Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:31, 30 June 2015

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Derry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Derry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. UK geography Mid‑importance This article falls within the scope of WikiProject UK geography, a user-group dedicated to building a comprehensive and quality guide to places in the United Kingdom on Misplaced Pages. If you wish to participate, share ideas or merely get tips you can join us at the project page where there are resources, to do lists and guidelines on how to write about settlements.UK geographyWikipedia:WikiProject UK geographyTemplate:WikiProject UK geographyUK geography Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Northern Ireland Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Northern Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Northern IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject Northern IrelandTemplate:WikiProject Northern IrelandNorthern Ireland-related Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ireland High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Derry. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Derry at the Reference desk.

Template:Pbneutral

Why not make the article title (Londond|D)erry?

It would seem to me that the naming dispute can be solved by using a simple regular expression, perhaps interchanging the order of the Londond and D in the parentheses. Otherwise whether it is named Derry or Londonderry, the other "side" has a prefectly legitimate complaint that Misplaced Pages is endorsing one side or another. Alternatively, plain English could be used for the title such as "The city that is known as Derry and Londonderry". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.22.148 (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no naming dispute, cities are called by their official name and the name is LONDONDERRY. 94.193.185.148 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Then we would have, Londonderry, Derry, London/derry, London/Derry. Add the county article as well, currently at Londonderry not to menion constituencies , and we would amass multiple link issues, and believe it or not more points of contention. At least now we only have two article titles are linkable and people edit war over. One of my last edits was revert a Londonderry to Derry edit, changed from a qoute, no link invovled and yet someone taught it would be better to edit it without an idea of what they were doing.

Is the article better at Derry? I dont know. But it "seems" to be. Murry1975 (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Stroke City so neither side is aggrieved? ;-) Dmcq (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

When I was more naive I always thought they called it Stroke City due to having a high number of people having strokes due to too many Ulster fry's lol. Mabuska 22:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Londonderry

The official name of the city is Londonderry, not Derry. Why isn't it called that on this article? This article is misleading and should be renamed with the opening line stating Londonderry and only Londonderry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.185.148 (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

See WP:COMMONNAME which is Misplaced Pages policy and WP:OFFICIAL which isn't. Dmcq (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME is stupid for this issue seeing as Londonderry is equally a common name for the city. Mabuska 19:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

COMMONNAME wasn't even the reason why this page uses the current title. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

What was the reason then? There is no problem with a clash with County Londonderry. And as to Mabuska we went through that point quite thoroughly last year and Derry was far more common. They names only only seemed of somewhat comparable usage on Google until one eliminated the Londonderry and Derry names referring to the towns in America and other usages like that not referring to the city. Dmcq (talk) 21:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

In 1973 Northern Ireland was divided into 26 district council areas. One of those was the District of Londonderry which was given city status because within it lay the smaller City of Londonderry. The smaller City of Londonderry still exists today and has a Lord Lieutenant. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/Lord_Lieutenant_of_the_City_of_Londonderry ) In 1984, the larger 1973 creation known in full as "The City and District of Londonderry" had its name changed to "The City and District of Derry", but that did not affect the smaller City of Londonderry that lies within it, whose official name still remains "Londonderry". The 1973 creation "The City and District of Derry" has now been disbanded, but the original pre-1973 City of Londonderry continues. Meanwhile the County of Londonderry is, and has always been Londonderry. The Royal Mail postal district is also officially called Londonderry. An encyclopaedia is there to give facts. It's not there to state the facts as a small group of active editors would wish the facts to be. Also, the thing above about common name is wrong. Media outlets always use the official name Londonderry on first mention. This article should be renamed Londonderry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.190.142 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 14 April 2015‎ (UTC)

This follows on from this discussion on the Nigel Dodds talk page. "The City and District of Derry" has been replaced by "Derry city and Strabane" council. In general, though, you're covering ground and making arguments which have been offered many times before and as I said to you, Misplaced Pages does not always go by official names and it's not the case that all media outlets use Londonderry at first mention, many US-based media outlets, such as the New York Times, frequently refer to Derry, however all this has been discussed before. Valenciano (talk) 21:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm not surprised to hear that these arguments have been made before. So why the decision to use the short name when clearly there have been many editors over the years wanting the official name to be used? Who has ever proved that the shortened name 'Derry' is the common name in greater use? Why has wikipedia decided that it must take the republican side against the official name? From what I can see, a small group of editors must be continually active on this page for the purpose of pushing the name 'Derry', not because it's correct, but because that's the way they would like it to be. I think that as more people become aware of this abuse, the article will eventually have to be restored to the correct official name of the city, which is Londonderry. There is a good historical reason why the city is called Londonderry. It's because it was established in its modern form by the Honourable Irish Society whose members were drawn from the City of London. I take it that this article is about the City of Londonderry, as per the boundary that divides it from the County of Londonderry, in other words, the boundary of the pre-1973 corporation and which still applies today for ceremonial purposes and Lord Lieutenant purposes? What would happen if I were to change the Kolkata article to Calcutta and argue that the latter has always been the common name in the English speaking world? Would that be allowed under the rules? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.190.142 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 April 2015‎ (UTC)

Personally, I've always called it Londonderry myself. However the compromise here it quite adequate at the moment, the county of Londonderry and the city of Derry. Seems quite reasonable to be honest. Also, please remember to sign your posts with four tides. :) Like this→ ~~~~

Chris ☮ 21:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not a logical compromise when both the city and the county are called Londonderry. That only causes confusion, and why do you need a compromise at all? The way to handle it is to use the official name in both cases and then say in the lead that republicans prefer to call it Derry because they don't like the reference to London. You tell readers the plain facts. You shouldn't adjust the facts to appease political activists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.190.142 (talk • contribs) 02:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)‎

The relevant Misplaced Pages policy governing this is WP:COMMONNAME. There's been a lot of disputes on this and you can look through the archives of this talk page for them and check the statistics yourself and Derry does seem to win in references to the city by a sizable margin both generally and in books. Have a Google search of 'Londonderry uk' and have a look at the first few pages and think what that means. The title of the article on the county is 'County Londonderry' so no compromise on that score is necessary. There's no problem like for instance the one over whether the title Ireland should be used for the island or the state where it has been decided the island has the better claim. Dmcq (talk) 08:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

To answer the point about Calcutta/Kolkata, yes, it would be perfectly possible under Misplaced Pages rules to have Calcutta. For a real example of this, see Ivory Coast, which is used instead of the official name. Valenciano (talk) 13:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

In general, where a controversy arises, an encyclopaedia should state the facts and then explain the controversy in the lead. In this case the article should be called Londonderry and it should then say in the lead something along the lines of "often called Derry for short, particularly by republicans who resent the mention of London in the name. You need to explain why the controversy exists and I don't see any evidence that this has been done. Instead, wikipedia has chosen to alter the facts in order to suit a particular political pressure group. It looks to me as though those wanting to call it Derry don't want their reasons known, but instead want readers to think that it is already called Derry. That is misinformation. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages policy on this is WP:COMMONNAME. That is the appropriate place to complain about and change the policy. There is a big section about the name just immediately after the lead. Do you really want the lead to go on about sectarianism? Dmcq (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This is the page to discuss it. It's not an issue about 'common name'. It's an issue about one party disliking the word 'London' in the official name. The purpose of an encyclopaedia is to give correct facts. If there is controversy over a name, then that fact should be mentioned, along with any reasons, in some part of the article. Maybe not the lead. It's not the duty of wikipedia to hide facts because the dissenting party don't want their motives to be exposed. At the moment you are trying to pretend that the name is already 'Derry', and this then carries through to articles such as the Nigel Dodds article, where no explanation is given for the use of the shortened name. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

No, it's a policy issue. If you want Misplaced Pages to use official names rather than names that are most commonly used, you need to take that up at a policy level. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

It is a policy issue that resulted from editors who object to "London" in the name. The whole name issue has and always is a blatant piece of anti-British racism. Never hear a problem with other places the "Brits" named that don't include London or royalty. Mabuska 20:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia doesn't have policies. The so-called policies are not binding and are only a device created by a majority of editors at a particular time in an attempt to lock in the edits that they have just forced through in a dispute. Everything that is written in wikipedia is determined by what a majority of editors at any particular moment in time decide. It's open to change this article to 'Londonderry' if a majority of editors so decide. Those who want to have it as 'Derry' should openly admit their actual reason and not pretend that it's because they are merely supporting wikipedia policy. The reason will of course be anti-Britishness, but I note from looking through the history that these anti-British editors are always shy to openly admit that this is what is really driving them. They will try and pretend that they are driven by the desire to use the shortened name because it is supposedly more common, or that they are driven by the desire to protect wikipedia policy. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

This topic is a dead-end as nothing will change and this discussion is not the proper way to go about changing the accepted consensus on the issue. Just to clarify... ignoring the first sentence in my previous comment, my comment is directed at the real-world background of the issue from when the name of the city became an actual issue for people. Whether that reason has become forgotten over the generations or whether it was even realised or acknowledged by those then or now, who knows. Mabuska 23:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

What I think could be done in Misplaced Pages is change the business where Derry is stuck into all references from other articles. I think that is just plain unreasonable where most of the references for the subject would refer to Londonderry, e.g. when talking about Unionists from the city. Dmcq (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Setting politicians to the side for a minute, we could always go by what the source says for article content but that could leave many articles with the two spellings spread throughout it in an incoherent and inconsistent manner, which takes away from an article. It would also open up source wars with people pitting sources that state different against the other leading to endless disputes. Mabuska 13:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If people are encouraged to find sources that's fine by me. I don't think they'll find an endless supply of good sources. Dmcq (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

If they'd be as willing to find sources for more useful stuff it'd be better lol. Oh, what constitutes a good source will be the subject of intense debates too, you know this site by now. Mabuska 15:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

What you must remember is that no wikipedia policy is binding. Therefore it's wrong to justify a particular controversial edit on the grounds that it is wikipedia policy. I changed it to Londonderry in the Nigel Dodds article. His own website states that he was born in Londonderry. It was reverted to Derry by an editor who claimed that he personally supported the use of the name 'Londonderry', but that he had changed it to 'Derry' out of obedience to wikipedia policy. If he was telling the truth then it struck me as being a touch of the Stockholm syndrome. Yes, go ahead and feel free to change it to Londonderry in any article that you feel like. There is no binding policy that says you are not allowed to do that. This article could easily be changed to Londonderry and justified on the back of the Kingston upon Hull article, http://en.wikipedia.org/Kingston_upon_Hull where the less common, but official name, forms the title of the article. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Nothing to do with "Stockholm syndrome", I said that I support current Misplaced Pages policy on the issue, i.e. that of not using official names, since that would have led to us having an article at "Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" until 2011, instead of Libya, which would be ridiculous. We also have Ivory Coast and Republic of Ireland, instead of the official names, which I also support. The current, agreed manual of style on that issue says to use Derry for the city and Londonderry for the county. That's been upheld in numerous discussions and if editors want to change that, they should go to the WP:COMMONNAME page and make their case there. I would strongly urge editors, including the i.p. who raised this, not to go around ignoring previously agreed consensus, as that's a recipe for disruption. Valenciano (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, they have got it all wrong. Look at the Grid reference box. It says Derry City, County Londonderry, and gives a link to Derry City council which was a larger area than the City of Londonderry, and which is now defunct. The City of Londonderry is a smaller area which still exists and which is not actually part of the county of Londonderry. The two don't even have the same car registration letters. The facts in this article are simply not being reported correctly. There is no such thing as a wikipedia policy that is binding, especially where it only serves to perpetrate confusion over and above the actual facts. This all needs to be reviewed and a clear distinction drawn between the City of Londonderry, the County of Londonderry, the Derry city council area (1973 -2015 now defunct), and the Royal Mail postal district of Londonderry. The argument about calling the city 'Derry' and the county 'Londonderry' was all based on a misinformed notion that the historical city and the city council area (1973-2015) were the same thing. The fact that the latter was officially renamed Derry in 1984 was falsely used as a justification for calling the historical city Derry, when it is actually called Londonderry. The Derry thing is all over now, now that the Derry City council has been abolished. That basis for confusion has gone. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

There was no confusion. What you've said has very little relevance. Dmcq (talk) 17:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at your arguments at the Nigel Dodds article and you were arguing a case for changing this articles name rather than for changing the reference to this article there. This article's name comes under WP:COMMONNAME. References do not come under that policy - the reference is governed in this case by Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Ireland-related articles. That agreement is not part of general Misplaced Pages policy and was only put in to quash the endless wars that beset the project. The situation is much quieter now and I believe a loosening is well overdue. to a large extent in Misplaced Pages articles are supposed to be independent of each other and depend for their content on the sources. Consistency with an article is definitely desirable but consistency between articles has been rejected time and again as a general principle. If you could just push the case for the Nigel Dodds article I believe that would be much more constructive and effective but it would require agreement at WT:IECOLL. If you could confine yourself to the references in discussions there then there might be some hope for change on that issue but if you start going on about the name of this article it will confuse the issue and stop any hope of some progress as it'll just show the warring still in progress Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Status Quo. I think the anon IP needs to be reminded that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA. Its a forum. Except this and peace will rein.Dubs boy (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

No. It's not a forum. It's an encyclopaedia that allows groups of activists to distort facts. Anyway, I'll go back now and change it to Londonderry in the Nigel Dodds article. I would never have found this page if it hadn't been for editor Valenciano. He claims to be pro-Londonderry and even has edits to prove it, yet he reverted my Londonderry edit to Derry, supposedly on the grounds of consistency. Either a case of Stockholm syndrome or a misplaced loyalty to a non-binding guideline that he could easily have ignored. He says he works for DUP MLA David Simpson. If he comes back again and reverts my edit to Derry, I'm sure David Simpson and Nigel Dodds will be so proud of him. Meanwhile, I do hope that you will all come and support me. If it's reverted back to Derry again, I will consider the encyclopaedia to be an unreliable farce. I'll be wondering what others lies prevail elsewhere. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 00:18, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Editors were sick and tired of edit wars on links like that which is why we have the current situation. Could you please try and be part of a solution as I outlined above rather than reinforcing the case for the status quo thanks. Dmcq (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

In reply to the ip, No, I didn't say I was pro-Londonderry. I'm not pro-either. Misplaced Pages works on the basis of consensus, a good thing, since it avoids needless edit wars. I've already told you that you should not change that without getting agreement to change the overall guideline, preferably at WP:COMMONNAME. I've no clue how you read this, clearly ironic, comment of mine and then deduced that I work for David Simpson, something that would be incredibly hard since I've lived in Latvia, Spain or Kazakhstan for the last fifteen years. With that edit, I was making the point that if I worked for every politician who I had changed the page of or defended against POV pushers, I'd be incredibly busy (as well as working for multiple politicians with diametrically opposed beliefs to each other.) Get consensus for your change!!!! Valenciano (talk) 08:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

The link comes under WP:IMOS which can be changed by discussion at WT:IECOLL. It is only the name of this article that comes under WP:COMMONNAME. Dmcq (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Valenciano, For somebody who claims to be neutral and disinterested, you are very keen on insisting that Nigel Dodds is stated to come from Derry as opposed to Londonderry. A neutral and disinterested person would never have got involved and would have respected the preferred usage of the subject of the living person's biography. Further, you referred me to this page here and you wrongly claimed that it was an issue of WP:COMMONNAME when it actually comes under WP:IMOS. That was clearly a diversion tactic to guard your change. Some well meaning editor has now added County Londonderry, but unfortunately it's now a mess because the city of Londonderry is outside the county of Londonderry, so you can't live in both. They each have their own Lord Lieutenants and each have their own car license plate letters. Valenciano, you have managed to made a complete shambles of the facts. 86.162.190.142 (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

As I said to you before, it always amuses me when people who are *far more invested* in the topic than I am, try and prove my supposed "agenda", when really they are the ones so keen on pushing the issue, so I'm not even going to bother to dignify that. The basis of this in WP:IMOS is WP:COMMONNAME and as I've said to you numerous times, you need to go there. Continued edit warring over this, or refusal to listen to what you've been told by several editors will be seen as disruptive. Now, go to WP:IMOS and WP:COMMONNAME and make your case please. Valenciano (talk) 11:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm the only one to pick up on this comment above by the IP editor: "The City of Londonderry is a smaller area which still exists and which is not actually part of the county of Londonderry." - says it all... Mabuska 22:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The city is called Londonderry as per a High Court decision in 2007. The article should therefore be renamed, there is no legal argument against it. This makes wikipedia look amateurish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.133.244 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Well it is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit rather than the official encyclopaedia of the British government. The relevant policy is WP:COMMONNAME and its talk page is the place to change that. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

@anonIP, Misplaced Pages is not an encyclopedia. It is a democratic forum where consensus does not change, EVER.Dubs boy (talk) 18:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

80.7.133.244, can I suggest that you have a read of WP:OFFICIAL? The legal/official name isn't what actually matters according to Misplaced Pages policy (rightly or wrongly). Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

"It is a democratic forum where consensus does not change", is that so Dubs boy? Take a look at WP:NOTAFORUM, WP:NOTADEMOCRACY and WP:CCC, which discounts that entire sentence. Mabuska 10:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

My comment stands. Misplaced Pages is not an encyclopedia but more a forum where Consensus Can Change but it is often ignored.Dubs boy (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you look up the meaning of consensus because there has been no consensus here or for that matter no consensus for years for a change to the policy. Yes editors here and there like myself would love reality and legal status prevail, but no consensus amongst all involved. Your failure to understand these subtleties and differences is what leads to so many problems for you on this site. Mabuska 18:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I would hazard a guess that the number of drive by shooters probably out number those that claim consensus. I don't care really. I did try and change the template to reflect common_name but all it did was remove "Londonderry" from the infobox. It is a little confusing that the title of the article is Derry based on common name yet Derry is also considered the official name in the infobox. It can't be both surely? "Don't call me Shirley".Dubs boy (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox parameters have no bearing on the actual status of one name or another, they are simply parameter names - though obviously that'll not sit with you. Mabuska 21:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I think what Dubs boy meant is that when he changed the parameter name from official to common, the name that appears in the infobox changed from "Derry/Londonderry" to "Derry". I'm not sure why that was the case. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Spot on.Dubs boy (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

My response is in regards to this statement: "yet Derry is also considered the official name in the infobox". The parameter has no real-world bearing, it is just a parameter name. Mabuska 22:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well I think parameters are to be consistent across templates. So if the template uses official_name parameter, then I believe there is a reason for that. Newcastle upon Tyne is another example where the page title and infobox use the official name even though most would use the common name of Newcastle. Why this page is inconsistent and ignores the template is a mystery. Anti-London sentiment? Nonsense.Dubs boy (talk) 05:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The reverse policy seems to apply to Hull http://en.wikipedia.org/Kingston_upon_Hull In this case wikipedia uses the official name and not the common name. I doubt that there is a consensus wanting to use the name Derry for this article. Many who call it Derry, only do so for short and wouldn't worry in the slightest about books and documents using the full name Londonderry. I wonder would the Republic of Ireland consider re-joining the UK? That would solve the problem because this problem has been stirred up by anti-London sentiment arising amongst a minority. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest that the Republic of Ireland rejoin the UK to the appropriate authorities, if you think that would solve our problem. ;-) Cordless Larry (talk) 21:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The article about the state Ireland is called Republic of Ireland because of a clash of names and that probably is what happened to the Kingston-on-Hull article as well - there's just so many Hulls it would not be the main topic. That comes under the section WP:NATURAL of the names policy. I'm not sure what you meant by anti-London sentiment, I don't think anything like that has been much of a factor in anything - the problems and antipathies have been mostly much closer to home. Dmcq (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, I would say that it is the singular reason for the dispute. "London" is in the name for an important historical reason, and this dispute is being perpetrated by elements who are attempting to alter history by hiding the London connection. Of the people who do tend to call it Derry, omitting the "London" prefix, most them are simply doing it for short, and would be quite happy that the full official name would be used in an encyclopaedia article. Nobody is going to put up a prolonged fight just to give a shortened name precedence over a full name unless there is another underlying motive. The fight is being perpetrated by elements who are anti-London. The argument about common name doesn't hold water because from what I can see, Londonderry is the common name. I have never seen any evidence that Derry is in more widespread use than Londonderry. The media outlets all use Londonderry as do all official documents and have heard both used in equal measure in conversations. And there's another mistake in the article. The city of Londonderry is no longer in a district council area called Derry. It's now in a new district council area called Derry and Strabane. Maybe it's unrealistic to expect the Republic of Ireland to re-join the UK, but it would certainly help to unite the British people again in harmony and end this kind of anti-London vindictiveness which causes unnecessary ill feeling for everybody. I suggest that all headings be changed to Londonderry, but that Derry can be used throughout the text. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd say there is a reason why the first photo in the Name section has a signpost with "London" obscured. Anti-London sentiment is a contributing factor to the name dispute.Dubs boy (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

A photograph that is more appropriate to an article about the name dispute, and the motives behind the dispute, than it is to an article about the City of Londonderry itself. Yes, I agree. Somebody with an axe to grind has placed that photograph in the article to show that some vandal with a political point of view has defaced a road sign. It's not relevant to the subject "City of Londonderry". There is no way that there would ever be an edit war at Kingston-Upon-Hull on the grounds that Hull is the common name. Nobody who normally calls it "Hull" would fight to have the article title changed to Hull. The argument about "common name" that is used here to justify cutting London out of the name does not hold. As for Londonderry, has anybody actually proved that Derry is the common name, and if so, where is the proof? I would challenge that this is the case at all. I can just about accept it when somebody changes it to Derry simply because of their politics, but it's pathetic seeing all these long standing editors changing it to Derry and arguing that they are merely upholding wikipedia policy, when no such policy exists. There is no such thing as a consensus in the past that becomes legally binding for all times in the future. If the consensus changes to restore it to Londonderry, then it will be changed. The truncated name "Derry" cannot be locked in as permanent policy. What is needed is for all these editors who keep changing it to Derry to state why they are doing so. If they state that it is because of policy, then they should be disregarded. If they state it's because of their own personal politics, then at least we can start to assess what the real consensus and motives are. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Also a note to editor Dmcq, I see that editor Dubs correctly changed a label to common name and that you changed it back to 'official name'. That tells me all I need to know. You are being dishonest. You must know fine well that Derry is not the official name. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

86.145.99.45, that's because when the common name parameter is used, "Londonderry" disappears from the infobox for some reason (see this edit), and I presume you don't want that? Please think carefully and actually read edit summaries before making accusations against other editors. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The parameter to the template is unfortunately named but it has no bearing on the article text which is what policy is about. Yes there have been checks done on what is the common name if you look through the archves. By anti-London I thought you meant anti the government in Britain rather than the part of the name or did you just mean the part of the name? It was in relation to the British government that I was saying that was pretty much irrelevant. As to everyone getting together as one big happy family you do realize a lot of people in Northern Ireland on both sides think of the British government and much of the people in England as a depraved bunch of sodomites and baby killers so I wouldn't say there was →a lot of fellow feeling even in the united bit. Dmcq (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

That is quite an antagonistic statement Dmcq. How would you like it if someone stated: Just the same as they think the republic is nothing but land full of paedo priests.?? Expected more of you. Mabuska 15:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Well of course I'm sure a lot of people do think that but I don't see what your point is except to support what I said about there being little chance of one happy family under a government in London. Britain supports gay marriage and women wanting an abortion and is proud to do so. There's been a number of scandals about paedo priests in Ireland but I don't think anyone is proud of that! And if anyone looks at all the hysteria about the SNP possibly having some power then they'll see that London government rather than UK is what people in England want. Dmcq (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTAFORUM. Mabuska 17:27, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I think that's appropriate for the whole business. Dmcq (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

SOLUTIONS

The naming dispute has been debated, discussed and voted on across a number of years, and in reality their is only five feasible solutions:

1. Keep the current arrangement in place
2. Change the name of the Derry article to Londonderry
3. Change the name of the County Londonderry article to County Derry
4. Change the name of the County Londonderry article to County Derry and the Derry article to Londonderry
5. Change the name of the County Londonderry article to County Derry/Londonderry and the Derry article to Derry/Londonderry

There are so many contrary policies in place to deal with naming, in relation to this article the main policies are that names should PREFERABLY be neutral, official and common.

Here are the main policies I have collected regarding this issue:

• "When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, Misplaced Pages generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria)." - Although Derry may be a slightly more common name for the city it is not used across a significant majority of English-language reliable sources, as such this should be ignored.
• "Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged." - this is often cited to be the main policy which goes against naming both articles Derry/Londonderry and County Derry/Londonderry, the policy states that joining the two names together is discouraged, but is allowed
  
• "By the design of Misplaced Pages's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, significant names in other languages, etc. There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Likewise, even though Color's title omits the "u", Orange (colour)'s title does not." - this supports in the current arrangement, yet again does not forbid the use of multiple names.

HOWEVER policies are to be treated more as guidelines, "While Misplaced Pages's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures. Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus." - this essentially surmises that the only solution to the problem is by getting a general consensus. I think the only way to truly "solve" this problem as such is to find a solution which the majority (or as near to a majority) of people agree with.

The only set rules have found is that Misplaced Pages should be written in a neutral point of view and does not have any firm rules (see here)

I think what is necessary is a consensus which the majority of people agree upon: I believe that the current arrangement is not supported by the majority.

Here is how I propose we (attempt) to resolve this issue: For each proposal listed above each user is able to vote once: they can either vote in favour of a proposal (which they wish to be implement/find it to be an acceptable or moderately acceptable solution) or against it (if they do not accept such a name). The solutions which receive the majority of support are then voted on again in a second round of votes (if necessary) with users stating which they believe is the least suitable solution, and so on until two solutions are left: these are then voted on, with the solution which receives a simple majority becoming or remaining the articles title.

This will of-course need to be discussed and agreed upon, I also believe that a set time/date should be put in place to ensure that the issue is settled once and for all. Italay90 (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, you cannot use "County Derry" as that has no historical basis. The county was initially County Coleraine when it was called Derry. following the city being renamed Londonderry, the county was renamed County Londonderry. When it comes to the city, I would like the official name to be the main title because I believe the commonname argument is skewed as there is no distinction between people who think it is the official name and those who use it as a slang term for the city. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The county article is called County Londonderry and there's no conflict with this article, I don't know why people bring that up. That name is also the common name for the county so there's no conflict with Misplaced Pages's policies. The one there is an argument about is the name of this article, the name Derry was clearly much more common for the city last time I looked, it wasn't marginal, so if that hasn't changed I would guess yet another RfC on the question will come to the same conclusion as the last few. However it has been a year I think since the last one so I guess another one would be okay if people really want to test the question. Dmcq (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly are you so keen on having the official name rather than the name that is quite clearly preferred by the majority of the inhabitants? Dmcq (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Because of the important historical reasons why "London" is in the name in the first place and the fact that attempts are being made by anti-British elements to disrespect those reasons. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

So you want to teach people some respect? Just the editors on Misplaced Pages, the people in the city or the world in general? Dmcq (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Dmcq, I don't want people misrepresenting the facts out of disrespect for aspects of history. On your other point above, I'm inclined to sympathize with you. It's sad the way the UK has gone. But ironically it's the nationalists in Northern Ireland who want to bring Northern Ireland into line with the mainland in those respects, and not the unionists. Also, it looks very much as if the Republic of Ireland is also very keen to follow suit down that road. Maybe it's a sinking ship all round. Maybe it's all over. Maybe we'll all be in for the fire and brimstone together. 86.145.99.45 (talk) 10:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Was the common name of the article sourced from a survey of the inhabitants of the City? At a guess the city is probably broken down by 80% Catholic vs 20% Protestant so Derry probably would be the common name. If it were based on the inhabitants of Northern Ireland then I would imagine a slim majority would call the city Londonderry. Using google hits does not uncover hidden bias or the political views of those responsible for the articles that google counts but then again this would only contribute to common name usage. I just don't know. It does seem inconsistent with the template though to use common name above official name when you consider Newcastle upon Tyne and Kingston upon Hull. Might take a read through the previous discussions. May take a while.Dubs boy (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Google is not a good source especially for this issue with so many places having the "derry" article in their name. Mabuska 12:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. But from the looks of it, WP:COMMONNAME has been determined by using google hits. This article does seem weighted in favour of Derry usage opposed to Londonderry, regardless of using County Londonderry as a make weight, which is completely irrelevant.Dubs boy (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I do agree with Italay90 that this issue needs to be properly discussed and sorted once and for all. Support for the consensus is thin and may be in the minority now considering how many editors involved in the original consensus no longer edit. Its been that long since it was put in place, that heck I've been editing this site for 7/8 years and I wasn't involved the discussions that led to it and I have been involved in a quite a few discussions on controversial matters that resulted in agreements for many far-reaching aspects of articles to do with Northern Ireland. Mabuska 12:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The common name vs official name argument is pretty redundant given that wikipolicy should not be strictly followed. @ DMCQ - It's wikipolicy not wikilaw...

The naming dispute has existed for a long period: going on strictly what is official does not provide a solution. The County is known as both Derry and Londonderry, and due to the religious and political affiliation to the two names, deciding upon one or the other should be done with extreme caution.

I believe that using the County Londonderry article as a way of making this article neutral and vice versa does not work: it does not express the views of the majority. I advocate the use of Derry/Londonderry for this article and County Derry/Londonderry for the County Londonderry article: it's a neutral solution which does not have any bias towards one side or the other. Further to this, it's accepted and known by locals and other organisations when referring to the area. Please put aside your squabbles to try to find an actual, long-term solution which will be accepted by both parties: there is not enough popular support among either side which will actually bring about some progress in fixing the article name, it's been debated and voted on across a number of years, and on all accounts has failed. Italay90 (talk) 09:37, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the County Londonderry makeweight argument is a bit flimsy (although I'm not as familiar with debates about the name of the county as I am with those about the name of the city, so I won't express a view on that title). I also find myself increasingly of the view that Derry/Londonderry might be the best compromise. Is there a precedent for this type of title? I'm trying to think whether there are any other articles on cities with disputed names that use both in the title. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The whole business about County Londonderry is irrelevant. There is a clear consensus against slash or hyphen names, the most notable case was in the Gdańsk-Danzig debate which was far more heated than this one. A place where the local style guide WP:IMOS conflicts with general policy though is in insisting that Derry be used practically everywhere, in WP:NAME it say "There is also no reason why alternative names cannot be used in article text, in contexts where they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now called Gdańsk is referred to as Danzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City)" At the moment we have people going around changing Londonderry to Derry even when it is quite inappropriate to the context, e.g. in articles about unionists. where most sources about them speak of Londonderry. This is something I definitely would like to see changed. Dmcq (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@DMCQ - Again wiki policy is not the law. The naming dispute for County Derry/Londonderry interlinks with the debate regarding the city itself: the name is derived from the city: as such the same naming dispute and debate surrounds it. The main reason as to why the article was named "County Londonderry" was as a resolution to the conflict. I would suggest you try to be more open-minded to the idea of finding a neutral solution, and of the solutions possible which you find most preferable: entrenching yourself for in favour of a single alternative which isn't necessarily a solution will likely result in no change as opposed to a change which most contributors would prefer.

@Cordless Larry - Well I found Cocos (Keeling) Islands. There's no rules regarding using double names, but the policies suggest to look for alternatives: in this case all other options have been exhausted however. Misplaced Pages's policies aren't to be taken entirely literally, they are just guidelines. General consensus is necessary to reach a resolution, and the only resolution which I feel would be suitable and neutral is with the name Derry/Londonderry. 86.129.225.253 (talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

There's also Kingdom of Israel (Samaria) and Imia/Kardak. 86.129.225.253 (talk) 15:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The Imia/Kardak case is interesting and illustrates something about Misplaced Pages - it is up to editors to make changes. The others are just disambiguation markers from the more common use of the name. As far as I can see in the Imia/Kardak article what has happened is that nobody has gone and bothered to raise an RfC to change the name, you can if you want to cause some trouble and I'd guess it would eventually be called just Imia but I prefer to let sleeping dogs lie. Here the point has been raised and discussed so we're past that point. Dmcq (talk) 16:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want an example of an island that has been the subject of a bitter dispute over the article name see Senkaku Islands. As to my opening my mind etc., why is it that people like you come along and spend so much time on this and are uninterested in fixing the problem of other articles saying Derry where Londonderry is more appropriate? All you demonstrate is that the idea behind that of squashing endless arguments and reversions has a point. Dmcq (talk) 17:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I think all related articles should use Derry/Londonderry unless it's contextually appropriate to use either Derry or Londonderry - I can't see any instances where a name change would be necessary for any other articles related to the city/county other than this article and the County Londonderry article (possibly the river?). Do you have a proposal which would be supported by most people? I believe this is the most (moderately) well-supported solution which also keeps a neutral point of view: there have been various votes for renaming the article to Londonderry - none of which have been successful due to a lack of support among most contributors, as such alternative solutions must be found to ensure that the majority are satisfied: this can only be done using a neutral name which will be accepted by most Unionist, Republican and neutral contributors. Derry/Londonderry has become the most common neutral name for the area found across a variety of sources: at the moment it is the only alternative to the current arrangement which keeps a neutral point of view (the current arrangement appears to be widely disliked by Unionist and many neutral contributors as can be demonstrated by the various accounts of editing "Derry" out of the article/switching "Londonderry" before Derry at the beginning of the article). The question is, of the "neutral" solutions for the article do you support Derry more so than Derry/Londonderry? 86.129.225.253 (talk) 17:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

You're entitled to raise yet another WP:RfC on the matter if you wish. As I said it's a while since the last one. Unfortunately the type argument you put there does not indicate how many wouldobject it if it was Londonderry or Derry/Londonderry or (London)Derry or any other alternative. Dmcq (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@DMCP: Thank you, I would be looking to have a vote on whether to keep the current arrangement of Derry and County Londonderry or to change the name of the articles to Derry/Londonderry and County Derry/Londonderry respectively to provide a more neutral solution to the issue which keeps both names/sides in mind at the title of the two articles: as the current arrangement leaves room for bias due based on which article a user reads, from their own perspective visiting one article would appear biased, furthermore the Derry article is used more compared to County Londonderry article - it is not an effective "weight" to ensure neutrality. I do not believe that the vote should be diluted by other alternatives such as (London)Derry etc. as this may result in no change despite the fact that more might be opposed to the current situation: Derry/Londonderry is the most common and recognised alternative name for the city/county. Italay90 (talk) 10:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You'd be far better off just forgetting about County Londonderry. That has nothing to do with this. Dmcq (talk) 10:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

County Londonderry's name is derived from the name of the city and as such it shares the same disputes over the name: to provide a neutral solution it is only fair that both articles should be altered to ensure that the two names are represented in the article titles: changing one article would not be neutral and as such would (in my view) not be an effective solution which I doubt would be supported by the majority of contributors. I would prefer to have both names represented across both articles than the current arrangement which a reading/determinant bias. I have opened a RfC below on the matter... Italay90 (talk) 11:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

RfC: Renaming the Derry and County Londonderry articles

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

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

Note:

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

Support

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

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

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

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

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

Oppose

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

Undecided so far

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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggested options for this page:

a. Derry - nothing changes

b. Derry with infobox official_name=Londonderry(only)

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

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

e. Derry, Northern Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Renaming the Derry article

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: History and geography Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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

Possible options for this page:

a. Title:Derry - nothing changes

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

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

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

e. Title:Derry, Northern Ireland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• B-Class UK geography articles
• Mid-importance UK geography articles
• B-Class Northern Ireland-related articles
• Top-importance Northern Ireland-related articles
• All WikiProject Northern Ireland pages
• B-Class Ireland articles
• High-importance Ireland articles
• B-Class Ireland articles of High-importance
• All WikiProject Ireland pages
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment