I can determine of the users, it appears that between 15 and 20 of the people voting here are from the UK, Ireland or British Commonwealth nations (except Canada). This vote is hardly representative a neutral point of view on the matter. However, the vote is finished, it's obvious. Abuse the rules, and you can turn the vote any way you want, in spite of what common decency would dictate. We all know by now that more people spell it yogurt, are more likely to spell it yogurt, more companies are marketing it as yogurt. But you just cannot be wrong, Derek; you refuse to look at simple facts, and instead prefer to twist words and have all your friends on your side of the pond come join in and vote with you. And for the rest of you, isn't it just fun of you Brits to put one over on the Yanks--to have your way this one time? What a pitiful and pointless little victory.
Derek changed an article--that was written in American English, contrary to style guide. Saying the title is not literally the article is complete rubbish. You've twisted the rules to get your way, Derek--I sincerely hope it makes you feel good. But ultimately, the facts will come out and prove you all wrong, another vote will occur, and this entire debate, having taken so much out of our Wikipedia-obsessed little genius minds, shall all have been for naught. I'm taking this off my watchlist--it's taken too much of my time. ℬastique▼talk 02:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you've formed that opinion of me on the basis of one dispute, Bastique. If you take a look at my edit history, you'll find plenty of examples where I've given in gracefully or withdrawn from potential edit wars: Kilt and Scots Tablet spring to mind as recent examples. It just so happens that this article hasn't been one of them. It may well be that at some point consensus will swing round to your point of view. Well so be it. Rest assured that when it does, I'll shrug my shoulders and move on with no more than a weary grin on my face. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:12, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
Take your ball and go home then, if you must. I only found out about the UK WP board when you yourself posted about it here, but the fact is that every Wikipaedian is at least potentially eligible to vote. There is nothing wrong with alerting others to relevant votes - SoM 02:32, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
isn't it just fun of you Brits to put one over on the Yanks--to have your way this one time? This one time? It seems to me Wikipedia articles on non-country-specific articles predominantly use British spellings. Jewelry redirects to Jewellery, Transportation is a disambig that points to Transport, Humor redirects to Humour (another case like this one where the article was originally at Humor and then moved to Humour without the person making the move so much as asking if anyone minded), 50% more articles in Category:Labor spell it "labour" than "labor", and so on. I think the commonly repeated complaint of American domination of Wikipedia is totally unfounded. --Angr/comhrá 23:06, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I really don't see how that adds anything to this discussion. There are many, many articles that reside at the AmE name and many at the BE equivalent. violet/riga (t) 23:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

My point was merely that I'm tired of the knee-jerk reactions of "You Americans have to realise [sic] you're not the only people in the world" and "Wikipedia is so America-centric" every time the topic comes up. --Angr/comhrá 11:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

While that is undeniably true it also happens both ways. violet/riga (t) 11:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I would note that on the single occasion that I remember moving an article from British to American usage, there was little or no comment about it at that time or since. That stands in marked contrast to the single occasion when I have moved an article from American to British usage even though neither move was done for nationalistic reasons. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:52, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Why do you move articles from one acceptable spelling to another at all, even if it wasn't done for nationalistic reasons? Isn't Wikipedia policy on variant spellings to leave well enough alone? --Angr/comhrá 11:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Theater/Theatre was a good example of such special cases. violet/riga (t) 11:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

The sections Pronunciation and Spelling, Page move and Spelling classification earlier on this page should all be read as part of this discussion since they provide the original rationale for making this change and the more recent debate on it.
Add any additional comments

What does voting have to do with it ? Wikipedia is not a democracy; it's a collaborative encyclopedia project. We do things by consensus and by previously agreed policy. There is currently no consensus to move the article and it would be a breach of policy to do so in any case as previous discussion makes clear. Voting won't change that. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have reformatted this request into the usual format for Requested moves. Welcome to the world of WP:RM -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, sort of. There are at least two previous discussions above discussing whether the article should be at yoghurt or at yogurt. If you are going to reformat this page into the usual format for Requested moves, you need to move that text here as well, since it forms a relevant part of the discussion. It's all very well for you to say that they are superseded but that's just your opinion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style section National varieties of English says:

  • If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please don't be too quick to make accusations!)
  • If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses.

In this case the Primary Author http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoghurt&oldid=484796 used Yogurt so the article should have remain with the American English spelling of "Yogurt" not the Commonwealth English spelling of "Yoghurt". -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The Manual of Style makes suggestions for the case where changes are made without discussion. It also refers to National varieties of English. But you should note that I did not make the change without the opportunity for discussion nor did I see it as a case of American spelling versus everyone else's spelling. So the part of the MOS quoted doesn't really apply to this case. I posted the suggested change and the phonemically-based reasoning behind it on this talk page over a month before making the change. In the absence of any objection during that time I went ahead with it. It was a month and a half after making the change before I received any comment on it. Qui tacet, consensit. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Right here on this page, under the "Name of article" section above, I see other editors did comment when you changed the spelling style. They were not tacit, they just said they didn't want to edit war the issue. Jonathunder 06:55, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Nope. The first comment was a month and half after I made the change and two months after I suggested that the change would be a good idea for linguistic reasons. Had I received objections to my original suggestion I would not have made the change until further discussion had convinced the doubters. But during the period when it mattered, between November and December 2003, they were tacit. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The only argument seems to be a Google results count. Lame. —Michael Z. 2005-05-12 04:23 Z

It's not the only argument; there's also the primary authorship basis for restoring it to yogurt, as Philip Baird Shearer details below. Jonathunder 04:31, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Not really. See my comments above with regard to the relevance of the MOS in this case. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:01, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Z. what about the Primary Author argument? Philip Baird Shearer 09:04, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
It doesn't make sense to apply it when there is later discussion and agreement to change the spelling. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:59, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
PBS, I might have seen the previous move mentioned when I made that comment, but I didn't know when or under what circumstances it had been made. Anyway, the move request concerns the current proposed move, and I didn't see any reason to make a project of researching the previous history. But now having seen Mr Ross' and Hughes' explanations, it seems that it wasn't much discussed or contested at the time, and use of the current name sounds even more justified to me. —Michael Z. 2005-05-12 18:46 Z
After User:Neutrality moved the page out of process to Yogurt I moved it back. This is typical of him - when something looks as though it's not going the American way, he pre-empts the decision to support his viewpoint. Kind regards, jguk 22:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I've noticed nobody's cited another important source for title conventions: naming conventions, specifically section 1.6, which states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." Is there any debate on which name is more common? If google is not a good indicator, perhaps we should hold a wikipedia-wide vote, asking other wikipedians which spelling they prefer? bernlin2000 ∞ 23:45, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
It does not matter what the most common spelling is if it is a division between AE and CE. The rules about national spelling styles take precedence, to stop this kind of silly edit war. If a word has an acceptable spelling alternative which is used both sides of the pond the rules have in recent debates been to use it even if it is not the most common spelling on one side. Eg Grey and Theatre. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Note also that google searches will always show American usage coming out on top. WP has consciously (and in my opinion quite rightly) chosen not to impose just one standard form of English (eg American English) throughout the encyclopaedia. If we are to accept google searches as a determinant, then we are overturning this decision by the back door, jguk 17:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have made a request for comment to get some more opinions on this matter. I would hope some sort of concensus can made reached as soon as possible. bernlin2000 ∞ 00:15, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

The original title is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ed g2s • talk 14:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

The MoS states it to be relevant. From a practical point of view, looking to the original choice helps stop edit wars. If the original title of an article were deemed irrelevant, then style warriors would have a license to hunt -- go find an article titled in BE/CE and change it to AE, or vice versa, and then claim that your new version is the baseline that can't be changed except by consensus. We shouldn't encourage such wastes of time. Of course, an author's original choice could still be overridden where there was good reason to do so. I just don't think that case has been made here. JamesMLane 02:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
No: actually, the MoS governs article content, not naming. You want out "naming conventions", and they make no mention of the issue of where the article was originally located, so Ed was right. James F. (talk) 12:40, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
James F you seem to have missed this sectio of the MoS: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. "If the spelling appears in an article name, you should make a redirect page to accommodate the other variant, as with Artefact and Artifact, or if possible and reasonable, a neutral word might be chosen as with Glasses --Philip Baird Shearer 17:03, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
... Umm. Yes. I wrote "they make no mention of the issue of where the article was originally located". Well, they, err, don't. James F. (talk)
My reference to the MoS was based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English, where one bulleted point states, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoking conflict by changing to another." Further support is the final bulleted point, which suggests "following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor". You seem to be assuming that these points don't apply to article titles. Why assume that? The section doesn't say so; your assumption would lead to an article titled "Yoghurt" that referred to "yogurt" throughout the text; and, as Philip Baird Shearer points out, one of the other bulleted points in the same subsection expressly refers to spelling in article titles. JamesMLane 11:42, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


Arguments from the linguistics and etymology of the word

I feel that it is important to understand where the word yog(h)urt comes from. It is a Turkish word. Most of the conversation heretofore has been about Google, Yahoo and UK/US English: I feel this misses the point. Turkish has a consonant known as yumuşak ge, the soft g. In the modern Turkish alphabet, it is written as ğ — hence, yoğurt. In modern pronunciation, this letter usually represents nothing more than the lengthening of the preceding vowel, thus yō'urt. However, in the past and occassionally still, this letter is pronounced as a voiced velar fricative. In English, the forms yoghourt and yoghurt are older (being borrowed before the Turkish alphabet reform of 1928). The version yogurt is, most probably, based on the reformed spelling, yoğurt, by those who interpret the ğ as g, and an overall loss of the h. Thus, gh is the most appropriate way to render yumuşak ge in English, mirroring the way that combination has been used in the history of English spelling and pronunciation. --Gareth Hughes 10:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Just curious: is this yumuşak ge sound the one I've seen described as "the sound that infidels produce after drinking too much wine"? Mikkalai 21:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

"Yogurt" is not just an American spelling!

To all those who see the spelling "yogurt" as an Americanism and the promotion of the h-less spelling as some sort of cultural imperialism, I should like to point out that at least two British dictionaries, the Oxford English Dictionary and the Collins English Dictionary, list the word in question under "yogurt" and give "yoghurt" as a variant spelling. To me that strongly implies that "yogurt" is the preferred spelling in the UK, and by extension presumably in Ireland and the Commonwealth (excluding Mozambique which prefers the spelling "iogurte"). --Angr/comhrá 08:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is. I will now point out that at least two British dictionaries, an Australian dictionary and an American dictionary all list "yoghurt" as a spelling. The British dictionaries in question are the Collins Dictionary and the Chambers 20th Century Dictionary, which list the word under "yoghurt", but only the Collins gives "yogurt" as a variant spelling, while Chambers gives only "yoghourt" as a variant spelling. The Australian dictionary (Macquarie Dictionary) lists the word under "yoghurt", but gives "yoghourt" and "yogurt" as variant spellings. The American dictionary (Webster's Dictionary) lists the word under "yogurt", but gives "yoghurt" as a variant spelling, which would mean "yoghurt" is an acceptable spelling in the US. The etymology of this word in all these dictionaries has it originating from Turkish and the etymological spelling as "yoghurt". Yoghurt products sold in the UK, Ireland and Commonwealth countries use the "yoghurt" spelling on their labels. – AxSkov (T) 12:11, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
My copy of Collins gives yogurt first, and that's the form it's alphabetized under (it comes after yogi, not before it). --Angr/comhrá 16:27, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why your Collins is different, where was it published? In my version yoghurt is first and definitely comes before yogi. Anyway, the Collins is not a reliable source for usual British spellings, as it has a preference for using "-ize" before "-ise", and apparently in your version "yogurt" before "yoghurt". For usual British spellings, I would suggest using Chambers, NOT the OED or Collins, as they do not reflect the spelling preferences for the majotity of Britons and the British government. – AxSkov (T) 11:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
The OED is not a British English dictionary. It is an English language dictionary and as such it is meant to be all-encompasing and it gives many American and other variant spellings. It is descriptive not prescriptive. When speaking specifically about British English you should refer to the Chambers dictionary. This is the offical dictionary uses by Scrabble players in the UK. Jooler 13:08, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
But the OED is published in Britain and uses British spellings first and alphabetizes under British spellings; American spellings are listed as variants. In this case, yogurt is the spelling the main definition is listed with; yoghurt just "redirects" (as it were) to yogurt, indicating a preference for the h-less spelling on the part of the undeniably British editors of the OED.
Er... that's just wrong I'm afraid, the editors of the OED are not just British, there is an entire unit in the USA called the "North American Editorial Unit" - the principle editor of the NAEU is one Jesse Sheidlower, this is his website - http://www.jessesword.com/ Jooler 16:39, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

"Yogurt" is also used in the UK: I bought some pots of a well-known brand of yogurt the other day from a major UK supermarket and they had the spelling without the h. Nonetheless I think I prefer the version with the h for what it's worth.rossb 13:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I visited the UK 10 years ago, and I never came across the spelling of "yogurt" on products, but I guess things can change in 10 years. I have never come across the "yogurt" spelling on products in Australia. The "yogurt" spelling seems so unnatural to me. – AxSkov (T) 14:13, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
In the interest of research I yesterday visited my local Tesco superstore (a major UK supermarket chain) and found three brands of Yog(h)urt on sale: Ski, Müller, and the Tesco own brand. All three spelt it "yogurt" without the h. It's possible that there were other brands on sale but I did not see them. So maybe this is now the de facto British spelling. rossb 21:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Looking at Tesco online is really fun, as one gets things like:
  • Sveltesse Yogurt Strawberry Raspberry Yogurt
  • Ski Limited Edition Yoghurt Yoghurt
  • Irish Yogurt 6 Pack Diet Yoghurt - my favourite combo here...
Brands are often made to be sold internationaly, therefore labeling in supermarkets should not be the only consideration. All the Tesco own breanfs appear to be spelt Yoghurt. --Neo 21:40, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

The OED can in no way be said to be representative of British English. It uses "-ize" and "-ization", for instance, instead of the usual British English "-ise" and "-isation". Proteus (Talk) 15:19, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I would hope that we all accept that it's not a specifically American/International difference. A few Americans use "yoghurt" and some other English speakers use "yogurt" (although in each case that's against the general trend). While it's interesting to know what various dictionaries record, I don't know how useful it is. After all any good dictionary will include both spellings. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Based upon all the available information I have concluded that the correct article name is Yogurt. 71.248.134.62 17:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)William

I have know idea how came to that conclusion William. Based on the information above — which is not all that reliable — I would say 'yoghurt' is the spelling to use for the article name. 203.164.184.33 06:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Short-circuiting the vote

Neutrality seems to have just moved the article while a vote was in progress. Seems like bad form to me, and likely to lead to revert wars.

If you're arguing that this was the original name, you really should outline the circumstances of the earlier change, and document that it was made contrary to consensus. And then you should get consensus anyway, since there's a vote in progress. When was this article moved from yogurt to yoghurt? —Michael Z. 2005-05-12 20:38 Z

"Page moves requested on this page may be actioned if there is a rough consensus supporting the moving of an article after five (5) days under discussion on the talk page of the article to be moved, or earlier at the discretion of an administrator", says the text at the top of Requested Moves. At the moment it is not yet two days since the request was made and there is no sign of consensus, nor even of strong support, for the move. -- Derek Ross | Talk
Another what the... here. Concensus not reached, time not elapsed. --Kiand 20:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
You don't understand. Neutrality's vote was in capital letters, and so counts for 10 ordinary votes. Proteus (Talk) 20:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
That was uncalled for. Neutralitytalk 23:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The requested move is a way to request a move from the orginal name to a new name. The name of this page was changed without consensus or a vote from "yogurt" to "yoghurt"; therefore, if an RM is to take place, it should be a requested move for changing "yoghurt" to "yogurt." But obviously others disagree; if they insist, I have no objection to continuing the vote. to see if there if consensus for the "yogurt" to "yoghurt" changes. So I'd urge everyone to calm down. Neutralitytalk 23:52, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't matter - there wasn't a vote then, so whoever did it was within their rights. Now there's a vote, the "original name" for the purpose is "yoghurt", and no moving until it's done (and, of course, only then if there's a consensus in favour). - SoM 00:30, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but policy says that the vote above must show a consensus for the "yogurt" --> "yoghurt" page move. If there is no consensus at the end of the five-day period, then the page is moved back to the orginal name. Neutralitytalk 00:50, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
The policy does not say that. Line one of Requested moves, with my emphasis:
"Requested moves is used to request, and vote on, article moves that are not straight-forward or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators."
There was no requirement for an RfM, there was no RfM, and since apparently no one objected for a month, there appears to have been consensus at the time, anyway. Please stop and think. We're in the middle of a vote. It's not fair to pre-empt this by acting, without any explanation, on a perceived policy infringement that happened months ago. —Michael Z. 2005-05-13 02:15 Z
Exactly. There was no Requested Moves page nor a Requested Moves policy at the time of the original move from yogurt to yoghurt. That move was carried out in a perfectly above board fashion with a month (far more time than the current policy allows) for objectors to voice their opinion in line with the policy on page moves which was in force then. It's unfair to fault that move on the basis that it didn't follow a policy which would not be invented until a year later. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:07, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Who eats it?

This fact from The Canadian Dairy Information Centre:

The United States, on the other hand, is the largest consumer of yogurt and other fermented beverages with 85.8 kg/capita.

I believe this is a valid reason for the yogurt spelling (also indicates they use the yogurt spelling in Canada.

In Canada, we use "yogourt". No, I'm not arguing for it to be the main way to spell... "yogurt"...Terukiyo 20:42, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
<Grin>, So if I eat more "fermented beverage" than anyone else (presumably per annum) do I get to pick the spelling ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:59, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
What they eat in America isn't yoghurt in my opinion. For some reason they add cornflour to it. It's disgustuing. Jooler 16:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
The point I was making is who is more likely to search for the term.
By the way, Overture listed 17115 searches for yogurt in March of 2005, compared to only 40 for yoghurt.
In Google Adwords, which requires an account (no credit card required until you actually use it.), when I created a keywords report for Google, directed only toward internet users (through Google.co.uk and similar search engines) in the United Kingdom at a maximum rate of $5 per click, yoghurt received 2 estimated clicks while yogurt receives a whopping 20. While you cannot test these results for yourself without setting up an AdWords account (and anyone of you can do it yourself to test it), it does indicate that even in the UK are searching for "Yogurt" rather than "Yoghurt". -ℬastique▼talk 16:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Google receives an average of 388 worldwide searches for yogurt and 172 for yoghurt. These searches do not include extra terms like frozen yogurt (73), or jamie oliver yoghurt (15) ℬastique▼talk--

Jooler's point raises a way out of this name impasse - have two separate pages, yoghurt for pure milk culture products, and yogurt for products incorporating cornflour - MPF 20:58, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

But those are not two different words for two different products. They're merely alternate spellings for the same thing (whether you consider the addition of cornmeal to remove it from the category, or not). —Michael Z. 2005-05-19 02:30 Z
MPF's suggestion above is, by far, the worst on this page. I hope it was a joke. Wikipedia does not redefine things, it reports on how things are. ~leif ☺ (talk)

I just discovered this debate for the first time, and after reviewing this talk page and the article history I think it's painfully clear that the article should be called Yogurt and not Yoghurt. If it was an issue of which is in more popular worldwide usage, I think the above discussion has pretty clearly established that Yogurt wins. But since it's been framed as an American-vs-British language thing, we could use those rules too... and the first spelling was the "american" one, so thats what should stick. This edit by Derek Ross clearly violates the Manual of Style rules about not changing one to the other. Therefore, the article should be reverted to use (in both the content and title) the "american" english that the first major contributor chose. Unless it's not an AEvsBE thing, and is actually just a usage-popularity contest... in which case Yogurt also seems like it should win, but maybe we need a poll to determine it. ~leif ☺ (talk) 00:47, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

<Sigh>, If you read what I what I have said above time and time again you will note that I did not see this as an American/British change or as a popularity issue although that seems to be what (nearly) everyone else chooses to see it as. I have nothing against American usage. In fact I have moved articles to American usage before now when it seemed sensible to do so (hoarding -> Billboard (advertising) for instance). In this case yoghurt seemed more sensible to me for reasons which both I and Gareth Hughes have outlined above. If you want to convince me that I am wrong you need to show that the real reasons that I had for moving the article were wrong not the American/British reasons that everyone seems to imagine that I had. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
I accept that you made the move in good faith, but I don't think we're all bound by your original motivations. You didn't see it as an AE/BE style choice. Many of us, however, do see it that way. The RfM listing brought many more eyeballs into this decision, with the result that another perspective was presented, one that you hadn't considered. That's how a wiki is supposed to work. Dwelling on the question of your "real reasons" for the move misses the point, whether it's done to praise you or to blame you. JamesMLane 06:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Yogurt

I read some of the debate but I thought I would mention the Google and Yahoo search results.

Google:

  • Yogurt-4,370,000 (no udea where on list)
  • Yoghurt-1,230,000(wikipedia is first on the list)

Yahoo:

  • Yogurt-4,990,000 (no idea)
  • Yoghurt-1,360,000(2nd on list)

Personally, I've only seen Yogurt used on brand names, but I'm from the Mid-west so I don't think my experiences count for much. Falphin 01:08, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And what do Google/Yahoo stats prove in this instance? Nothing, but that the US has a lot web pages. Jooler 06:42, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, I saw a lot of brand titles on the Google search "yogurt" on the first page and didn't see any on for the term "Yoghurt" on the first page. Falphin 19:07, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yoghurts my eyes. ;-) hydnjo talk 20:54, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The whole "is it US" argument, as if it being a US variantwould be a blow against the move to restore the article's original spelling, is completely irrelevent when you consider that the US, alone, has the majority of natively English-speaking people on the planet. That is, there are more people in the US for whom English is their first language than all the rest of the world combined. And that's aside from it also having a higher density of English-speaking Internet users. So for the English wikipedia, "US variant" makes the most sense if an entry isn't referring to something primarily of interest to some fraction of the minority group of English speakers from somewhere else like, say, England. --Kaz 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

A rose by any other name

Personally, I've tried it both ways, and this food definitely tastes better when the container is labeled Yogurt. The H character somehow seeps through the plastic walls of the container. Maybe it's the ink they use, or some kind of trick of the refrigeration unit at the grocery store, but Yoghurt just doesn't taste as good.

And this is crucially important to me, since I'm on a diet, yo? -- G. Hurt (talk) 17:10, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

It also has a strange effect on the Pagename links in the "See also" section. ;-) hydnjo talk 18:02, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seeing the light

Having experienced the heated debate over at Petrol or Gasoline, I've decided to completely accept the spelling of Yoghurt. My heartfelt apologies for anyone who was offended by my vociferousness. For some reason Yogurt looks better with the 'h' now. ℬastique▼talk 21:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Have you tried it with a double (or an extra) h? Yoghhurt is... well,... quite delicious. ;-) hydnjo talk 22:17, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Is it hhealthhier, too? JamesMLane 00:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Of course it is. The more hhhhhh's, the more Vitamin H is has obviously. What do you mean that doesn't exist? Must be an FDA cover up... --Kiand 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Wow! What a slugfest! I'm staying out of that one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:23, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now you've all settled on 'yoghurt', is it time to begin the rename-to-'yoghourt' battle? *runs*

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Yoghurt

Oh well. ;-) hydnjo talk 01:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Not any more. violet/riga (t) 10:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Page moved

This page was just moved by User:Robin Williams from yoghurt to yogurt. This is a clear breach of Wikipedia policy. This is not the first time this user has caused trouble. Jooler 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yogurt/Archive_1&oldid=1142520077"