Talk:Yogurt/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Pronouncing in Oz

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

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

Dairy Australia, the Australian coalition of national dairy farmers (of which there are over 5000 members), uses the word "Yogurt".
Yoplait ( "Yogurt"
Gippsland Dairy ( label "Yogurt"
Nestle ( It appears that Nestle used to use "Yoghurt" in Australia (on existing product lines, e.g.: 'Nestle Ski Activ Digestion' Yoghurt), but is now switching to "Yogurt" (see their new 'Nestle Diet Yogurt'). Strangely you can find both spellings on their website.
Dairy Farmers ( "Yogurt"
Between the largest brands in Australia using "yogurt" and the WP:GOOGLE results split 1:1, it's fair to say that both are common usage, but that usage is trending towards "yogurt". -Kai445 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff there Kai445, I wonder though, where did you get the numbers for Dairy Australia? Is it on there website somewhere? Anyhoo, I agree that "Yogurt" is more used here rather than the alternative, which is good as that's how we pronounce it. AnimatedZebra (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The inevitable is delayed once again, inexplicably

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

The closer claims, "To be parfaitly honest, there are strong arguments in favour of both" [1]

Strong arguments in favour of both? Honest? Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree, after the discussion took place, it does seem strange that it was closed for lack of consensus. Even if you go through the comments, which ones were a particularly strong argument for 'Keep', and how do they outweigh the 'Move' arguments? Just because a roughly equal number of people posted "Support" or "Oppose", certainly doesn't mean there is a lack of consensus. -Kai445 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, three of us have now expressed concern about this close, and yet we have no response of substance from the closing admin. Since the closing admin can't explain his close -- can't specify what strong arguments there are on the oppose side -- I suggest that justifies reverting the close. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
No, all that means is that three of you cannot accept that there is no consensus for a change after all this time. Reverting the reopening. People have had ample opportunity to try to persuade each other. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
We're simply asking for substantiation of something the closing admin asserted -- both sides have strong arguments -- because the whole conclusion of "no consensus" was based on that assertion.

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

Indeed, responses like "I've never seen it spelled that way in my life, so I oppose it" is a completely invalid reason, and the one used to support the stay. "Other languages spell it this way" was another. I am not going to go through them with a fine tooth comb to throw out all the invalid responses, because that was the job of the Admin to do, and he has failed. -Kai445 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
I have no experience with this controversy at all, but it certainly seems to me like the above discussion failed to produce any policy-based justification for leaving the article as "yoghurt." Doesn't that mean that there's a consensus in favor of a move? It's not a vote and the original article was yogurt. Perhaps I'm missing something critical, but isn't that all that matters? Following the rules is the only way to prevent similar future discord. AgnosticAphid talk 00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

What follows is copied from User talk:Fish and karate --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I have already responded to this and your repeated nagging because I didn't close a discussion the way you demanded it be closed is not going to either upset me or make me change my mind. I have re-read the RM discussion and remain satisfied that closing it as no consensus was reasonable. I notice that the majority of editors commenting on the RfC (linked above) are in agreement with this. I accept and understand that you believe those who argued to oppose the move have no worth in their arguments, however I believe they did have value. A majority of contributors were opposed to the move, people citing the fact that the article has been stable at Yoghurt for over 8 years, and WP:ENGVAR. To me, that alone was sufficient for a "no consensus" close. It is not for me to determine whose interpretation of guidelines and naming conventions is "correct" - if I am to do that then why even bother with a discussion? And note I closed it as "No consensus" NOT "Oppose move" - I would expect to always see a strong consensus in favour one way or another to close a discussion definitively. A strong consensus WAS NOT THERE. A close of "No consensus" is not a final sentence condemning the article to remain at that name for all eternity. Give it a few months and start another discussion. Or start one right now. I really really really don't care what you do. This one was closed as "no consensus" because, get this, there was "no consensus". I will not let your repeated complaining - and now passive-aggressive threats - to bully me into changing this. And I include Vegaswikian in this, not just Born2cycle. fish&karate 06:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU for finally responding to the multiple calls for you to justify your decision. I note that it's been over a week since I asked you expound on your claim that the oppose side had strong arguments too. Better late than never...

You mention the citations of the fact that the article has been stable at Yoghurt for over 8 years, and WP:ENGVAR. I presume these are the strong oppose arguments to which you referred in your closing statement, and upon which the "no consensus" decision was predicated, since you say "that alone was sufficient for a "no consensus" close".

The first of these two - that the article has been "stable" at Yoghurt for 8 years - is laughable. The article was created as Yogurt on December 10, 2002[2] and there it remained, in true stability for a full year, until it was surreptitiously moved to Yoghurt on Christmas Day, 2003 in direct violation against such changes per guidance at WP:MOS, on the blatantly dubious grounds that "yoghurt" is "more phonetically correct" than "yogurt", an argument subtly mentioned on the talk page a month prior to that move [3]. Within a few months the move was challenged[4] and the history of this article is replete with challenges, moves, move reverts, eight formal RM proposal/discussions, and countless objections to the spelling. If this qualifies as "stable", what on Earth does unstable look like? If this is not the epitome of an unstable title, then there is no such thing as an unstable title in Wikipedia, and the opposing claim that this title is "stable" is moot. In any case, the argument that this title is stable cannot be taken seriously, and certainly cannot be seen as a strong argument in favor of any position.

And to characterize the ENGVAR point as a strong oppose argument is to completely dismiss the support side's ENGVAR counter-argument regarding WP:RETAIN, which is part of ENGVAR, and clearly calls for returning the article to the variety of English of the original contributor in disputes exactly like this. To consider the citation of ENGVAR as a strong oppose argument is as ridiculous as would be considering the citation of COMMONNAME a strong argument in favor of a contrived title which is not used in any sources.

You seem to try to skirt responsibility here by saying it is not for you "to determine whose interpretation of guidelines and naming conventions is 'correct'". Oh, so participants in RM discussions can interpret policy and guidelines any way they want, and the closing admin has no duty to check on the veracity of their arguments? What are you saying? What indeed is the point of these discussions, then?

Since counting !votes is not how we determine consensus, just because there are considerable !votes on both sides does not mean there is no consensus. The only way to determine consensus is to seriously consider and evaluate the arguments presented on both sides, and determine how well each one is grounded in the broad consensus at WP, largely as it is reflected in policy and guidelines. It's clear you did not do that in this case, and that's especially disappointing, because in a conflict that has been going on for as long as this one has, it, and everyone involved with it over the years, really deserves a lot more serious consideration than you obviously gave it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments above were copied from User talk:Fish and karate --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

spellinghistory subpage - help?

I've started a subpage on the history of the spelling of yogurt in this article at Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. Any assistance would be appreciated! Thanks, --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) proper spelling is yoGURT,spelling produces 250,000,000 results in Google compared to yoghurt. Thank you.

 Done The history is complete for now, but additions/corrections/tweaks are welcome! --Born2cycle 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The importance of rectifying past wrongs with no statute of limitations

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.

If we have consensus that the article was wrongly moved in the past, and I think it's clear that we do, then it's important that that be rectified by reversing that move. If we don't reverse the results of behavior that we want to discourage, then we're rewarding and encouraging behavior that we want to discourage. By acknowledging that the move shouldn't have happened, but letting it stand, we're sending the following message (whether we mean to or not):

Go ahead and try to get away with whatever it is you want done, but you know is against consensus. You might get away with it, and if you do, for a long enough period, even if it's noticed it won't be reverted.

But if we don't let the acknowledged-to-be-wrong move stand, and instead revert it, we are sending this message:

Don't bother trying to get away with whatever it is you want done. There is no statute of limitations in Wikipedia. Sooner or later it will be discovered, and reverted accordingly.

Which message should we be broadcasting? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • The community seems to be intent on fixing this now. I hope you take this in the spirit intended, but if Yoko Ono was watching you in an art gallery, she’s pass a note to you with just one word on it: Breath. Greg L (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree with Born2cycle’s sentiments, but have to disagree that Derek Ross’s 25 December 2003 page move was “wrong”. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm lost. What's the point here? Is there anything you're saying that isn't in the move discussion — or do you just like hearing yourself talk (so to speak)? Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Agreed. I think we should vote to allow B2C to just delete this section and along with it the comments in response. I'm certainly in favor of it. -Kai445 (talk) 03:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Too many people weighed in to get a unanimous consensus to do so. The best way to drop it would be to close it, which I just did. Anyone who objects may revert me. Greg L (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the confusion, I was going to post this in a reply to GTB (whose position is we should just forget about the past, at least where regional spellings are involved), but thought it was important enough to warrant a separate section. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:53, 7 December 2011 (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.


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.

Thank you, Smokey Joe, for Assuming Good Faith on my part. That was refreshing. It does get tiresome to see the implied character assassination which I've had to put up with several times during the last 7 years. My motives for the original move were innocent and I followed the page move rules which were in place at that time. That's all any of us can do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • You're welcome, but there was no assumption to be made. You proposed a move in November, on no response moved in December, answered questions in February, and saw the first serious challenge in June. Entirely proper on your part. The problem to me is that when the page move was subsequently in dispute, with no apparent consensus, the page name should have been revereted to the first non-stub version. The problem lies with how we close contested RM debates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • It is not that simple, the way that debates are decided has changed over time. It used to be that the decision was based upon the opinion expressed as votes, closing admins used to use very little discretion because it was assumed that everyone was equally well versed in the naming policies and guidelines so clearly whatever was expressed by a large enough majority was the consensus (with no consensus to move). Although this worked well for many decisions, it did lead to cases were a page was moved (or not moved) because there was a local consensus, that was clearly at odds with the wider consensus as reflected in naming policy and guidelines. Over time administrators started to look at opinions and weight then against what is in the polices and guidelines. Right or wrong it means that people here who assume there is a consensus to move are only looking at the local consensus, but AFAICT as no fresh arguments have been advanced, the decision is down to the closing admin as to whether the arguments justify a move or not. Of course if we were to go back to the old system of 60/40 percent to move then votes would matter. The stability issue is a complicated one, because as long as a page remains at a name, and there is not consensus to move then it can be argued (a some have done here) that such a version is the most recent stable version (so no need to go back to an older stable version). Also in the old days if a person moved a page it was seen as a bold move and to move it back needed an RM, this though caused problems with pre-emptive moves to a preferred name (an inherently unstable situation), so over time it has become acceptable to ask for a quick move back with the emphasis on the bold mover to show that there is a consensus for the initial move. So there is no reason why, back when the move was made, without a clear consensus for the move back that "the page name should have been revereted to the first non-stub version". -- PBS (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • PBS, Yes, though most of what I said is that simple for this page back in 2003-4. Regarding your last sentence, yes. Reverting to the first non-stub version is current convention. According to current convention, the page would have been moved back in mid 2004. The question I see is: Should we apply current convention retrospectively? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No worries, Derek. No one could have anticipated that your simple move would result in seven years of wiki‑jihad where wide-eyed editors wearing underwear bombs throw themselves onto barbed-wire barricades in discussion rooms. Having arrived here myself only four days ago, I’m pretty new to all this. But once here, I thought “F--- me!  What did I get myself into?!?” Soon, The Cause®™© will be something else and this will all be forgotten. Greg L (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, I've never seen you explain your motives, Derek. Are you standing by your original words? " I think it would be more phonetically accurate to use the yoghurt spelling in the article since it more closely suggests the proper pronunciation." [5]

    Using a spelling that "more closely suggests the proper pronunciation" was your motivation? Really? Do you know of any other article that was ever moved before or since on similar grounds? Do you think there is something unique about this particular word that makes this reasoning appropriate here? What?

    Perhaps I missed it, but once you moved the article, it seems you never defended it on those grounds again. If so, why not?

    In fact, after you moved it in December of 2003, within a few months, in June of 2004, you had the gall to argue against it being moved back to Yogurt on the grounds that "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." [6] Okay, so the sheer number of hits on Google does not constitute "good reason" to change spelling, but "more closely suggests the 'proper' pronunciation [from Derek's Ross's viewpoint]" does? That's your "good reason"? Those were your "innocent" motives? Really? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I think we should not even get into what happened seven years ago. What did you eat for breakfast on this day seven years ago? You probably don't remember, and it's equally meaningless at this point. Lets move forward. I have not interacted with Derek Ross before, but I recall being told he's a good editor, and I am going to AGF in absence of clear evidence to the contrary. -Kai445 (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not going as far as questioning good faith, but I will say that, at best, he was really pushing the envelope, and he clearly knew he was on thin ice, and took advantage of the fact that nobody noticed, probably because a) his initial suggestion to make the change was obscured inside of a paragraph and not clearly announced in a discussion section, and b) he actually happened to execute the spelling change on Christmas Eve [7]. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I think almost everyone here agrees that the first move was at best misguided and at worst an end run around Wikipedia principles. I don't think grilling an editor about what happened all that time ago is particularly helpful for how we deal with this now.LedRush (talk) 19:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Jesus. Leave the guy alone. He moved the page. Perhaps he shouldn't have. If it had happened a few years later it'd probably have been reverted straight away. We can't know though.
        Your comments seem vindictive, and somewhat nasty. Also, you seem to spend a lot of time "summarizing" and rewriting other people's points of view and comments; is that really necessary? pablo 20:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I have not mentioned Derek's name on this page until now, when he decided to show up and proclaim, "My motives for the original move were innocent". This isn't about what he did 8 years ago, but what he said about that today, just above. It wasn't a major transgression, to be sure, but while we're finally resolving this, I suggest that it would be helpful that he admit changing the spelling, as surreptitiously as reasonably possible, to be more in accordance with that used in his own region of the world, was not entirely innocent. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
          • His motivations as of 8 years ago are irrelevant to the current discussion. Even if he says he was hell-bent on destroying American English, this doesn't change the rationale of any of the "oppose" votes. Let's stay on topic and make this about the article, not the editors.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
          • (edit conflict) O fair enough. String him up then, have at it. pablo 20:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I agree with Kai445, LedRush, and pablo. Please, Born2cycle, there is no point to dredging this stuff up. Everyone here is a volunteer doing their best. The philosophy of how Wikipedia best serves the interests of its readership has evolved through the years. Seven to eight years ago is an eternity in ‘Wikipedia years;’ things were a bit different then with regard to balancing what “seems best” v.s. “how does the real world actually work.” Being forceful leads to hardened positions and is probably one of the things that lead some admins to conclude that those pushing this issue were disruptive (even though there was a small army of wikipedians in good standing lining up here to help resolve this situation). Mature and cool heads are needed now and fanning flames of blame is like giving an atomic wedgie: typically, only one individual is thoroughly pleased with himself. Greg L (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
            • There's no need to focus on what Derek did 8 years ago or what PBS did a few days ago. It's water under the bridge. Consensus seems pretty strongly in favor of moving this page. How long will it take? I'm not holding my breath. It does seem that ENGVAR is a double-edged sword, I must note from my own observation. When the "American" spelling is actually more common and international than the other, wouldn't "yoghurt" be more of the national spelling that WP states we should not have a preference for? That's just how I read it. Doc talk 21:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── P.S. If you really must persist and “clear the air” (or whatever else might be your motivation here, Born2cycle), just take it directly to Derek’s talk page. By going there, you just might find there is more openness and candor with both parties than trying to do so in such a public and highly charged venue as this, where it is natural for individuals to endeavor to avoid losing face. If you agree to drop it or at least take it there, I’ll volunteer to close this thread too so we can get on with more important wikimatters. Greg L (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

B.S. He made the proclamation here; it should be challenged and discussed here (he's also free to retract it).

Just because there is an active RM discussion on this page doesn't mean every single section has to be about about that. This particular section, started by Derek Ross, is about whether his motives for the original move that precipitated eight years of angst on the project were as "innocent" as he proclaims they were above. I suggest there is value in getting some clarity on this point in terms of how much of a precedent this might all set. If you don't agree this is important enough to discuss, then find something you do think is important. I don't understand this inclination to tell others what is or is not worth discussing. And if you want to discuss something else, I suggest doing so in the appropriate section, maybe starting a new one. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

So, Smokey Joe, if I start hitting SPECIAL:RANDOM today repeatedly, stopping at every article where I see a change I would like to make but know it's against consensus, you're okay if I propose to make that change hidden inside a paragraph on the talk page in a section with a heading that does not say anything about the proposal? Okay, but then you're also okay if I wait a few weeks, log in on Christmas Eve, and go through with each change for which no one has responded? That's okay? That's innocent? That's "entirely proper"? We have very different standards, then. Again, I agree doing so is not that egregious, especially if it's only one article as it apparently was in this case, but I suggest in general this is not behavior we should be condoning. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

B2c - be careful here, you're skating on relatively thin ice with regards to personal attacks in some of your statements (although there is nothing so far that crosses the line). Several people now have advised you to drop it, I suggest you take their advice. Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
This is baffling. As should be evident by the absence of my talking about anyone specifically in my previous comment, the issue here is not who did it, but whether the behavior in general is something we want to condone. All these requests to stop talking about this, including yours, and the attempt to archive this section, seem like expressions in favor of condoning the kind of behavior I just described. Really? Is that what you guys are saying? Why the reluctance to discuss this? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Please reread my comments regarding my feeling (and my opinion of the general sentiment) regarding the original move. We don't want to discuss it because, as we've all said, it adds nothing to current discussion and, in fact, is a distraction that can accomplish nothing more than to poison a conversation which has become moderately civil despite a long history of contentious discussions.LedRush (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic. B2C – nobody is condoning anything here, the message here is that nobody is condoning your behavior. pablo 23:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle. If, for reasons you have given and which have not been disputed, you do something that is in you judgement for the improvement of the encyclopedia, then you are on the conservative side of WP:BRD, and are acting entirely properly, in keeping with how this wiki works, has always worked, and should continue to work.
Making reasonable edits by jumping around using special:random is entirely proper. There is, and should not be, no rule that says that before editing you need to read the history and talk page.
If a significant edit is made during a period of general inactivity, that is a significantly contributing justification to revert. However, it does not say that the edit was improper. There is no rule against editing on major holidays.
We should condone, indeed encourage, the behaviour: “Fix it right now if you can”.
You seem to think that the significant edit/page move needs to be criticised as improper to justify reverting it? If so, on this fine point I most definitely differ. The life of the project is dependent on BOLD editors. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Folks, can I just suggest that this page should be for discussing the article Yoghurt, and not for discussing the behaviour of individual editors (or editor behaviour in general), or endlessly rehashing old arguments about who moved what, when, and why. It really is starting to look like beating the tree that grew from the ground where the dead horse was buried. So come on, can we please leave all that behind, and just try with this one big push to get a consensus for what the name of the article should be - and just leave it at that? What do you say? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Boing, I will not hesitate to respond to an improper criticism of another, regardless of the debate in progress. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • This entire section should be hatted. B2C, you are not winning over hearts or minds with this. -Kai445 (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Let me make this as clear as I can to you, B2C. I am on your side. I admire your energy. I think you are doing the right thing insofar as the *big picture*. But with absolutely no one supporting you insofar as continuing to *work* this thread (because pretty much everyone feels it is unnecessary and unproductive and borderline badgering-to-make-a-point), you should drop it. You are close to either A) people just ignoring you to see if you’ll let it drop, or B) someone baiting you so you take it over the line and someone drops a hammer on you. Why would you want to have a reputation of an editor who won’t take a clue, take advise, and give it a rest?

I’m going to close this thread one more time. Hopefully, that will be the necessary hurdle you need to give it a break for the next 24 hours. After that much time, maybe you will find another thread to start that doesn’t entail putting heat on Derek that amounts to “admit you did something wrong seven years ago.” I will be very disappointed if you don’t live up to the community’s expectation of you with regard to this thread. But first, I am going to just sit back and see if anyone else feels compelled to take you to task; if so, maybe this thread should remain open. I’m going to check back in an hour or two. If all is quiet on the Western Front and no one is continuing to work this abortion, then I’ll close it. Greg L (talk) 00:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

You are going to close it one more time? Keep up! I closed: [8]. Hot stop reopened: [9] --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Trying again. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2011 (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.


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

I think the fact that both sides used WP:ENGVAR as a primary point of support should be looked at. Only one side can be right. ENGVAR prefers the first usage of the article, which in this case is "yogurt". Retaining it at "yoghurt" because it is currently at that title isn't what ENGVAR says. (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • The close is inappropriate because the closer said it was "no consensus" based on both sides having strong arguments, but when asked to specify what the strong arguments were on the oppose side, he had no reply. If no outside view steps in to review this based on this rfc, the next step is to make the same request at WP:ANI. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • This is a textbook case of lack of consensus. Disagreement persisted over whether a change should be made. Therefore the change does not have consensus support and the close was correct. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    Decisions do not have to be unanimous for there to be consensus. The fact that disagreement persisted does not mean there wasn't consensus. In fact, a position does not even need to enjoy majority support at an RM for it to carry the day: if, as is asserted to be the case here, many editors wish to sidestep ENGVAR, then wp:LOCALCONSENSUS suggests that they should not be able to—even if they are in a strong majority! We don't count votes in RMs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
No one has suggested there needs to be unanimity, and I am not suggesting !votes should be counted. Despite your denial, persistence of disagreement = lack of consenus. Those of us who disagree with the move have adduced reasons, although no, I am not going to either repeat myself ad nauseam or fill out a table. The closer evaluated the arguments and saw lack of consensus. I agree. Finish. No attempt to "win" by denying that disagreement equals consensus. There was and is no consensus. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Your statement conflicts with itself. "No one has suggested there needs to be unanimity" and "Persistence of disagreement = lack of consensus". You are stating that conflict can result in consensus and lack of consensus. And you repeatedly stating that there is no consensus does not mean there is no consensus, just as you saying "Finish." does not end the discussion. -Kai445 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Kai, that is indeed what I am confused about. You agree that there doesn't need to be unanimity, but then how can we conclude that persistent disagreement must mean no consensus? Isn't lack of unanimity the same thing as persistent disagreement? Perhaps it would help if you rephrased, Yngvadottir. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • My understanding of ENGVAR and how it is applied here is that it trumps considerations of commonname, etc, etc. There's commonality, but nobody has suggested an alternative title based on commonality. So, we're left with ENGVAR. When someone moves a title to another regional name, ENGVAR says move it back. This is supposed to avoid debates like this. That is the whole point, as I understand it. I'm not a big fan of it even, but it's what we do. I don't really understand what is going on with this closure; we roll with ENGVAR around here, and that means it goes back to yogurt. /thread ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Although no one argued this in the RM discussion, it could be argued that the spelling with the h is "established" in this article, and, thus, per WP:RETAIN, which is part of ENGVAR, it should be retained. However, at best, that's a weak argument, because the counter-argument to it is that the repeated and regular challenges show that it's not "established", discussion cannot resolve the issue, and therefore "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default", which is yogurt.

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

  • Comment Having read through the entire RM discussion, along with the commentary both above and below this one, there's one inescapable conclusion that can be made: WP:CONSENSUS was NOT reached for changing the name. The mere fact that some editors appear to be ready to "go to war" over this is prima facie evidence thereof. Therefore, Fish and karate's close was 100% correct as to both application of policy and determination of whether consensus existed. So why is this still being argued about, if not for the opportunity to make a WP:POINT? That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Response There's no "war" here, only vigorous discussion. If my actions are improper, report me to the appropriate noticeboard and stick a template on my talk page, but how about sticking to the facts of the argument? The fact that I am even expending additional energy on this is because I believe the actions of the closing admin were incorrect, his closing remarks were both unjustifiable and patronizing. If his use of policy was 100% correct and there was "no consensus" then per WP:ENGVAR, the article should have been moved, plain and simple. The policy literally spells it out, what is the problem of asking to have it applied. Additional arguments were made on top of it in an effort to show commonality, which you dismiss out of hand. -Kai445 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: In my opinion, the decision about the titling of this article must be based on WP:ENGVAR. I chose not to "support" or "oppose" the move in the recent RM, but rather tried to demonstrate that basing the decision on WP:COMMONALITY or WP:COMMONNAME is not appropriate given there is a clear regional split in spelling. (For example, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage shows that yoghurt is statistically preferred in the Australian and British corpora. Yoghurt is preferred in some major dictionaries outside of the UK and US, such as the Macquarie Dictionary and New Zealand Oxford Dictionary. It is also worth considering that even American dictionaries such as American Heritage and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate list yoghurt as an acceptable non-regionalized variant of yogurt.) Opponents and proponents of the move of Yoghurt to Yogurt have both used WP:ENGVAR as justification for their arguments, based on either retaining the long-established (but not uncontroversial) spelling (yoghurt) or going back to the first spelling established (yogurt). Both of these are valid arguments. However, based on WP:ENGVAR (specifically "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default"), surely we should defer to the latter argument? The first version of the article consistently used yogurt, -ize (as in pasteurized), and litre.[10] Consequently, I believe that moving the article to Yogurt, with the text using British English following the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (so yogurt and -ize), may be the most appropriate and least controversial choice (at least for long-term stability). Nevertheless, I do not believe that the closing was "inappropriate". The article has been kept at Yoghurt since 2003, despite the controversy and numerous RMs, so I can understand that the RM has been closed as "no consensus". Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that the close is appropriate, and that anyone wishing to argue over the name of this article should recheck their priorities, on Wikipedia and in life. This is not worth arguing over, ever. The article has been for a long time at one title, which is the standard spelling in some variety of English. Therefore, trying to monkey with it in any way is strongly discouraged. The whole point of ENGVAR was "STOP ARGUING ABOUT THESE SPELLING DIFFERENCES, AND NEVER LOOK BACK." Let's respect that, as an extremely sensible ceasefire that allows all of us to work on things that matter. The spelling of "yoghurt/yogurt" does not matter. Claiming that it does is disruptive and counterproductive. Do not think, or consider arguing, about spelling differences that don't matter. Choose better battles in life, and even better, respect that Wikipedia is not a battlefield. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    GTBacchus, would you elaborate on this? I think the take from ENGVAR is that we should stop arguing about this on pages and just do what ENGVAR says. You seem to be saying the point of it is to just stop arguing about it and not really do what it says. Or something. I thought ENGVAR should be a neat way to just completely avoid the discussion here—keep the article where it was when it stopped being a stub. Easy. End of discussion. But now there's all this nuance around it, and your take of how it really means this other thing, that you should just never bother with spelling differences. Do you see how this kind of defeats its purpose? You say below "Please respect the cease-fire." I agree! The cease-fire there says move it to Yogurt; it never should have been moved here. Am I reading it wrong? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
    I haven't read the ENGVAR page recently. I suspect its wording has changed over the years. I'm talking about the original spirit of it, which is: don't argue about these spelling differences. Leave them alone. To my understanding that is what ENGVAR says, so saying "stop arguing and do what ENGVAR says" is redundant. ENGVAR says, "find something else to care about". If the page ENGVAR doesn't say that, then it should be fixed. The spirit of the ceasefire is to cease fire. The spirit is that we should learn to be completely blind to these spelling differences. If the article is here, leave it here. If it's there, leave it there. If was there 8 years ago, and wasn't left there, oh well. Now it's here, with inertia; let's leave it here.

    Does that clarify my understanding of ENGVAR? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

    I guess, but "just don't argue about it" doesn't seem workable—what if someone moves an article to a different region's spelling? Should someone move it back? What if they can't—should someone open an RM to discuss it? Should it be left at the new spelling instead just because everyone should "find something else to care about"? So whoever "cheats" can have their way, by design? You say "if it was there 8 years ago"—does that mean there's some kind of time element here? If it was 8 minutes instead would it be ok to try to move it back? What's the cutoff? Or is that something else we can all argue about on a case-by-case basis? Now, I *thought* ENGVAR—specifically RETAIN, I guess—laid out a really clear, if arbitrary, way to determine the spelling that ought to be used in these cases: the region's spelling in use during the first edit after the article became a stub. It does seem to say that, so now we seem to have two contradictory ways to settle arguments without arguing about them. Maybe it would be better to just have one? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Summary of oppose !votes

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

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

I'm not going to word this as strongly as Roux does below, but I would advise anyone who has not been involved in the discussion previously to actually read over the RM and form your own opinion rather than rely on the incredibly biased summary below. I find it interesting that my argument has been described as "weak" by B2C despite Kai445 (another of the yogurt proponents) describing it as a "valid reason" at the mediation request. Again, for anyone who wants an accurate summary, I would advise them to read the RM where I defended my vote – I'm not going to do the same thing here because I have better things to do with my time than repeat arguments over and over. Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps you didn't notice, but your point was categorized twice. First, it's under salient points, because the point about yoghurt being the preferred spelling by academics in some varieties of English is certainly salient to this issue. But it's also under weak, not strong, arguments, because the conclusion that ENGVAR therefore supports retaining the current title is not supported very well by this salient point. I explained partly why below ("Weak because: ..."), and will add on to it now. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

strong arguments

-- note that this section is blank --

  • Note that this section was left blank by someone on the other side of the argument, in a flagrantly biased attempt to 'prove' that they have the stronger arguments. Frankly, this is fucking sickening behaviour and I wish certain users would just accept that NO CONSENSUS means NO CONSENSUS and get the fuck over it. → ROUX  20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Please feel free to edit this list to include a strong argument made in the above discussion, preferably one that references a guideline or policy. Then we can talk about it. AgnosticAphid talk 20:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Indeed, those of us on the support side can't prove no strong arguments were made in favor of the oppose side in the RM discussion, despite the closing admin's assertion that they exist, because you can't prove a negative. However, we can assert, as I did here, that there were no strong oppose arguments (we agree with the closing admin that there were strong support arguments, and no one has challenged that point). This assertion, if false, can be easily disproven. When an assertion that could be easily disproven if it were false is not disproven, given sufficient time and opportunity, that means, for all intents and purposes, its veracity is proven, per evidence of absence. That is, the assertion holds up to scrutiny.

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

Because I'm sick and fucking tired of you banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on and fucking on about this goddamn issue, to say nothing of your flagrant and disgusting bias every time you summarize your side of the argument versus the 'leave it alone' side. A move was proposed, yes or no? A completely uninvolved admin looked at the arguments and found there was no consensus in favour of the move, yes or no? What the actual fuck is the problem here then? Do you not understand how consensus works, or are you just whining because you didn't get your way? These are--despite the nonsense I know you're going to start spewing--the only actual explanations for your behaviour. → ROUX  21:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Once again, you take the time and make the effort to respond, but offer nothing to counter the assertion at issue - that no strong oppose arguments were made in the RM discussion. And yet you have the audacity to refer to the closing admin's decision which was based entirely on the supposed existence of these strong oppose arguments! Don't you realize you're just revealing the impotence of your position? The inability to produce this counter is why this has been going on and on and on and on and on and on and on... for years! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand the need for incivility here. I am going to ask you to refrain from further incivility towards Born2cycle or any other editors, as it is unproductive. I'll answer all of your questions as I see them:
A move was proposed, yes or no?
Yes, it was.
A completely uninvolved admin looked at the arguments and found there was no consensus in favour of the move, yes or no?
An Admin did reply, and his conclusion was indeed "no consensus". There are many users who believe that not only is this not the case, but that his decision was unjustifiable. The Admin was asked to give more information about the close, and he has not yet replied.
What the actual fuck is the problem here then? Do you not understand how consensus works, or are you just whining because you didn't get your way?
I would implore you to read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RM, and because of this discussion we're having and perhaps most importantly: WP:RFC. -Kai445 (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Born2Cycle: inability? There's no inability. There is only fucking frustration at you people refusing to accept how Wikipedia works. Move was proposed. Arguments emerged on both sides. No consensus was found. Therefore no move.
This is, in fact, how Wikipedia works. I realize it may cause you distress to not get your way, but it happens every day. It's kind of pathetic, actually, how much you guys are forumshopping this issue. → ROUX  22:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
More time and effort to respond, but again nothing to counter the assertion at issue - that no strong oppose arguments were made in the RM discussion.

Further, you conflate the undisputed fact that one admin declared, without basis, that there is "no consensus" with the actual absence of consensus. They are not necessarily the same thing, and your continued inability to identify any strong oppose arguments presented in the RM discussion only strengthens the position that they are definitely not the same thing in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You misunderstand the nature of consensus, which is WP:NOTAVOTE. The question is not, "did more than a couple people vote for each choice?" The question is, do Wikipedia policies support a single course of action ("consensus")? Or, to the contrary, are there multiple viable interpretations of the relevant guidelines and policies such that "no consensus" on the proper course of action can be obtained? I had not been involved with this epic saga at all until a couple of days ago. I implore you to WP:AGF. Please, let us know which (if any) policies or guidelines referenced in the above discussion support leaving the article with the title of "yoghurt." I do not believe there are any such policies or guidelines. (I could be mistaken.) If there are no such policies or guidelines, that means the consensus is "move." It's not a poll or vote; a difference of opinion does not necessarily mean a lack of consensus. AgnosticAphid talk 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
The allegations of forumshopping are tiresome. It is totally reasonable to question an RM closure, or any other admin action. For deletions, there's deletion review, etc. AFAIK for RMs after asking the closing admin for clarification RFC is the next step. The closing admin in this case chose not to respond to any of the questions posed, so here we are. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
(@ AgnosticAphid) I believe you're misunderstanding consensus. Yup, it's not a vote. The question is, have people reached consensus. If there is still hefty disagreement, there is no consensus. And if there is no consensus for a change, the change is not made. It's not a matter of "who's right" under policy; that's what the discussion has been about. One of the points made in favour of changing it was in fact that there will continue to be agitation for changing it! We are not "sides" here but we do have opposing views, and neither has persuaded the other. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
If it's not a vote, then it doesn't matter if there's disagreement. Not even a "hefty disagreement" would matter. WP:NOTUNANIMOUS -Kai445 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm really not a wikipedia expert or anything, so I could be wrong, but I think that actually it is a "matter of 'who's right' under policy." If both sides can find support for their position in WP policies, then there's no consensus. If policies support only one course of action, then there is consensus, notwithstanding that there may be disagreement. In my opinion, this article should never have been changed from "yogurt" to "yoghurt" back in 2005 or whatever; that was a clear WP:ENGVAR violation. Yes, people missed it when it happened, but that doesn't excuse the violation. I don't think anyone above mentioned any policies or guidelines that support leaving the article with the current title just because that's the way it is right now. (Again, I could be mistaken.) So, it seems to me like there's a consensus that the article should be changed and that the admin wrongly determined that there was no consensus for such a change. AgnosticAphid talk 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

salient points

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

weak arguments

  • As the google stats below show, academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt. Clear case of WP:ENGVAR to me.
    • Foundation: academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt as shown by ghit counts
    • Conclusion: This is a clear case of ENGVAR.
    • Weak because at best this establishes this is an ENGVAR issue, but that does not favor retaining the current title. It actually favors going with the original variety of English, per WP:RETAIN, which, if you look at the history of yogurt/yoghurt usage in this article, is clearly U.S. English, and indicates the use of "yogurt".
  • My copy of Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred over Yogurt - that's good enough for me.
    • Foundation: Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred
    • Conclusion: this is good enough to oppose move to Yogurt
    • Weak because: by this logic dictionaries that show yogurt as preferred are good enough to support move to Yogurt

true, but irrelevant

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

baseless opinion

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


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

Discussion of oppose !votes summary

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

  • How is it biased? If you think some of the points are mis-categorized, move them. If you think the name of a category is biased, fix it. If something was said in an oppose !vote that I missed, add it. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I believe that there is a strong argument for WP:COMMONNAME based on the fact that so many reference texts (every major English dictionary as a primary entry as do the dictionaries Encyclopaedia Brittannica and MSN Encarta, and prescriptive texts such as the Oxford Style Manual say to use Yogurt and to NOT use Yoghurt), industry groups around the world (USA, UK, and AUS), the largest manufacturers of yogurt, and WP:GOOGLE results showing worldwide usage of "Yogurt". There is simply no COMMONNAME determination available for "Yoghurt". -Kai445 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, WP:WIN that was cited by Yngvadottir has nothing to do with any "debating contest". You cannot debate facts. Everything I had previously mentioned is a fact. -Kai445 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, it's ironic that Yngvadottir is citing WP:WIN when all we're doing is trying to achieve consensus via facts and arguments, and part of that process is pointing out that the opposing side has no strong arguments, contrary to what the closing admin said. WP:WIN cites WP:CONSENSUS, which states: "the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages.". Well, reasonable people should be able to agree whether there are strong arguments on both sides or not. But not if one side refuses to discuss. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added explanations for why I've categorized most of the points the way I have. I've tried to be as objective and unbiased as I could, but I'm human. Again, corrections are welcome. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see the relevance of WP:WIN. It seems like WP:NOTAVOTE is the more appropriate guideline to invoke. Plus, WP:WIN is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Unless you can come up with a policy-based reason for leaving this article with the title of "yoghurt," that means there is a consensus in favor of change. If that leaves you feeling like you've "lost," I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you shouldn't. I don't see any policy-based explanation whatsoever for this article being titled "yoghurt" rather than "yogurt." If there is one that's been missed in the above list, go ahead and add it. As far as I can tell, this article should be called 'yogurt' per WP:ENGVAR. I think that's the end of it under WP:NOTAVOTE, but if I'm wrong and you have a policy-based explanation for why there actually isn't a consensus, let's go ahead and discuss it like we're supposed to. AgnosticAphid talk 17:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
    • "If there is one that's been missed in the above list, go ahead and add it".

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

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

Thanks for clarifying, my statement was poorly worded. AgnosticAphid talk 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
👍 Like --Born2cycle (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I am really getting the feeling some editors are prepared to wage a war on this issue. I just looked at User:Kai445's recent edits and he seems solely interested in changing the name of this article. All his edits have been devoted to this "issue." He is currently in slow move battle on one article and seems pretty confident he will win the battle here, since he keeps on moving Strained yoghurt to Strained yogurt. Not to mention he reverted the edits of another user on Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. The problem is that the user in question simply made the article consistent - with British English spelling from top to bottom. I was under the impression that the only Wiki rule on the variety of English is for articles to be consistent. Maybe I was wrong. However, it does look like, User:Kai445 knows he is right and is pursuing his quest with great vigour. And all this despite the fact that the main article has remained at Yoghurt.
I really fail to see it as important as most people here find it. What interests me is people searching for the article eventually finding what they were seeking for. And it is currently working fine - I've tried it out myself. What is the problem from then on? From what I see usage is split and, despite all effort from some editors from the pro-move side, I am not convinced in the opposite. Some English-speaking countries use one, one country uses the other. EU documents in English, for example, use yoghurt. That is what I know for sure. From that fact on, for me the argument is based solely on google hits, which in itself is hardly any good justification for anything. I could live with any article title that is in fact in English, although I'd have to live with words in the article underlined with a red curly line. It does, however, seems like some editors are not prepared to live with it and have dedicated all their time to a lame battle. Sorry, this is not what Wikipedia is for. And I really failed to see the need for weighing up the comments from the other side from your own perspective. It does not look like a productive thing to do, sorry. You have not addressed any of the actual facts behind the positions, but simply stated your opinion of another editor's opinion. How is that leading to consensus? --Laveol T 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
Are you sure press releases don't use "Yogurt"? I know for sure that your statement is not rooted in truth.

If you fail to see any importance, why are you participating at all? Your argument of "some countries use one, some use the other" is flat out incorrect. -Kai445 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Laveol, really? Oh, please! I'm so tired of the "why does it matter?" argument. If it doesn't matter, why are you here? Why are you even bothering to participate, much less devoting a long paragraph to an ad hominem attack that belongs on that user's talk page, if anywhere, and then devoting another long paragraph rationalizing why you think it doesn't matter? Whether the reasons are good or not, it obviously does matter to many of us, including to you.

As for the need for "weighing up the comments of the other side", that was done because of one reason: the closing admin justified his "no consensus" close on the assertion that there were strong arguments on both sides. We have challenged that assertion with respect to the oppose side, and I did that by listing ALL of the oppose !vote comments, and categorizing them as I did, clearly demonstrating that none of them add up to a strong argument (I note that no one has made any specific objections to the categorization, no comments have been found to be missing, no specific comments identified to have been miscategorized, and the #Strong arguments section remains blank). If that doesn't satisfy your query about why that was done, please let me know. By the way, I don't see a strong oppose argument in anything you've written either.

Now, this isn't the first article, by a long shot, where there have been disputes about what variety of English to use in an article. But we know how to settle these issues. It's in WP:RETAIN, a sub-paragraph of WP:ENGVAR, which states:

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.

Clearly, years of discussion has not resolved the issue here. The bottom line is that, per WP:RETAIN, we decide these cases by going back to the variety of English originally used in the article. As long as there is discord about this title, only one of the two choices has the original use in its favor. This article was created on December 10, 2002, and it was not a stub [11]. That variety was established and remained so until the lead sentence was changed to express a supposed difference in traditional/modern spellings on March 18,2003 [12]. But even then the remainder of the article remained written in the the same original variety of English.

There is no denying that one variety of English was originally used in this article, and it was established over significant time and significant numbers of edits [[See: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory), and was never in stub form. Per WP:RETAIN, that's the variety that is supposed to be used in this article. That is a strong argument, based on policy, guidelines and conventions.

There is also no denying that that fact will remain a fact throughout the existence of Wikipedia. Five, ten, twenty, and a hundred years from now, editors will be able to point this out, and will use it to argue that therefore that should be the variety used in this article. That is another strong argument, based on practicality.

There is no strong argument in favor of using the variety of English that is currently used in this article. And that too is a strong argument in favor of changing this article back to its original variety. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  • Comment. I was 'invited' here by RfC bot, and have had no previous involvement in this dispute (I didn't even know it existed) and have no axe to grind. I have read all the discussion currently on this page, but I've not delved into archives. The whole situation can be summed up with three simple statements
    1. The is no current consensus to move the page. The closure of the RM discussion was absolutely correct on this point.
    2. In the absence of consensus, the status quo remains. i.e. the page is not moved.
    3. WP:ENGVAR does not trump consensus, or lack of consensus. Moving the page to "comply" with ENGVAR when there is no consensus to do so is moving the page solely "to switch from one valid use of English to another", which is explicitly prohobitied by the same guideline.
I would therefore encourage all the parties here to read m:The Wrong Version and get on with improving the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR literally states "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." Discussion did not resolve the issue (that's what "no consensus" means, right?), so you assume that policy directs the article to stay where it is? Quite a strange interpretation. - (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Per the dictionary definition of "consensus", of course there is no "consensus" here. But we're not supposed to use the dictionary definition in deciding if there is consensus, which, by the way, requires unanimity in agreement. We're supposed to go by the WP definition of consensus, which means looking at the strength of the arguments to decide where consensus is. The closer seemed to recognize this in claiming that both side had strong arguments. But if the only argument the oppose side had is that there is no "consensus" to move per the dictionary definition, that's not a strong argument with respect to determining WP:CONSENSUS.

By the way, the above interpretation might not be so strange if viewed through anti-US-usage goggles. "I am a 30 year old male from the United Kingdom, ..." User:Thryduulf#About_me. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. That last paragraph has been interpreted by some, including Thryduulf, to be an attack on Thryduulf. To the best of my knowledge, before Thryduulf posted here, we'd never crossed paths before. After he made his post, and the anon IP expressed puzzlement about his interpretation, I followed a hunch and verified he was from the UK. I had that hunch because I've observed an apparent correlation of nearly 1.0 between people who argue "the title here doesn't matter... so leave it at Yoghurt" and people who are from outside of the US. Despite saying it doesn't matter, they're not neutral on whether the article is moved - they're definitely opposed. The anti-US-usage bias one might carry if not from the U.S. seems quite obvious to me, just as having a pro-US-usage bias is likely for someone from the U.S., and this is the only explanation for the correlation I've observed that I can fathom. Exceptions to this correlation, like the one expressed by veteran Manning (talk · contribs), who is from Australia and personally favours the "yoghurt" spelling, in a 2009 post favoring a return to the original title Yogurt, are rare. I did not mean to single out Thryduulf for being biased - I suspect nearly everyone is - it just so happens that his interpretation was being questioned. That is the only reason I made this point using his interpretation as an example. I apologize again, as I did below, for any offense that was taken from my statement; none was intended. I hope this clears everything up. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that, given your previous record on controversial requested moves where you don't get "your way", that suggesting that a closing admin is biased in some way is a spectacularly bad idea, and I would even more strongly suggest that you redact it. Black Kite (t) 18:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I have the following comments to make about this baffling remark.
  1. I have no idea what "given your previous record on controversial requested moves" is referring to, and so no one else can be expected to know. I have no "record". The term "record" (noun) has a negative connotation since in a context of behavior it often refers to a record of criminal conviction in the real world. Of course I've been involved in debates, but I've never been sanctioned for anything at WP. I explained my philosophy and approach, which results in much more discussion than article editing, on my user page and FAQ. This comment of Black Kite's has nothing to do with this article, or anything else so far as I know. The only conceivable reason to state this here is to disparage me, which is certainly uncivil, and arguably a personal attack.
  2. As to "suggesting that a closing admin is biased in some way is a spectacularly bad idea", I've made no suggestions about the closing admin, Fish and karate (talk · contribs), being biased, at least not in the comment to which Black Kite responded (and I don't believe anywhere else either). This comment is a non sequitur of the "are you still beating your wife?" variety. There is no rational way to respond.
  3. Above, an anon IP stated that an interpretation used by Thryduulf (talk · contribs) was "strange". As a possible explanation for why that interpretation might not be so strange, I suggested a possible bias stemming from him being from the UK. Hey, I'm sure I'm biased due to my country of my origin. Who isn't? Do we really need to sort out the oppose/support votes above to prove there is a high correlation between position and country of origin? Is there something so inappropriate about pointing out such obvious bias being a possible factor that such comments must be removed? If so, there are megabytes of similar commentary strewn throughout WP article talk pages that must also be redacted. Where shall we start?
  4. Initially, the only reasonable way I could think of to respond to this nonsensical personal attack was to remove it. Accordingly, I did, and asked Black Kite to leave me alone[13], but Black Kite has restored it, admonished me for redacting it, and threatened me with an ANI[14]. Apparently, Black Kite is an admin (what exemplary behavior for an admin!), so I dare not redact it again. Attempting to discuss this with him on his talk page has not been fruitful (to the contrary, the confusion only escalated there to the point where Black Kite conflated suggesting bias with assuming bad faith, absurdly presuming people acting in good faith can't be biased!). So, I respond here, unfortunately, which of course is also way off topic, and for that I apologize, but I see no alternative. I hope this is understandable. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I am, as you well know, talking about your attack on User:Thryduulf above when referring to his nationality, even if the phrase "closing admin" is not quite correct. My comment is, clearly, in reply to yours. If you have "no idea" what I am talking to as to your previous conduct on requested moves, I am surprised; a search of the WP:ANI archives would be helpful, perhaps. Black Kite (t) 20:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
So, noting a fact supported by a quote from someone's own user page, and suggesting that might explain why his apparently strange remark is not so strange, is now an attack??? And there is something wrong with being involved in a number of ANI discussions about RM disputes, almost none (if any) of which were about my behavior much less resulted in any kind of sanctions for me, justifies an out-of-the-blue disparaging remark about my "record"? Is there no end to this insanity? Why are you doing this??? And why do you insist on doing it here?

I was also going to say that if attacking people is your thing, to go attack someone else, but that wouldn't be fair to that someone else, and I wouldn't wish this kind of unreasonable treatment (by an admin!) on anyone. So, I will ask one more time, please remove your original inappropriate, uncivil non sequitur attack, and this follow-on discussion too. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

B2C:Yes, it is an attack. Please don't insinuate that someone has an anti-US bias just because they are from the UK. Why not stick to the arguments and let them stand on their own? Thryduff: telling people to read m:The Wrong Version is generally not helpful to maintaining civil discussion and debate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm doing it because you need to internalise the fact that you are not always right, and when things go against you, you need to stop blaming it on other people, especially when you make ludicrous claims such as the one about Thryduulf. Editors that spend most of their time persistently wikilawyering until opposing parties give up because they can't be bothered are something we really could do without. You're obviously an intelligent and erudite person; why not use those talents to go and write or improve an article instead? After all, that's what we're here for, not to argue about trivialities of article naming. Black Kite (t) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am from the United Kingdom, but that does not mean that I have an anti-US bias and I ask that the remark is withdrawn. Even if it were true it would be an irrelevant ad hominem arugment. I would be saying exactly the same thing if it had been at the other spelling currently. My view is based on the fact that no only can editors here not agree on which version of English to use, they cannot even agree about whether there was consensus or not, nor which bits of ENGVAR should apply. When you can't even agree whether there is consensus about whether there is consensus to apply the section of the guideline that refers to situations where there is no consensus, that is pretty damning about the chances of actually agreeing on anything. The reference to m:The Wrong Version was intended to demonstrate that in the bigger picture it really doesn't matter whether there is an "h" in the middle of the word or not - just leave the article where it is now (about the only thing there is agreement on is that there are no major ties between yog(h)urt and any national variety of English, so neither title is actually wrong per se), ignoring whether moves in the past were right or wrong, and get on with improving the encyclopaedia article. We have a top-importance food and drink article that is only rated C class - if a fraction of the effort and verbiage expended on one letter had been put into improving the article, you'd be well on the way to a featured article by now. Or in other, cruder, words - "The article is where it is, it doesn't matter why, just deal with it and get on with writing an encyclopaedia". Thryduulf (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course being from the UK does not mean you have an anti-US-usage bias. But it might mean that, which is all I said, just as anyone from the US might have (dare I say, is likely to have?) a pro-US-usage bias. And, here's the kicker, if one is so biased, nobody, including the person himself, can really know! I mean, do you think it's a coincidence that an editor from the US originally created this article at Yogurt, and an editor from the UK, under the pretense that "yoghurt" is the more "phonetically correct" spelling[15], moved it a year later to Yoghurt? And that ever since it was moved to Yoghurt it has been mostly (exclusively?) editors from outside of the US arguing that it doesn't matter where the article is? And that it has been mostly editors from the US pointing out that in cases like this WP:RETAIN indicates the article should be moved back to its original title? If anti/pro US-Usage bias does not explain those correlations, what does?

Nothing personal, really (how could there be - this is our first interaction, I believe), but asserting or denying the existence of a bias is kind of pointless (because there is no way to know either way). All we can say is there might be bias. I'm sorry you find it offensive, but it's a simple fact of human nature. Just something for everyone to be aware of. I meant no disrespect, and did not mean to question your sincerity or good faith at all. I have no reason to believe there is an issue there whatsoever. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So why does it matter what spelling the page is at? Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
If your argument is now that it doesn't matter what the page is titled, why are you even commenting? -Kai445 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I am commenting because one or more editors here has asked for comments from uninvolved parties in order to try and resolve the dispute (the whole point of the RfC), and I fit that bill having had no previous involvement in the dispute. What I see here is a protracted dispute over which spelling should be used, with entrenched positions on both sides, where neither side is wrong (i.e. it's not incorrect to spell it either "yoghurt" or "yogurt"). This situation is taking a lot of energy for something that is completely unproductive, so I am proposing an alternative way forward so the efforts can be spent improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"moving the page solely "to switch from one valid use of English to another", which is explicitly prohobitied by the same guideline." So the move from Yogurt->Yoghurt was similarly prohibited, right? I think a fundamental point here is that there is plenty of consensus to move this page—ENGVAR is quite comfortably supported by consensus. I don't even like ENGVAR, but I realize that I am in the tiny minority here. Now, I understand there is some debate about whether local consensus can so easily trump a well-established guideline. Ironically I obviously can't refer you to wp:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is pretty clear that consensus here (or lack thereof!) should not trump something like ENGVAR, since your position does not allow for guidelines to tip the scales. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Please see my comments immediately above. Thryduulf (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to direct my attention to. Your comments seem to illustrate my point quite well—"When you can't even agree whether there is consensus about whether there is consensus to apply the section of the guideline that refers to situations where there is no consensus, that is pretty damning about the chances of actually agreeing on anything."—Then you apply the consensus-derived guideline about what to do when there is no consensus! Why is this so hard? Your'e right about one thing—we shouldn't be having this discussion. ENGVAR, for all its problems, is supposed to avoid these discussions by settling the issue when there is no consensus. But, if you believe guidelines are to be ignored unless there is local consensus to follow them, then ENGVAR can't do that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
In other words, the consensus of the community is that when there is no local consensus about what the title should be in ENGVAR spelling situations like this, the article should be moved back to its original title. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Thryduulf appears to be WP:GAME, and I certainly don't appreciate it. -Kai445 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Whoa! I do not agree with that. I see no evidence of that at all. In RM discussions it's normal to treat "no consensus" to mean "no move", so it's not unreasonable for someone to genuinely see no (local) consensus here and conclude the article should therefore not be moved, and, by the way, may genuinely believe it doesn't matter. I see no reason to believe that that does not apply to Thryduulf. Let's not confuse bias that someone is not aware of with bad faith! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Please retract that statement Kai445 - I have no stake in this discussion, I have no preferred spelling, I really do not care what spelling is used, so I could not game the system even if I wanted to. I am commenting here as a neutral party to try and resolve this dispute. Despite the responses below to my question about why it matters, I still do not understand why you (editors here, collectively) cannot agree to disagree, and move forward with improving the article. Even if the title in use is not the one that you prefer, regardless of why you prefer or don't prefer one, regardless of whatever evidence you may prefer may or may not say, the other spelling is at most less good, neither are wrong. The title and spelling used don't stop you improving the article, for example finding sources to verify the numerous unsupported statements in the article will not be affected by which spelling the article uses (a source may use either after all). By all means come back to the naming discussion in 18 months or 2 years when cooler heads should be available, but continuing to insist that the title is right or wrong now is not a constructive use of anybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
I will retract nothing. If you are going to cherry-pick ENGVAR and pretend that nobody knows what to do, then you're acting either in bad faith or out of ignorance. Neither is acceptable. -Kai445 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
Well given that I am not cherry-picking ENGVAR, nor pretending that anybody doesn't know anything, your statement is factually incorrect. Your assumption of (and even explicit accusation of) bad faith is not conduct conducive to any agreement forming, so don't be surprised if you end up at WP:WQA or stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
"Come back to the naming discussion in 18 months or 2 years when cooler heads should be available?" The problem is that new people arrive much more often than every 18 months, pointing out the same arguments in favor of restoring the English variety and spelling used by the original contributor of this article on December 10, 2002, and which was retained until October 29, 2004, and restart the debate over and over. This has been the pattern for eight years now, dominating the content of the five archives of this talk page, as well as this current one. I don't think anyone involved in the original debates is involved any more (so all of them have heeded your sage advice - which has been offered repeatedly over the last eight years as well, to no avail), but the debate rages on. For example, the latest RM discussion was started by Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs), whose WP contributions go back to 2005, but who, like you, was completely uninvolved here before this discussion [16]. In fact, of the eight people who supported restoring the original title in that latest RM discussion, five (Peregrine Fisher, DTXBrian,, AnimatedZebra and ErikHaugen) have had no involvement here before per searches in the Talk:Yoghurt and Talk:Yogurt archives.

If eight years of practically continuous objection to the current title is not sufficient time to prove a lack of consensus for the current title, I don't know what is.

So while I have no doubt that your suggestion to those who happen to be paying attention here to come back in 18 months is made believing that will resolve this situation, eight years of history indicates otherwise. That's why I'm convinced the only way to end all this is is to restore the original title by moving this article back to Yogurt. That will resolve it because while there are, and will always be, plenty of reasonable arguments to support YoghurtYogurt, there will be zero reasonable arguments to support YogurtYoghurt. --Born2cycle 19:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, something like the agreement on Ireland article names (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names) might work here. Basically everyone agrees to abide by the result of a formal vote for a set period of time (in the Ireland case it was 2 years), although given there are only two options here and no real scope for a compromise title, it might be more difficult, and obviously it requires some sort of consensus to start with.
However it's becoming clear to me that this RfC isn't going to get anywhere when there are such polarised opinions, intransigence from some quarters and accusations of bad faith. I think the time has probably come to take this to some form of mediation - either informal (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) or formal (Wikipedia:Mediation Committe). With this I bow out of the discussion, it's already taken more of my time and energy than I really have to spare. Good luck with a resolution. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Come on, are you reading what I'm saying? I'm beginning to think WP:IDNHT might apply here. For the third time, there is no disagreement here among two intransigent groups of editors like there was in the Ireland situation. That is, the makeup of the groups, at least those favoring the restoration of the original title, keeps changing. Even if everyone currently involved agrees to something through mediation, that wouldn't apply to anyone not currently involved here, and, as eight years of history clearly shows, those favoring restoring the original title, and who have never been involved here before, will arrive within a few months. How are you going to get people who are not even here yet to agree to something?

Anyway, I've been predicting, observing, and repeating this for years. Yet people like you keep arriving here thinking you have the solution, and all you have to say is the same old thing that has been said over and over... for eight years. And nothing changes. Suggesting mediation might seem new, reasonable and novel to you, but according to Einstein, this is insanity[17].

Anyway, I'm done too. --Born2cycle 20:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

  • It has not been "eight years of practically continuous objection to the current title". The issue was quiet for years. Then all of a sudden someone arrives who had not edited the article much, if at all, and says "I think the title should be changed!" and someone else arrives and says, "I agree!" and so a formal move discussion gets started by one of those two. And those two make a biased summary of the arguments against moving the article - in the form of a massive colored table that they demand others contribute to. And accusations of "anti-Americanism" are slung. And after an admin closes the discussion as no consensus, it's back to the sneering - including attacking the admin and recently accusing Thryduulf of bias on grounds of national origin and "defending" that by accusing all the opponents of moving the article of bias on grounds of national origin. Saying that everyone has bias does not make this any less of an attack, and yet merely saying that the US spelling is not ipso facto the best spelling to adopt gets labeled "anti-Americanism"? One of the arguments being repeatedly made for moving the article - it has just been made again - is in essence: If the article is not moved, we will keep agitating until it is moved. That is rather close to blackmail. I do not see these editors helping to defend the article against vandalism and unsourced nationalism, much less improving it. And the statement that those of us who favor the "yoghurt" spelling will just reappear if it gets moved to "yogurt" means - there is no consensus! Therefore the close was correct. And it's the move proponents who have - after a period of years, in one case based self-admittedly on an agenda to "simplify" by eliminating non-US spellings with their extra letters - resumed doing the same thing again. Expecting a different result: for those of us who see inadequate rationale for moving the article to get so fed up with the disruption that we give up. This is textbook no consensus, but it's actually only come to life again recently. Please move on from this particular intractable case of no consensus. I for one am less and less impressed with the arguments, and the attacks are becoming more frequent and are not persuasive. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Differences of opinion are one thing. But such blatantly false assertions as just expressed here need to be addressed.
  1. The issue was quiet for years. False. Prior to this most recent RM, there was a formal RM discussion in 2009[18], and informal discussions about the title in 2010 and earlier in 2011 preceding this latest RM discussion. Except for the one year in which discussion on this issue was actually quiet, 2008, that's pretty typical of the eight years since the title was surreptitiously changed to Yoghurt on Christmas Day 2003 under the most dubious pretense I've ever seen ("Yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct" than "yogurt").
  2. "those two make a biased summary of the arguments against moving the article" False. All reasonable arguments made for both sides are presented in the table. If there are any reasonable arguments that support YogurtYoghurt, why not actually state what they are rather than lamely claim the summary is biased... if it's truly biased, state what exactly is biased about it, and what needs to change for it not to be biased.
  3. "One of the arguments being repeatedly made for moving the article - it has just been made again - is in essence: If the article is not moved, we will keep agitating until it is moved." False. The argument is not that we will keep agitating, but that new editors will keep arriving to point out the obvious: "yogurt" is more commonly used throughout the English world (arguably even in the UK) and since this is an ENGVAR issue we should go back to the variety of English used by original contributor to this article. There is no escaping the fact that these reasonable arguments for YoghurtYogurt will remain reasonable through the end of time, and will remain available for anyone to present. There is also no escaping the fact that there are no comparable arguments for the reverse, YogurtYoghurt.
  4. there is no consensus! Therefore the close was correct. False. It's true that there is no WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. But that does not mean there is no consensus. Community consensus supports WP:ENGVAR and in particular WP:RETAIN, which says that in cases like this we should go back to the variety of English of the original contributor. Therefore it's not at all clear that the close was correct, and was arguably incorrect.
  5. this particular intractable case... False. It's only intractable as long as this article remains at Yoghurt. This debate would be resolved instantly, and forever, by restoring the original title of this article, Yogurt, because, again, once restored at Yogurt, you who favor the current "no consensus" title would have no reasonable consensus-supported arguments to move the article back to your precious Yoghurt, and so consensus (not to mention reason, logic, policy, utilitarianism and common sense) would support Yogurt.
--Born2cycle 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean "Well given that I am not cherry-picking ENGVAR, nor pretending that anybody doesn't know anything, your statement is factually incorrect.". You literally said "When you can't even agree whether there is consensus about whether there is consensus to apply the section of the guideline that refers to situations where there is no consensus, that is pretty damning about the chances of actually agreeing on anything." If that doesn't sound like you saying that people don't know what to do, I don't know what does. I quoted the entire line of what to do on WP:ENGVAR, but people want to sit around and say that ENGVAR says to keep it put when there's no consensus (which is patently ridiculous). Refer me to any forum you want. If I acted improper, don't be a dick and threaten to do it, just go do it. Furthermore, I already started a request for mediation, and it was rejected because people like Yngvadottir (and perhaps not coincidentally the entire "Keep" side) rejected it outright. -Kai445 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So why does it matter what spelling the page is at?

Just above, in response to my suggestion that anti-US-usage bias is the reason it has been mostly (exclusively?) editors from outside of the US arguing that it doesn't matter what the spelling of this article's title is, Thryduulf (talk · contribs) inquires, "So why does it matter what spelling the page is at?"

That's a very good question. But before any question is answered, it's important to establish context. The relevant general question in this case is, Why does it matter what spelling any page is at?. Or, even more generally, why does it matter what title any page is at? (after all, the other title can just redirect). The answer to all these questions is the same: why it matters depends on who you ask. The history of this article is replete with evidence that the spelling of this article's title has mattered, and does matter, to dozens if not hundreds of editors. Every single editor who has voted Support or Oppose in any RM discussion here has indicated that it matters to him or her, for some reason.

I suggest that is an important point to stress: Anyone who argues the title "doesn't matter" and opposes moving the article is being hypocritical; if the title truly "doesn't matter" then there would be no reason to oppose moving it; a position consistent with "doesn't matter" is neutral or abstain, not oppose.

Though the reasons it matters are not the same for everyone, I'm sure, there can be no doubt that it matters for some reason for many.

Now, if you're asking me personally, my answer does not matter much, because I'm just one of those editors. But since you asked, the reasons the spelling happens to matter for me are:

  1. I've long been a proponent of the idea that WP titles should reflect as best as possible the name or term most commonly used in reliable sources to refer to the topic of the article. In this case that's definitely yogurt, because it's the term that is used almost exclusively in N. America, and is widely used, if not quite dominantly, yet, in the U.K. as well.
  2. I personally believe it's high time to merge US/UK spellings, preferring the simpler spelling when possible. This belief of course carries no weight in these discussions per WP:CRYSTAL etc, and that's why I've never mentioned it before, but right now I'm answering why the spelling of this title matters to me personally, and this belief is a factor, I must admit.

I hope this illustrates why the subjective/biased reasons the spelling of this article title matters to any one editor shouldn't matter to anyone else. I'm sure other people who support moving this article have other reasons for why it should move that wouldn't matter to you or me, just as all those who oppose moving it back to Yogurt have their reasons that are probably largely irrelevant to us as well. The fact remains that, for better or for worse, the spelling of this title does matter to many, and that it has been contentious -- eight formal RM proposal-discussions, countless discussions like this in between all of them -- ever since it was surreptitiously moved for the most dubious reasons (that "yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct" - I kid you not [19]) from Yogurt to Yoghurt on Christmas Day, 2003[20].

But putting all those irrelevant personal biases aside, the contentious history of the current title is the main reason the current spelling matters in objective/practical terms. The current spelling matters because that conflict can be easily and quickly resolved by changing the spelling back to Yogurt. The reasons for that is that the arguments favoring the "yogurt" spelling overwhelm the arguments favoring the "yoghurt" spelling. Therefore, as long as the article remains at Yoghurt, those who favor "yogurt" will have good reasons to object, and will, as they have for the last eight years, but once it's moved to Yogurt, those who favor "yoghurt" will have no good reason to object, and the issue will be finally resolved.

Thryduulf, please let me know if this answers the question of why the spelling of this article's title matters to your satisfaction. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In a practical world, one must choose one's battles sensibly. This one will generate more heat than light. A observant person can be certain of this. If you pursue it, that indicates that you wish to generate more heat than light. Please stop being a net heat-generator. ENGVAR is a ceasefire, which you seem intent on destroying. Please respect the cease-fire. That is all. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I think there are several legitimate reasons to review the name of this title, beyond the inappropriate and inadequately explained close. Wikipedia should have a stake in having clear and widely followed rules, principles and guidelines. This title is in direct conflict with many of such policies, and as such, can and will be used by others to push their preferred spellings and names, regardless of what is in the best interests of the readers. The people pushing to keep this name are doing a great disservice to the project, and should probably reexamine their motivations for being here.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
LedRush, you and GTB, I think, have a fundamentally different philosophy about how policies/guidelines interact with local consensus. GTB knows that some people want clear guidelines that are consistently followed across the project. GTB doesn't. This does not mean GTB doesn't care about this project and has the wrong motives—that conclusion is completely absurd. I lean more your way on this particular issue, but there are few editors here whose good faith I am more confident in than GTBacchus. Please consider where GTB is coming from here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but GTB is, mostly, staying away. LedRush's point seems to be primarily addressed at those who keep "pushing to keep this name". That's not GTB.

That said, for someone who supposedly does not "want clear guidelines that are consistently followed across the project", GTB sure seems to want his ceasefire no-matter-what interpretation of ENGVAR to be "consistently followed across the project", or at least he wants it applied here. And I want the "go back to first contributor" clause to be consistently followed. But at least I advocate consistent following of all policies and guidelines across the project, not just a few cherry-picked ones here or there when they happen to favor my position. --born2cYcle 22:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, B2C. Erik and GTB, I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought GTB was a bad faith editor. However, those that are pushing to keep the article name as is seem to be doing so without policy support (commonname, engvar, retain all seem to push against them) and don't seem willing to engage on the issues. I think it is unfair for GTB to label anyone who wishes to change the name of this article to support WP and its policies as disruptive.LedRush (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
So you don't choose WP:ENGVAR only when it suits you, you don't choose WP:COMMONNAME only when it suits you, you don't choose "go back to first contributor" only when it suits you, and you don't pick and choose bits of WP:MOS only when and where they suit you? Sorry, but your edit history would appear to suggest otherwise. Black Kite (t) 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Wow, an ad hominem attack which doesn't propel the discussion forward in any way at all. What a shocker!LedRush (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
That's not an ad hom (check the definition) and also it would also be an attack if it was inaccurate. Which it isn't. Black Kite (t) 23:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I checked the definition and it gave your post above as an example. So weird...LedRush (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I see, so apart from being wrong to begin with, you also checked it against a source which is also wrong. Perhaps you need to get a better reference guide. Or possibly you need to stop trolling. One of the two. Black Kite (t) 00:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
So you come in here, make ad hominem arguments, insult others, make threats and add nothing to any discussion, and I'm the troll? Your a piece of ... work.LedRush (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Not only is this yet another unprovoked personal attack from Black Kite, but as usual it's comprised of completely baseless allegations. Back up your accusations with evidence, buddy, or take them back. When have I argued against ENGVAR, COMMONNAME or any other policy or guideline when it didn't "suit me"? In case you do have a situation in mind where I might have argued against a guideline, note that when a guideline conflicts with policy such as WP:AT, I favor the policy per Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages.

What "suits me" is whatever the applicable policy/guideline says. My over-arching theme at WP, as made evident on my own user page and FAQ, as well as my edit history, is the pursuit of consistency in policy, guidelines and naming overall. That's why I pursue making this title consistent with guidelines, but do not pursue changing, say, Orange (colour), or Color, because those titles are spelt consistently with the variety of English used by their respective original contributors. And that, by the way, is also why they are stable, and this title is not. --born2cYcle 23:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Except you only "pursue making titles consistent with guidelines" when they suit your opinion. And that appears, frankly, to be the only thing you actually do here. Which is probably why you find so many people opposed to your viewpoint wherever you go. Perhaps something to think about. You're obviously an erudite and intelligent person, so why not go and write an article instead? You'd be doing the encylopedia a hell of a lot more use than spending your time arguing about trivialities of naming. Black Kite (t) 23:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
I work on article content as much as I want to work on article content, thank you very much. Here is an article that might interest you and looks like it could use some expansion. --born2cYcle 00:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
"I work on article content as much as I want to work on article content, thank you very much." i.e. preety much not at all. I'd admit that it must be very annoying when someone actually points out to you the shortcomings of what you are are doing. Though having said that, incredibly unoriginal (and unfunny) personal attacks aren't really going to help you at this point. Black Kite (t) 00:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
───────────────── I'm annoyed. Can you two take this inane bickering to one of your talk pages please? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I am too. B2C tried to hat the conversation so we could get back on topic [21], but Blackkite reverted and took the opportunity to threaten B2C [22] with admin action[23], and invent obviously untrue motivations for B2C's actions (while sprinkling in more personal attacks)[24]. Hopefully we can just get back to the policy discussions.LedRush (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I would be quite happy to stop it, if B2C would agree to stop attacking people who disagree with him. That was my point. Black Kite (t) 18:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I attack arguments and tactics, not any particular individual editors, and I have no plans to stop doing that.

Anyway, this section is riddled with derogatory statements about me. As LedRush notes, I've been threatened with admin action if I deleted certain comments, and I'd rather not have to deal with that hassle, but I note that the intro of WP:NPA states, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. ". --born2cYcle 18:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you remove all the comments you've made about other editors, then (i.e. "absurd arguments are all they've got"), then I'd be quite happy for you to collapse this section. Thanks. 19:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Not sure what one has to do with the other (a violation is a violation independent of any other potential violations), but if you can identify any comments of mine that qualify as "Derogatory comments about another contributor [singular, specific]", I'd be happy to delete them as violations of WP:NPA without placing any conditions on what anyone else does. --born2cYcle 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
The snide insinuations that people hold a position purely because of their nationality would be a start. And the two claims that your opponents are absurd. And the claim that a previous admin's close was biased (and "laughable"). Fair? Black Kite (t) 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Black Kite, is it too much to ask that you take your personal vendetta and keep it personal, meaning, continue it at your talk page or somewhere else. It detracts from the conversation, is disruptive, and further poisons the atmosphere here.LedRush (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
─────────────── No, sorry, I cannot allow one user to dominate the page and cast aspersions about other editors whilst he complains bitterly about similar comments made about himself. There are enough editors above saying the same thing. Black Kite (t) 19:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) BK, I'm beginning to realize that you are unable to distinguish between criticism and ridicule of the arguments made by one's opponents in general from the kinds of attacks on a specific person that are the subject of WP:NPA.

On your talk page I quoted your exact words, and emphasized the aspects of it that made it a personal attack. I'm asking you to do the same with mine. What specific words of mine are personal attacks, and how are they personal?

I request this because I respect, and try very hard to abide by, all policy, including NPA and CIVIL, and believe that what you call "snide insinuations" and the alleged claims that my opponents are absurd (I claim they make absurd arguments, not that they personally are absurd - that's a misrepresentation which is why I ask you to quote my exact words) are not violations. If anyone searches for the word "absurd" on this page I believe that you'll find my words are well within the norm of acceptability. --born2cYcle 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This cannot and will not end well. Black Kite is entrenched in his views and will not back down. The best we can hope for now is that after a long discussion we will see that what Black Kite sees as a personal attack B2C sees as a generalized criticism. Because we all know where this is going, I don't suppose we could just cut to the chase and agree to disagree?LedRush (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Eat some frozen yoghurt/yogurt, fellows!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguments regarding article title

{{under construction}}

Arguments supporting Yogurt as article title

  • English variety of the first major contributor.
    • The article was originally titled "Yogurt" and the spelling yogurt was used throughout the article when it was created on December 10, 2002 [25] .
    • After the article was a year old, the spelling of "yogurt" was changed to "yoghurt" with this surreptitious edit made on Christmas Day, 2003 for the dubious reason that "yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct" [26]. This is the original WP:ENGVAR violation.
    • The first time the spelling change was asked to be rectified was on November 21, 2004.
    • A few months later, in May of 2005, the first formal RM discussion was started, and the request was made to move the article back to its "original location". After the discussion was closed, more people chimed in in support, and on May 18, 2005 JamesMLane (talk · contribs) pointed out that there was never consensus to move the article in the first place, so it should be returned to its original location.
    • On July 26, 2005, the argument was again made to return the article to the variety of English of the first contributor.
    • The debate has been raging ever since, as documented here.
    • The idea that this article has ever been "established" per ENGVAR at Yoghurt is disputed.
    • WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN states: "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety."
      • Whether the English variety has been "established" since the disputed 2003 move is at issue; at best, there is no consensus about whether the article is established at Yoghurt. Since there is no consensus on that point, we cannot say that it "has been established", and, therefore, the first post-stub contributor clause applies.
  • Conflict resolution. Discussion fueled by dissatisfaction with the current title, Yoghurt, which has never had consensus support, since the article was first improperly moved from its original title Yogurt to Yoghurt for dubious reasons and without discussion (much less consensus) has completely dominated the talk page, overwhelming almost any attempt to discuss article content, and continues below. However, once the article is moved to Yogurt, there will be no strong arguments (see below) for moving it back to Yoghurt, and so the great eight-year-long-and-counting Yogurt/Yoghurt conflict will almost certainly be finally resolved.
  • Rectifying past wrongs. There is no question that the original YogurtYoghurt move was done without consensus support, surreptiously (on Christmas Day) and contrary to general consensus even at that time in 2003, on a dubious basis ("correct pronunciation"). It's important that this be reversed, otherwise we're encouraging others to try to get away with behavior that goes against consensus, because, if they get away with it, for a long enough period, it will stick. That's not the message we want to be sending.
  • Dictionaries
    • American: "Yogurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (, American Heritage Dictionary (, and the New Oxford American Dictionary.
    • British: "Yogurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Oxford English Dictionary (, the Cambridge University Dictionary (, and the Collins English Dictionary (
    • Canadian: Although the Canadian Oxford Dictionary prefers "yogourt", it lists "yogurt" before "yoghurt".
  • Encyclopedias
    • The word "Yogurt" is the primary encyclopedia entry for the word in the Encyclopaedia Britannica ( and MSN Encarta (
  • Style guides
    • Many current prescriptive sources agree, the word "Yogurt" is specified in the current Oxford Style Manual (2003) which explains to use Yogurt and to not use -hurt or -ourt, on page 1000. This is in concert with the latest New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2005), again, listing "yogurt".[1] Garner's Modern American Usage also advises against the use of yoghurt.
  • Manufacturers
    • Groupe Danone, the largest manufacturer of Yogurt in the World, spells it "Yogurt". Canadian label, British label.
    • The world's second largest manufacturer of yogurt, Yoplait, also spells it "Yogurt".
    • The world's third largest manufacturer of yogurt, and largest organic yogurt manufacturer in the world, Stonyfield, spells it "Yogurt".
  • Etymologist opinion
    • Although British etymologist Michael Quinion says "There is no right or wrong" regarding this spelling choice, he describes "Yogurt" as the "correct spelling".[27]
  • Regional variation
    • American and Canadian writers prefer yogurt, according to The Cambridge Guide to English Usage.
    • WP:GOOGLE results clearly show the no-h variant is not only more frequently used, but is trending usage among a variety of locales. This supports the argument that this is not a British vs. American variant issue at all, but, rather, a most commonly used name determination.
    • While in some localities the h variant is as commonly used as the no-h variant, in other places the h variant is relatively unused as compared to the no-h variant.
  • Universality
    • All of the quoted dictionaries list both yoghurt and yogurt without regional labels.
    • At, four varieties of English are supported: Aus, Can, UK, US. "yogurt" is universally accepted as correct in all four varieties, but the acceptance of "yoghurt" is limited to three of the varieties.
  • Consistency with other article titles
  • Conciseness. All other factors held equal, "yogurt" is favored over "yoghurt" per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA for being more concise.

Arguments supporting Yoghurt as article title

  • English variety since the 2003 move
    • The article title and English variety is disputably established as Yoghurt and British English because:
      1. The article hasn't been moved from Yoghurt since June 21, 2009.
      2. The article has had only three formal requested move discussions since the 2009 move.
      3. The article has had only seven formal requested move discussions since it was originally moved to Yoghurt on Christmas Day in 2003.
      4. The spelling of the word "yoghurt" has not been changed in the article since April 19, 2011 [28].
      5. One year, 2008, there was no moving of the article or discussion about it at all.
    • Since all of these reasons establish the title as Yoghurt and the English variety as British English, per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN, it should be maintained "in the absence of consensus to the contrary."
    • Even if the title is not "established" at Yoghurt, there is a longstanding "ceasefire" with regard to regional spellings, and per that "ceasefire", we should just leave things as they are, without regard to whether it's "right" or "best".
  • Dictionaries
    • Australian: "Yoghurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Macquarie Dictionary.
    • British: "Yoghurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in Chambers 21st Century Dictionary.
    • New Zealand: "Yoghurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary.
  • Style guides
    • The 1993 edition of Oxford's Practical Lexicography, a prescriptive source, requires "yoghurt". [2]
  • Regional variation
    • Australian and British writers prefer yoghurt, according to The Cambridge Guide to English Usage.
    • While "yogurt" is preferred in much of the English-speaking world, academic sources in Australia and the UK still prefer yoghurt by about 5:1 (see above WP:GOOGLE).
  • Universality
    • All of the quoted dictionaries list both yoghurt and yogurt without regional labels.
  • Consistency with other article titles

References used in arguments above

  1. ^ Ritter, R.M. (2005). Lesley Brown, ed. New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 424. ISBN 0198610408. Retrieved November 12, 2011. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Practical Lexicography.


I created this section for several reasons. I started with what was accomplished during the last RM discussion, but that is now "frozen" with the rest of that discussion. It has been suggested that that section was "biased", so I want to make sure, once and for all, we can at least get agreement on all relevant arguments in one place. This approach was a great help at resolving a naming conflict at Talk:Sega Genesis recently.

I suggest a goal of having all of this completed by December 1, 2011. --Born2cycle 06:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added to both sections and hopefully addressed any remaining concerns about neutrality. I've also emphasized the two statements about whether yoghurt is "established". Although I don't think there is any disagreement that the 2003 spelling change shouldn't have been made, the RM shows considerable disagreement about how "established" yoghurt has become since then. I think resolving this conflict needs to based on deciding this. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I honestly do not understand why a couple of people insist on discussing this further. Moreover, the argument that "this will keep coming up again until the article is moved to yogurt boils down to "We will keep raising this until we get our way." In other words it is not an argument at all, but a threat. I also raised objections to the heavy reliance on Google - which returns disparate results on spellings for a number of reasons including the searcher's location - and cited examples of expert UK style guides mandating "yoghurt." Against this is raised an article in the Daily Mail (!) about a UK linguist whose whole argument is that American spellings are better. And encyclopedias and dictionaries published for the American market. The fact is, usage varies internationally. The fact is, there has been ample opportunity for discussion, and the discuission was closed. There have also been rudeness, snideness, and accusations of bias. And this discussion continues to be driven by editors with a heavy editing focus on getting articles moved to US spellings - or on that plus US college sports. Give it a rest. It's been sufficiently disinterred and poked over for at least another 6 months. What basis is there for appeal other than sour grapes? And it was a very good suggestion to demonstrate good faith by otherwise improving the article. I would unwatch it, I'm heartily fed up of being slanged, but I have no confidence whatsoever that my occasional nabbing of vandalism would be replaced by equal vigilance from one of the editors who cares oh so much that this particular article is not spelled the American way. So again - why on earth do we have to pick away at this until the "yogurt" partisans get the decision reversed? And no, it isn't because the issue has been constantly raised. It hasn't. Pretty much all Wikipedians except 2 had decided for whatever reason to do something else with their time. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Absolutely correct, unfortunately there are certain users whose modus operandi is to keep wikilawyering about certain issues until they get their way. The easiest way to avoid such disruption to the encyclopedia is to ensure that they don't. Black Kite (t) 17:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Mr. Rigour did a fine job of making the points of either side neutral. "This will keep coming up again" is not a threat, look at the history of the article... if this were a stock market being traded on spelling controversy, the prospectus would say "very good chance of move discussions happening in the future, based on past results". I'm tired of your constant disparaging attitude. If you're tired of the discussion, go away and stop commenting, it's that simple.
And your arguments against are unconvincing. Since when was the OED, for example, published for the American market? Do you really believe that? And Michael Quinion wrote more about the Daily Mail article in his blog, where he basically feels that the Daily Mail wanted a hit piece on the "Americanization" of British, but he doesn't believe that is what is happening. He's a damn etymologist for christ sakes, and a non-American one at that, saying "Yogurt" makes sense. And you, the armchair Wikipedia expert, are telling everyone else to shut up. Are you trolling us at this point? -Kai445 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
And thank you, Black Kite, for AGF of everyone involved. "Make sure they don't get their way!". -Kai445 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I stand by that. If there was consensus to move the article, then fine. But there isn't, and as far as I can see there hasn't been for a long time. So the only thing I can think is that certain people think they can browbeat the community into changing the title by wearing them into submission. (And, to make it clear, not just on this article and not just these editors; the practice is widespread). I think User:Roux articulated it the best. I just think it would be better for everyone to concentrate on more productive matters. (And if you wonder why I've got this page watchlisted, no B2C I'm not stalking you, I was the editor who split Strained yoghurt out of the article over 4 years ago, so I've had both on my watchlist ever since). Consider this in relation to, say, an AfD. If an article had been at AfD seven times and closed as No Consensus every time, I'm pretty sure an attempt to bring it back to AfD immediately after the previous AfD had closed would be considered disruptive. In the end, Wikipedia works on consensus, and no consensus defaults to the status quo. I can even understand the frustration of those who want to move the article (given the fact, for example, that the article was initially positioned at Yogurt) but in the end we have to go with consensus. Black Kite (t) 10:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Does it default to the status quo? As I've come to understand no consensus in relation to titles, the first non-stub should be the version used in the event of no consensus (see "Sega Genesis", which seems to have also had a similarly troubled history. WP:COMMONNAME was raised as a point but WP:NOCONSENSUS was decided, and it was moved.), which is why I raised this RFC in the first place. So now it seems like I'm being accused of both wikilawyering and browbeating, which is ridiculous. (If I was wikilawyering, wouldn't I be twisting the 'rules' to kinda fit my worldview?) I've been quoting entire sections of policy, and trying to give reasonable explanations. What is the point of having policies if they're ignored (by Admins of all people); and the people who raise them as issues are demonized? -Kai445 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
The main problem is that the vagueness of the policies and guidelines that we use. WP:COMMONNAME, for example, is policy, yet look at that page (WP:AT); it's so open to interpretation it's easy for people to make any use of it they want in many circumstances. WP:ENGVAR is only a guideline, and is simpler, but is still open to variation. You have editors who argue for the moving of a page "per ENGVAR", and then argue for the moving of a page "per COMMONNAME" even when that move violates ENGVAR ... and vice versa. These policies/guidelines shouldn't be a shopping list for people to pick and choose from as they wish, yet that is how they're being treated, and it's a huge waste of everyone's time. And yes, NC in this discussion does mean no change; according no WP:NOCONSENSUS "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.". Since this one's been stable since 2003, it should be kept that way until there is consensus to move it. Black Kite (t) 18:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's been very stable, unless stable simply means that nobody has moved it... but since it's protected, that's kinda hard to do (Gives the air of stability, without really being so). -Kai445 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Well, by that I meant it has practically always been at the same title for nearly 8 years, apart from a brief revert war in 2006, one of the main antagonists of that being ... someone familiar ... and a few quickly reverted BOLD moves. If it had been bouncing repeatedly between the names and both had had consensus at one time or another, then that would be different. Black Kite (t) 20:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, I have no idea how any admin could close either of those October 2006 discussions as anything but "no consensus", especially the second one, as it appears a number of editors were actually !voting "Oppose" when they meant "support" and vice versa. I thought the best comment was the "Oh, flip a coin" one. Black Kite (t) 20:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
If you think 7 RM's and countless discussion is "stable", you are being unreasonable at best. -Kai445 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) writes: "The fact is, there has been ample opportunity for discussion, and the discuission was closed.". There have been seven (7!) RM discussions regarding this title ever since it was surreptitiously moved on Christmas Day, 2003 for such a dubious reason that that reason has never been defended since (that reason being that "yoghurt" should be the title because "yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct" than "yogurt"). None of those discussions ever found consensus. There has never been consensus support for the current title, and there is no consensus for the current title, that's why discussion does, and should, continue.

What we don't know is whether moving the title back to the original title, Yogurt, as WP:ENGVAR indicates we should do in this type of situation, would result in consensus support. I know of only one way to find out. --born2cYcle 20:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Kai, edit conflict. I see Born2cycle is not saying anything new.) Hardly trolling - as I've said several times, I have the article watchlisted because it attracts vandals (and Bulgarian nationalist POV-pushers). That means I see the talk page edits, too. So one specioalist in etymology prefers American spellings. And you find the arguments unconvincing. More evidence that there is no consensus, I'm afraid. We also differ as to the frequency of this arising. I appreciate Rigour's effort, but it should not be necessary to comb through what has been said; the move discussion is ended. You have threatened to raise it again and again until you get your way. I have pointed out that that has not in fact been happening, and that the article has remained at the current location with little discussion of moving it for years. Those points cancel each other out. And the closing admin already evaluated the move discussion. It's over. Everybody can read it. As I and others have said, we disagree in how we evaluate others' points; and world usage varies. I disagree with BlackKite in one respect: I don't see Wikilawyering here, just refusal to accept that the discussion ended with no consensus. I'm sorry, but AGF is not a suicide pact, as the phrase goes. I examined the evidence you and Born2cycle raised, and looked myself to see whether the situation had changed, and I came to the opposite conclusion. Then I and others started getting called anti-American and sneered at. You folks will now have to earn my respect back; you may be contributing to the encyclopedia in other areas but in this one you have not impressed me that I'm not needed here. I hope that's clear without being rude right back. tl;dr version: no. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
The no consensus close you keep referring to, like most of the other closes in the past, indicates an expectation for the discussion to continue. Suggesting a no consensus close with a comment expecting discussion to continue is a reason the discussion should end is absurd, but that's par for the course here since absurdity has been the basis for defending Yoghurt as this article's title from the first time it was moved from its original title, Yogurt, based on the absurd claim that we should prefer titles that are more "phonetically correct". --born2cYcle 21:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Yngvadottir—are you asserting that there is no way to appeal or overturn an RM closure? I don't like the way fish&karate was treated after making this close, but I don't think an effort to reexamine it is necessarily out of line by any means. The RFC here is a reasonable way to do that. Now it feels like you are browbeating those pursuing those avenues; this doesn't seem helpful or interesting to me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
And the etymologist in question is British, graduated from Cambridge, and worked for the BBC. I don't know what leads you to assume he "prefers American spellings", especially since his personal blog uses words like "colour" and "programme". -Kai445 (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Just more absurdity on the part of the "Yoghurt" advocates. It's all they've got, apparently. --born2cYcle 21:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
This kind of comment is also not helpful or interesting. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I realize I'm new to this, but reading through roughly a third of this talk page lets me have a clear idea that I'd support a move to Yogurt if there is ever another RM. I'm not going to watch this place, but can I ask someone please notify me on my talk page if there is another RM here?--SexyKick 01:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Same here, please ping me during the next RM or RFC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll notify both of you, if I'm still around.
I can predict the future though... hold my hand as we gaze together into my crystal ball. I guarantee each of you that there will be a lot of people supporting the current title and that they will near-universally act in bad faith; you'll be told that you're fighting a losing battle, you'll be accused of pushing for something with no consensus (even before one is reached or decided upon!), you'll be told that you should be doing better things with your life and are wasting your time, and you'll be told that you're pushing an American POV (even as untrue as it may be). It'll get closed for "no consensus", and the Admin will give little to no explanation of their decision. Just enough people will ignore policies left and right to keep things where they are. Beware, and be careful if you wish to travel down that path. -Kai445 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
I know this may be pointing out the obvious, but this discussion seems to have been led astray. It shouldn't be about what one person thinks is the "correct" spelling, and it's not: that's why I've classified Quinion's opinion under "Etymologist opinion", which is all it is—a minor point at most. There's a clear regional split in spelling, albeit not as obvious as a classical American–British difference (unless this little dictionary [] is your reference!), and I entirely agree with Black Kite that WP:ENGVAR needs to be applied consistently here and elsewhere. What is also obvious from the RM and the ensuing discussion is that WP:ENGVAR is being used to argue both for and against a move. As I see it, we need to decide if:
  1. The article is "established" and "stable" because it has remained here since 2003—then there is no reason to move it from Yoghurt;
  2. The article is not "established" and "stable" because of the perennial challenges to the 2003 move—then there is no reason to not move it to Yogurt; or
  3. Its status as being "established" and "stable" is going to remain disputed (as appears likely)—then do we stay with the status quo (Yoghurt) or revert to the first use (Yogurt)?
Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Good point; I incorporated it in the argument summaries above. [29]. --born2cYcle 08:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

It's December 1 - anything missing from the arguments?

I originally suggested we shoot for completing the arguments by December 1, but I just made a few more changes. I guess there is no reason to "close" it. But this is a good time to review the arguments and see if anything is missing. Should we add a rebuttal section to each side? --Born2cycle (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I would like to add the following; It really doesn't matter. At all. Anyone looking for information on this subject (you know, the readers, the people that encyclop(a)edias are for) will find it here. There is no point in perennial move discussions which top up as being 'no consensus'. Let's leave it five years or so before the next one. pablo 19:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The "it really doesn't matter" argument is one of desperation, and has been made here countless times since the first time in 2005 [30]. I say it's an argument of desperation because even though it could be fairly made with regard to almost all RM proposals, especially those that involve simply changing from one title to another title that already redirects to the first, it tends to be used only in cases like this one, where there is no other sound argument that supports retaining the current title. Many titles are changed every day on much weaker grounds than has been presented repeatedly in favor of changing this title. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The " "it really doesn't matter" argument is one of desperation " argument is really one of ascribing feelings of despair to an editor who honestly does not give a f(h)uck about the title of this article as long as people who seek information on the subject can find it. But then again, I expected something of the sort from you. pablo 21:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I did not intend to ascribe those feelings to you. So sorry! That said, if one truly believes "it really doesn't matter", then why participate here at all? Your invocation of this argument might very well be an exception, so nothing personal, but this argument does seem to be usually made by people who do care, as is made evident by their behavior, like taking a stand (of opposition) in RM proposal discussions about the title (which I note does not apply to you).

At any rate, the question of whether this title decision "matters", especially as compared to other title decisions, is obviously a matter of opinion, not to mention dependence on the meaning of "matter". But nobody can deny that the history of this talk page clearly shows that a relatively large number of Wikipedians have indicated it does matter to them.

And here's a potentially relevant observation. Editors who make the "it really doesn't matter" argument are curiously almost always (if not absolutely always) biased in favor of British English. A cursory review of your history indicates you're no exception to that. I do not mean to suggest bad faith at all by that, but I do think that bias (in the sense that we're all biased) plays a role subconsciously. That is, one may be genuinely convinced that "it really doesn't matter" in a variety of situations, and yet only feel moved to bother arguing that in those situations where the current/default condition happens to be consistent with their personal preference.

It's a very difficult thing to recognize, much less admit, a bias one is not aware of. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it really does not matter. I may have a bias toward the way I learnt to spell, but can cope with favor, color aluminum, yogurt. I do not feel that effort and attention of editors into such a niggling and lame dispute as this is of a benefit to anyone, however. But prolonging disputes on controversial moves is, I realise, your speciality. Well we all do what we can to benefit the encyclopedia. pablo 23:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Except it's not really an Engvar issue since "yogurt" is most commonly used in the US and UK. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Pablo, are you suggesting that one person (me) is responsible for a dispute that has been going on for 8 years? I wasn't around for the first few years, didn't even participate in most of those 7 or 8 RM discussions, and didn't start any of them, nor the vast majority of the countless informal ones like this one. If you imagine this dispute would be over if I just stopped doing whatever it is you think I'm doing, that's absurd.

What I have been trying to do is convince people of my firm belief that given the history of this article, the only way this will ever be settled is by moving the article back to its original title. Those opposed to moving it back, whether justified by "it doesn't really matter" or any other reason, are the ones responsible for prolonging the dispute.

Would you support a future proposal to move this article back to its original title to test my hypothesis? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I am really not suggesting anything of the sort. Nor do I think that experimental page-moves to test hypotheses is a particularly good idea. pablo 09:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Then what are you suggesting. -Kai445 (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Read my post above. It's not very long, contains few big words, and very little controversial spelling. pablo 16:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL. Within a few hours since you first made your "novel" suggestion - at 19:35, 1 December 2011 - to "leave it" for five years without any more move discussions, a new move discussion was started, at 4:48 on 2 December, and in which which two other people have already participated. As far as I can tell, none of these three have ever participated in a move discussion about this article title's before. If that doesn't prove to you how futile your suggestion is, I just don't see how you could really be looking at this objectively. I know you believe it doesn't matter to you, but it clearly matters to others. If it truly doesn't matter to you, why not support those to whom it does matter? After seven years of conflict since this article was moved from Yogurt to Yoghurt, it should be obvious to the most casual observer that leaving it at Yoghurt isn't working.

It makes sense that the title doesn't matter to you. But doesn't it matter to you whether this conflict is finally resolved? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

───────────────────────── It clearly does matter to many people, not least of all you. As far as I recall there's been a lot of 'no consensus to move this page' in previous discussions – what is it that makes you think that going ahead and moving it will "finally resolve" the conflict? pablo 20:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

What makes me think that going ahead and moving it will "finally resolve" the conflict? See the second bold bullet, entitled Conflict resolution, at Talk:Yoghurt#Arguments_supporting_Yogurt_as_article_title. In short, imagine the original title, Yogurt, is restored. Now fast forward 6 months, a year, 5 years. What arguments could be made, and are likely to be made, to justify moving it back to Yoghurt? There's no guarantee it won't happen, but I've seen conflicts like this resolved time and time again by moves to titles that left the opponents with nothing to argue.

For example, at Cork (city), which used to be at Cork, the opposition to the CorkCork (city) move back when it was proposed (numerous times) was at least as fierce as has been the opposition to this move. But once an admin took the risk to move it, everything quieted down. Recently I saw one of the biggest opponents to that move defend the current title on that talk page. Why? Because there is no reasonable argument for moving Cork (city) to Cork. Similarly, once the original title is restored here, there will simply be no reasonable argument to be made to move this article to Yoghurt. I mean, can you think of one? I can't, and that's why I'm convinced this move will finally resolve this conflict.

When this article was moved from Yogurt to Yoghurt the first time, the justification was unbelievably lame. The editor got away with it because nobody noticed. But that was seven years ago. That's not going to happen today. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you've been persuaded, but others apparently have [31]. Thank goodness! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

What's yoghurt?

Incivility is not a constructive way to deal with anything, regardless of the intentions of the initial commenter. Thryduulf (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I've eaten yogurt all my life and wanted to learn more about it and then I get slapped in the face with this happy horseshit I don't understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This comment was deleted as "garbage"[32] but I restored it because it typifies the reaction that many have when they come to this page ever since the title was changed from its original, and probably exemplifies the reaction that countless readers have who come to this article but do not comment here. This is the very type of thing that makes the current title unstable. Of course the editor who removed it, Roux (talk · contribs) is on record opposing the restoration of this article's original title[33], apparently due to an anti-USA bias (he wrote "unless you think WP:COMMON means 'common in the USA.'" in reply to a proposal that made no mention of the USA and immediately after a comment that specifically explained how it's not a USA issue). --Born2cycle (talk) 08:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh you have got to be fucking joking me here. I removed the comment because it was the sort of garbage that pops up on every talkpage--like someone posting "How do they work?" on magnet. It doesn't add anything to the discussion, it detracts with stupidity.
It is most educational, by the way, how very quickly you ensure everyone knows which side of the issue other people are on, yet fail to disclose your own. One might even say, "of course the editor who restored the useless commentary supports the change of name, erroneously choosing to believe that drive-by nonsense of that sort doesn't validate his claims nor support his position." One would probably go further and point out that the sorts of people who post those sorts of drive-by comments are 99% of the time just trolling, and would say the exact opposite if the page were at the other name. And one would certainly point out the problematic nature of immediately turning what, with even the most modest amount of AGF, could have simply been a question asking why into a full-on battleground moment because you are incapable of even contemplating the idea that just because someone is opposed to where you stand on a particular issue (and, as should be relatively clear, is also rather thoroughly disgusted by your actions since the beginning of this debate, these specific actions very very very much included; you want to Win The Argument at all costs, including repeated slandering of the positions of others, and extreme bias in your 'summaries' of what has happened), it does not therefore follow that everything they do is somehow an extension of that dispute. What you are doing is called 'projection,' seeing other people as though they were acting according to your motivations, and frankly you have been doing it a lot. Cut it out, it's childish and insulting, and only makes you look like a douche. I'm assuming you don't want that, so maybe you better start looking at your own behaviour a little more closely, and give the behaviour of others a little more--in fact, any--good faith, whether they agree with you or not.
And I would still remove the damn thing as being useless talkpage spam and useless commentary--which is very much allowed to be removed, by policy and convention, so you might wish to rethink your approach before attempting to use a guideline as being somehow either relevant or even enforceable in the way that policy is.
TL;DR version: it was talkpage trolling, I would have made the exact same reversion had the page name and the spelling used by the troll been reversed, I'm kind of sick and fucking tired of people ascribing their own motives to others who are acting in good faith, and it would probably be a really good idea for you to back the hell away from this page and this dispute for quite some time. You have become far too invested in winning, and you are blindly striking out at your opponents and deliberately escalating tensions.
I walked away from participation in this discussion quite some time ago specifically because of how offensively you have been behaving. It is depressing to see that nothing has changed. Walk away before someone with the admin bit forces you to, because that is the road you are rapidly heading down. → ROUX  10:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, boy, and how is this comment relevant to the whole issue? Does it bring new arguments, does it hold any statistical value or something? Cause it just seems you wanted to attack User:Roux with it. --Laveol T 09:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
For the record, Laveol (talk · contribs) is also on the side opposing restoration of the origin title of this article[34].

It's unreasonable to expect every person bothered by the current title to even come to the talk page, much less read it all before commenting. But a few obviously do bother to arrive here, and comments such as this one represent real dissatisfaction with the current title. Of course those of you who support the current title are inclined to hide such evidence, but the grounds for deleting comments of others are supposed to be more substantial than mere failure to bring a new argument.

Removal of such comments contrary to our guidelines warrants criticism. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

That is precisely why nobody wants to respond to comments made by you (and most frequently aimed at attacking them) any more. Me included. --Laveol T 12:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Yog(h)urt. Thryduulf (talk) 20:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for gosh sake, just move it to Yog(h)urt. Yworo (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I'd be up for that, if, after a year, moving it to Yogurt proves not to work. However, since moving articles back to their original titles tends to resolve these conflicts, I don't think we need this type of creative solution here. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the problem is that it was moved from Yogurt -> Yoghurt without a discussion. Due to that, it should be move back, then a discussion held. I'd bet there would be no consensus to move back to Yoghurt, either. "No consensus" can cut both ways, and allowing the undiscussed move to stand prior to discussion was never the right way to proceed here. Yworo (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. -Kai445 (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
First time to this page.. got here by a redirect from Yogurt. I was surprised to see the spelling. After reading above (for some time) The argument of what the biggest manufacturers use I think is prof of what is the most common spelling used - as in what most people see thus read all over. Anyways just my Toonie of an opinion.Moxy (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Moxy. I believe that the reliable sources, the corpus of english language books (combined British & American english) prevail with the spelling of yogurt.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it's never been about reliable sources, usage, or national spellings. Whenever it is discussed a contingent of people come by and say the H title is "status quo and good enough" which is preposterous when there is eight years of talk page disruption about the letter H in the title. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Its to bad people our not thinking of our readers in this case. O well thousands of redirect to here is fine I guess as long as the odd spelling is explained.Moxy (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I love that our article essentially says the spelling used for the title is antiquated. Those responsible for keeping this here should give themselves a round of applause. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure they already have, and more than once. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Yogurt. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm going to chime into this discussion, but seriously, that google books link is pretty significant. The spelling should be moved back to its original, yogurt, as that is clearly the most common spelling based on the sum total of all the information available. As has been stated, that is the only solution that hasn't been tried, and the argument has been going on for eight years. The definition of insanity... Torchiest talkedits 03:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The following conversation took place on "Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Yog(h)urt":

The following discussion took place on the Administrators' noticeboard, copied and pasted here:

8 freakin' years???

According to EO, it's "yogurt".[35] They don't mention "yoghurt", and they don't have an entry for it.[36] I would guess that "yoghurt" was someone's attempt to suggest the proper original pronunciation, which the EO article discusses. And it's pretty clear, from the wikipedia article itself, that "yogurt" is the most common spelling. Putting it at "yoghurt" is almost as stupid as what was done to Edelweiss. It's also harmful to wikipedia, as it makes wikipedia look stupid. But speaking of stupid... eight years wasted on this subject? OY!! GEVALT!!! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm more stupid than the 8 year argument for getting involved now, but I wanted to point out that the "yoghurt" spelling may be far more popular in other parts of the world. I've spent a lot of time in India and the H spelling is more common there as far I remember. Noformation Talk 07:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
The pro-"yoghurt" crowd seem to see systemic bias in the insistence on the US spelling. And what's wrong with "yogourt" anyway? --NellieBly (talk) 07:51, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Funnily enough, I'm eating yoghurt right now. And yes I spelled it according to what is printed on the container. I have another brand in my fridge which is spelled yogurt. Clearly both are right and both are wrong and people who try to argue otherwise are one of the reasons we've been arguing for 8 years. The other big problem is that while we have general consensus to 'retain' the original spelling when both are right/wrong, we don't really have consensus on what to do if the article was moved a long time ago which evidentally happened here. Nil Einne (talk) 08:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Isn't the Oxford English Dictionary pretty much the authoritative source? What does it give as the primary spelling? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Webster's agrees with OED,[37] with the root being the Turkish yoğurt. How'd that h get in there, anyway? Doc talk 09:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Yogurt is now the most common spelling of the word in English and experts agree with dropping the "h".[38] (Doc, that link explains how the "h" got there) Could someone please move the article to the correct title and block anyone who continues this nonsense? Any argument for retaining the "h" is a minority argument at best. We don't name articles based on uncommon spelling. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
We do if the title is uncommon in one part of the world and common in another (e.g. aluminium, Sulfur, Color, Offence (law), Offense (sports), etc). Both spellings of Yogurt/Yoghurt are the most common in different parts of the world. While "yogurt" is more common "yoghurt" isn't uncommon. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Yoghurt is still a very common (possibly the more common?) spelling in the UK, I think. Pesky (talkstalk!) 10:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

But the industry, companies that produce and distribute the product around the world, overwhelmingly use the spelling, yogurt. That's a good indicator of how we should name our article. Viriditas (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Not in the UK. Hence this dispute. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
"Most British dictionaries use the American version as the preferred spelling."[39] Can we end this now? Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not an incident, surely the article talk page is the best place for this futile discussion about something that essentially doesn't matter. pablo 11:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Yoghurt" is an archaic spelling according to the industry, language experts, and reliable secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 12:07, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Please, everybody, do not continue the content dispute on this board. Viriditas, this mostly goes to you; I see three postings from you on this board that do nothing but argue your side in the content dispute. This is disruptive; please stop. Fut.Perf. 12:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not continuing any dispute because I've never been involved in one. I'm merely observing, as a completely neutral, uninvolved party, that the sources show there is currently no support for yoghurt as a primary title, and the people who have been engaged in this dispute for eight years are pushing a POV. That's not a content dispute, that's a dispute involving a type of behavior, and it needs to be disciplined. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't matter if you were previously involved in the content dispute. You are arguing the content dispute now, and you are doing it in the wrong place. Please don't. Fut.Perf. 12:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
No, that is not correct. I personally don't care about this topic, nor do I care about the name of the article. You seem to be confusing the map with the territory. I can, as an uninvolved editor, make the observation that this so-called "content dispute" has been ongoing for eight years because of POV pushing that ignores the sources on the subject. That has nothing to do with me or any argument I might make. It's a neutral observation. I can also observe, that the culture of do-nothing administrators has allowed this disruption to fester across the encyclopedia for years on end. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
You know, the subject here is yogurt (to use my native language); festering cultures are a good thing. ;-> In other words, chill. This is not an important issue, except insofar as it makes British readers and contributors welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Move page to yogurt

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

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

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

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

The only thing lame about this is that "yoghurt" is still the title of the article. The Turkish word that the English word is derived from doesn't have an "h" in it, and for many that would be good enough. The Telegraph article[40] that Viriditas found is quite telling indeed. Combine the populations of the UK and Australia and you've got about 85 million people. The U.S. has... a few more than that. I find it sad that this continues, but I trust that the simplest and most correct solution will not be implemented anytime soon (if ever). Doc talk 06:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
And before any supporters of the "h" want to bring the staggering population of India into it: in the article Indian cuisine the term "yogurt" is used 7 times while "yoghurt" is used only four times (with three times within the same section, whereas "yogurt" is spread throughout the article). While a Google search of "Indian yoghurt" yields almost 4 million results, a Google of "Indian yogurt" yields over 17 million results. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 06:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
So, Doc, every time we have an ENGVAR issue we should just go with the US spelling because the US has more people? Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
That's just one point I brought up, and is hardly the main reason I Support the move. I don't think it ever should have been moved, but I wasn't around when that happened. For me it's more about the corruption of the root word and its steady replacement all over the world (manufacturers, dictionaries, etc.) not just WP. To stand by an archaic spelling that is preferred by a relatively small percentage of the English-speaking world doesn't make sense to me. But I'm just one idiot with an opinion, and we all have one. Doc talk 04:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
An even better method is to go to and limit your domain to .in (India) and repeat the search (search string would be "yogurt" or "yoghurt"). Yogurt is preferred 2:1. Now limit your search to within the last year... yogurt is preferred 8:1. I think that shows predominant usage, and trending towards increased usage. -Kai445 (talk) 07:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support moving page to yogurt. Repeating my rationale from above, that the reliable sources, the corpus of english language books (combined British & American english) prevail with the spelling of yogurt. After looking through other arguments in this lengthy debacle, the ones for retaining the h are not well-substantiated and certainly not enough to overcome the bulk sum of reliable sources.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 16:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Note to closing admin: this support vote is from the nominator. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Actually, the nominator was SmokeyJoe, and he was posting a comment by Berean Hunter that was made by ANI to start the move request. Both support the move, so lets make sure both their comments (and "Votes" of support, SmokeyJoe above and BereanHunter here) are taken into consideration, and not discarded because of the misguided attempts to diminish the views of others. -Kai445 (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm not attempting to diminish other peoples views. Looking at the nom, there is no indication that SmokeyJoe is quoting Berean Hunter, it looks as if Berean Hunter has made the nomination. Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support seeing that yogurt is common (or at least acceptable) in both British and American english, using that spelling is an oppurtunity for commonality. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Are we voting again? I am always going to lend my voice to ending this. SUPPORT SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Support Per the summary table above which shows clear support of move per WP:COMMONNAME, it is reasonable to move to Yogurt. Also previous NOCONSENSUS should have resulted in a move per WP:RETAIN. -Kai445 (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. My only hesitation in voting at all is that lots of "my spelling vs. your spelling" votes tend to exacerbate the all-too-prevalent misunderstandings and tensions between people of different nationalities. I practice what I preach: I'm American, but I carefully check for British, Canadian and Australian spellings in the relevant articles (because I do a lot of copyediting ... but also because I really believe that we should all make an effort to make everyone feel equally welcome here). But I think we're dealing with a WP:COMMONNAME here, per Kai (above) and others: the "yogurt" spelling seems to be predominant internationally. My top goal here is to make less work for people, and whenever you use a spelling that a lot of newbies are going to revert ... regardless of who's "right" or "wrong" ... it just makes more work for everyone. - Dank (push to talk) 18:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC) and drives away good-faith editors.
  • Support Yogurt is clearly the more common spelling, as supported by the above dictionary sources, as well as the total usage statistics from Google books. It was also the original spelling of the article title. Torchiest talkedits 21:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article has been stable at an acceptable spelling with a clear explanation in it of variations in usage. All proposals for moving it have ended in deadlock, and there has not even been one for two years. Now a group of editors reject the self-evidently appropriate close as no consensus—of which it is a textbook case—and threaten to keep on agitating until it gets moved. There is no justification for revisiting the same move proposal immediately. The situation remains no consensus and my earlier argument based on a careful search to examine whether usage had changed stands and is not affected by threats or all the accusations of bias that have been slung. I hope some of those who regard the current spelling as wrong will put some fraction of the energy into defending this article against vandalism or finding additional references for it, but since yet another move vote has been called, here's my own abuse of time and server space. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've just come to this page within the last day or two and I have found a basis which is clear to me and apparently new information to these discussions. It is a new argument that is that I note you have not made an argument against. I also note that nothing in your opposition cites policy or guidelines....looks like "I don't like it" to me. Consensus can change.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not a new argument at all. COMMONNAME does not trump ENGVAR – otherwise aluminium would be moved to aluminum (and countless others). It is also worth noting that Google, as an American company, will have an inherent US bias. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
COMMONNAME is a policy...ENGVAR is just a guideline isn't it? I believe that Google has taken the measure of all english language books that they could get. Claiming that they are biased seems a bit far-fetched.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 04:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
See my reply to Dank below. And, yes, Google does have an inherent bias – try any common Brit Eng v Am Eng spelling difference in an ngram and you will find the Am Eng one always "wins" (generally by 2:1). Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Again ... I support ENGVAR, not just in theory, but in practice ... Milhist has a lot of Australian editors that I have learnt from (see!) and support. But this isn't a Google bias, everyone comes up with the same figures, AmEng spellings (particularly those shared by Canadians) predominate internationally by about 2 to 1. That's actually rather the point here ... the predominance is only 2 to 1, so when the ngram for Yogurt vs. Yoghurt (uppercase) through 2008 comes up at 7 or 8 to 1, with a clear trend that shows it's probably already more than that, that means we're not just talking about an American spelling. - Dank (push to talk) 16:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure you do, Dank (I've seen your great copyediting work). My reading is actually about 4:1, but I get your point. My question is: if this is moved to the spelling that is apparently also acceptable in the UK, will the spelling of other words in the article also change to Am Eng, or will we keep Brit Eng text with the Am Eng title? Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Might that be because about twice as many books are published in AmE than BrE? :-) ― A. di M.​  19:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm honestly curious, A. di M., is that true? Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't actually know, but the US has about five times as many citizens as the UK and I can see no obvious reason why the average number of books published per person wouldn't be the same order of magnitude in both countries. The fact that Australia, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand etc. (and, for certain words, Canada) usually use British spellings would bring the total ratio closer to unity. In other words, I can't be 100% sure that the “English” corpus in Google Ngrams is completely unbiased, but the evidence doesn't make me think it's likely to be biased by more than about a factor of two. ― A. di M.​  13:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
PS: In the pie chart in List of countries by English-speaking population#List in order of native speakers the US slice does seem to be roughly twice as large as the rest, even though the data (according to the file name) are 14 years old, different countries likely use slightly different definitions of native speaker, etc. ― A. di M.​  13:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, can you explain why it was moved from another spelling to this one with consensus? Also please explain how you can say it is stable at this name despite the never ending requests to return the article to the original name per policy? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that this argument has gone on more than long enough and hope it ends soon. 8 years of arguing is just too much! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 22:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support—I don't understand how it can stay here, given ENGVAR. ENGVAR enjoys broad community support. Also, in a world without ENGVAR, I would support per COMMONNAME and COMMONALITY. The latter is the point that yogurt is a more universal spelling; in regions in which it is spelt yoghurt the other spelling of yogurt doesn't seem odd, but not vice versa. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    As an exercise, I just asked five of my mates how they would spell yoghurt. They all answered with y-o-g-h-u-r-t and all said that not using the h would be odd (and three actually told me that not using h would be equivalent to spelling colour without the u). I know that is OR-y, but your claim that yogurt doesn't seem odd to (at least Australians) is not true. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    That doesn't surprise me; I think there's evidence—not just anecdotes—in earlier discussions about this here to back up my point. But in any case, I'm not trying to argue that in some regions yoghurt is not the common spelling ala color/colour. In fact, I'm arguing that this is a regional thing, which is why it needs to be moved back. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    Fair enough, Erik. I guess we just disagree on whether the h spelling is established or not and will be unable to convince each other. Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The conflict about this title has been raging for seven years, ever since the article was surreptitiously moved from Yogurt to Yoghurt on Christmas Day, 2003[41] for the most dubious and laughable of reasons ("I think it would be more phonetically accurate to use the yoghurt spelling in the article since it more closely suggests the proper pronunciation")[42]. See also: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. The "Yoghurt" title has never had consensus support, but consensus is clear that the ENGVAR "ceasefire" does not apply here, for a variety of reasons. The arguments supporting Yogurt overwhelm the arguments supporting Yoghurt. Restoring the original title per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN is the only way to finally end this seven-year-long conflict, because once the article is moved, there will be no basis for a YogurtYoghurt move. Anyone genuinely interested in ending this crazy, crazy situation must support this proposal. Opposing this move, is, according to Einstein, the definition of insanity. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, most especially per WP:COMMONALITY. Why? Ngrams can be restricted to British results. When this is done, you can see that both spellings are accepted and acceptable in Britain. Given that, let's use the spelling that has the most common ground: "yogurt". Dohn joe (talk) 23:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Are British and American the only two varieties of English? Out of interest, why does Australian English have less weight than American and British? Is it because Australia has a smaller population? If so, we should just move all articles to American spelling (or perhaps Indian :) Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • You know, I was going to mention Australia, but ngrams can only be restricted to American and English results. I was hoping that I could make a broader point without explicit mention of every variety of English. Dohn joe (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Well, India does have a large English population. It does seem that Yogurt is prevalent there, though. As for Australia, the Australian Dairy Farmers Council has standardized on "Yogurt" and you will likely find pots of "Yogurt" at your local market (based on many, but certainly not all, labels I've found of products in Australia). -Kai445 (talk) 06:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per my previous comments on latest move proposal. --Laveol T 23:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support The arguments summarized above make everything very clear.--SexyKick 00:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to most common spelling. . .and a close of "no consensus" should revert this article to the original title. After all, if a consensus had been required from the beginning, this would have never been moved. "Yogurt" appears to be the most prolific form anywhere. Ridiculous, R. Baley (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, no, not again. Leave it where it is; we do not adopt American spellings just because there are more Americans than Brits. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • PMA, that's true, and it would be a good rebuttal to the common name argument, except for two things. First, "yogurt" is not just the American spelling - it's recognized and used in all English-speaking countries (much more so, than, say, "color" is in "colour" countries). Second, this is not the reason this move is being proposed and supported. We also don't adopt non-American spellings just because one editor considers the non-American spelling to be more phonetically correct, yet that's the only reason ever given for moving this article from its original spelling at Yogurt, to Yoghurt[43]. That's why and how this conflict started, and why it has raged for almost eight years now. So the main reason for this move is to restore the original title in order to end this conflict. See Moriori's !vote just next. --01:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Yes, I know. But yoghurt is also American usage, if less common. Original editor is only intended to be decisive for articles which have never been stable so we cannot stick with established usage. This change removes a minor rhetorical point, that British spellings are welcome, in order to satisfy editors whose imagination of yog[h]urt does not extend beyond Dannon's. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Hi Sept. I'm not following ... doesn't that graph show a 0.000003% prevalence for "yoghurt"? Here's the graph for both spellings. - Dank (push to talk) 04:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC) tweaked my link to cover 1965 to the most recent year, why are some people using outdated info? 15:42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • PMA: did you not notice my ngram above, which was restricted to British English, and shows that both spellings are quite common in Britain - and that, in fact, in certain years "yogurt" seems to have been more prevalent? Doesn't it make sense to use a spelling that is acceptable in all English-speaking countries? Dohn joe (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
          • It does make sense to use a spelling found on both sides of the Atlantic; fortunately, we already have one. These efforts to appease those too provincial to recognize this, or the people who have invented their own private policy, are not helpful to the encyclopedia. Educate those who can be educated; ignore those who can't.
    • If we do not adopt American spellings, then why should we adopt British spellings? This article was renamed to include the "h", it originally did not have it. Why should British spelling get extra special support? (talk) 13:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Saw a mention of this at ANI but am previously totally uninvolved. Having spent a lot of time going through the copious history, I can't help but feel that only a rename might end this incredible saga. I agree with the poster who said that as long as the title is Yoghurt there will always be rename requests because the title was originally yogurt, and yogurt is clearly the most common spelling. But if the article was called yogurt there would be no reason to request a name change because neither original-title nor most-common-spelling would apply, and there are no other compelling reasons AFAICS. Moriori (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, whilst imploring the closer to make clear that arguments centred around the number of US-speakers carry absolutely no weight. WP:RETAIN is the best way to sort out naming disputes where strong national ties to one variety of English do not exist, or where it cannot be shown that most of the world uses one form. In this case, the first significant contributor used American English, and there was no compelling reason to change to another form. If the reverse were true I would forcefully argue the reverse. —WFC— 01:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • You misunderstand the guidance. It is to retain what we have, unless there has been continual edit-warring; that's why it's called WP:RETAIN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The only reason there isn't current warring is a technicality - editors without admin privileges cannot move these titles. But it doesn't say "unless there is current edit-warrning" anyway - it says "stable". What we do have is eight years of dismay, discontent, debate and conflict. In that context, to call the current title "stable", which has never had consensus support, is to use a definition of stability that is not very practical. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Yes, we've had eight years of POV-pushing, of at least two sorts:
          • "We must use American spelling, because I use it, even though other people disagree."
          • "We must always use the most common spelling, because I would like the policies to say so, even though they don't." Other people disagree with this too.
        • Both these groups are harmful to the encyclopedia; both should have been squelched long since. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Again, that would all be valid if the well wasn't poisoned when the article was first moved, pointlessly, from Yogurt to Yoghurt. Because of that, whether people's reasons are what you say they are or not (and let's not forget to AGF), it doesn't matter. The fact remains that the original move violated ENGVAR, which has advised, even in 2003, against that kind of move precisely to avoid what has happened here since. That's what should have been rectified a long time ago. Better late than never. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
          • To add to what B2C said, both of the "points" made are simply false premises. Nobody has said either. Your argument is really not relevant to the discussion because it's not rooted in truth. -Kai445 (talk) 04:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
            Spare me. Both are held in this discussion. But I should add the POV that we must undo a hypothetical wrong committed, if at all, in 2003. I realize that some editors are incapable of giving up; but Wikipedia would benefit from a statute of limitations. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
            The wrong is not hypothetical at all. Not at the time, and not once in the eight years hence, has anyone justified that move. Because "yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct"? Please. Even if that were true, it wouldn't justify a move, I presume you agree. And yet that's all that has ever even been offered as a justification. You can't reasonably argue that this proposed move is wrong, without recognizing that the original move was wrong for the reasons you're trying to apply here (no, two wrongs don't make a right, but this is being done to correct a wrong). We shouldn't reward the wrong, no matter how long it has been.

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

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

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

      You omit an entire paragraph. The bright line is:
      When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.
      There are occasions where no usage is established, and for them we fall back on first contributor, having nothing else; but the text of this article is in British English.
      There are no valid reasons for this change; yoghurt does not have strong national ties to the United States, and there is no ambiguity. Some might suggest that this explains the rash of procedural arguments here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • It is laughable to suggest that consistent usage has been established in the article. Regardless, the simplest way to resolve this sort of issue throughout the project is to create an environment where barring strong reasons not to, the variety of English is set in stone by the first person to bother writing about a subject. If this approach were applied more consistently and forcefully throughout Wikipedia, the majority RMs like this would die off overnight, and most of the rest would be SNOW closures. —WFC— 01:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support WP:ENGVAR -- first nonstub version was situated at "yogurt" before someone renamed it to the British spelling. Further per WP:COMMONALITY the version used in more types of English is "yogurt". And per WP:COMMONNAME, the more common version in most types of English that use both spellings is "yogurt". (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While I'm sure it is good faith, the nomination is completely misguided – COMMONNAME does not trump ENGVAR. Please see Talk:Yoghurt/Archive 5#Google results table, which gives a useful summary. As can be seen academic sources (the sources we should be following for writing an encyclopedia) in the UK and Australia still vastly prefer the h spelling (6:1 and 4.5:1 respectively). Also, the Macquarie Dictionary, probably the most authoritative source on Australian English, uses the h spelling. Many of the above have mentioned WP:RETAIN, but that is not me reading of the guideline. Here's what I see: "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary." This article has been consistently at the h spelling for the past eight years (with breaks of a few hours at most). We have an established spelling, so there is no need to use the first non-stub version as a tie-breaker. Jenks24 (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Per the previous RM, NOCONSENSUS should have moved the article back per ENGVAR. Established? You are ignoring the history of the article to delude yourself into believing that. -Kai445 (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
What do you mean by "Per the previous RM"? Do you mean the RM established that (if so, I disagree), or per your comments at that RM? Anyway, as I've said the spelling has been established for eight years and that every year or so one or two people kick up a fuss does not mean that the spelling is somehow not established. Jenks24 (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm a bit out of my depth here, but in general, policy (COMMONNAME) is supposed to trump guidelines (ENGVAR) where the two conflict or appear to conflict. - Dank (push to talk) 04:47, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree that, in general, policy > guideline, but if we take that as true in this case we may as well not have ENGVAR at all. The entire point of ENGVAR is that there are different varieties of English and we pick one and stick with it – if we say that COMMONNAME trumps it then it's pointless because we'll just end up counting google hits (e.g. aluminium will be moved to aluminum because, according to this ngram, it's twice as common). But there are countless examples of ENGVAR having precedence over COMMONNAME at RMs (they are a pain to find, though, as RM does not have an archival system). On an unrelated note, I see that many above are claiming that they have ngrams that show the non-h spelling to be more common in Brit Eng books, but looking at this ngram, I see the complete opposite. Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
"The entire point of ENGVAR is that there are different varieties of English and we pick one and stick with it". Yes, and the problem here is that we did pick one, "yogurt", but we didn't stick with it, and we had no good reason to switch. This proposal, if it succeeds, will rectify that, finally, and will settle this conflict once and for all. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Who cares if someone changed it eight years ago when ENGVAR did not exist? The point is, we've had this title for eight years, it is clearly established, and it is against ENGVAR to move it (for a very good reason – to try and avoid these ridiculously long debates). Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Try reading the policy. COMMONNAME is only one possible argument, of many. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, and there are several other arguments favoring "yogurt", including conciseness and recognizability. But here's the thing, on a level playing field, where "yoghurt" does not have default/home advantage, there are no arguments that favor it over "yogurt". The only point favoring "yoghurt" is that it currently happens to be the title, but even that little point must be heavily if not entirely discounted due to the dubious grounds upon which it surreptitiously achieved that status. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, one letter less and it wins on conciseness. Good grief. Jenks24 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
LOL. I thought it was worth noting in the context of PMA's point that there are policy based arguments other than COMMONNAME. You're not going to get a strong such argument for either name, because they're so similar. So, relatively speaking, the slight advantage one gets on conciseness is notable, especially considering that yoghurt does not answer any of the criteria questions better than does yogurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
If the "slight advantage one gets on conciseness" (that is, one letter) actually has any sort of traction in this discussion, then it is way too close to call and should be closed no consensus. Jenks24 (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I support Moxy's awesome userpage. I like it. -Kai445 (talk) 06:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - again. Taking out the "h" is just another example that English-users are getting sloppy and lazy. And this is not a matter of US/UK spelling, so to those editors who are trying to make that a point of contention, leave your nationalism out of this. Boneyard90 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    Yes, let's move all our English language words back a couple years. Because obviously languages don't evolve or anything. Hot Stop talk-contribs 14:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Agree with Hot Stop. Strange that you would oppose the move for those reasons, you are discounting a lot of evidence to support a bad transliteration that is falling out of favour. -Kai445 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Actually "yoghurt" is not a bad transliteration. The Turkish word was "yoğurt" note that the third letter is <ğ> not <g> and the standard transliteration (at least at the time, I'm not sure about now) for <ğ> (which represents /ɰ/ - a velar approximant, a sound not present in English) is/was <gh> not <g>. I know this is not the main part of your argument, but its still better to base your entire reasoning on facts. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I'm sure English will eventually "evolve", and I suppose there's already evidence of that in the texting dialect, but I don't see why it needs to be validated or endorsed. The re-direct and discussion in the article are fine as they are. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
        • "Yogurt" isn't a corruption of the English language, so comparing its usage to texting is a stretch. Dictionaries, dairy trade groups, and manufacturers worldwide use or prefer "yogurt", and if the word was being transliterated any time in the last fifty plus years from Turkish, nobody would be using "gh". Look at the prevalence of books using both spellings on Ngram, using the corpus "English One Million", which is a random sampling of books from each year across all varieties of English (, so books clearly favour "Yogurt" across the English language. Calling editors who support the move lazy and sloppy is a baseless attack, and your opposition should be reassessed. -Kai445 (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I said "English-users" not "editors", so it wasn't an "attack" so much as a "generalization", which still isn't nice on my part but not as focused, or aggressive, as an "attack". And not "baseless" - my opposition is based on a conservative view, but I suppose "baseless" is usually the adjective that often gets attached to "attack". Makes it sound better. Perhaps I will re-assess my opposition, but not today. I am satisfied and stand by it. Boneyard90 (talk) 16:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This comment isn't based on any Wikipdia policy. Is it even worth considering? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Support per Common Name and that the majority of Wikipedia readers would use this spelling variation.--JOJ Hutton 18:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I've seen the arguments of both sides summarized above, and it looks reasonable to me to make the move to yogurt. Lets get on with it already. -Jcask (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)Jcask (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Oppose, because renaming the article or leaving as it is is just covering the problem instead of actually solving it at its root. As has been said uncountable times before both spellings are correct in English dialects, and what is more common depends on where you live on this planet. Since the English Wikipedia is an international project, not a US-centric project (assuming the "Yogurt" variant is more common in the US than it is, for example, in European countries), there is clearly no way to solve the problem by emphasizing/forcing one spelling variant over the other. Therefore it would be an exercise in futility to rename the article and it is just a matter of time before the debate continues in the other way around.
The solution, as I see it, seems to be to have *two* seperate articles, one named "Yoghurt", the other "Yogurt". Of course, this is undesirable because they would look almost the same and it would increase storage space and more than double the maintenance time. But there are technical solutions to this problem, so that the two articles could still be edited in a single place.
For example, it might be possible to patch the Mediawiki software so that it becomes possible to add a pipe argument to a redirect as in this hypothetical example:
This could at least change the page title. All occurances of Yoghurt/Yogurt in the article could be replaced by a automatically defined system variable derived from the page title (I would have to look this up, it is likely that such a variable already exists). This way, we would end up with one generic physical article which has two "view modes", either as Yoghurt and Yogurt. Example:
Article "Yogurt" contents:
#redirect [[Yoghurt|Yogurt]]
Article "Yoghurt" contents:
Actual contents of the combined article with all occurances of Yoghurt and Yogurt replaced by {{PAGENAME}} (or a similar new magic word like {{TITLEPAGENAME}})
It might be possible to achieve the same without changing the software (if sub-pages were enabled in article mainspace -- currently, they are not, though) simply by moving the whole article's contents into a template/sub-page and transcluding its contents from there into two (otherwise empty) main articles named Yoghurt and Yogurt, which just invoke the template/sub-page. The spelling variant to be used would have to be defined as a template parameter. Example:
Article "Yogurt" contents:
Article "Yoghurt" contents:
Article "Yoghurt/Spelling_Variants" contents:
Actual contents of the combined article with all occurances of Yoghurt and Yogurt replaced by {{{1}}}.
Since sub-pages are not currently enabled in mainspace, we'd have to resort to something similar but more cumbersome. Example:
Article "Yogurt" contents:
Article "Yoghurt" contents:
Actual contents of the combined article with all occurances of Yoghurt and Yogurt replaced by {{#if:{{{1}}} | {{{1}}} | {{PAGENAME}} }}. It should be possible to move this construct into a generic Template, but it might be a bit tricky since we'd have to define a named variable (by transcluding from self without recursion). I haven't tested the right now, but something along this line should be possible to implement so that usage would be mostly transparent in the end from a user's perspective.
This would not only solve this eight year old debate, but also all similar AE/BE/etc. spelling problems. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Matthias, you ignore the fact that we have countless articles in WP with titles that have a different spelling in another variant but yet are stable. Why the difference? Because most (if not all) of those articles never had their titles changed without establishing consensus for the change, and that's what happened here. Your opposition to this proposal is based on the assumption that "it would be an exercise in futility to rename the article and it is just a matter of time before the debate continues in the other way around", and, yet, the evidence indicates that other similar articles that are at the title originally given to the article, like Color and Aluminium, remain reasonably stable. Say what you will of the arguments made in favor of the proposed move, but you cannot deny that at least some of them are arguably reasonable. The same cannot be said for any arguments that might be made to support a YogurtYoghurt move (disagree, what would such an argument be?). In fact, I suspect this is why the opposition to these proposals has always been so strong. Those who favor the "yoghurt" spelling must know in their hearts that if the article is ever moved, it will definitely be over, and they will have lost their precious h forever. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This is not a US vs. UK issue, since Yogurt is used in the UK (and sold as Yogurt by top brands, and the UK dairy trade uses "Yogurt"). So the entire proposal is irrelevant. -Kai445 (talk) 21:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I don't really approve of this or any other attempt to do an end-run around ENGVAR.—S Marshall T/C 01:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    • It is ironic and hypocritical to use an argument against ENGVAR end-runs in order to oppose a proposal which is a remedy per WP:RETAIN to the 2003 ENGVAR end-run [44][45]. Oh. I note from your user page that you're a British Wikipedian. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
      • The edit in March 2003 couldn't possibly have been an end-run around ENGVAR, because ENGVAR wasn't enforceable until it was introduced into the MOS in October 2003 (and specifically in this diff). The "yoghurt" spelling then became the stable version. I'm somewhat amused that you're taking such careful note of my country of origin, but I assure you that I'm not part of the Evil British Plot To Confuse You With Weird Spellings.—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
        • The original move was in bad faith even if the policy didn't exist yet. I assure you not everyone that is for the move is not part of an evil American Plot To Destroy The World By Renaming This Article. I am also an ardent supporter of Aluminium :). I feel this move has merit. As for B2C, I think he is frustrated and lashing out, he's been arguing a long time, try and pay him no mind. -Kai445 (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm intrigued. What makes you think the original move was in bad faith?—S Marshall T/C 02:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
            • My reasoning was basically... There are actions that take place that are frowned upon by the community, enough so that we need guidelines or policies (engvar) to deal with them. If someone performed those same frowned upon actions, but policy wasn't written, could they still have been acting in good faith? It would be obvious to me that people were causing enough of an issue for the rules to have been written in the first place... so those same actions must have been deemed negative, thus policy was drafted. Maybe I'm not being clear, but I think you should have an idea. -Kai445 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
              • I understand where you're coming from but I don't know if I agree with you. It's hard for me to view an edit from March 2003 in its proper context because I didn't even register an account until 2006, by which time ENGVAR was fully-formed. I can imagine that the person who made the edit back then might have felt that he was doing it in good faith. He seems to have been genuinely concerned about pronunciation. It seems bizarre to us now through the lens of all that's happened since, but maybe, back then, it all might have made more sense. Incidentally, the spelling I learned in school was "yoghourt".—S Marshall T/C 03:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
                • Struck my "oppose". Might as well let the yanks have this one regardless of ENGVAR; they just want it more.—S Marshall T/C 18:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing break

  • Strong Support It’s clear that the predominant English-language spelling isyogurt at a relative proportion of 140 to 44. Moreover, none other than the secondary American RS The New York Times always spells it “yogurt”. So too does Britain’s The Telegraph (a British secondary RS). In fact, searching The New York Times for “yoghurt” returns “Did you mean Yogurt?” Furthermore, the major manufacturers of yogurt (primary RSs) for English-speaking peoples Dannon, here and Yoplait, here spell it “yogurt”. Finally, most-reliable English-language secondary RSs such as the Food network and Alton Brown spell it “yogurt”. Since the dominant English-language spelling is “yogurt”, and since this is en.Wikipedia, the article should be moved (article title changed) to “Yogurt” and the body text should use “yogurt” exclusively. That there are other spellings on this pale blue dot would best be addressed as a near-parenthetical aside later in the article. Greg L (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. No, it's nothing to do with how many Americans there are. No, it's nothing to do with how much wikilawyering people can do over WP:ENGVAR, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RETAIN, etc. It's all about shutting up this utter waste of everyone's time that has been going in for eight <expletive deleted> years! "Yogurt" is the US spelling, it's common here in the UK (I have some "Lancashire Farm Yogurt" in my fridge - Lancashire!), and it looks like it's predominant in India. So, forgetting all the lawyering and obfuscation, "Yogurt" makes more sense - the article should be moved, and can have the alternative spelling in the opening sentence. Then we can go back to our lives - we do all have them, don't we? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak support per WP:COMMONALITY – yogurt is common enough everywhere, whereas yoghurt is rare in the US[46][47][48] (even though we do have article titles such as Industrialisation that don't follow my own reading of WP:COMMONALITY). ― A. di M.​  19:40, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support There appears to be a reasonable consensus for this move. The summary of arguments in support gives clear support for a move per WP:COMMONNAME. -TamaDrumz76 (talk) 20:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)TamaDrumz76 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Support per overwhelming evidence of the lack of an 'h' in the vast, vast majority of usages of the word in the English-speaking world, and per WP:COMMON, and maybe per WP:COMMONNAME, but mostly per WP:COMMON and the overwhelming evidence part. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:Engvar, WP:Retain, WP:Commonality and WP: Commonname. It is clear that worldwide, "yogurt" is the most common spelling. It is also where the article was originally placed. Previous move to this location was done arbitrarily without discussion. Yworo (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The current title is a correct spelling of the topic of the article, in some variety of English, and it's been the title for a long time. Leave well enough alone. If you have to go digging in the history to determine that the current title is a problem, then it's not a problem except for those who are looking for problems. Looking for problems is not the point of Wikipedia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GTB, I appreciate that you want to leave well enough alone and oppose for that reason. However, it doesn't work because the H title is shocking to casual readers and results in endless questions on the talk page. When you look at the archives the endless questioning of the title doesn't come from established users acting belligerent, but from IP addresses and casual editors who stumble upon it. The title itself is disruptive because so many English readers will 'sound it out' like a new word. It's not simply different spelling, it affects what they expect. It's because of this shock to casual readers that I am supporting the move. It will end the bickering. Leaving 'well enough alone' will not, no matter how eloquently argued. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
Hi Schmucky. :) I respectfully disagree with your dire prediction. There is a way to achieve stability at the slightly more surprising (to some English speakers) title. Stick a FAQ at the top of the talk page explaining that "yoghurt" is a perfectly acceptable spelling, and that we've got an agreement on Wikipedia not to ever argue about changes between perfectly acceptable spellings of English words. When the principle is explained clearly, and when the community agrees to uphold the principle, it can work.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote: "I'm surprised to be saying it, but I'm convinced. Enough factors are aligned in the "no h" direction, that I think moving this page will actually be in the interest of stability.
If this move goes through, let's remain alert to potential use of this case as precedent in order to change more regional variations into the numerically dominant version. As a general policy, that would be greatly at odds with NPOV, and problematic in other ways as well. This case is a bit of an outlier. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)".

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Actually, I think the "numerical superiority" argument is a wash and would be even if it wasn't ruled out by ENGVAR. "American English" and "British English" are both misnomers---the correct term for the dialect where "color" is thus spelt is "US English" and the correct term for the dialect that spells it "colour" is "Commonwealth English". Commonwealth English is what prevails in India, so I suspect that the majority of English speakers spell it "yoghurt". But I agree that per ENGVAR numerical superiority shouldn't matter anyway.—S Marshall T/C 01:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle I expect better of you. I suggest that you look at this and then consider if you own me an apology for your statement. Whether you intended it or not you imply that my motives for closing were base, (because by linking me to one side of the argument you imply I am in favour of the current name). If so, the one time when I expressed an opinion on the issue which was back on 12 May 2005, I explicitly stated that I supported moving it back to primary author usage. My reason for closing this debate is what I stated it to be, because it was initiated too soon after the last RM. It sets a very bad precedent and I am amazed that in the interest of the project someone like yourself -- who has been in many of these debates -- would think it OK to reopen a debate, and then argue for it to be kept open for a short term tactical gain so soon after the last RM over this article. -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Just who in the world do you think you are, PBS? Over 30 editors were debating in good faith and doing their best to figure out what microscope to use to best resolve this matter and you took it upon yourself to decide that some sort of precedent with “the way things are typically done” entitles you to 1) shut down discussion, 2) tell everyone here that they have better things to do on Wikipedia (literally; you really told that to us all), 3) that somehow, what we were all doing was “disruptive” (a clear threat), and 4) unilaterally declared that when at least six months have passed, then maybe you will permit the mere minions who labor in your shadow to again discuss this matter…maybe, depending on how high the furrow in your brow is and how pouted your lip is. You might as well de‑sysop yourself and save the community the trouble. Your actions were as arrogant as they were unconscionable and your efforts to posture your way to the high road on this are pathetic to even witness. Greg L (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
It is not unusual for an uninvolved administrator to close a new RM when it is opened shortly after one has closed (as is true also for RfDs etc). See for example another example in the archives of this article: Talk:Yoghurt/Archive 5#No Consensus. Usually if such a close is made, and other editors think it wrong, rather than reverting the decision on the talk page of the article a request is put into ANI and if there is a consensus from uninvolved parties to revert the close then that is done. -- PBS (talk) 06:22, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, that was pretty bad too, but at least it was closed after only about 12 hours of its opening, before more than a few participated, and when the previous closer did not explicitly condone an immediate re-opening. Again, that you don't see fundamental differences here is evidence of why you should turn in your admin privileges, as several people have recommended. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. PBS’s failure to exhibit contrition here betrays either an inability to see when he is wrong, or the inability to admit when he is wrong. I suspect it is more likely the later. It took me until I was in my early 40s to discover the power of ultra-quickly admitting fault to one’s boss when one really screws the pooch; it works like magic. PBS is damned lucky that the community can not directly recall admins; I understand that process is in place in the other-language Wikipedias and works quite well. Greg L (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
PBS, a personal preference for the h is merely the mostly likely explanation for your behavior (your support of the move to yogurt in 2005 makes that less likely). But regardless of the true motivation, your behavior was totally and completely unacceptable. If I or any other previously involved editor started this new RM, then maybe a quick close would have been justified, within the first few hours. But even that would worthy of an AN/I challenge because not only was the previous close "no consensus", but the closing admin explicitly invited even involved editors to start a new proposal right away. But days later, with dozens contributing, and a proposal/discussion started by previously uninvolved editors? No. Way.

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

  • Neutral on move (but oppose if it is based on the nominator's rationale). Some comments:
  1. I have no strong opinion on whether this article should be moved or not; however, once again, I will reiterate that the decision must be based on WP:ENGVAR (not WP:COMMONNAME, as the nominator has suggested). That is, if the use of yoghurt in the article is deemed to be "established" (because it has used yoghurt since 2003, despite the controversy), it should remain at Yoghurt; if the use of yoghurt in the article is not deemed to be "established" (because of the perennial challenges that have occurred since the original yogurtyoghurt spelling change), it should be moved to Yogurt. It is entirely unacceptable to use WP:COMMONNAME as the justification for the move, given that how "common" yogurt is judged to be depends on the variety of English one uses.
  2. From discussions in recent months, it is clear that there is still disagreement about whether or not yoghurt has been "established" in this article (this includes multiple administrators who have argued either way). Whether or not the article is to be moved, a conclusion should be reached about whether yoghurt has become established, as applying WP:ENGVAR (WP:RETAIN) is dependent on this judgment ("When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary ... When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety."). WP:NOCONSENSUS ("If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept"), which has been argued to favour the status quo, has also been discussed above.
  3. Yoghurt is not the "British" spelling and yogurt is not the "American" spelling: it is not a simple choice as with, for example, color or colour. Rather, as has been shown in the summary table above, yoghurt is more common in Australian and British English whereas yogurt is more common in American and Canadian English (per The Cambridge Guide to English Usage), but both yoghurt and yogurt are listed as acceptable and non-regionalized spellings by the sample of English-language dictionaries that has been presented in the table.
  4. The first non-stub version of the article [49] consistently used yogurt, -ize (as in pasteurized), and -re (as in litre). If the article is to be moved to Yogurt, it would therefore appear most appropriate, per WP:ENGVAR, for the article to use British English following the Concise Oxford (because these are the forms preferred by the Concise Oxford).
Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm with you until the end... your conclusion that the article should use British English. The only British English spelling on the page is "litre", and I suspect that was a misspelling or typo, especially because the home page of user of the original version, Collabi (talk · contribs), mentions being a contributor to the Spanish wikipedia. Someone fluent in Spanish is likely to spell "liter" as "litre" even in American English. All of the other spellings on that initial version are consistent with American spelling, and were changed to be consistent with British English some years later[50]. So it's pretty clear that despite "litre" the original variant of English of the article was American English. --Born2cycle (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually that first non-stub version looks pretty consistent with Canadian English based on my limited knowledge and our article. The key thing to establish though is not which variety of English was used, but whether the article has been "established" here since 2003 or not. Once there is agreement on that question everything else should slot into place fairly easily (it would be mighty hard to argue that the page should be at yoghurt and that it should be written in American English, for example). Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
And Collabi's page does not mention that he is a contributor to the Spanish Wikipedia, just that they have a basic understanding of the language (indeed there are no contributions recorded under that user name on I rate my abilities in German and Welsh at the same level as Collabi rates their Spanish (level 1). I am not fluent enough in those languages to be a significant contributor to either cy.wikipedia or de.wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Nah, don't mind that. The most important thing is to comment on contributors, not on content. Especially if you could base every argument on the contributor's nationality. Sorry for the sarcasm but that must be the 10th time I see Born2cycle comment on someone's nationality like it is the centre of the whole argument. --Laveol T 14:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I think Thryduulf is correct about the original style. By this edit I think that the user may have be Canadian. So that makes the article written as yogurt, -ize, and litre? That is reasonable. -Kai445 (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I see what you mean. Well, then, perhaps we should revert the whole article to Canadian English spelling and add this to the talk page... Template:Canadian English. But probably not while this discussion is underway... --Born2cycle (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Thryduulf, you are absolutely correct: by actual usage (not dictionary preferences), yogurt, -ize, and -re are all the most commonly used spellings in Canadian English; the same cannot be said for either American or British English.
Born2cycle: If the article is moved to Yogurt, brought into consistent Canadian English, and the Template:Canadian English is added, my only suggestion would be that the template should be modified (perhaps similarly to the one on Talk:Authorized King James Version?) to make it clear that "Canadian English" would mean "Canadian English following the most commonly used spellings in Canada", not "Canadian English following the preferred forms in the Canadian Oxford Dictionary". (Usually, of course, such a distinction would not be necessary, because when dealing with classical American–British spelling differences the Canadian Oxford typically prioritizes the most common Canadian spelling; however, on an article titled Yogurt and labelled as using Canadian English, I think clarification might be useful, because the Canadian Oxford prefers the bilingual yogourt over the more commonly used yogurt.) In the context of concerns that this article has become a place for "fighting the Anglo-American wars", the advantage of choosing Canadian English would be that it combines American and British spelling preferences: it would mean, for example, that British flavoured would be retained, but American diarrhea would be adopted (diarrh(o)ea is currently spelled inconsistently in the article in any case!). Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per my previous comments on this subject, the ngram graph linked earlier, and to end the cycle of disputes over this topic. –xenotalk 15:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support due to WP:Engvar, WP:Retain, WP:Commonality and WP: Commonname. It seems that the only policy-based argument against the move is based on a reading of WP:Retain which (1) assumes that the last 8 years of discontent on this article are sufficient to call this article stable; and (2) assumes that this discussion will end as "no consensus". The first assumption seems silly to me, at best, seeing as this article is name-checked among the most hotly contested named articles on Wikipedia. The second ignores that both the weight of the arguments and the weight of the votes currently look like a strong consensus to move. As many have stated above, once this move occurs, barring a dramatic reversal in how English speakers around the globe use this term, there will be literally no argument which can be made to move the article back to the current spelling. This should put a wooden stake into the heart of this disagreement.LedRush (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I'd instinctively spell the word Yoghurt myself, but going into a central London supermarket on Sunday, every single manufacturer I could see on the shelf used the spelling "yogurt" -- including Waitrose own brand, Rachel's, Yeo, Müller, Dr Onken, Danone Activia, Nestlé Ski, Weight Watchers, even the couple of small-scale farmhouse organic brands they had. That convinces me that this is not a matter of ENGVAR, and the article should be retitled. Jheald (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Observation - this has to be the lamest move discussion I have ever read. I really hope that it is archived for posterity. – ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I wouldn't say it's the lamest; this is all pretty typical of the various move discussions. --moof (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per ENGVAR and RETAIN. (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • This single contribution IP seems suspicious, but I note it's registered in Norway, which makes it less suspicious, I think[51]. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Umm, how exactly is it less suspicious? What do you suspect it of? --Laveol T 21:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Just being a single-edit IP contributing to an RM discussion is always a bit suspicious, I think. Some kind of socking, perhaps. The issue has been raised with several other named accounts that have participated here; it's one of the subsections in the Yog(h)urt AN/I. So it made me wonder about this one. Probably more than enough discussion here about this. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Thryduulf really has you seeing ghosts, doesn't he? Don't assume there is any wrongdoing on behalf of anyone. IP's make tons of helpful edits every day (and some vandalism... but obviously if the good didn't outweigh the bad, we wouldn't let IP's edit). Lets AGF of this IP. Just calm down. Jeez. -Kai445 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to yogurt. The number of RSs demonstrate that is the dominant spelling. (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support move to yogurt. Not only the reliable sources (including the OED and The Telegraph) and the usage by the manufacturers, but the simple fact that the article originally used the spelling "yogurt" (without a clear distinction of national origin, since there is a mixture of spellings and measurements throughout the article after the first three edits by the article's creator), and the fact that the article was located at Yogurt for quite some time before it was moved (apparently without discussion) and since then, a small group of people have lobbied hard to block any attempt to return it to where it was originally located. The only reason it is located at Yoghurt is because of the out-or-process move, which NEVER had consensus support (witness the repeated attempts to move it back to where it started.) For what it's worth, User:Philip Baird Shearer (whose actions here have been widely criticized this week) was one of the editors who supported the first discussion to move the article back to its original location. Horologium (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Horologium; I didn’t know that about PBS’s original position on the details of the spelling. But what he did, despite that sentiment (waltz in here, pronounce that the scores of editors civilly discussing how to best apply Wikipedia’s rules and guidelines were actually being “disruptive”, admonishing everyone here that he would not allow anyone to raise the issue again for six months, closing the discussion, and—after thinking that someone who gave him guff wasn’t an admin—protecting a talk page from anyone but admins) was way out of bounds.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Support per WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME. Rlendog (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support per RETAIN; it should never have been moved from Yogurt. COMMONNAME is irrelevant given the history. It's just sad that people have spent so many years arguing about that instead of focusing on the real point and getting it fixed. Maybe the problem is that RM requires "consensus" to undo a non-consentual move. Dicklyon (talk) 06:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. Not sure ENGVAR really applies as the history is so tangled, so let's dispense with ENGVAR and return to the policy on common English names. That is clearly Yogurt, not Yoghurt, and so the article should return to Yogurt. Nathan T 15:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Not much more I can say that hasn't been was originally at the other spelling so lets put it back there and end all this bickering. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Support removal of the unnecessary “h”, there is just no good reason to use “yoghurt”. MTC (talk) 08:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    According to that logic (especially your edit summary) you would spell ghost or honour or Thomas with no H either. :-) ― A. di M.​  11:05, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    You listed three very different words there: “ghost” is spelled that way in every dialect of English, so spelling it “gost” is unfortunately not an option, as it is wrong in all varieties of English. Equally, “honour” never has the h dropped in English so, again, doing so would be wrong (though I do drop the “u”, as “honor” is a better spelling and is actually used in English). And Thomas is a name, its spelling is nothing to do with use of language, if a particular person wants to spell their name “Thomas”, it is incorrect to drop the h in their name. MTC (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    The difference is that those other words are actually spelled that way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    Not a difference at all. This word is spelled with and without the h. Hence the move debates. there's also yaourt, yoghurd, yogourt, yahourt, yaghourt, yogurd, yoghourt, yooghort, yughard, yughurt, yohourth, yōghurt ... pablo 12:52, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    And "his honor" is sometimes spelled "hizzonner", and "Thomas" is spelled without the "h" in Spanish. Just as "yogurt" is sometimes spelled "yoghurt", et al. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
    a) irrelevant, b) irrelevant, c) more than "sometimes", ( and vice-versa). pablo 14:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Pablo, you never responded in our earlier discussion above, and now you're engaging here? The context here is WP article titles, not the English language in general. That is, when MTS says "there is no good reason for h", he means that in the context of deciding this title, not in the word in general usage. Whether there is good reason for the h in the word in general usage is a question that is not for WP editors to decide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Support per WP:RETAIN, WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME. The comments are in the the previous discussions and above in this renomination. Put this back where it began which just happens to be a name with support in various versions of English. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Like most of the previous move discussions, this has the same entrenched supports and opposes making the same arguments. However, thanks to the thread on WP:ANI, this has, for the first time, gotten a huge influx of new comments, which have almost universally supported moving to Yogurt. I would say that type of consensus among previously uninvolved editors should count for quite a bit. Torchiest talkedits 19:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Actually all editor comments have the same weight. What is suppose to matter is the strength of the arguments. So new or not, should not be an influence on the outcome. However if there are additional comments with strong arguments based in in policy and guidelines, then it can demonstrate that there really is a consensus, one way or the other. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Maybe in theory. In practice admins seem to count (or approximate the count) the votes and then let that determine their evaluation of how strong the arguments are. At least that's how the last RM about this topic seems to have been decided. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
        And we get significant flak for doing otherwise :( ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree with the sentiments of User:Torchiest. Far too often on Wikipedia, weird (read: naive and unwise) little practices are instituted by little cabals of editors who are interested in a remote, backwater specialty subject. All it took was 20 editors some years back and we had “256 mebibytes (MiB) of RAM” instead of the “256 megabytes (MB) of RAM” the rest of the planet used. They were well intentioned editors, thinking that they could use Wikipedia to help effect change in how the real world worked by being first to adopt a proposed standard. All that idiocy with “mebibytes” and “kibibits”, which affected hundreds of articles nearly overnight, was the product of 20-to-6 vote to do something foolish. Even less-wise things are being done today on Wikipedia that are the product of still smaller cabals at RfCs. The only way to correct these wrongs is to widely advertise the RMs and RfCs so that enough editors might weigh in and drown out the cabal wearing their Star Trek uniforms. I am sorry if this simple inconvenient truth offends, but it is still a truth. It would be nice if there was a better way to get wider participation than someone getting an atomic wedgie at an ANI; but I’ll take the proper outcome, no matter how it came about. Greg L (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Wow, Greg, this is so good, I put it on my user page in the great quotes section. Another, and much broader, example of a unilateral cabal decision that was made way back in the early days was when a handful of editors decided to disambiguate all titles of articles about U.S. cities, whether they needed disambiguation or not. They did this because somebody wrote a bot to do it. A few years ago the decision was retracted slightly, by allowing cities on the AP list, like Chicago, San Francisco, etc., to not be disambiguated with the state name. But any other U.S. city, if it has a unique name, like Carmel-by-the-Sea, is never-the-less needlessly disambiguated (e.g., Carmel-by-the-Sea, California) all because of that cabal decision. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

  • Comment I support a move per WP:RETAIN in addition to WP:COMMONNAME. My original RFC a month ago about the improper close didn't result in much, but I think the existing move request is fine as-is. -Kai445 (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Seriously? There's an emerging consensus above to move it, mostly on common name. Now you want to move it based on some misguided understanding of policy? Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    Indeed, there are multiple facets of why a move should be made. I think WP:RETAIN should have been applied the last time, but the closing admin sought fit to do whatever he wanted instead. -Kai445 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
    Hotstop, why is this a misguided reading of policy? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:48, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Well, it hasn't seemed to work in the past. And this whole section sort of undermines the arguments others have made that yogurt is more common. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • This section doesn’t undermine anything. This section presupposes that the last RM discussion focused on COMMONNAME was thorough and that it resulted in “no consensus”. A subsequent development of the yogurt COMMONNAME discussion is independent of the point made here, not contrary to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I'll just point out that all these arguments, and more, are covered in the summary above. As Kai says, there are multiple arguments, mutually reinforcing, that support this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Or rather, there are multiple editors, mutually reinforcing, who support the move. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 07:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
          • COMMONNAME states, "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name. "Yogurt" is most typically used in reliable sources, and "yoghurt" is technically correct, but is a rarer form of the word. A lot rarer, it turns out. It further states, In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." That's where the Google results and major encyclopedias come in. This isn't about "American" spelling: it's about the most common spelling. I don't really see how opposing this based on ENGVAR even applies, as both spellings are used in British English but with an increasing trend towards the "h-less" variety (as the editor who tried to find "yoghurt" in a British market discovered). And as I think someone already pointed out somewhere, even the Australian national services body for dairy farmers and the dairy industry prefers "yogurt" over "yoghurt". The times, they are a'changin'. Doc talk 23:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You made your case, SmokeyJoe. But I disagree that your doing so was at all wise given that it flies in the face of the clear and developing consensus in this RM. Yeah, I hear your message. But in my mind, it amounts to “Always respect the style of the first major contributor.” While that makes editors who would otherwise fight until the heat death of the universe to retain the spelling he or she is accustomed to using in their little hamlet, that ship has sailed in this instance. I’ve seen editors voting “oppose” and “support” argue that RETAIN and ENGVAR supports their position. The community clearly seems to be of the mindset that we might as well just cut to the chase and ensure the article best serve the interests of the readership by looking at what the most dominant practice is in the English-speaking world, and go with that for this particular article, which is clearly a special case now. Greg L (talk) 16:12, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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