Jump to content

Talk:Cork (city)/Archive 2

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

Requested move

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork → Cork (city) — Neither the Irish city nor the material is clearly the main usage of the term. Cork (city) currently redirects to the article about the city at Cork. The disambiguation page already exists at Cork (disambiguation), but would need to be moved to Cork and updated to refer to Cork (city) (or whatever turns out to be the preferred name for the article about the city) instead of Cork for the city. Serge 06:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

NOTE: If you prefer this article be moved to something other than Cork (city), like Cork, County Cork (per WP:NC:CITY for Ireland), Cork City or Cork, Ireland, please specify that in your vote comment. This applies for Oppose votes as well as Support votes so that opposers to the move can still influence where exactly the article is moved if the majority ends up supporting this move request. If no preference is specified then Cork (city) will be assumed to be your preference. --Serge 06:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Support votes

  1. Support move to Cork (city) Cork, County Cork. The term is not primarily used for either the city or the material and so should be a disambiguation page. --Serge 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support a move, but prefer Cork, Ireland to Cork (city). Isn't City, Country or City, US State normal for places where there is a possiblity of confusion? (See, e.g., Tripoli, Lebanon.) Cork should be a disambiguation page. --MCB 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - The form City, Country or City, US State is applicable to the United States but not Ireland, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). The current form Cork is correct for this country, Ireland. In fact the referred manual of style {a guideline and NOT an official policy} suggests that Cork, County Cork not Cork (city) is the correct place if not Cork. {oh, not another vote when this one is over!}. Djegan 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support a move so that "Cork" can become the disambig page, which is needed for this multiple-use word. Slight preference for "Cork, Ireland" for this article, but "Cork City" or "Cork (city)" are also reasonable. -R. S. Shaw 22:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Cork as disambig. Preferences for city article's new name: (1) Cork (city) (2) Cork City (3) Cork, County Cork (4) Cork, Ireland. I note that we do currently have Antrim, County Antrim, Leitrim, County Leitrim, Louth, County Louth*, and Mayo, County Mayo. (* actually I've just moved this from Louth Village, Co. Louth). I note most objectors object to the work required rather than the principle involved. Perhaps supporting voters should be required to pitch in for the replumbing work? In which case, I withdraw my vote. Aren't there bots for that kind of thing? jnestorius(talk) 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support a move, the city article should not be primary disambiguation. Gene Nygaard 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support changing Cork to a disambiguation page. No strong feelings on Cork (city) vs. Cork, Ireland. Dppowell 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support per nominator. --Yath 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Cork as disambiguation page, without preference as to use of Cork, County Cork, etc., for city. ENeville 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Cork as disambiguation page; if we cannot agree to make it the page on the world-wide material, then having it as a disambiguation page means Special:Whatlinkshere/Cork will be useful for determining bad links. Right now Shoe, Collecting, Tartaric acid, and Snowy Owl all mislink to the city's entry; without a disambiguation page at the main location, these each have to be spotted by hand, one reason for the Primary Topic guideline. With all links pointing directly to an unambigous article, fixing bad links becomes vastly simpler. -- nae'blis 03:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Cork as disambiguation page. Cork, County Cork would be my suggested target and if there is no consensus on the new name then the WP:NC guideline should be used. To argue that Cork (material) is not the better know name seems to represent a bias that may not be supported by the larger community. Vegaswikian 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose votes

  1. Oppose - Cannot see any substantial reason for a move and the resultant upheavel. It has to go somewhere so it might as well stay. Djegan 10:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment - I think people need to come up with really substantial reasons to move or change the status quo, is all this just to slavishly follow the manual of style {abeit in error, in some instances} or will their be real benifit? I suggest no to the latter question. What about categories, templates, etc, they cannot be considered in isolation - all this for what? Djegan 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    I don't think the "status quo" carries any weight in Wikipedia. Whether something has been in violation of policy or convention matters; whether it has been in violation for 3 minutes or 3 years doesn't matter. --Serge 22:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Its worth considering their is a distinction between "guidelines" and "official policy" - see my comments below. Djegan 23:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Agreed and considered. Exceptions to policy should be extremely rare. Exceptions to guidelines (which should be based on convention) can be much more common, but still should be based on reason. And "to maintain status quo" isn't a valid reason for an exception to widely accepted guidelines like WP:D. --Serge 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Fundamentally you need to demonstrate need, beyond simply adherence to a guideline. Are you part of the newly instated guidance adherence patrol? Djegan 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    I routinely favor decisions in opposition to guidelines, but I always understand the burden is on me to provide a reason to make an exception. But if I need to spell it out for you, in this case, anyone searching for cork is very likely to be looking for the material, not the city (and vice versa). Taking such a person to one of the articles (or the other), then requiring to get to a dab page, then finally click on his ultimate destination is unnecessarily cumbersome. This situation is not unique to Cork - it is routinely encountered in Wikipedia, and, for this reason, conventions and guidelines based on them (WP:D) were developed to send a searcher in such a case directly to the relevant disambiguation page. But with that explained, the burden is still on you to explain why Cork should be an exception to all of this. --Serge 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Burden on me? The burden is equally on you to back up your claims as well! All see are claims, from you in the preceeding comment. Where are the facts and/or statistics to back up your claims? Djegan 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose While I concede that there's a need to differentiate Cork (the city) and Cork (the material), I think the current model already achieves this (if incompletely). I unfortunately can't support the proposal(s) on the table to do so more completely. (Mainly because the alt naming options for Cork - Cork (city), Cork, Ireland, and Cork City - are all inherently problematic). And I can't think of an alternative. Therefore, weighing the limited perceived DAB improvement with the effort required to "re-link" approaching 1500 inter-article and inter-wiki links, I think the naming should remain as today. Guliolopez 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose It seems to be fine as is. The dab page is accessible from the Cork page. Not sure any move is an improvement. Frelke 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Assumed by whom? By you, I assume. Not by anyone else it seems. Please do not qualify my votes in any way without asking. As I haven't updated my vote to indicate a preference, it can be assumed that I have a reason for not stating a such a preference. Frelke 13:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as per Djegan, Guliolopez, and Frelke --Kathryn NicDhàna 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Leave page as is. Already have a linked disambiguation page Cork (disambiguation), which is also fine as is. --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Guliolopez - Alison✍ 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per Guliolopez. Leave Cork as it is and create a separate disambig page - Alison✍ 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose it is fine the way it is. Anyone looking for the material can find it easily for same reason as others oppose. ww2censor 05:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Didn't we vote on this last week? Leave as is; Per my vote in previous discussion. IsaacAsv 12:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, fine as is. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. The previous survey (just last week) was strongly opposed. In any case, Cork, County Cork should be the preferred name if the article is moved. I suggest that more discussion and fewer surveys would be helpful to build a consensus. -Will Beback 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I'm not irish, I'm not biased but this move seems to be unnecessary. Cork the city predates the English usage of cork the material as far as i can tell from OED, so that seems to be a nod in favor of a status quo. Cork (city) is a horrible name for the article, this should not happen. If there has to be a move, and I think there should not be a move, I could live with Cork, County Cork or Cork, Ireland. I find it ironic that the user that started this vote is strongly campaigning to have major cities with stand alone names. Cork may be small but it is very well known. David D. (Talk) 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per Giulio Lopez, a lot of work for nothing, rather like repeatedly requesting moves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose I see no particular reason to move. Moving the page would mean everyone gets the wrong page; having this page here means that some people do (but can find their way to the right page just the same). —Felix the Cassowary 00:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Isn't that an argument against all disambiguation pages? jnestorius(talk) 03:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
    Yes. But disambigs are still useful in some circumstances, such as where straight-to-one-article would be POV. I’m also inclined to think that well-known (even if small) cities like Cork, are usually a fitting choice of a straight-to-one-article (which is why I see no reason not to). —Felix the Cassowary 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, well-known cities such as Cork should stay at the primary name page. Most of the links to Cork in Wikipedia are to the city. zoney ♣ talk 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
    Your last statement is fairly disingenuous; most of the mislinks to Cork for the material have been fixed. Our fine-grain detail to UK geographic/historical topics doesn't necessarily mean that the Irish city is the most commonly known usage amongst English speakers, but apparently that's difficult to prove. -- nae'blis 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No vote

  1. I would vote to support a move to Cork, County Cork except for the fact that there has apparently been another recent vote on the matter that I missed (where is it?), and it is unfair to call another vote and advertise wider if the first one reached consensus. I'm also somewhat confused that I appear to agree with Serge (partly at least) about a page rename. --Scott Davis Talk 13:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    The previous vote, at Talk:Cork (material), was substantially different. It was about moving
    Cork (material) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city)).
    There was no consensus to do that. However, many of the oppose votes there indicated they would support a move of the dab page to Cork, indicating there was consensus for that. So, this vote, at Talk:Cork, is about verifying that consensus, by requesting moving
    Cork (disambiguation) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city), Cork, County Cork, or whatever consensus decides).
    It was supposed to be a rubber stamp, but many of the people who indicated they would support this move in their comments in the previous survey, are reluctant to vote accordingly now. I'm not sure why.
    As far as being confused about agreeing with me, unless you change your vote to support this move, we're not agreeing. Also, I have consistently supported disambiguating any article names, including city article names, per the relevant guidelines (in this case WP:NC:CITY#Ireland), when disambiguation is required. What perplexes me about this situation is that it is perhaps the most obvious case of a need for disambiguation - an obvious absence of a clear primary topic for the name in question - and yet there is still so much resistance to putting the dab page at the name. It's bizarre. --Serge 17:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    i don't think its bizarre, none of what you say above was oultined here. You seem to be assuming that everyone voting here has an intimate knowledge of the Cork (material) talk page. That is a bad start. On top of that you seem too eager and are agressively trying to push through your agenda. I am sure this is a turn off to many. In summary you need more patience and need to outline the whole proposal. You need to convince us you are right. To date, this whole thing seems very embryonic. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Please don't remove comments from talk pages, Serge. I thought you were voting late on the tabled move proposal, so I added the comment about no consensus having been reached and the discussion being done. I still think this has already been covered in the recent discussion, and that the lack of consensus is a reason to leave things the way they are, not start another move proposal. --Kathryn NicDhàna 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not close surveys that have just been opened. To the contrary, the voting at Talk:Cork (material) indicates there was opposition to making the material cork be the primary Cork page, but there is likely to be a consensus to make the disambiguation page be the primary page. We need this survey to confirm. Thanks. --Serge 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral for now. I don't oppose a move, but I don't think it's overwhelmingly necessary to move it, either. I'm open to being convinced either way, though. john k 12:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a case where WP:NC(CN) does not help, because the term is the most common term used to refer to two well-known subjects (the city and the material). Please read WP:D and explain to me why it does not apply to Cork. Cork is a ubiquitous material that can be found in most modern households (if not as a wine stopper, then as a cork board, a dart board, a hot plate, a coaster, as a polishing material, etc.) and is universally known by all English speakers. Furthermore, it has a historic -- even pre-historic -- and important role in the evolution of human culture. The city in Ireland is certainly large, important and well-known, but not as well known as the material. There is an argument to be made (and it has been made), that the material is the primary usage. But to argue that the city is the primary usage makes no sense. Note that all those who have voted to Oppose so far have a distinctive bias, arguably violating WP:NPOV. On each of their talk pages is evidence of a high interest in Ireland and of Irish subjects. We should name this article in accordance to WP:NPOV and WP:D; it should be moved to something like Cork (city) so that the dab page could be at Cork. --Serge 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Serge. Again, we agree on some things, but not on others. As you note, the WP:NC(CN) guidelines (among others) are not well placed to help with this - because of the reasons you point out. Also, I will apologise for suggesting that the amount of work involved in undertaking something should influence a decision on whether to do it or. (Unfortunately cost/benefit analysis is a reality day-to-day for me, and I may have carried that into the discussion here - where I felt that the cost of the move outweighed the incremental benefit of further disambiguation). However, while I acknowledge that you tempered your comment with a qualifier, I don't agree that having an interest in WRITING about a subject neccesarily obscures or invalidates an argument about a subject in the context of NPOV. (I'm not saying that I'm neccesarily dispassionate enough to COMPLETELY divorce my interest in "writing about the subject" from my interest in "the subject itself", but it's not fair to say that one can't - or can't try.) Guliolopez 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I didn't mean any offense by noting the fact about the interesting common denominator that the first four five folks voting to oppose happen to share...--22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
With respect we all have a reason to be here, otherwise we would be doing other things. Fundamentally we are all a bit biased, biased on our own background or manuals of style. The manuals of style are incidentially guidelines, as distinct from official policy. People vote for different reasons {I could insinuate that your vote was because your not Irish/from Ireland etc, but thats just as irrelevent as where I am from because my vote is mine and do not need to demonstrate its worth on a scale and its not kindergarten anyhow - many of us are adults} and incidentially, the current proposal violates the WP:NC:CITY guideline - but thats just a guideline. We do not move articles for the sake of following selective guidelines, we need to demonstrate need and benifit; and consensus. Djegan 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing necessarily wrong with bias. We just need to be aware of it so we can do our best to put it aside when making decisions in accordance with WP:NPOV. We do move pages for the sake of following guidelines; the need and benefit of following the guidelines is inherent in the guidelines. What needs to be demonstrated is reason for making exceptions to the guidelines. In this case the WP:NC:CITY guidelines for Ireland say the article about the city should be at Cork, County Cork. I'll add that to the list of suggested alternatives. But no one has addressed why we should make an exception to WP:D and put the article about Cork, County Cork at Cork. --Serge 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Its unhelpful to misrepresent my comments, viz "we are all a bit biased" is not the same as "nothing necessarily wrong with bias". As for "why we should make an exception to WP:D" - that is a guideline {and not an official policy} and the purpose of this vote. If its a mere administrative matter or official policy concern then take it to the relevent administrator noticeboard for immediate correction. Because their is not one, just this vote will decide. Djegan 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Heck' why not propose to move George W. Bush to George Walker Bush because the former is an exception to WP:D because their is a George Washington Bush? Then we can spend the rest of our lives making WP:D based proposals throughout wikipedia with little time to actually improve content. Wikipedia is about more than guidelines and votes, its about quality content. The latter is my bias. Djegan 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Presumably, George Washington Bush is not well-known as George W. Bush, at least not in comparison to the U.S. President, so there is no disambiguation issue to resolve in that case per WP:D. Clear, the president is the primary topic for that title. According to WP:D a disambiguation page should only be at [[Subject (disambiguation)]] when there is a clear primary topic for [[Subject]]. For example, the disambiguation page for Paris is at Paris (disambiguation) because there is a clear primary topic for Paris. For cork, however, it is clear that there is no primary topic, therefore the disambiguation page should be at Cork, not the article for one of the competing uses of that term. Cork could and should be the quintessential example of this logical and rational Wikipedia convention. --Serge 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you demonstrate "that there is no primary topic" for cork or Cork? Djegan 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No, because that would require doing something like choosing 1,000 English speakers worldwide at random and ask them what "cork" means. But do you really require such a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic? --Serge 00:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
So its point-of-view then? Djegan 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. Why do you ask that? Again, do you really require a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic? --Serge 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Again, more assumptions. Renaming articles is a serious matter, we need to demonstrate need. Djegan 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
For the third time, do you really require a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic? --Serge 00:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly a demonstration has not formed part of the survey, as yet. Theirfore we are talking your comments on face value. Djegan 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
For the fourth time, do you, Djegan, really require a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic? (by the way, if you don't, then the lack of a demonstration is moot; if you do, then I suggest you're presenting an Argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy). --Serge 00:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Fourth time or otherwise, I am not sure what your point is until you make it. But I am sure that we can take {notwithstanding the technical limitations of wikipedia} it that "cork" refers primarily to the material whilst "Cork" refers primarily to the city. Its a matter of perspective. Djegan 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is you will not answer a simple yes/no question even after I asked it four times. I believe the reason for this is because you realize an answer of yes (meaning you do require a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic) is silly and illogical, and understand that an answer of no makes your point about there being no demonstration to be moot, and you'd prefer not to admit this, so you evade the question. By the way, precisely because of the technical limitations you cite, there is no semantic difference between Cork and cork in Wikipedia usage (particularly in searches and titles which is what is relevant here), and, therefore neither can be the primary topic. --Serge 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm with John. Although I originally supported the move, now I think about it it's probably more bother than it's worth to move everything around. It's not like anyone looking for the material cork isn't going to be able to find it because of this page. I do agree that the material is probably referenced more than the city, but I don't really have much of an opinion on this move right now. Pauric 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Some notes: (1) I don't that it is reasonable to keep resurrecting closed votes in a new form if the first one doesn't go your way. And (2) I don't think it's appropriate to "lay the groundwork" for a succesive vote if this one doesn't confirm a concencus either. IsaacAsv 12:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish bias?

I would like to remind everyone about Wikipedia policy that requires views to be represented without bias. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but so far seven of the eight people who have voted to oppose this move request all show evidence of having heavy interest in Irish subjects on their User and/or Talk pages. I also think it's important to point out to those who can put aside this bias that Cork is a small city with less than 120,000 residents. It is not by any stretch a world-reknowned city like Paris, London, or Chicago. According to disambiguation guidelines and the guidelines for naming cities in Ireland, because the material cork is such a common use of this term, this entry about the city should clearly be at Cork, County Cork. If we are going to make it an exception and keep the city at Cork, we need to have a better reason than "maintain the status quo", which has no basis in Wikipedia. --Serge 15:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh god, if we make an exception then wikipedia is going to fall apart at the seams! A hardcore Irish biased is menacing guidlines and policy adherence patrol! Whatever, now move on, your desparate to get the vote your way, and who would not. Let the vote continue and stop the biased claims. I am sure if you dont get the result you want then we will be "treated" to new vote next week. I think the claim that their is an Irish biased is laughable, accept that fact that it is a vote on an Irish city theirfore simple common sense might tell you that Irish people (and Irish interested editors) might be more involved then other nationalities. Its really quite simple, but that does not invalidate their votes and comments. Its not for you to decide the weight of individual votes just because they do not fall within your need. Djegan 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually, it's patently obvious that the support vote is being forced through by a biased cadre of dendrologists. Sound silly? - Alison✍ 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Its good to see that at the head of the list of Noted dendrologists is an Irish academic, Mike Baillie, who specialises in Dendrochronology. So the much more important question is "Why does an Irish Dendrochronologist head the list of Noted dendrologists on WP". More Irish bias, I guess. Frelke 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Alison, there is no evidence for a dendrology bias in the Support votes. Again, the evidence for the Irish bias in the oppose votes is on the Talk pages of 7 of the 8 opposing voters. --Serge 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, please! Grow a sense of humour. I swear ... - Alison✍ 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me for seeing nothing funny in your misrepresention of my point and in your attempt to dismiss it. --Serge 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You're excused! Time to move on ... - Alison✍ 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm shocked, shocked, to find that everyone is !voting for the importance of the subject they know best. Serge, this is how WP works; whether we have more Irishmen or dendrologists is really what WP:RM is meant to determine. Calm down. Septentrionalis 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats it keep digging yourself deeper into a mess. It does not really help your situation by claiming that people are biased, your simply filling the page up with irrelevent comments that will alienate the people your trying to reach out too. Since when are peoples race, ethnicity, nationality or interests theiron relevant to voting and discussion? Will their be a wikipedians members interest in future for political interest, sexuality, educational level, colour of hair, fingernail lenght, etc? What about the people that have not expressed an interest in all things Irish on their pages, maybe their biased and should not be considered. Come on now really Serge, most of us are adults and not little childern. Get real. Move on. Djegan 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
If the Irish interested voters were spread out even somewhat evenly between Support and Oppose votes, that would be one thing. But when they're virtually all on one side, that indicates a likely violation of WP:NPOV, which is not a guideline, but policy. No, Septentrionalis, we're not supposed to be determining if there are more Irishmen or dendrologists. All the Irishmen and dendrologists are supposed to be putting aside their biases, and voting accordingly. That's what is not happening here.
The Irish bias is to have the city at Cork. The dendrology bias is to have the material at Cork. The compromise position in accordance to WP:NPOV, WP:NC:CITY#Ireland and WP:D is to have the disambiguation page at Cork. --Serge 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense, you cannot determine the conscience of a voter. Djegan 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Of course we cannot determine the conscience of a voter. Note that I'm talking about general tendencies, not any one in particular. --Serge 19:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Djegan, you ask, "Since when are peoples ... interests ...relevant to voting and discussion? " Answer: when their interests create bias that is not put aside as it is supposed to be per Wikipedia policy. --Serge 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
So what is the hissy-fit for? Djegan 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
To point out that most opposing voters appear to be expressing biased views, and not expressing views nor voting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Serge 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Dude, you're having a hissy fit. Please ... breathe slowly, step away from the keyboard and come back to us when you're ready. You're seeing bias where there's none - Alison✍ 19:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not having a hissy fit. But accusing me of having one, rather than addressing my arguments, only exhibits the weakness in your own position. Do you really believe there is no bias in the oppose votes? Have you checked the Talk pages of each of the oppose voters? Have you noted the absolute lack of reason to make a small city an exception to all of the relevant conventions and guidelines? --Serge 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see you balling up your fists from here. Serge - how old are you, BTW? - Alison✍ 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
You are ignoring my relevant questions of substance and are asking an irrelevant personal question. --Serge 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm pretty-much ignoring everything you're saying here, as you've now gone so far off the rails at this stage. Were we talking about a vote or something? :) - Alison✍ 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hold on their, if my interests are biased then maybe you age is to. Come on it works both ways. But you will not face that. Djegan 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, read WP:VOTE, because you started the vote. If you think that discussing and voting for the moving Cork is a matter for WP:NPOV then please by all means post a note to one of the administrators noticeboards requesting immediate moving because its in violation of official policy that people are bias of because their Irish. I suspect you will be promptly laughed out of wikipedia. Get real, its a vote for consensus, not a vote to rubber stamp a move in accordance with official policy. Consensus (i.e. this vote and discussion) and NPOV (i.e. an official policy) are not one in the same thing. Djegan 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I've touched a nerve. Q.E.D. --Serge 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
This is hilarious. Are you so invested in this that you have to waste such time going into the minutiae of your own sense of vindication? - Alison✍ 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Mere dismissiveness. --Serge 19:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Mere hilarity, actually, at your bloated yet fragile ego. BTW, I noticed your cry for help over here. Time to rally the troops, eh? - Alison✍ 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No you have not. But what you do need to do is actually backup your claims, your a one man show, and it shows by the poor attempt to pass guidelines and policies as requiring a move. This move will be decided by consenus alone, and guidelines will be guidance. If you think an official policy requires it be moved then put a request on an admin noticeboard and it will be decided in ten minutes. Djegan 19:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I never said policy requires a move here. That's your spin. I've said that policy requires expression of views from an unbiased POV. Please understand and appreciate the difference. --Serge 19:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that, someone is from/ethnically Ireland/Irish respectively does not mean their biased {where has anyone claimed that they are from Ireland or ethnically Irish and are voting on that basis alone}. Your just making assumptions that people are biased because of your own bias, you have tabulated the votes that you accept and those you will ignore on that basis. We have a word for that type of thing: discrimination. {maybe the old saying "takes one to know to known one" is correct after all?} Djegan 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Alison has already admitted to not reading what I'm writing (but responding anyway). Apparently, you are too. If you did read what I wrote, you'd know that I've never claimed that any bias here is based on where someone is from or their ethnicity. --Serge 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Too right. You're a scream! But hey - don't go judging Djegan based on my actions, ok? That's just more bias. Besides, I actually am reading what you're writing. Wouldn't miss it for the world :) - Alison✍ 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, some of your comments that suggest you think opposing votes are biased, they speak for themselves. Whole sentences quoted (so your ellipsis are you own):

Do you really believe there is no bias in the oppose votes? Have you checked the Talk pages of each of the oppose voters? Have you noted the absolute lack of reason to make a small city an exception to all of the relevant conventions and guidelines?
To point out that most opposing voters appear to be expressing biased views, and not expressing views nor voting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
Djegan, you ask, "Since when are peoples ... interests ...relevant to voting and discussion? " Answer: when their interests create bias that is not put aside as it is supposed to be per Wikipedia policy.
If the Irish interested voters were spread out even somewhat evenly between Support and Oppose votes, that would be one thing. But when they're virtually all on one side, that indicates a likely violation of WP:NPOV, which is not a guideline, but policy.
Again, the evidence for the Irish bias in the oppose votes is on the Talk pages of 7 of the 8 opposing voters.
Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but so far seven of the eight people who have voted to oppose this move request all show evidence of having heavy interest in Irish subjects on their User and/or Talk pages.
I didn't mean any offense by noting the fact about the interesting common denominator that the first four five folks voting to oppose happen to share...
Note that all those who have voted to Oppose so far have a distinctive bias, arguably violating WP:NPOV. On each of their talk pages is evidence of a high interest in Ireland and of Irish subjects.

And some comments from here[1]:

The Irish bias is obvious - 7 out of 8 oppose voters display heavy Irish bias on their own Talk pages. If you want to blame me for pointing out plain fact... whatever.
The Ireland guidelines indicate the city should be disambiguated as Cork, County Cork, but the Irish biased are opposing the requested move to the disambiguated name. This city has less than 120,000 residents. Your assistance is appreciated.

Regards. Djegan 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, do you understand and appreciate the difference between an Irish bias that exists for unknown reasons (which is what I'm contending and is consistent with all of my statements) and an Irish bias that is specified to be based on being from Ireland or being of Irish ethnicity (which is what you're accusing me of doing)? --Serge 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I do understand the difference, and I also know which one is more serious {the latter}, but have I actually accused you of it, explicitly - or is that simply your interpretation of my comments? Djegan 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Djegan, you strongly implied that I was contending the Irish bias was from those who are "from/ethnically Ireland/Irish" when you wrote the following:
The fact that, [sic] someone is from/ethnically Ireland/Irish respectively does not mean their [sic] biased {where has anyone claimed that they are from Ireland or ethnically Irish and are voting on that basis alone}. Your [sic] just making assumptions that people ...'
If your point wasn't to accuse me of doing so, what was the relevance of saying this in reply to me? --Serge 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
So that you would accept it, as you have. Djegan 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Your use of sic above was calculated to humiliate Djegan. Why are you doing that? Alison✍ 21:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Admittantly I am not that bothered as my standards on talk pages regarding spelling and grammer is not as high as in non-wikipedia corresspondence. Notwithstanding from the respected editors talkpage, conflict seems to be the status-quo. And move requests a way of life. Djegan 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


Can we please call a halt to the "Irish bias debate" - it's not contributing to the original intent

Serge/(All). I'm worried this is never going to end. (And even when it does, it will start again). I had hoped (by my earlier comments to you Serge on your original assertion of NPOV) to help prevent this flame war. I possibly should have been clearer in my points. To state again: I respect your reasons for opening this poll. I understand your (original) hope was to gain a concencus before making wholescale changes. This is laudable. However, you can't open a poll and then challenge everyone who votes in it. I'm afraid that your challenges on the partiality of voters in a poll that you opened is not helpful to the discussion. Please remember that there's a reason that voting isn't recommended to resolve issues in WP. (See Wikipedia:Voting is evil, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Voting paradox and all kinds of essays on the subject). In short, it's not helpful in the context of the original goal. Serge - As the instigator of this, you should consider calling a halt now, and avoid further challenges to the reasons why others may have voted. It's unlikely to end well. It's already resulted in a 2500 word flamewar unrelated to the original discussion. Guliolopez 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am quite happy to hold back, incidentially Serge has started a redirect campaign[2], [3], [4], [5]. Djegan 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Good points, Guliolopez. I'm done. --Serge 21:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article name - oh no not again!

Before we go off and start fixing all the broken links (I am sure those that pressed the move button last time will help but I am not holding my breath either) it maybe worth considering that Cork is, in strict legal terms, not in County Cork but rather is a distinct entity separate from the county. Does not really matter what WP:IMOS says. This article should be at Cork, Ireland if anything, with no reference to county in the title. Djegan 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, do you have a citation for the claim that Cork City is not in County Cork, but is distinctly separate from it? How about Cork (Ireland)? --Serge 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Cork was formerly a county borough[6][7]; those two sections make it clear that cities and counties in Ireland are distinct from one another, for instance "The State continues to stand divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities which are the areas set out in Parts 1 and 2, respectively, of Schedule 5" makes it clear that cities and counties are on the same administrative level and theirfore separate of each other and that cities are not a subpart of counties as towns are a subpart of counties. Djegan 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Duly reverted to the previous state. We had an unsuccessful RM barely a month ago, and now everyone seems to have invoked their favorite naming convention. Duja► 10:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I have always respected RM's {and would respect a formal RM vote}, so should everyone else. Consenus is valuable, it encourages fairness and transparency. Djegan 10:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The disambig question

As I said have previously stated, I have no opinion on what the article relating to the city should be called. However, Cork should be a disambig page. The OED, while in case of Turkey mentions the country as the first definition, doesn't even give the city of Cork a mention. If the usage was so common in English, that would have been included. No topic on Wikipedia is inherently more important than any other but some are more common in modern usage. I've seen a lot of invalid reasons up there and on ANI for letting Cork be the city article including,

  1. it will take effort and/or cleanup to do the move
  2. most of the links are for cork the city (only because the other ones have been fixed to point to the material!)
  3. you will be "pissing off" the Ireland crowd
  4. people can't be bothered to agree on good name for the city article
  5. "because we had this discussion last week"

However, I don't see any that are based on the facts of modern worldwide English usage, indeed not one. Facts and research are the important thing here, not subjective opinions about a word. Now, I'd like to see the proof that the OED is mistaken and that Cork the city is a more common usage in every country that speaks English. Facts are not determined by polls or subjective discussions. Facts are based on research, and what we do here is based on facts. I'm waiting for a convincing fact based argument. (If you want to claim its important because Google returns tourism website hits before the material, the fact that a lot of money goes into tourism advertisement and making those pages hit the top of search engines has nothing to do with how the word is used in English.)

If facts can't be brought forth for either definition, then NPOV dictates we do the neutral thing and make Cork a disambig page. "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight." Keeping Cork directed at the city article gives the city undue weight, plain and simple. pschemp | talk 16:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, where were you and your argument when we voted on exactly this issue a few weeks ago? Well, your argument was here (presented by yours truly), but we needed a few more people to vote who didn't have Irish topics referenced all over their talk pages (as did almost every oppose vote). There is no objective reason to put the city at Cork. The only reason it is there is because the majority of Wikipedia editors interested in "cork" have an Irish bias of one sort or another. --Serge 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this topic can be discussed without accusations of bias. People need to focus on the facts of usage, and bring proof of that. pschemp | talk 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a fun little calculation. Using the 1997 wine consumption statistics here For just the English speaking countries of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, (didn't include Ireland just to be safe) and the 1997 population statistics, and the fact that a bottle of wine is about 750 ml, I calculated an approximate 4,416,695,373 bottles of wine consumed by these English speaking countries. That is over 4 billion corks that English speakers come in contact with, just from wine. That includes neither other corks or cork products nor other English speakers. The paper [8]here shows that merely 3 million tourists visted the whole Cork/Kerry Region in 2003. Nearly 13 times more corks were used in these countries than the number of tourists who came to Cork plus the population of the area. To claim the city is more important than the material is not proven out by fact. pschemp | talk 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Cork being the disambig page and the city being Cork (city)? I agree with pschemp's points above, and my dictionary doesn't mention the city either. However, I wasn't a big fan of the Cork, County Cork solution either. Philadelphia points to the city on the U.S. eastern seaboard, even though I think of it as a brand of cheese; but we must be guided by usage and not by considerations of nationalism here, and I think for Cork (a lovely city where my grandfather was born incidentally), the arguments are different. --Guinnog 17:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed and Philadelphia brand cheese (which doesn't even have an article) was named after the city. There is no such etymological connection between Cork and cork. Incidently, the unabriged Random House dictionary (one of the few to have Cork as an entry) give the first definition as the county, and the second as the city. More proof the city isn't the main usage. pschemp | talk 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork should be the city. - Francis Tyers · 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Guinnog 18:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you like to offer any non-subjective proof with your opinion? Otherwise I can't see where this comment adds anything of value to the discussion. pschemp | talk 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - So it sounds like this discussion is about to "kick-off" again. To avoid an open-ended holy war (as witnessed after last night's unliteral move, and by some of the misinterpreted arguments in previous attempts to close this), we need to find a means to structure this. Possibly under WP:RM or some other approach. If we just charge into this, there will be chaos (again). Guliolopez 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a holy war here, I see a discussion requesting facts which is what should have happened the first time. RM isn't going to help anything, but people presenting facts instead of opinions might. The last attempt at "structure" was a misearble failure. Why not try talking about it with facts? As I said before, if neither side can prove they are used more, NPOV makes the answer simple. pschemp | talk 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi pschemp. Firstly we all need to be careful with the language we choose. Even if not directed at anyone or anyone's argument, using strong words or adjectives will only serve to fan the flames. (Declaring previous attempts at consensus building a "miserable failure" may not be well received by those who participated in those attempts). If we use language which "gets peoples backs up", then we're not going to progress.
Please understand me. I'm just trying to avoid another flamewar. (See 2500 words above which were spawned by a similar approach.) That was the intent of my recommendation on structure - nothing else. I'm not suggesting another "vote".
With regard to taking a scientific approach and discussing facts. In the previous discussions there was a measured attempt to consider facts: take this google test discussion. In each of these cases, the means of measuring and comparing data ("facts") could not be agreed. And so the discussion stalled.
Here we had two different approaches to interpretting the google results. One in terms of ranking (qualitative/weighted analysis). The other in terms of volume (quantitative analysis).
For every set of facts that's represented, there could be an alternate view point.
Take the "4 billion corks V 3 million Cork visitors" you offered. To be honest, while I acknowledge the science of the approach, I don't agree that this is a fair comparison, as it does not consider those people who have heard of Cork, but not visited. You can extend that position with respect to those who "know of wine, but don't drink it". What we need to do therefore with this set of facts (or any other one thats presented) is to agree a means of rationalising the "knowledge of, but no first hand experience of" factor. (Or any other "gray area").
I'm not saying we have to do this in advance of the discussion neccesarily, but (I think) we have to agree on the method and science of measurement somehow - as that seems to be at the heart of the proposal. Guliolopez 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I voted oppose and have no connection with Ireland. My primary reason for voting oppose was that the plan for the move was very premature. The proposer had not laid out a strong enough argument and previous arguments had not been referencd. I would be happy to vote support if there was a consensus on where to move Cork and the other items that would inhabit the disambig page. These things should never be rushed and since this is wikipedia we have no deadlines. David D. (Talk) 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with several of the points above. Can we take it as read that:

  1. The status quo is imperfect; there is significant dissatisfaction with Cork pointing to the city.
  2. We are all aware that issues like this can stir nationalistic feelings, and we should all be careful to avoid inflaming thse feelings.
  3. We must discuss civilly and adhere to Wikipedia policies, and decide on that basis what to do.

Now, my proposal was for Cork to point to the disambig page, with the city article at Cork (city). Anyone think that would work? If not, why not? --Guinnog 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork should be disambiguation. That is the consensus here from what I've seen, and I agree with it. That means that the article about the city cannot also be cork. That much is basic logic. I chuckle thinking that Cork is a city in Ireland (where did all the people go?) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

After the last 24 hours it is very apparent their is a problem. But pressing the move button unilaterially and ignoring the issue (a "screw process" approach) will not resolve it alone; because those who have a real interest in the moved articles are left to fix the many broken links (where were all those people last night who pressed the move button when they screwed up links, fixing links and setting up bots, I think not). The issue needs to be discussed and maybe a move request is needed, but proposals to move the article at present need to to sensible and sound - both the arguements and the proposed relocation - and though out. Because otherwise you damage peoples faith in the system. We can all play the your biased and theirfore dont count game, but it does not help. Its not playschool. Most people here are adults and vote accordingly, the standard of contributions by people on both sides is often high. Djegan 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, cork should be a disambiguation page. It potentially refers to a city, a county, a material, or one of several people or organizations -- and which of these is the predominant meaning in a context-free reading depends on where you learned English and where you live. It's a word that without context has an ambiguous meaning, and disambiguation pages are our solution for those situations. —ptk✰fgs 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Technical limitations of wikipedia notwithstanding, "cork" does not refer to the city or county. Wouldnt it all be so much easier if their was not that technical limitation. Djegan 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am stunned at how process is being ignored and subverted in this manner. This was discussed twice recently, and the decision was to leave the pages and many, many links the way they were. The way this move and renaming was done - abruptly and with no concern for process - is inappropriate, and insulting to the many Wikipedians who have participated in these discussions, and who work on all the articles affected by this decision. The fact that the opinions of those who routinely work on these articles are being disregarded specifically for our interest in the topic is surreal, appalling, and more that a bit bigoted, imho. The fact is that this is the Wikipedia for those who speak English. It's not American Wikipedia. Just because some Americans are unfamiliar with cities in other English-speaking countries is no reason to bias the encyclopedia towards that unfamiliarity. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn, I've read your post twice. I don't see an argument for why Cork should not be a disambiguation page. Did I miss something? Or is your argument simply that the majority of those voting want Cork to be the article about the city? Are you saying that Wikipedia is a democracy? If not, then what reason is there other than the majority will? --Serge 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If their was a name for it then that would be Screw Process II, referring to a previous incident. Djegan 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Kathryn, I'm not American, for whatever difference it makes. I know Cork well (the city and the county, as well as the material cork). Let's not focus on your annoyance at how the move was done, but on where we go from here. I don't think leaving the status quo there is an option, as I and several others have said. Based on Wikipedia policy, and remembering we are serving an international audience here, do you have any serious argument against my proposal above? --Guinnog 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
And I am an American, for whatever difference that makes ;-). Along with a number of other editors, the last two times this was brought up I agreed that the "status quo" is an option, and the best option. Because changing Cork to the disambig page would then involve a ton of work repairing/refining all the links that are intended to go to the city; and as per Djegan: "because those who have a real interest in the moved articles are left to fix the many broken links" [emphasis mine] I am for leaving the City at Cork, with the link up top, as it is, to the disambig page for the material and county. If those participating in this discussion haven't read the previous Proposed Move discussions, please do so, as after the first one, and then certainly after a second right on the heels of the first, I think we all really assumed the decision was to not tamper with the current setup. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The disambiguation work should not come into this discussion. Laziness is no excuse for not doing the right thing. You should know better than to assume that it will be less work keeping as it is, because as you have seen, the issue will come up again and again and again. At some point, it should have occurred to you that what you are looking at is not the final solution. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have to ask you Kathryn, whether you have any type of argument based on fact. "Because we talked about last week" and "Because it will take effort to fix" are not valid reasons for leaving something at an incorrect title. Please present some facts based on usage as to why cork shouldn't be a disambig page. Otherwise your argument is little more than an inflamatory opinion. pschemp | talk 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
If I personally fix all the links (as I am perfectly willing to do), will you accept my proposal above? --Guinnog 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Look people, before we go prematurely or unilaterally moving again lets remember if we do so we will be back at square one in twenty-four hours, in all chance. I think we can take it that their have been two votes already and that a third will be needed to sort it; because putting individual editors in a corner and getting them to explain themselves doesnt work and just will not cut it. Djegan 07:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing unilateral or premature about the discussion we are having. We work with consensus here, not voting. Your pessimism is unhelpful and I think misplaced. I have made a reasonable proposal which follows policy and has the support of several others. If you have anything substantive to add to take the discussion forward, now would be a good time to add it. Nobody is putting anybody in a corner; I was (and still am) offering to help. --Guinnog 08:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly as this argument has progressed i feel I am swayed to having cork as the disambiguation page. So are you sure that Cork (city) is the optimal name change? David D. (Talk) 08:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think so, as I do not like Cork, County Cork (sounds awkward; I know this is the naming convention for American place names, but I cannot picture an Irish person ever saying it like this). Cork (city) seems like the best, simplest place to move it to. Obviously I am open to persuasion on this if anyone has any better proposal to make. --Guinnog 09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Proposal is good. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Agreed on that anyway; WP:IMOS suggests that Cork, County Cork is the correct form, but for a city that was previously a county borough in law its entirely incorrect and awkward as the city and county are legally distinct from each other. Cork, Ireland would become an endless republican/unionist battleground. Options like Cork City just underline confusion and illiteracy when proposed. If their needs to be a change then Cork (city) is prob the best alternative. Djegan 09:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I'd prefer Cork, Ireland to Cork (city) for reasons outside of scope of the current discussion, but the WP-wide convention of "comma for cities needing dab" I'd like to see does not exist (yet); I fail to see the republican/unionist issue when Cork is in Ireland one way or another. I'm fine with Cork (city) as well, though. But I'm curious—which part of WP:IMOS suggests the City, County format? It seems strange to me—while US convention City, US-state makes some sense, as US states are fairly widely known, but locating other countries' cities per respective counties/regions would be extremely difficult. City, Country or City (Country) when the city is the only one in the country would seem far more natural. Duja► 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Its not explicitly declared in the manual of style, but is a convention referred to in the third example of Naming articles: English versus Irish and also referred to on the talk page. Also the majority of Irish articles use the convention. As for Cork, Ireland I think it could be a preferrable option but think we should give some time and invite comments on the respective noticeboards for Ireland and Northern Ireland. Djegan 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Process

As I see it, the process needs to be something like the following:

  1. Decide what name the article about the city should have if it is to be moved. People should be able to participate in this discussion about a preferred alternate article name even if they'd prefer the status quo.
  2. Decide whether to move the city article to the consensus alternate name. This is now a binary choice, as the preferred alternate name is already decided.
  3. Move the article and fix all links that pointed to Cork to point to the correct target. This can be done with AWB or similar, but needs humans to check, as some of the links might be better pointed to something else (most likely either Cork (material) or County Cork). Link fixing can start before the article actually moves, provided that the move is definitely going to happen.
  4. Once all links have been changed, only then can the redirect at Cork be changed to point to Cork (disambiguation).

--Scott Davis Talk 14:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Guinnog's proposal above. It is much simpler. Besides, Cork should be the disambig page, not Cork (disambiguation).pschemp | talk 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's not get bogged down in process here. I strongly suggest that unless any cogent reasons in terms of usage and/or policy can be raised, we should adopt what I suggested above. Making the process more complex just makes it take longer, with no benefit I can see. Again, I also think we should accept that the status quo is unsatisfactory and needs to be changed. --Guinnog 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, what was your proposal Guinnog? (I think ScottDavis's approach is reasonable) Guliolopez 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you look back at the last move request, it accomplished all of the above, and failed. For example, I asked everyone, including opposers, to specify their preferred new name for the city in case the Cork (disambiguation) -> Cork move request succeeded. Almost everyone refused to participate. I even added reminder notes that all oppose votes without an explicit preference would be taken to mean a preference for the default of Cork (city), per the instructions, but I got criticized for leaving those reminders. Maybe you'll have better luck, but I'm not holding my breath. Never-the-less, from that last experience, I recommend the following:

  • The move request at WP:RM is dual:
    Cork -> TBD
    Cork (disambiguation) -> Cork
  • Specify all these choices explicitly and clearly for TBD in the survey.
    1. Cork, County Cork
    2. Cork, Ireland
    3. Cork (city)
    4. Cork City
    5. Cork (County Cork)
    6. Cork (Ireland)
  • Votes should specify Support or Oppose, and the preferred destination (1-6) in case support for the move is established.
  • If someone doesn't specify a preference, it should be clearly stated what that will be taken to mean (either a default of one of the choices, or no preference).
  • Keep the survey open until you have a 2/3 consensus or one month is up, whichever comes first (the previous survey was closed prematurely - this continuing discussion is evidence of that).
  • In fact, consider simply reopening the last survey.
  • In any case, broadly publicize this survey.

--Serge 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason that backfired was possibly threefold, one when you vote to oppose a move it is not mandatory to suggest what title it should get if it is moved, secondly you placed the statement after every oppose vote when you could of placed it once at the top of the move request section for all to read (indeed the record shows that you did not place it after even a single support vote) and thirdly the wording was unhelpful, if not suggestive of a support vote whn people had infact opposed:

"Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)"

In summary dont blame anyone else for the misfortune. We're not kids. Djegan 18:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't understand.

  • No one said it was mandatory to specify anything. I did remind those who voted oppose that the instructions said that Cork (city) would be assumed if they did not specify a preference (in case Support prevailed).
  • You say you could of placed it once at the top of the move request section for all to read. I did place a NOTE: at the top of the move request section saying this for all to read.
  • I also put reminder notes at individual oppose votes in case someone (like you apparently) missed the general note.
  • Since the proposal was to move Cork to Cork (city) I saw no reason to remind those who voted Support without specifying a preference that their preference is being assumed to be Cork (city). Did you a reason to do so?
  • I don't understand why you think the wording was unhelpful, or why you think it was suggestive of a support vote. I was simply reiterating what the note at the top said, in case it was missed.
  • I'm not blaming anyone for any misfortune.

--Serge 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion (repeated)

My suggestion has, I think, the merit of simplicity. Cork to be a disambig page. Cork (city) to be the article on the city. Me to adjust the links (along with anyone else who wants to help of course). The onus to be on those opposing this to come up with good reasons and (if possible) viable alternatives. By all means publicise it as much as desired; but I think all those interested must have heard of it by now, given the prior debate. Let's not get into voting again and (another) multistage decision-making process. Let's finish it off and get on with something more contstructive. Please. --Guinnog 18:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The city article has stayed here for well over a year (perhaps two or three) without problems, notwithstanding recent issues. So I think its not unreasonable that we should give people resonable time to decide and contribute to the discussion, before starting another series of votes, because the world will not fall apart overnight if closure is not got before the next morning. Djegan 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I quite agree that we needn't be in such a hurry that anyone will feel they have missed a chance to contribute to the decision. I feel quite strongly though, that having "another series of votes" would result in another decision that people will be unhappy with. Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote is a principle that will stand us in especially good stead here. Given that this has been discussed here since 1 November (16 days ago), and has made it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (where I became aware of it), how much more time would we need, and who needs to hear about it who hasn't already heard about it? Shall we say another 48 hours? But I feel that voting was the problem the last time; let's not vote, let's agree. It's much better. --Guinnog 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
At this point I am not saying that a vote is a must, just replying to your previous comments that suggested it, a clear consensus would be sufficent. Djegan 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi Guinnog. Per Djegan's comments - I don't agree that we should just "get on with it" and move Cork to Cork (city).
Again, I'm not saying that we need a vote or that we shouldn't update the current organisation (as there are obviously at least 3 or 4 editors who think it should happen). I don't, however, understand the urgeny.
We need to figure out where we're moving the page before we move it: per Scott, Djegan, and Serge's more recent suggestion (and original attempt; which I respected, despite the outcome). Otherwise we'll have to re-do any updated links after the fact.
48 hours is not nearly long enough for consensus in figuring that out. (Certainly not on the Friday in advance of a holiday week). Can we give this at least 3 to 5 days?
(PS + FYI - The escalation to the admin noticeboard was not as a result of any of the original discussions or their "failure". It resulted from a unilateral move by an editor who did not reference the previous discussions and recognise the potential for controversy.)
Guliolopez 18:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
In fact that unilateral move was done without any discussion or warning and the original mover later admitted they were unaware of the discussion and vote on the talk page. Djegan 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, we're moving forwards. No vote, let's just agree what we should do and do it. Let's do it right this time, in a way that everyone (or as many as possible) will feel happy with. Again, I read the history and I know the history. I don't want to get bogged down in recriminations over "who did what" any more than I want to get tied up in process here. I am assuming good faith here, I don't see reason to do otherwise. Lets just mend it so it stays mended. And, again, don't worry about the overhead; I'll happily fix the links if it helps end this and lets us move on. Timewise, I don't see why the decision need take more than another 48 hours, after the volume and time of prior discussion that has taken place. As on everything though, I will try to be reasonable if there is good evidence that anybody will be disdvantaged by doing it the way I propose. --Guinnog 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
So where is the consensus that any move should happen? Frelke 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Here (scroll up), and also at Talk:Cork (material). I see no good reason in Wikipedia policy, usability, or anything else other than inertia ("it's been this way for ages") and workload ("it'll mean changing loads of links") to have Cork point to the city. On the other hand I see good arguments (especially those of pschemp) above for moving it. I think I have answered the two categories opposing the change above; the third concern I see, that process was not followed, I hope we are answering by having this discussion. --Guinnog 19:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no way anyone can reasonably claim there is consensus to move this page without doing another vote, sooner or later, because a very recent survey indicates the apparent absence of such consensus. The only way to move this page with minimum controversy is to do another formal WP:RM request and have another survey. I do believe if we get the attention of more people with an objective view the consensus will be established, but it needs to be shown to exist in a survey to have any credibility. --Serge 19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would nonetheless claim just that; I think that the several discussions and votes which have already taken place, the discussion just above, and even the good work of Guliolopez below, would all point to substantial and justified dissatisfaction with the current status quo. I worry that having yet another vote will only delay progress and possibly lead to more controversy, not less. I believe that reasoned discussion based on policy and on merit will be more likely to achieve a harmonious outcome than voting again. --Guinnog 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
In the recent survey Guliolopez opposed the move on the grounds that he felt there was no good alternative name for Cork the city and it would be too much work to fix all the links. I see nothing that indicates he has changed his view, and, in fact, the facts he presents below only support leaving the city article page at Cork. While there are a few of us who express "substantial and justified dissatisfaction with the current status quo", I don't count Guliolopez among this minority. Note that most of the opposers are keeping quiet for now because they are happy with the status quo. If you think there is anything close to a consensus established here to change, you're not paying attention. --Serge 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I am going to be honest up front; comments like that are unhelpful. Djegan 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Unhelpful with respect to accomplishing what, Djegan? Is ignoring the reality of the situation "helpful"? Do you think comments like "Cannot see any substantial reason for a move and the resultant upheavel. It has to go somewhere so it might as well stay" are "helpful"? --Serge 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Because if you turn it into an Irish bias issue like you did the last time (just read his comments above) then you can be sure that any consensus attempt will backfire. The last attempt turned into a flame war (myself included) and anyone with sense kept out. You dont get consensus by sticking your two fingers up at people. Keep to the issue thats been discussed, not personal attacks. Simple. Djegan 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Pointing out that opposers to the move are not being objective is not a personal attack. If anyone gets upset by my pointing this out only proves my point. Their bias makes it impossible for them to address this issue objectively anyway, so any "damage" this causes to the cause of making the move is moot. Either they're going to get objective and see the light despite anything I say, or they're not. --Serge 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) <sigh> This is why I thought a neutral admin might have a chance of making a difference here. Would you rather bicker, or try to solve the problem? Because I son't think we can do both. Reopening the poll would be a very bad idea, for reasons you have just illustrated. We have all the information we need, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please, can we solve this rather than fight? --Guinnog 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the move. When I look up "cork", I want to know about the wood that goes into wine bottles and into which you push pins. When I want to know about the city in Ireland, I look up "cork, ireland"—or I type "cork" and hope that a plain-"cork" disambiguation page will lead me to the city's article. "Cork" should be a disambiguation page that directs to articles about the wood, the Irish city (either "Cork, Ireland" or "Cork (city"), &c. — President Lethe 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So, if you had known about the survey above that ran from Nov 1 to Nov 7 you would have voted in support? --Serge 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I personally would prefer that the article about the Irish city be called "Cork, Ireland" (rather than "Cork (city)")—but my main concern is just that the article about the Irish city not be called just "Cork". I think that an article called "Cork" should be about the wood or be a disambiguation page. There must be many millions of native speakers of English who know the word cork only as the name of a bottle stopper (and the associated verb), and who would expect to be able to look up the wood and the bottle stoppers by typing "cork". I don't mean anything bad towards the city at all; but it seems to me to be a logical good practice that, when quite different things have names spelled in exactly the same way and the different meanings of those homographs are quite commonly known, the Wikipedia page with just the word as its name should be a disambiguation page, and the articles about specific meanings of the word should have other, more specific names (e.g., "Cork (wood)", "Cork, Ireland", &c.).
So, yes, I would have voted for moving the city article away from just plain "Cork".
— President Lethe 21:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for facts in support of "status quo" argument

Several editors have requested "facts" to support the position that the status quo should remain. While (per previous discussions) I expect this will lead not to a discussion on the merits of any data ("facts"), but to a discussion on the merits of individual means of measuring the data, and not withstanding the "new naming" move discussion, I offer the following;

Google test

Again, I recognise there are many ways of interpretting Google results and acknowledge the limits of this test method, but have taken two approaches; quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative (volume)

A quantitative Google test suggests online references to Cork (the geographical concept) outweigh references to cork (the material). As below:

Geographical concept

Google search:Cork +city = 3,210,000
Google search:Cork +Ireland = 4,180,000

Material

Google search:cork +bottle = 1,950,000
Google search:cork +wine = 2,630,000

Qualitative (ranking)

A qualitative Google test suggests the ranking of online references to Cork (the geographical concept) are higher than references to cork (the material), and all other meanings. As below.

Google search:cork returns 39,100,000 results. Of the initial 50 results:

  • 40 are pages related to the geographical entity
  • 6 are pages related to the city
  • 4 are related to other topics

Other measuring methods

Given the known limitations of Search engine tests, I've been trying to consider alt means of measuring prominence. I haven't succeeded. Yet.

The exercise however has reminded me of an event which highlighted for me that context and experience impact an individuals interpretation of the meaning or significance of a word, symbol or other device. In 1999/2000, after extended travel in Cambodia, some friends (local to Siem Reap) nicknamed my brother "Shakespeare", citing a resemblance - owing to long hair and beard - to the Bard. We pointed out that Westerners were more likely to liken his appearance to that of Jesus Christ. The response was "Jesus who?".

(In the context of this discussion, this observation obviously works both ways.)

Guliolopez 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gul, most google hits for the city are tourism websites that someone worked very hard to get in the top google ranking. I think that skews the results a bit toward advertising. Advertising and promoting tourism is an inherently POV activity that makes google a non nuetral source. In fact, I'd say its hardly useful at all in this case. What we are trying to determine is if one is used a lot more in the language, not how much money has been put into tourism promotion. So far, I don't see anything that proves anything either way, making NPOV require we treat both equally. (And that means Cork should be a disambig. pschemp | talk 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on we can say the same things about pretty much anything in this world of marketing and sales. Maybe the hits on corks (the material) are websites created by people with stocks in wine and wood. Djegan 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Per Djegan, this is true. The majority of the results related to the material are for cork flooring manufacturers and fitters, notice boards, etc. Eliminating "commercial" links is not possible in this test - it simply gives a "footprint" of what might be considered the primary use of the word "cork" in an online context. As an online resource, I still maintain that Cork should similarly be the primary use on WP. (Per these simple results, general precedence, and a measure of how "encyclopedic" a topic may be). Guliolopez 13:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No way I beleive that more money is being poured into cork advertising than tourism. But yes, I think for our purposes *all* commercial links should be eliminated (on both sides) because advertising is inherently POV. Just because you put a million dollars into making sure your website is indexed by search engines doesn't mean anything to common english usage. Advertising reflects who has money to do it, not reality. pschemp | talk 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
LOL! And presumably those that want to spend their time fixing the links would be the obvious people to sift thro' those thousands of hits removing those that are commercial. And retrun the correct figures to use here so that we can make an iformed decision. Frelke 14:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Why bother? Google is neither a nuetral source or one representing common English usage. Not everyone has access to the internet. The dictionaries quoted are however, and they don't support Cork meaning the city as the most common usage. pschemp | talk 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Precedence

Beyond the Google Test rationale offered above for maintaining the status quo, I also question this move on the grounds of precedence. The argument that the current naming structure breaks guidelines on NPOV (because "cork" has multiple meanings) fails to address why the article on "Cork" is neccesarily any different than the 100s and 1000s of articles in a similar position, and which seek to remediate any DAB confusion through the use of a simple DAB strap/header. In essence, does this debate open up the validity of using DAB headers. Should ALL articles for whom the title has more than one meaning be moved to a complete DAB page? Is the suggestion that - once "Cork" is moved to become a more specific DAB page - that we will now move forward and do the same with Turkey (to avoid confusion with the bird), Bath (to avoid confusion with the plumbing fixture), and - as above - the 1000s of articles which employ a header DAB technique to remidiate any DAB confusion? Guliolopez 13:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is a different case, one where there is a clear reason to not have it as the disambig page. The OED (which lists words in order of commons usage) list Turkey the country as the first definition for the word. The OED doesn't list Cork the city as a meaning at all. If Cork the city were such a common meaning, it would be in there. Dictionaries are a more scholarly resource here. Also, the Random House unabridged dictionary, which does list Cork with a capital C has the county as the first, most common meaning, then the city. Add that to the fact that the material and its uses are not a non-trivial thing and agin, what you have is a stalemate. When no definition can be proved to be more common, (as I think is the case here) NPOV dictates we treat both equally. I'm sure you can find cases of mistakes for other entries, but that doesn't excuse doing the wrong thing here. (It's the old, you shouldn't go doing things that are wrong just because your friends are doing it.) Someone else's mistake is not an excuse to make one here. pschemp | talk 13:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, not everyone has internet access in the world. Your assumption that google is a good reflection of common word usage only applies to those people who have enough money to afford a computer and internet access. To then extrapolate and say that applies to all English speakers in the world and assume they are seeing those advertisements is absurd and elitist. In the US alone, about 64% of people have internet access. To assume the other 36% are seeing advertising for either of these is silly. However, the chances they've encountered a cork on their wine bottle are significantly higher. So still, we have no conclusive, neutral proof for the city. Actually the non-neutral proof isn't conclusive either. [9] pschemp | talk 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I should point out that most British dictionaries include few if any proper nouns, except those with eponymous or antonomastic uses. Thus the absence of an entry for Cork proves little, as many important places will be omitted. (The previous statement is true regardless of whether Cork is considered important.) Also, some dictionaries will collate capital letters before lower case letters, so that Cork will come before cork in spite of the lexicographer considering it less important. For these reasons I suggest dictionary evidence should be discounted altogether. jnestorius(talk) 22:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

reopen November survey?

Due to the renewed interest on this issue and the arguably premature closing (only 6 days with only 23 votes total, with votes still coming in the day it was closed - not to mention the new opinions being expressed here this week) of the November survey, what does everyone think of reopening it? --Serge 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to figure out if the move will be to Cork, Ireland or Cork (city). At present this isssue does not seem to be resolved. I have to say that at present I am leaning towards Cork, Ireland. David D. (Talk) 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It hasn't been resolved whether there's to be a move at all. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
It's a hypothetical, move discussion first or name dicussion first, either is fine. i think there will be strong arguments for and against moving. If moving is dicussed I think there will be strong arguments for several names. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
David, since specifying where the city article should be is part of the November survey, why does that have to be resolved separately? The fact that many of the supporters of the move, and most of the opposers, chose the default by not specifying a preference is perhaps not ideal, but nothing prevents them from updating their vote if we reopen the survey. --Serge 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the name should be part of a request move survey. But if you want to go ahead with that then fine. It adds a layer of complication to the discussion. If you want to confirm the move first we can then discuss a name change if successful. No need to rush in and change everything immediately, if successful. If you just propose the exact same vote as before chances are we'll get the same result. The one above was too complicated let's keep it simple David D. (Talk) 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object with reason to someone doing the following?

  • removing the closed tags on the survey above
  • adding close parameters (2/3 consensus after one week, or one month after reopening, whichever comes first)
  • clarifying all 6 (+?) choices I enumerated above for a new place for the city article
  • moving it to the bottom of this page
  • relisting it at WP:RM and other locations
  • notifying those who expressed interest here after the survey closed that the survey has been reopened.

Anything else? --Serge 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would object, most strenuously. Voting is evil. As I have tried to explain at length above:
  1. That is not how Wikipedia operates to best effect
  2. Repeating the same exercise is likely to lead to the same divisive result, which will please no-one
  3. We could put this to bed quite easily, and all get on with something more productive, if we could adopt my proposal above, or a variation thereof
--Guinnog 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Your proposal above is essentially no different from the survey we just had. What makes you think there is sufficient support for it? Let's see if we can at least make some progress in selecting a new title for this article below. --Serge 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
His proposal is different and it is simple. It says, make cork and disambig page and decide what the name of the city article should be. There is no voting involved. Voting failed miserable last time and disinigrated into a mud slinging fest between you and Dj. So, stop adding complication please. pschemp | talk 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to reopen the November survey. Let's see if we can get some progress on the alternative title issue below. --Serge 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

The result of the proposal was inconclusive. The poll instructions/intent were changed after people had already participated per the original instructions and intent. I tried to fix it, but my fix was reverted again. Nothing good can come from keeping this survey open. The discussion section remains open for those who may be interested in continuing to discuss this survey and related issues. Thank you for your participation. --Serge 19:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: choose alternate title

This is not a requested move nor a vote to move the page - just trying to find out what the preferred acceptable alternative titles are.

NOTE: However, if this poll clearly indicates there is consensus to move the page, it maybe used as a basis for a request at WP:RM Again, please keep this poll to one topic.

IF the article about Cork the city is moved, what should the new title be?

Please rate your choices from the list below as follows:

  • Preferred: (up to one choice); Acceptable: (any number of choices); Unacceptable: (any number of choices) --~~~~

Examples:

  • Preferred: 4; Acceptable: 2, 3; Unacceptable: 1, 5, 6
  • Preferred: 1; Acceptable: 3; Unacceptable: 2, 4, 5, 6

Points will be assigned to choices as follows: Preferred (+2); Acceptable (+1); Unacceptable (-1)

If you specify more than one choice as preferred, only the first preferred choice listed will be assigned two points; any subsequent choices listed as preferred will get one point each.

The "winner" will be the choice with the most points.

Survey Closes: December 17, 2006 (one month) Feel free to revise/update your choices through that day (Wiki time).

Survey

IF the article about Cork the city is moved, what should the new title be? :NOTE: If you believe that the city Cork is so much more notable in the English language than is the material cork such that WP:DAB does not call for a disambiguation page in this case, you may record this opinion by choosing option 1. Never-the-less, you are encouraged to select one or more "acceptable" choices assuming the article is moved. This is not an option for this poll. One topic only is being decided here."

Choices:
:1. Cork (Don't move this article) This option has been removed as it is not a logical answer to the question of what the name should be IF the article is moved. The poll should address that issue only, and indeed that is what the stated question is. Please actually answer the question being asked. Votes stating this is the only valid option will not be considered in determining what consensus should be if the name is changed.

2. Cork, County Cork (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" as Cork is legally separate from County Cork - see Discussion below)
3. Cork, Ireland
4. Cork (city)
5. Cork City (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" - see Discussion below)
6. Cork (County Cork) (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" as Cork is legally separate from County Cork - see Discussion below)
7. Cork (Ireland)
8. City of Cork
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion

Before we start voting lets drop "Cork City" because its simply wrong, just as wrong as London City or Paris City would be for those cities, it has no place in a professional encyclopedia about the city because its a fundemental error. Secondly I recommend that we remove any options that incorporate "County Cork" - because as I outlined above the city and county are legally distinct from each other and the city of Cork is not contained in County Cork and an article title should not suggest such a erroronious and misleading relationship - also other people have suggested a dislike so it will be no loss cutting the list early to avoid over complexity of the situation. Djegan 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I only included Cork City because it has been suggested by a number of people. Also, it does seem to be a fairly common way to refer to the city. If it's wrong, then I would hope it would get very few votes, and it's availability as a choice is moot. I rather err on the side of too many choices rather than risk claims of an invalid poll because certain choices were not made available. I can add City of Cork to the list, however. The last survey was closed far too soon - after one week. That's way too short. Let's give everyone a fair chance to weigh in this time. --Serge 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I appreciate that the form XXX City is used in the Americas, such as Panama City and New York City, in Europe it would be frowned on and theirfore we should simply remove something that is incorrect or make it clear opposite the entry that its incorrect form and to be discouraged. If anything Cork City should redirect to Cork City F.C.. Djegan 23:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've noted your objection in the list - I still think it needs to stay there as a choice for those who may disagree and still prefer it, wrong as they may be. By the way, if Cork City is an "incorrect" or unacceptable reference to the city, why is the football club named Cork City F.C. instead of Cork F.C.? --Serge 23:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Because its a free country. Djegan 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Seriously. That just means they can choose any name they want. But why they want Cork City F.C. to be their name if Cork City is not a normal/accepted reference to the city? For example, the San Francisco 49ers are not the Frisco 49ers because referring to San Francisco as Frisco is considered to be unacceptable. There would be riots in the streets if the franchise tried to name themselves that. So, in that sense, Cork City does seem to be an accepted name - if only informally - of the city. But informality is not an issue, because the formal name is probably City of Cork, and not Cork, anyway. --Serge 00:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
We are getting off point here, but its hardly a great streech of the imagination or potentially riotous to stick "City" in the middle of a name of a sports club name. Djegan 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) cf Birmingham City, Bristol City, Brechin City, Cardiff City, ... I could go on. None of these terms are ever used for the city, only for the football team. --Guinnog 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Cork City nearly all relate to "City as opposed to county" not F.C. There is no "Brechin County". The only analogous city/county in Great Britain is Durham, and googling "Durham City" gets a lot of results in the same vein. I'm not saying "Cork City" is the best option, but saying it's "simply wrong" is simplistic. It's something like "legally incorrect". jnestorius(talk) 12:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Its purely cultural. We don't do it on this side of the Atlantic. Can I suggest that we should just respect our cultural differences. Frelke 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is one month too long? If votes are still coming in, keep the poll open. If they're not, then close it and don't just have the same few people rehashing the same points. jnestorius(talk) 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge/All. I think this voting approach is worthwhile. It is more structured than the previous, and so should not suffer from the same "off topic" discussions as the last. (So long as we don't question the validity of anyone's votes - save for sockpuppets should they manifest). I also think that a month is a reasonable period. Per Serge/Jnestorius. (See "Urgency?" discussion above). Guliolopez 12:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Given that the preamble is "IF the article about Cork the city is moved...", it seems strange to include option 1, and even more strange to vote that option 1 is the only acceptable name if this article is to be moved out of the way for a disambiguation page. The people who would vote to keep the city article at Cork are the ones most likely to be able to identify the correct alternate name if it needed to be moved. --Scott Davis Talk 14:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well spotted. Looks like Francis Tyers and Frelke have spoilt their ballot papers. I don't think the trap was intended, but what to do, run it all over again? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think its pretty simple. Remove the Cork option, ask them politely to give their opinion again and then ignore any votes that continue to no address the actual question. pschemp | talk 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think ignoring people is not an option. We are not going to refactor the vote after it has commenced. Thats not fair play. Djegan 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
They didn't answer the question Djegan. It is not refactoring to correct an error.The reason all the other polls failed is because too many topics were trying to be decided at once. One at time is the way to go. pschemp | talk 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Voting is not the way things are done here. The complicated mechanism devised, while ingenious, seems calculated to perpetuate bickering and inconclusive argy-bargy. Pschemp's suggestion seems sensible; the more variables in a poll, the harder it is to decide. I think at least get rid of the option to keep the status quo, as no good arguments have been made made to keep it there. You could also get rid of the Cork City option for me --Guinnog 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is unsure of the current convention, check out Berlin (disambiguation) and Oxford (disambiguation). I think that Cork (city) is the option least likely to become contentious again. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the comment "Note: Cork is legally separate from County Cork - see Discussion above" because its only appropriate to reference this fact so that people have full facts in front of them before deciding (who will read the endless comments above and below) if a move does occure which is a real possibility. If this move is to be taken serious then full facts should be on the table so people can take an informed decision.

Secondly I recommend new votes be placed at the top of the votes, just to make it simplier to vote and see the options in one screen or box. Djegan 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point here. What "Cork, County Cork" says is that Cork is part of the County Cork. We already have an article County Cork, as you well know, which lists Cork as the County Town, which I assume is equivalent to "capital". I've reverted your additions - put them back if I've missed anything from your argument (and please explain because if so, it wasn't clear). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
County Town, maybe before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, but not not anymore; capital is similarily a meanless phrase as their are no capitals of Irish towns, where are the WP:VERIFY citations for such "facts". Neither "county town" nor "capital" are legally recognised or widely used in Ireland. Those articles are full of pointless and incorrect terminology that is vey important in the parish pump politics but patently incorrect in the real world. The law states that Cork[10] is a city[11] and formerly a county borough and as such[12] is legally distinct from the county themselve. If anyone thinks that Cork is legally part of County Cork then the onus is on them to provide citations to that effect; because mine prove the contray (its a complicated but none-the-less fundemental legal area and we should not publish things that knowningly incorrect). Its quite irrelevant that Cork was in County Cork until the 1898 Act because we are in the here and now.
An incorrect assumption could set a precident, say for instance with the cities of Limerick and Waterford, which individually have territory in what was previously part of other traditonal Irish counties. For instance Limerick has territory once in County Clare and County Limerick and Waterford has territory once in County Kilkenny and County Waterford; so which county do we pick if we want to move them. Neither, but some other disambiguation method.
In summary if we are going to move these articles then we need to do it right first time, because the incorrect proposed new names where an issue last time - all I ask is for comments opposite the proposals that they are incorrect so someone passing thru can decide if they are not willing to read all these tiring comments. And I am not going to sleep walk into an incorrect name with county in it, I have shown my good faith by voting for both acceptable and unacceptable new names other than Cork. Because Cork, County Cork is just as incorrect as London, County of London - not withdstanding that their is currently not a County of London but was until quite recent. We need to get this right first time or no move at all. Djegan 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
See also Counties of Ireland and Local government in the Republic of Ireland. Djegan 17:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
We need to get this right first time or no move at all. Because if the city of Cork ends up at Cork, County Cork or Cork (County Cork) - or any option incorporating County Cork in the new title - then their will have to be a new vote; because such a possition would be legally unsustainable so I request those who have already voted for 2, 6 as "acceptable" to move these votes to "unacceptable" not because I want to scuttle the vote but the prinicipal involved; people should vote otherwise as they see fit, mind you 5 is also incorrect for the reasons outlined in this section. I dont care where the article is finally located as long as its new location does not suggest grammatical or legal illiteracy. Djegan 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
So why is Cork listed as "County Town" in County Cork? Seems you're either wrong, confused or unwilling to fix this. Which is it? For most of your post, you're just rambling, and, it seems to me, missing my point entirely AGAIN. I don't see where your second reference states that the city Cork is not part of County Cork. That is all that is implied by "Cork, County Cork". If you had read the disambig pages that I referenced, you would have come to the realisation that "Oxford Falls, New South Wales" does not imply that all New South Wales is legally equivalent to a suburb of Sydney called Oxford Falls. Jeepers. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If you read my comments opposite 2 and 6 then you will see exactly what the dispute is "Cork is legally separate from County Cork"; and the citations I have above prove this as the indicate that when you take the time to read all three and understand what a county borough is. Because a county borough, for instance the city of Cork, in Ireland have always been legally separate from the county that they came from. This vote is about a city in Ireland, not a suburb in Sydney; this vote will essentially rewrite the WP:IMOS; so lets put asside our differences and put the facts on the table. Djegan 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
If you think I am rambling then thats your choice, have a nice day. Djegan 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The second reference I provided is their just to show the legal continuity between county borough and city in Irish law. They are one in the same thing. But cities and counties are legally distinct from each other and that has been the focus of my remarks. So why imply that the city is part of the county. Djegan 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Rewrite? I don't see where this case is addressed by IMOS. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The only situation that I can see in which "Cork, County Cork" would be an unsuitable name is if Cork was not part of County Cork. Which so far, you have brought forward no evidence to support. Neither have you made it clear whether or not you think that Cork is part of County Cork. Nor do you seem to have understood my analogy. How to talk to you? I don't know. It is probably worth realising that in most places around the world, every village, town and city, is an entity that is legally separate from its regional affiliations, be it county, state, vale, province, you get the idea. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The third reference[13] states, amongst other things,:

10.—

(2) The State continues to stand divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities which are the areas set out in Parts 1 and 2, respectively, of Schedule 5.[14]

(4)(b) The boundaries of a city referred to in subsection (2) are the boundaries of the corresponding county borough as existing immediately before the establishment day.

Cork, as a city (or formerly referred to as a county borough), is not part of County Cork as far as the law is concerned (by virtue that it is a city) - thats my claim and I have backed it up - if you take time to read (and understand) my comments rather than than thinly vailed personal attacks. If you want to claim the contrary - about Cork - then I await your citations. Heres an example of Galways status in Irish law[15], "the Borough shall cease to be part of the County and shall, as on and from such day, be an administrative county of itself, and be called the County Borough". Djegan 18:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for getting to the point. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I included option 1 (Cork) for a reason. I recognized that it is a logically inconsistent answer to the question, but I wanted to give those who feel very strongly that the page should not be moved an outlet to express that in this poll. My thought was that they would give their 2 points to Cork, and still hopefully choose "acceptable" for at least one other option. I now see that some chose to make all the other choices "unacceptable". Oh well, that does not spoil the poll. I think they should have the right to vote that way. I suggest the strikeout be reverted, but I'm not going to get into a revert war on a talk page by doing it myself. --Serge 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Cork, County Cork option, in the U.S. the county government has legal jurisdiction over all unincorporated areas in the county, but not any jurisdiction over incorporated cities. The Cork situation does not seem special in any way. The title Cork, County Cork, or Cork (County Cork), would simply say that we're talking about the Cork that is physically in County Cork. It doesn't say or imply anything about the legal relationship between the respective governments. --Serge 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you expand on your reasons for finding Cork, Ireland unacceptable. I may missed your reasoning from somewhere esle so feel to point me to that section. David D. (Talk) 05:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I ever explained it. I think using the comma to disambiguate is confusing and unclear. I much prefer the standard Wikipedia convention of disambiguation with the parenthetic remark. When the disambiguator is separated by a comma from the name of the subject, it is unclear whether it is part of the name or a disambiguator.
  • with Cork (Ireland) it is clear that Cork is the name and Ireland is the disambiguator.
  • with Cork, Ireland it is unclear whether Ireland is a disambiguator or whether it is part of the name.
I recognize that the comma is a fairly common method of disambiguation for place names. I find that to be unfortunate due to the inconsistency with the standard method, and the clarity issues addressed above. I seek to reverse this trend, and find its further perpetuation in cases like this to be unacceptable. --Serge 16:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
With "Cork, Ireland" it is unclear whether "Cork" is the city or the county. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I dislike "Cork, Ireland" because "city, country" is an American convention. It makes sense there because lots of places are named after towns in Europe or elsewhere (Paris, France versus Paris, Texas); but it's never been idiomatic in Britain or Ireland. So "Cork (Ireland)" is better than "Cork, Ireland". However, I don't think "Cork (Ireland)" works either, because it doesn't disambiguate from County Cork. The convention that "X" is the city and "X (district)" is the administrative area will no longer apply if the city article is not at "Cork", so the new title will need to find some other way to signal "this article is about the city, not the county". jnestorius(talk) 20:31, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I also dislike "Cork (County Cork)" because it could be interpreted exactly the wrong way, with the parenthetic "County Cork" as an alias (a la "football (soccer)") rather than a location qualifier. jnestorius(talk) 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfair

I think its a bit unfair that User:Pschemp has unilaterally removed the status-quo and refactored the vote at this time. Djegan 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What status quo? Fixing an error of logic is not refactoring. The poll has one question, and states, IF the article is moved. Therefore Cork cannot logically be an answer. Aditionally, the reason past polls have failed is because they tried to decide too many things at once. This respondents in this poll should answer the actual question being asked. If they don't, their comments are not really valid for this question. Confusing set ups and the attempt to answer everything at once are the reason people on this page are still arguing. pschemp | talk 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense. I support what you have done. --Guinnog 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
It was not unilateral. --Scott Davis Talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well as fair as your concerned this poll will not have "failed"; your refactoring has saw to that. Wikipedia may not be a democracy but it sure looks like a dictatorship from here. Djegan 18:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you actually understand what the word IF means? That means its conditional. IF the aritcle is moved, that's what people prefer. Whether the article is moved has no bearing on this question. This is not a poll to decide whether or not to move the page, which you seem to think it is. pschemp | talk 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
So their will be an additional vote to decide IF the article will be moved at all (actually you refactored the original "NOTE: However, if this poll clearly indicates there is consensus to move the page, it maybe used as a basis for a request at WP:RM" which implied to me that this vote will be the end of it all). How many more votes and refactors. It should be made clear rather than poorly joined togetheir symantecs. Djegan 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Serge shouldn't have put that statement in either. Another example of needless complicating factors. pschemp | talk 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
As pschemp, ScottDavis and Samsara have pointed out, the poll was malformed and contradicted itself. We are better just deciding what to do by talking about it than having endless polls. And a month was a ridiculous length of time to hold something like this open as well. A day or two should be fine after it has already been talked about for over two weeks. --Guinnog 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't think the poll was a good idea to begin with, that's why I didn't read it very carefully. If I had, I would have protested that bizzare option and statement at the outset. pschemp | talk 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Can we salvage the good aspect of the idea by just deciding between Cork (city), Cork (Ireland) City of Cork and Cork, Ireland, do you think? Polls are really only as good as the debate they generate. For decision-making, I think it best to decide on one issue at a time, from as few alternatives as possible. Far from being dictatorship, this seems to me to potentially offer a way out of this endless hoohah.--Guinnog 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So when this question is decided then their will be a WP:RM by a vote? Djegan 19:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this here. No point having further bloat (he said in self-fulfilling prophecy mode) in other places. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Because no one is replying then I am assuming that their will be another vote. Because thats what IF implies; IF their is a move, not WHEN their is a move. Djegan 19:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I think serge started this vote since i had pointed out that I would not endorse a move, regardless of it being sensible or not, if we did not know where it was to move to. In my mind the discussion of a sensible title IF there was a move has to preceed all discussion about a move otherwise there are too many variable and people get side tracked from the main point. I think above Guinnog is sensible in reducing the debate to those names that have not being ruled out. Of the four (Cork (city), Cork (Ireland) City of Cork and Cork, Ireland) I prefer the last. I would not endorse City of Cork unless I see a strong argument for it. Despite my preference, I would not oppose the first two. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
The point of this discussion is to ensure that we know what the right name is if the article is to be moved. We can then have a simple decision on whether the city or a disambiguation page should be at cork. The "vote" above can be regarded as a summary of people's opinions in the discussion - I have just updated my choices based on the discussion down here. --Scott Davis Talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I'll change my preference to "Cork, Ireland" if that helps move things along. Seems that would get David, Scott and me on the same page (no pun intended). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Subtotal

As a summary of where we stand, all but one person (Will Beback) find option 4 acceptable (discounting those that only find a single option acceptable at all). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So what relevance has that got to anything? Are you suggesting that somehow the opinions of those who only voted for one option, and voted against all others, is somehow irrelevant and shouldn't count. It may not be what you are saying, but it sure sounds as it is! Frelke 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Give me a good argument for keeping things as they are. The case is abundantly clear to me - cork is going to be a disambiguation page to decide between an article about an industry worth several billion [16] each year that feeds much of Portugal and the South-West of Spain, and is integral to the production of the 24 million tonnes of wine produced each year (ten major producing countries only, 2005 figures) and an article about a town (okay, formally a city) of 120k souls with mild touristic interest and a small IT industry. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of whether the list above is a "vote" or a "summary", what we are trying to do is reach consensus, not first-past-the-post majority rule or a head-in-the-sand obstinance to change. According to my "process" proposal above, and I think other editors, the idea at the moment is to work out what would be the most appropriate alternative name for the article about the city. I think the discussion so far has identified that it is wrong to associate the city of Cork with the County of Cork. This is an important decision which might have been missed without this phase. This process also serves to separate the selection of a name from the decision to move, so as not to fragment that discussion when we get to it. I think it is clear that at some stage there will be another attempt to move the city article away from the shortest title - hopefully this will make sure the proposal is to the best title. --Scott Davis Talk 11:22, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Be precise when necessary

I just want to point out that having this article at Cork is a direct violation of WP:NAME#Be precise when necessary, which states:

Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings.

Putting the article about the Irish city named Cork at Cork is putting an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. Of course Cork has another meaning, see Cork. --Serge 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole point here is that Cork has only one meaning. But unfortunately due to technical limitations there is a need for some form of compromise to accomodate links to cork. It is because of technical limitations that we cannot distinguish between Cork and cork. We can distinguish between cork and corK. Its a technical issue. To see what i mean just click on cork Frelke 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't see that patch arriving anytime soon, although they seem to have it working at wiktionary. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Frelke, the point is that, given the technical limitations of Wikipedia, both the city and material would be at Cork if the other did not exist. Cork is the epitome of the ambiguously named title. As such, having either article at Cork is a direct violation of WP:NAME#Be precise when necessary. --Serge 17:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you are reading a different page from me, but the one I'm reading says :
"Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. If all possible words have multiple meanings, go with the rule of thumb of naming guidelines and use the more popular term."
I think we should be discussing what this means by ... and use the more popular the term. It doesn't seem to me to be a direct violation of anything, but rather a particular interpretation of the policy. Frelke 18:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, we are discussing that and have been further up, you obviously didn't read everything. So far there isn't proof that the city is the most popular term, and in fact it seems to be a tie, in which case for NPOV reasons, it should be a disambig page.pschemp | talk 19:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Cork, the material is being replaced by other less cost materials. The wine industry is speedily getting rid of it, as it adds too much to cost. 86.42.146.214 19:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats an interesting interpretation of the policy, pschemp. Have you got anything by way of unambiguous wording to support it? Frelke 23:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the patch is now working on wiktionary, and will be available eventually, is another reason to leave it as is until the system can handle the difference between cork and Cork. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Wiktionary was patched a LONG time ago, can you show me the official request to do the same on WP? And leaving a mistake for an undetermined amount of time is not acceptable. pschemp | talk 00:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What a poll

Readded because Samsara assumed bad faith and deleted my comments. Acceptable, unacceptable, left 1, right 2, up 3, down 4. Option this, option that. Sheesh. I don't know how you can get a lick of an idea of what consensus is with all the busy busy above. Why don't we reach agreement on a small point (Such as should Cork be a disambig page or directed at the City with a link to a disambig) and then work our way up? -- Paul

So how is your comment constructive? As for "busy, busy", if the information is too much for your brain, leave it up to people who can take it. As far as I can see, your comment is counterproductive because you're asking us to start all over again. That's not an option at this point. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just because you say its not an option doesn't make it true. Frelke 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[17] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice insult there, Samsara. This poll is rigged to not give a hopes chance of a "clear consensus" on any matter. Instead ths "option ala carte" method can give vague enough results that one side can try and imitate some shadow of consensus. Talk about counterproductive. Anyone with even a scant knowledge of market research or survey takings knows this foolish. -- paul

Well, thanks for helping when it mattered, and contributing useful and consequential commentary. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll format

Serge reverted the poll to his malformed and confusing edition, which was not supported and was in fact protest by several editors here. In order to keep the focus on one topic at a time, I have again put it back to a logical version not calculated to continue arguments. Now, I think Guinnog's suggestion of just deciding between the 4 options is more logical anyway, but for those editors who may come by and think the poll is the best thing, it needs to be consistent. pschemp | talk 19:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Poll credibility

This poll has no credibility anymore, which, I think, was the intention of those who messed around with it. It is a disgrace. Frelke 19:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the fact that it has been refactored has meant that it has lost its original intent. Djegan 20:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Concur with both Djegan and Frelke. - Francis Tyers · 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes exactly, that's why we are going with Guinnog's more simple discussion anyway. pschemp | talk 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for the status quo

There have been a number of requests for those who wish to maintain the status quo to give our reasons for this. A number of faux-reasons have been suggested such as an lazyness in regard to fixing links and a POV for all things Irish. Well for me it is neither of these. So I feel a need to formalise my objections to change:

  1. We are asking the wrong questions. It should not be a case of if Cork should move and where it should move to, but rather how should the naming conventions and dab guidelines be updated to cope with a situation where there is a need to dab between a place and a similarly named inanimate object e.g. Cork and cork where technical limitations impose a restriction on proper case which forces the issue to arise. As others have pointed this is a precedent setting issue now.
  2. The current rules suggest that the most popular of 2 competing pages should hold the main page title. So we are into a discussion of which is the most popular - Cork the place or cork the material. I think its the place and Serge thinks its the material. So which of us is right? Its a matter of opinion and not fact either way.
  3. If the technical case-sensitivity issue is solved soon - and Wiktionary gives us some hope there - then if things remain the same it will be much simpler to fix links to one page than links to 2. And don't give me this rubbish about "If I'm willing to fix all the links by myself". Why not be productive instead of 'fixing' links that don't need fixing.
  4. We've done this twice already. But seemingly we came up with the 'wrong' answer each time. So we are going to keep doing it until we get the 'right' answer. Sorry. I kick back when bullied.

I hope you agree. Frelke 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Your statement here "Its a matter of opinion and not fact either way." is dead wrong. There are facts, and they have been presented. Facts are what is important here. Unless you can prove the most common usage in the English language is the city (which so far two respected dictionaries have not supported) your laments here contribute nothing. The technical issue is not going to be solved anytime soon, and in the meantime, we need to adhere to NPOV and not promote a city over a billion dollar industry. pschemp | talk 00:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have a question and response - hopefully they will not be interpreted as argumentative. I signed each separately to facilitate responses. (retrying after edit conflict)
Is there an expressed intent somewhere to change English Wikipedia software settings so that Cork and cork would link to different places? This would have huge ramifications for nearly every article, as links at the beginnings of sentences would all need to be checked. An encyclopaedia is different to a dictionary. --Scott Davis Talk 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was wondering the same. Wiktionary was changed a year and a half ago, but I can't find any evidence of an official request to actually do that here. pschemp | talk 00:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The current conventions allow for the case where there is no agreed primary topic - Phoenix is an example of that - city, bird, whatever. It is discussed at WP:D#Page naming conventions, which also notes that all letter cases should be on the same disambiguation page. The Primary topic section also says that the disambiguation page link to the primary topic should always be to an unambiguous page name. This means that cork (disambiguation) is currently wrong, and should be "fixed" to point to an unambiguous title. Before this discussion, I'd have picked Cork, County Cork. However the current consensus for that unambiguous page link looks most likely to be either Cork, Ireland or Cork (city). --Scott Davis Talk 00:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What I see here is that the people that are complaining about the technical restriction have neither gone to find the correct bug to vote on, nor filed a bug report. It's not rocket science (so there you are again, lazy), and here is the low-down from the appropriate page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (technical restrictions):
The MediaWiki software is configured to transform the first letter to uppercase, although code has been written to allow designated articles to skip this transformation.
This is due to the present lack of infrastructure for case-insensitive title matching with same case-preserving semantics in the MediaWiki software. The first letter of any link is forced to be upper case in order to allow links to work naturally both at the beginning of a sentence and in the middle. In the future, there may be a way added to make the initial letter appear lower case without breaking hundreds of thousands of links on the wiki or creating new avenues of abuse. (the workaround described does not apply to our situation here)
So, Frelke, are you serious about this, or just bitchin' because you don't like the way the survey is turning out? Allegations of bullying are out of place. It is only your apparent strong nationalistic feelings that are stopping you from finding this debate a whole lot easier. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What "strong nationalistic feelings" are you talking about? Frelke 07:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, Phoenix doesn't come into it. In fact it actually breaks WP:NC. The correct title for the place should be Phoenix, Arizona according to our naming conventions. So that leaves Phoenix free to hold information about the mythical avian creature. Guys, why not get that one fixed first before messing around with Cork? Frelke 07:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why? Because you feel strongly about Cork? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No. Because its so much more clearcut than this one! ;-)Frelke 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
To pschemp: It may well be factual that the dictionary references are as you say. What is definitely opinion is that that defines the popularity. Dictionaries are one of many suggested methods. So it is your opinion that somehow that is conclusive regarding definition. It is not fact. Please do not pretend otherwise. WP may not be a democracy, and voting may be evil, but you are not Jimbo either. Saying, or even suggesting, that your POV = consensus does not make it so. Frelke 09:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It has in fact been suggested that pschemp is Jimbo. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Seen both photos. No chance :-) I can't imagine Jimbo in such a short skirt.Frelke 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
So Phoenix is not an example comparable to cork because the current city naming convention says that US cities should be at city, state? What about Lincoln - UK city, plane, sheep or something else? --Scott Davis Talk 10:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I would also exclude Lincoln. I don't think it is widely popular to use the term lincoln to refer to a sheep or a plane. Frelke 10:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed not. It is a race of sheep and a particular model of plane. Sometimes I wonder whether people who don't show reasonable effort to follow up the opposition's argument should have their opinions discounted. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We are all equal, its just that admins are a little more equal than the rest of us. Frelke 13:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You know, that argument is frequently used to silence admins when they're not convenient to one's cause. But I don't buy it. I have made a decision that I will not create secondary accounts just so I can have my peace when I'm doing normal editing duties. If you disagree with that, and you'd rather deal with me in a guise where you don't recognise me, that's your problem. I'm going to play the game straight. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't call suggesting that those who aren't quite up to your intellectual standard should have their views discounted, playing it straight. But hey-ho. To each his own. Or her own. Frelke 13:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Presuming it just slipped your attention but could you answer the question "What 'strong nationalistic feelings' are you talking about? " I asked above? Thanks. Frelke 13:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
(four times edit conflicted) Let me get this straight. To find a suitably comparable example, we have to think of a word which is the name of a place that is not in the USA, Canada or Australia, and also means something other than a placename to someone who lives in the British Isles? What about Orion - plane, constellation, or town or municipality? Do you tie your necktie with a Windsor knot - or is that a royal family or a type of Ford engine, since you consider the city in Ontario has no claim on the name due to the current naming convention? Have I thought of something that you accept is a comparable example yet? --Scott Davis Talk 13:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think either of those are particularly good or appropriate examples. How about

And the reasons are clear. Windsor vs Windsor knot - the knot is named after Windsor and Orion suffers the same issue as Chicago namely both are proper names. Frelke 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm laughing here Felke. I can't believe you just wrote off every dictionary in the world as a source. If you are going to make such outrageous claims like the dictionary doesn't list definitions in order of usage, you had better back that up with facts. I suggest you go talk with a linguist too. You seem to have a pattern of just discounting any sources or examples you don't agree with. As I said before, until you bring some hard facts to the table, your opinions are nothing but that. We make decision here based on verified facts, not opinions. pschemp | talk 14:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What was wrong with Phoenix as an example? The mythical bird, phoenix (mythology) is not a proper noun, but Phoenix, Arizona is. That is the same problem as here, I believe. --Scott Davis Talk 14:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Several of your examples also have a disambiguation page at the primary topic, as appears to be the preferred solution for most people who arrived at this discussion via cork (material) or Cork (disambiguation), and some who got here from Cork. --Scott Davis Talk 14:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree, Phoenix is a perfect example. In fact, its better because corks aren't even mythical. :) pschemp | talk 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry. WP:NC dictates that Phoenix the city should properly reside at Phoenix, Arizona. I think we are all agreed on that. So there is no need to dab at all. The mythical bird can quite safely and unobtrusively reside at Phoenix. We could also have a dab page for other uses. I can see the fundamental difference between the 2. Can't you?Frelke 15:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, and according to what you just said, in that case Cork the city should reside at something equally unambiguous like Cork, Ireland or Cork (city) and cork the material should reside safely and unobtrusively at Cork with a dab page for other uses. That's a good argument for have cork the material at Cork my friend. pschemp | talk 17:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks, "discounting opinions" and other flaming

Ladies and gentlemen. I am not going to point any fingers, but - in order to facilitate reasoned discussion - I would strongly recommend that those who have moved into off topic bickering please consider ways to restore some order, and refrain from name calling. Calling someone "Lazy", "Nationalistic", (which has overtones in this part of the world which may be misinterpretted), or otherwise threatening to discount someones opinion because they have not engaged in an argument under specific terms is not appropriate. If any one contributor feels the need to draw attention to behaviour and/or tone which is deemed to be improper, please focus on the behaviour and not the person. Guliolopez 13:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So why are you continuing the combative atmosphere by implying that I was going to discount anybody's opinion? You should read more carefully. It should have occurred to you that since you are one of the people that oppose disambiguation, and I endorse it, that commenting my contribution critically is not going to help things. If you think that personal attacks have occurred, please find another admin to comment, complain on the appropriate notice board, or go the formal route of resolving conflict (RfC and mediation). By commenting in this way, you are only getting yourself involved more deeply. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be particularly helpful if you did not label those of us who disagree with you as being opposed to disambiguation. We are not. We are just opposed to your preferred (I think) dab solution. There is a significant difference between those positions. Frelke 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be particularly helpful if you did not label every fact you don't like as an "opinion" or discount it. As for you Gui, anyone who says people shouldn't do the right thing because it will take too much effort to fix the links is expressing a lazy attitude. That's not a personal attack. Additionally, we make decisions based on facts here, not emotional opinions. Anyone who just rants about without verifyable facts will get their "opinions" discounted because that's all they are. WP:VERIFY applies to decisions, along with WP:NPOV and plain opinions without rationale are discounted under both of those policies. The reason all your previous efforts failed is because people didn't bother to look at facts. Requireing that people do so is keeping the discussion on track, not attacking anyone. pschemp | talk 14:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
1. Samsara (RE: DAB) - I am not opposed to DAB. Per my comments several weeks ago, I agree "that there's a need to differentiate Cork (the city) and Cork (the material), [however] I think the current model already achieves this (if incompletely)."
2. Samsara (RE: Feeding Antagonism) - I wasn't just commenting on the antagonistic behaviour of editors who "voted differently to me". Such behaviour/comments are evident on both sides of the fence.
3. Samsara (RE: Your comment. "By commenting in this way, you are only getting yourself involved more deeply.") That's probably good advice. I'll stay out of it then.
4. pschemp (RE: Laziness) My intent was not to suggest (in the discussion several weeks ago) that the effort of renaming alone neccesarily precluded renaming, rather that the alt naming suggestions were not correct, and so, the REPEATED renaming that would ensue would be difficult to manage.
To close: I have attempted to meet the imposed requirement of representing facts to demonstrate a case for "Cork" as primary use (citing Google tests, precedence, etc). All were rejected out of hand. On the other side, editors remain intent on introducing a dictionary interpretation of the word as key indication of the term's use - despite the fact that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and so should not be considered independently.
Yes Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That means don't write articles that are dicdef. That doesn't have any bearing at all on this situation. Dictionaries are references in this case, and as such are perfectly valid. pschemp | talk 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have therefore given up on this entire discussion as a means to build consensus. It seems that a handful of editors - though guided by altrustic intent in application of useful guidelines - are intent on a rename regardless. Or to put it another way, - per Frelke - this debate is going to go on until consensus is built behind the "right" interpretation of policy. Guliolopez 15:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This debate will go on until the correct things are done, yes. pschemp | talk 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
To add to the dictionary argument, I have just checked our Collins here in the office and it lists cork and Cork as 2 separate entries and so doesn't show precedence for either. Unfortunately I left the 3 volumes of C's from mmy OED out of my briefcase this morning and my local library is shut today. So We'll have to wait till tomorrow to see what the OED actually says on the subject. But I would be astonished if it was very different from Collins. Frelke 15:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes indeed, and in the Random House unabridged dictionary, where Cork with a capital is also listed seperately, (most dictionaries don't have Cork listed at all) Cork the county is given as the first def, then the city. The OED online doesn't even include Cork with a capital C btw, and that's the most up to date edition. IF Cork the city were so important, the OED would have included it. It certainly included Turkey with a capital T. pschemp | talk 17:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How about?

Merging Cork (material) with Cork cambium? - Francis Tyers · 13:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One is about a product derived from one particular species of plant, the other is about a tissue type that occurs in all plants. They are not the same thing. No merge. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Ah no. Cork cambium is a specific biological term referring to a specific tissue that produces bark during the secondary growth of all trees. It doesn't always produce cork, it just happened to get that name because in the cork oak, that is the tissue that is harvested. It is situated next to the vascular cambium and they are both types of lateral meristems. The topic is more closely related to Vascular cambium than cork, so merging makes no sense. That would be like saying Meat should be merged with Skeletal muscle. If you read scientific literature about this, you'll see its an entirely separate thing.pschemp | talk 14:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to drop straw polls in this debate?

It seems that there is consensus developing for leaving the poll behind and trying to reach consensus through discussion. Am I right in saying so? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Frelke 14:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus doesn't mean 100% agreement Felke. A lot of editors here wish to continue with Guinnog's suggestion of discussion. pschemp | talk 14:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion is far more likely to reach a conclusion we can all live with. Voting polarises people's opinions. --Scott Davis Talk 14:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Wait a minute, you said yourself Felke that "This poll has no credibility anymore" and Djegan said, "I agree" and Francis concurred with both of you. You are contradicting yourself. First you didn't want the poll, now you do? pschemp | talk 15:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As you say, I said "This poll ...". That does not mean every. It does not mean some. It means This poll. Now DJ and I both understood that. Is there a cultural gulf between us that means our style of English is not intelligible across the pond? Or did you not read what I said very carefully? Or is there another explanation?Frelke 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This poll is the one that Samsara was to referring to. Perhaps you should read more carefully. pschemp | talk 17:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I seriously don't think your whims are going to be further accommodated in this discussion, even though you do think that because we are admins, we are evil. The problem is just that you object to everything and fail to push ahead with new suggestions. If you think about it for a moment, you will realise that this is not so different from an edit war, where you are the constant reverter. Arguing is permissible so long as there is some sense of closing in on a solution, which is the one thing that is missing here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that it is because you are an admin, that you are evil. :-) In fact I don't think you are evil at all. Sadly misguided? Yes. Evil? No. Of an arrogant and bullying nature? Well, hmmm, getting there I think. In fact I have already come up with an interesting and instructive alternative. I was the one who suggested that instead of trying to set a precedent here in isolation, that instead it was WP:NC and WP:D (and subpages) that needed fixing. Now if they were changed to accomodate the very discrepancy that we are discussing here - i.e. where "popularity" is in dispute and technical limitations prevent adequate disambiguation - then I would, as a loyal wikipedian, abide by those updated policies and guidelines. But it seems no one was interested in engaging on that point, prefering instead to look backwards at laziness and other interesting concepts. Frelke 16:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
As Scott Davis has pointed out to you many times, those pages do cover this case, you just don't like the answer they point to. Wikilawyering about saying they don't because there isn't an example with absolutely every detail the same is not acceptable behaviour. We say we prohibit personal attacks, yet we don't list each and every specific personal attack that possibly could be. General statements are made, and then cases are decided on those. There is already a precedent and it has been pointed out to you. By the way, not everyone who thinks Cork should be a dab page is even an admin. Some of them are even Irish, making your sweeping generalizations of "bullying" even more ridiculous. Being a good "loyal" wikipedian means doing the correct thing, not hiding behind words. pschemp | talk 17:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus on polls

I believe that there is consensus for ignoring Serge's last multi-option poll. I do not believe that there is consensus to necessarily never-ever-ever have another straw poll on this subject. Of course the best way forward would be to achieve consensus by discussion, but I feel that is unlikely to happen.Frelke 17:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, could you point out where Samsara said that polls whould never ever happen again? Or did you just misinterpret his English because he's on the same side of the pond as you?pschemp | talk 17:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus to drop straw polls in this debate? Frelke 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that doesn't mean "never" on the subject ever again, just for this particular debate on the subject. pschemp | talk 19:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Could we have less bickering please. Thanks. Djegan 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't let us get into another distracting side issue about what someone else's exact intentions were. Polls are a bad idea. Polls got this issue to the present entrenched situation. Another poll wouldn't tell us much we don't already know. There is no need to have another poll, now or any time soon. We must all focus on resoving the issue of the name of this article, not argue about how it should be done. I say we discuss, calmly and rationally, what the city article should be named when Cork becomes a disambiguation page, as it must in serving an international readership. I don't see any objective argument has been presented otherwise. I suggest we choose between one of the four options I mentioned a while back. Let's try to make some more progress. --Guinnog 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you list those four options here again? pschemp | talk 19:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The four still in play based on discussion to date are; Cork (city), Cork (Ireland) City of Cork and Cork, Ireland. David D. (Talk) 20:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Guinnog, with all due respect, let's give it one more shot. I think a poll is the best way to determine by consensus the most acceptable, or at least least objectionable name. I believe I've devised a poll (below, after closing previous poll) that will allow us to accomplish this. Let's give it a shot. --Serge 20:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Serge, with all due respect, your plan is needlessly complicated. A discussion is fine. pschemp | talk 20:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What's needlessly complicated about choosing "acceptable" (in order of preference) and "unacceptable" options from a list of eight choices? We can discuss this for months and there will still be people strongly opposed to the move. We will need actual numbers to show that there is consensus for any decisions that are alleged to have been reached to have any credibility. There is no hurry to vote today. The poll is intentionally open for 30 days to give everyone time to think and talk about it, and also to bring more people in. --Serge 20:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus to archive talk page

Is there consensus to archive everything before Talk:Cork#Requested move?Frelke 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: choose acceptable titles for this article

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

The result of the proposal was Let's try this again. Please do not alter the poll instructions without clarifying intent with me first. Thanks. --Serge 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not a requested move nor a vote to move the page - we're just trying to find out what the preferred acceptable titles are. However, if this poll clearly indicates there is consensus to move the page, of course it may be used as a basis for a request at WP:RM.

QUESTION: What should be the title of this article about the city of Cork?

From the list below, please choose specify which are acceptable (in order of preference - the first in your list gets an extra "preferred" point) and which are unacceptable, as follows:

  • Acceptable: choices; Unacceptable: choices --~~~~

Examples:

  • Acceptable: 4, 2, 3; Unacceptable: 1, 5, 6
  • Acceptable: 1, 3; Unacceptable: 2, 4, 5, 6

Points will be assigned to choices as follows: First Acceptable: (+2); Other Acceptable (+1); Unacceptable (-1)

In the examples above, points would be assigned as follows:

1: 1 (-1 + 2)
2: 0 (1 - 1)
3: 2 (1 + 1)
4: 1 (2 - 1)
5: -2 (-1 - 1)
6: -2 (-1 - 1)

The "winner" will be the choice with the most points.

Survey Closes: December 20, 2006 (one month). Feel free to revise/update your choices through that day (Wiki time).

Survey

What should be the title of this article about the city of Cork?

Choices:

1. Cork (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" because, per WP:DAB, Cork (disambiguation) should be at Cork)
2. Cork, County Cork (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" as Cork is legally separate from County Cork - see Discussion above)
3. Cork, Ireland
4. Cork (city)
5. Cork City (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" - see Discussion above)
6. Cork (County Cork) (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" as Cork is legally separate from County Cork - see Discussion above)
7. Cork (Ireland)
8. City of Cork

Acceptable: 4, 7, 6, 8, 5; Unacceptable: 1, 2, 3 --Serge 19:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Discussion

For God's life, can we simply take out the ones we've agreed won't work? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed this won't help discussion with so many non starters in the bunch. I thought it had been narrowed down to four candidates? David D. (Talk) 20:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
We did. And decided to have a discussion about them. No one asked Serge to insert yet another useless poll. pschemp | talk 20:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The lack of consensus about which ones will work and which ones won't is exactly the point of this poll. If anyone believes any of those choices won't work, then he or she should put them on his or her unacceptable list. If they believe they will work, then they should put them on their acceptable list, with their preference listed as the first one. That's what this poll is about. If there are truly any "non starters in the bunch", then I would expect to find them on everyone's "unacceptable" list. I have not seen sufficient evidence to indicate that there is even one name in the list that at least a few people will disagree about it "not working" or being a "non starter". --Serge 20:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In other words, I'd rather err on the side of too many choices and require everyone to put the "won't work" and "non-starters" on their unacceptable lists rather than leave something out that someone may later claim makes the survey invalid because it was not listed as an option. I hope that makes sense. --Serge 20:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
What the heck Serge? No one wants to start another poll except you. We've got four good options that Guinnog proposed, lets jsut discuss them. This ranking crap is uneeded complication. Serge, please stop inserting these things. pschemp | talk 20:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This whole fiasco is like a slow car crash. Not even the evident supporters of a move can obtain a consensus as to what to do. We will still be voting the other side of the new year. Djegan 20:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Inserting polls we don't need isn't helpful either. Guinnog's discussion of the four options is just fine. This poll is uneeded. pschemp | talk

This poll is still malformed and needlessly complicated. It should not be used. I recommend we continue with Guinnog's suggestion and dispense with the poll idea. It hasn't worked yet, and the way this is written is calculated to continue discord. I absolutely oppose this poll since it doesn't stick to one topic. pschemp | talk 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

There is only one topic at issue here, and that is the one topic this poll addresses: what should be the name of this article, period. Your comments in opposition to a poll that was just opened are not very helpful. Please, give it your support and see if it works or not before you take a stand against it. Thanks. --Serge 20:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No. It asks two questions, whether to move and what the name should be. It should only ask what the name should be. Simple. Please stop editting warring about it. IT is useless the way it it worded. Neither Samsara nor David D support its current wording either. You should have asked people how it should be run first. Since you didn't and refuse to accept modifications, it will remain closed. pschemp | talk 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
You are grasping patheticaly at falsehoods in order to defend your irrational behavior. The poll does not ask two questions, it asks one simple question. It does not ask whether to move. Samsard and David D did not have a problem with the wording: they objected to the number of choices, an objection which I understand but addressed/explained above. Reason and logic are obviously unwelcome here. Those in support of leaving this article at Cork are probably laughing their heads off, and justifiably so. Congratulations. Enjoy the quagmire. I'm done. --Serge 21:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, we'll get on with the discussion then. pschemp | talk 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork (city), Cork (Ireland), City of Cork and Cork, Ireland

These seem to be the four that people support as alternatives to Cork. I prefer Cork (city) as the least ambiguous and least likely to get mixed up with the county. Please add your opinion. (and thanks Guinnog, for narrowing these down) pschemp | talk 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


Is the city Cork within the boundaries of County Cork?

[was: Why not Cork (County Cork)?]

Yes, I've read the arguments above. My question stands. Just because the government of the county does not have jurisdiction over the city does not mean it is incorrect to say the city is located in the county, which is all that Cork (County Cork) implies. Now, I happen to prefer Cork (city) to Cork (County Cork), but I prefer Cork (County Cork) to the three other choices specified. The objection to Cork (County Cork) seems to be based on the false assumption that Cityname (Countyname) implies that the government of Countyname has jurisdiction over the city named Cityname, which is not at all the case. Therefore, I don't understand why Cork (County Cork) is not one of the choices here. --Serge 22:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Because its a contradiction and thus unacceptable; on the one hand your saying it is in the county and on the other your saying its not; either it is or is not. Fine details can be explained in the article independent of any sort of article name which makes such independence a liability. Djegan 22:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
There is no contradiction. The city is in the county, and that fact is all that Cork (County Cork) implies. In other words, the county border does not end at the city limits; the city limits are within the county borders. --Serge 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Even the Cork County Hall is located in the city of Cork. Are you suggesting the County Hall is outside of the county? --Serge 22:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
An enclave? Maybe we could have Ireland (Ireland) because the official name of the Republic of Ireland is Ireland? We already have a good alternative to Cork, Cork (city). Djegan 22:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
It is quite true that the county hall is in the city; but as a consiquence it is not located in the county, in effect it is outside the county. Make no doubt about it, as you will see from the previous discussion, that the city and county are distinctly separate; legally and politically. Any option incorporating County Cork will be a sure way to prevent a move, its devisive. Djegan 23:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Djegan, what do you mean by "in effect [the Cork County hall] is outside the county"? Is the county hall in the county, or not? According to the Cork County website, the county covers an area of 7,459 square kilometres (2,880 square miles), that includes the city of Cork. Don't get me wrong. I'm not arguing that Cork, County Cork should be the title of this article! I'm just saying that the reason it should not be the title is NOT because the city is not in the county... it is. --Serge 23:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This line of inquiry is the type that discourages consensus and guarentees division (if we spend as much time agreeing as we due arguing on petty items...); the fact that I have articulated is that the City and County are not one; they are legally two different units and one is not subdependent of the other in any legal or political manner; so why should a article name suggest such a relationship. In so far as the law is concerned in Ireland counties and cities are on the same subnational level unlike towns that are dependent of the counties in which they are located, i.e. one level below county or city level thus if Cork where a town then this would not be an issue.
Getting hung up on the relationship between city and county is not a good idea {this is not the time or place}, because if an option incorporating city and county in a name makes it to a vote then you will have no one but yourselfs to blame if it becomes an issue. Because if its such an issue now can you imagine what will happen if it comes to a vote. Dont say you have not been "warned". I have attempted, as far as possible, to keep my message limited to the legal relationship between the city and county and those answers should meet WP:VERIFY, which is satisfactory. Djegan 00:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
This is not about the name issue. This is about whether the city is located inside the boundaries of the county, or whether it is located outside the boundaries of the county. Whichever it is, it should be made clear in the article (which makes this the place to discuss it). Whatever your intent, you have succeeded to confuse more than a few people on this point (e.g., see David D's comparisons to Washington D.C/Maryland and Lesotho/South Africa below). --Serge 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I should probably chip in here to say that having inspected the references, I acknowledge Djegan's argument on this point as valid. The County Hall, surely, would still be called the County Hall even if the governance structure changed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No one is disputing whether the County Hall would still be called the County Hall. The issue in dispute is whether the County Hall is in the county or not. What references have you found that would indicate the County Hall is not in the county? I think you're confusing the county with the area that is governed by the county government. The area typically governed by a county government is the entire county minus those areas governed by the governments of incorporated municipalities. The county and its government's governed area would only be the same in a county without any incorporated cities. --Serge 23:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Question "Is County Hall in the County", Answer "County Hall {as an object of the County Council, that is the government of the County} is not located within the boundary of the County that it serves, rather it is located in a place outside the legal boundary of the County". You can read more about cities and counties of Ireland at counties of Ireland but suffice it to say that the recognised status of a county in Ireland is that conferred by law. I am not going to comment on terminology that I am not familiar with {which I suspect is US in origin and theirfore not applicable in Ireland, re: "incorporated municipalities", "incorporated cities"}. Djegan 00:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for the claim that the legal boundary of County Cork does not include the city of Cork? --Serge 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Serge, can we move on now? We're currently discussing "Cork (city)", and no serious objections have yet been found. If you have any, please let the rest of us know. Djegan? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I started a separate section on this intentionally. The talk page is not supposed to be devoted to the name issue alone. I've changed the name of this section (and changed it into a major section rather than a subsection) to make it more clear what it's about. If you're not interested, please ignore it. Okay? --Serge 01:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I think for the reasons you gave against Cork, Ireland and its variant. Disambiguation should only be as fine as it has to be, and there aren't other cities called Cork in Ireland to distinguish it from. --Guinnog 22:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Agree, but then Cork (Ireland) should not be in the list either. But, as long as it is not ruled out by this argument, then Cork (County Cork) should not be ruled out by this argument either. --Serge 22:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Why not? because Cork (city) is the title which is most likely to be accepted by (almost) everyone, even if it's not the first choice of many. That is what consensus is about, rather than continually holding votes. --Scott Davis Talk 23:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that "Cork, Ireland" could also be seen as referring to the county. I don't think it's the best choice, but that's only a weak preference on my part. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Good point. I hadn't seen that ambiguity, which seems to make those versions less attractive to me too. --Guinnog 23:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Scott, you did not answer my question. If the reason Cork (County Cork) should be ruled out is because Cork (city) is the title which is most likely to be accepted by (almost) everyone, even if it's not the first choice of many., then why does that reason not also apply to ruling out Cork (Ireland) (not to mention that Cork (Ireland) might be seen as a reference to Cork County itself, per Samsara's point)? Why are Cork (Ireland) and Cork, Ireland in the list but not Cork (County Cork) and Cork, County Cork? I'm suggesting that to be consistent and objective they should all be in, or all out. --Serge 23:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Is Washington DC in Maryland or Virginia? It seems like a similar example. If Cork is technically not in County cork then the name makes no sense. What about Lesotho? It surround but not in South Africa. Could one say the same for Cork with respect to County Cork? David D. (Talk) 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
But the boundaries of Maryland and Virgina end where the boundary of Washington D.C. begins. Lesotho is similar to Washington D.C. South Africa has a hole in it, if you will, in which is Lesotho. This is not the case for Cork and County Cork - the city limits of Cork the city are within the boundaries of Cork the county. The county encompasses the city. South Africa does not encompass Lesotho. --Serge 01:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really see your distinction here with respect to Leotho. The following was written above:
"Cork was formerly a county borough[18][19]; those two sections make it clear that cities and counties in Ireland are distinct from one another, for instance "The State continues to stand divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities which are the areas set out in Parts 1 and 2, respectively, of Schedule 5" makes it clear that cities and counties are on the same administrative level and theirfore separate of each other and that cities are not a subpart of counties as towns are a subpart of counties."
Doesn't that make it sound exactly the same as Lesotho, except one is at country level and the other at county level? David D. (Talk) 01:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
No. It distinguishes the town-county relationship with the city-county relationship. The fact that a city is not a subpart of a county in the same way that a town is a subpart of a county does not mean that the city is not a subpart of the county in any way. One way a city is a subpart of its county is that it is located on the map within the geographical boundary of the county. Another way is that the population of the county includes the population of the city. None of this is true for Lesotho. The population of Lesotho is not included in the population of South Africa, for example (same with Washington D.C. and Maryland). --Serge 01:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) A (perhaps better) example that struck me was seeing mail adressed to "Edinburgh, Midlothian". Edinburgh hasn't been in Midlothian, administratively, for many years. Fascinating stuff. --Guinnog 01:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So I suppose you're asking whether "Cork, County Cork" would be permissible as a purely historic and geographical reference. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Arguments against "Cork (city)"

Seeing that Cork (city) is the only option that has not had serious objections brought forward (with City of Cork a possible second), can we please hear any objections to this, if there are any? Thanks. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

  • See the comments in some of the oppose votes in the closed survey at the top of this talk page. --Serge 00:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • If you actually go through them, you will find that nothing of substance was brought forward - everyone just conjectured that the status quo was good, save one person who simply stated that "Cork (city)" was "horrible", and another who referred to spurious "inherent problems". - Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If Cork (city) was used, where would Cork City and Cork city point? Frelke 11:10, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
You should check the links properly before making unsubstantiated assertions. Cork City is a redirect for Cork, as is Cork city. The football club is at Cork City F.C..
So are we suggesting that both Cork City and Cork city should redirect to Cork (city)? Are we really suggesting that? Lunatics running the asylum springs to mind. Frelke 12:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It's got nothing to do with where the links are currently going. Guinnog has already shown that it has become convention for "Cityname City" to redirect to "Cityname City F.C.", so that has been dealt with. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Whoah, Hroðulf! WP:DAB again, with context this time:
  1. A disambiguating word or phrase can be added in parentheses. The word or phrase in parentheses should be:
  2. Rarely, an adjective describing the topic can be used, but it's usually better to rephrase the title to avoid parentheses.
There is no caution against parentheses, except when the parenthetic phrase is an adjective, which is not the case with "Cork (city)". jnestorius(talk) 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
So you are suggesting that there is consensus on that? Because thats not my reading of it. If Guinnog had meant that the redirect should be changed and there is consensus, why has no one changed it? Because we're all too lazy? Or because, perhaps, there may not be consensus on it and it is not worth having a right royal battle over a redirect? My guess is the second is much more likely. Even if it were so, that still leaves Cork city. So is that to be a redirect to Cork (city)? Frelke 12:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I did change it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Um, are you planning to fix the 100 or so misdirected links? jnestorius(talk) 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
... to point to Cork obviously given that that is what is contextually correct in most cases. And then change all those links again to point to Cork (city) if a move is agreed and the consensus says thats the most appropriate dab name. As I said, sheer lunacy. If ever there was a case of WP:POINT this is it. Frelke 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not changing the links twice. A redirect is perfectly acceptable. Sheer lunacy indeed. I hope you've all got warm bottoms and a cup of tea to hand. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Well okay then, I've made Cork City a redirect disambiguation page. jnestorius(talk) 16:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

To suggest there is a consensus for moving this article at all (nevermind where to) requires a very strange view of the word consensus. Rather interesting that there are people advocating moving away from straw polls, considering that said polls did not show consensus!

zoney ♣ talk 16:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people involved in this discussion are in favor of having cork as a redirect. Polls are not the last word. If you have something useful to add to this discussion, please do, otherwise stop whining about process since that adds nothing to this discussion. A straightforward discussion is a perfectly acceptable way to make a decision and in fact the *preferred* manner on Wikipedia. pschemp | talk 16:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I have added something to the discussion; namely that it is not acceptable for people to be claiming "consensus" when there clearly isn't. As regards the "preferred manner" on Wikipedia; last time I checked, telling people to "stop whining" wasn't part of it. I am not arguing in favor of straw polls as a fantastic option. Discussion is all well and good, but it does not magically produce consensus where there are numerous objections, failures to agree on course of action, etc. (i.e. where there isn't consensus). Discussion is merely being strung out here by those who haven't got their way. That is not particularly useful Wikipedia process. zoney ♣ talk 16:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
For those joining the discussion late: several proposals to move the page got bogged down over indecision about where to move it. The current discussion is seeking to answer the question: where would it be moved, if it was moved at all. If a consensus emerges on this, then a subsequent discussion may ddress the question of whether to move it. It is quite possible for a consensus to emerge on the first issue before or without a consensus on the second. jnestorius(talk) 17:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is counter-intuitive to discuss where it would be moved, given that there was no consensus on the earlier question of whether to move it (which I was present for, I assure you). Tell me, why would those in favour of the current arrangement input into a discussion on a "potential" new page location? Continued discussion as to where to move this page is only indicative of a resolve to move the page regardless of the lack of consensus to do so. zoney ♣ talk 18:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you were present, Zoney. You voted to oppose the move on the following grounds: well-known cities such as Cork should stay at the primary name page. Most of the links to Cork in Wikipedia are to the city. Your vote exemplifies the "reasoning" that frustrates so many of us: it doesn't make sense. The issue is not about whether Cork is "well-known" (which is not a given compared to truly well-known cities like Paris, San Francisco, Dublin and London). The issue is about how "well-known" this subject is compared to other subjects that use that name (in particular, cork the material), and whether Wikipedia guidelines dictate that one or the other, or the dab page, should be at Cork. Those of you who oppose the move avoid addressing this issue, and just keep falling back on repeating the fact that there is no consensus established to move this page. This avoidance of discussing the underlying issues indicates you opposers know you are on thin ice, at best. --Serge 18:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"why would those in favour of the current arrangement input into a discussion on a "potential" new page location?" The bad reason: Tactical voting (specifically, burying). Since Wikipedia is good, let's rule that out. The good reason: If a consensus "best alternative" emerges, and is then compared with the current dispensation, and the status quo still prevails, then I venture to suggest the issue will be closed, and we can all go home. jnestorius(talk) 19:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Having the city at Cork is such a blatant violation of Wikipedia conventions and guidelines, I hereby predict that the issue will never be closed until the page is moved. You and I and all the other current move supporters may be long gone, but as long as Cork is about a small city in Ireland of barely 100,000 people, from time to time somebody will come along and raise the issue, file a move request, and many will be in agreement and will join in. It's inevitable. It's also evidence in and of itself that this article should not be at Cork. --Serge 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I hereby predict that the issue will never be closed until the page is moved. As have others... [20] - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually Serge, it doesn't bother me that much either way. And I would like to think people will prefer a single rolling discussion to a constant sequence of poll after poll. If there's no consensus there's no consensus; there are more important things to worry about. Pick your battles. jnestorius(talk) 19:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
There is much more at stake here than the name of this particular article. What is at stake is whether Wiki-wide conventions and guidelines can be used to bring about consistency in naming at Wikipedia. Too many exceptions without good arguments for them to be exceptions, can only lead to eventual disarray and more and more disregard for conventions and guidelines. I support certain articles to be exceptions, but only when there is a strong argument for it. The lack of strong argument to make a city of barely 100,000 people to be an exception to the fundamental convention/guideline of using a dab page when there is no primary topic for a given term means this should not be an exception. It's very disappointing that we cannot establish a consensus to see this. It's disappointing because the implications are that when a large enough group of biased supporters rally to support a particular usage of a name we cannot convince them to see the bigger picture. --Serge 21:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the article in question, you will not find a population of 100K written anywhere. The smallest possible estimate is 118K but that jumps up to 380K for the greater Cork area. Now consider which of those figures would more accurately describe the contents of the rest of the article. Climate for instance doesn't stop at the city boundary, neither do transportation or the accent. It is inaccurate to continue using the 100,000 figure. Please stop. The metropolis of Cork has a poulation of over 350,000. It is the second city of the second largest english speaking nation in Europe, which has a huge diaspora all over the world. Cork has one of the largest natural harbours in the world. Its history goes back to the sixth century. All of which makes it quite notable. `And alongside all that, its name is Cork whereas the material is properly titled cork. Which, IMHO, makes it more deserving of the Cork page than cork. Frelke 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It is inaccurate to continue using the 100,000 figure. Please stop. The metropolis of Cork has a poulation of over 350,000. It is the second city of the second largest english speaking nation in Europe, which has a huge diaspora all over the world. Cork has one of the largest natural harbours in the world. Its history goes back to the sixth century. All of which makes it quite notable.
Then, we clearly need an article about this city.
And alongside all that, its name is Cork whereas the material is properly titled cork. Which, IMHO, makes it more deserving of the Cork page than cork.
What do you mean, "deserving"? Try to remember that a Wikipedia article is not something bestowed as a trophy of notability. The page Cork should direct readers to the article they're looking for -- most likely, either Cork (city) or Cork (material), but possibly something else. The fact is that C-O-R-K, in English, has two unrelated primary meanings. Cork needs to be a disambiguation page to reflect this. —ptk✰fgs 21:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It deserves the page because it is more popular. Frelke 21:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
First, that's based on a contrary-to-fact premise. In some regions, people might speak of Cork more often than they do of cork, but try to keep in mind that outside Europe, almost no one ever speaks of the city at all, and all are referring to the material.
Second, popularity is not a compelling reason on its own for ignoring our disambiguation guidelines. —ptk✰fgs 21:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's also remember that wine is not as popular in Ireland as in many other countries, although even whiskey is often stoppered with a cork. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Frelke, even if the city is "more popular" than the material (which is debatable at best), it doesn't matter. In order to have the term in question as the article title the subject of the article must be the primary meaning of the term. For example the city in France, is clearly the primary meaning of the term Paris. This is not the case for Cork. The use of the term for the material is far too well-known to be able to make that claim. In order to be the primary meaning, not only does the usage in question have to be "well-known", but all the others must be relatively obscure. That is clearly not the case for Cork. --Serge 22:26, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#Conflicts over precision section which is the more precise guidline in this instance. The general WP:DAB guidelines are useful but not quite specific enough for this instance. As I have suggested previously a clarification of the guidlines and policies may solve all the conflicts here, and in Limerick//limerick and all the other ones in one fell swoop. If the consensus is that that might be a useful route to explore, I am willing to kick it off. But I won't do so without some encouragement from other editors here. We all know how the last sideways solution was dismissed out of hand. Frelke 07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you stop making that kind of remark, please? If you're talking about your suggestion of a merger, it was explained to you by no fewer than two people why the merger had not previously been undertaken (go figure, the articles have been around and separate from each other since 2002/2003) and will not make sense in future. They are two separate lemmata. If that's not what you're talking about, it would be best if you spelt out what it is that's still itching you. Guesswork does not make for a good discussion. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies if I was unclear. I was referring to Serge's last attempt at achieving consensus by poll. Frelke 11:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with Cork, Ireland? - Paul

Could be confused with the county. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
That could then listed as Cork County, Ireland. It doesn't seem like it should be that big of a deal. I live in Dallas and the article is fine at Dallas, Texas and the county is at Dallas County, Texas. Much like Cork we also have the TV shows that is probably just as popular as the bottle cork but we don't have the problems with the US cities that this page seems to be having. - Paul
That would make sense if someone could assert that the county is always referred to as "Cork County", never just as "Cork". Still, for people not familiar with the subject, it could be confusing. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the subject will tell you that it is rarely, if ever, referred to as Cork County. Frelke 11:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it should be County Cork, shouldn't it? (pointing the finger at paul) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Anyone with the slightest familarity about wine corks will tell you that it is rarely, if ever, referred to as Cork material. So what is the issue? Cork County, Ireland is exactly what the name of the article says it is--a county by the name of Cork that is located in Ireland. I don't see what the confusion is. - Paul
It's County Cork. Zee ozzer vay around. <-> - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So what now?

Guys? Ping? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we've agreed above that the least unacceptable name for this article is Cork (city) - not many people identified it as a first choice, but discussion seemed to focus on it as a name everybody could live with. Now we need to decide whether the article should move to that name. --Scott Davis Talk 06:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
It seems we have discussed that, too, to some extent. I haven't seen any of the evidence I have given for cork (material) being at least as notable as this place being argued with. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Moving it to Cork (city) seems like the best thing to do to me as well. I agree that the discussion seems to me to have established beyond doubt that Cork should be a disambig page. --Guinnog 09:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You guys just seem to be on a different talk page to me. I don't agree there is that consensus. Frelke 11:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you have an argument? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
For what? Frelke 14:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
For opposing the move and disambiguation. Because I have given an argument in favour, and there has been no counter-argument. You're going to have to give a reason for opposing, that's the convention around here if you want your point of view taken seriously. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a good start. Can you point me to where you have made the argument FOR the move? Frelke 15:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The link you provide takes me to a passage that has you complaining about policy and stating your belief that it's all a matter of opinion. If you don't believe that arguments can be weighed against each other, you should not be participating in this discussion. I've shown that the technical restriction is deliberate and that there is no fix forthcoming (see my first post under the same heading). You have not, to my knowledge, undertaken to have policy changed, nor have you identified the bug or filed a new bug. You have been given ample opportunity to take up your complaints. You have failed to do so. Wikipedia policy insists that editors be constructive. You have done nothing other than polemically insist that the status quo is good, without bringing forward a proper argument for the greater notability of the city Cork, which would justify this position.
Evidence that cork the material is more notable has been given by several editors, including myself: [21] [22] [23] [24] Hence, creating a disambiguation page is the least we should do. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Far from a consensus when the poll was taken above five wanted the status quo (i.e. Cork for those unfamilar with the term status quo) for the city, whilst six wanted a different option to that. Notwithstanding that the poll was refactored part way through and the Cork option was removed. So its not a consensus. Djegan 15:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean 100% agreement by every editor. Most editors here have indicated that Cork (city) is at least acceptable. Per our disambig standards and the fact that no one has brought forth any factual evidence the the city is more important, the move should be made now. pschemp | talk 16:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets look at this logically and come from the point of view of making the encyclopedia easiest to navigate. To do that, we would need to place the most commonly searched for name in the Cork article spot and put others with "Cork (Blah)" names. That simply the best way to do it from the point of view of making the encyclopedia easiest to navigate.
That brings up a tuff little problem, doesnt it? How do we find out what is the most commonly searched-for subject? Well, we can do a little experiment with Google and find out what comes up more.
Much to my surprise 38 of the top 40 results on Google return sites about Cork the City. I didn't actually expect that. So I guess my recommendation is to leave it as-is for the purpose of ease of navigation. ArmAndLeg 16:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Do you understand how Google's algorithm works? PageRank - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yu need to read this whole talk page before commenting please. A google test isn't relevent (and has been discussed before) because those sites are tourism web sites which are paid advertising that someone spent a lot of money to get at the top of search engines. Now, we've been over this before, so please, there is no reason to rehash when you could have read the talk page first. The dictionary evidence (which is NPOV) says otherwise. The cork business is a billion dollar business and everyone sees its results in their wine. pschemp | talk 16:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Consensus does not mean 100% agreement but we barely got 50% agreement (for a different "Preferred" option to Cork for the city) and that was when we decided to remove the option of status quo. As an admin you might bear in mind that as you have taken part in the discussion (and are in favour of a move, and seam in a hurry to move) and that discussion has not come out with a conclusive demand to move then I request that you do not make that move yourself. Any final decision should be at the choice of a "neutral" admin, not least for fairness and tranparency. Djegan 16:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Djegan, we decided to do this by discussion rather than polls. The discussion clearly indicated than most people (and the rules for disambig pages!) think cork should be a disambig page and Cork (city) is the best name. pschemp | talk 16:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry those "rules for disambig pages" are actually just guidelines, perhaps I am wrong. Rules and guidelines are not one of the same thing. Djegan 16:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Of all the editors involved in this whole discussion, there were only 2 who think cork shouldn't be a disambig page at all ever. That's consensus. Now, the majority in the discussion like Cork (city). You and Frelke are the only ones opposing. Again, that's consensus. pschemp | talk 16:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Five of eleven in the vote made it clear they wanted Cork as he city as their "Preferred" option. Lets not only quote the facts that suit. Djegan 16:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm opposing too. - Francis Tyers · 17:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Pschemp, I don't think you can discount the google-test to quickly. Google spends quite a bit of money trying to make sure the most relevant results float to the top. Odly enough, all the google adwords are about the material cork.
The goal here is to find the most often searched for article and place it at the base-name.
I expanded my search a bit. 3 of the top 100 results were about cork the material. One was a link to wikipedia and the others were to cork suppliers. More then half of the rest were to sites relating to the city.
Yes, I know how PageRank works... That's part of my argument. More website developers are more interested in Cork the city then cork the material. ArmAndLeg 16:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
And website devolopers are not any neutral indication of how the word is used in standard English. Not to mention the people who don't have internet access. First, the top website doesn't neccessarily indicate its the most searched for. Second, not everyone in the world uses Google, nor does it reflect how the word is used every day. I know that people who don't have internet access are not searching for a vacation to Cork, but chances are high there's a cork in their wine bottle.pschemp | talk 16:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation is the way to go. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation is a crutch.ArmAndLeg 17:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you read our guidlines on disambiguation. This is a clear case. pschemp | talk 17:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
All this debate seems to sugust that it's not nearly as clear as you sugust. ArmAndLeg 17:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is clear. When neither option can be proven to be more used, a disambig page is the NPOV answer. pschemp | talk 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats right, they are guidelines and not rules now. Djegan 17:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. And using polls aren't rules either. So what's your point? pschemp | talk 17:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You have just made it. Djegan 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I think everybody here understands that if there's no change, there'll be no end to the discussion. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you so sure? Djegan 17:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
That I am quite sure of. pschemp | talk 17:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like an ultimatum, more like. Djegan 17:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Ask a snarky question, get a snarky answer. pschemp | talk 17:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Honesty, I like that, especially from an admin. Djegan 17:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) Ok, I am ready to do the move; I think this discussion has run its course. So, Cork -> Cork (city), and Cork (disambiguation) -> Cork. I will fix any links that need fixed as well. I really think after all the discussion it is time to fix the problem. I'd like to thank everybody for the very interesting discussions. --Guinnog 17:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect, it would be preferrable if a "neutral" admin actually made the final decision, rather than someone who has taken part in the case for a move. Djegan 17:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
As a supporter of a move to "Cork (city)", I have to agree with Djegan about the need for a noninvolved party to make any such move. jnestorius(talk) 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats not the way things are done around here, anymore than the many broken links been fixed quickly. One of the benifits of been an admin is that you can disregard others. Djegan 17:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I have no doubt you will continue to see it that way. However, this is just like closing an AFD, where the evidence presented is more important than the number of "votes". Unless you can come up with some hard facts to support your viewpoint, your complaints mean little. pschemp | talk 18:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Moved!

Ah. So I see Guinnog went ahead and moved the page. Per Djegan, I would have expected some final input from an admin (ideally "neutral") to "declare" on this discussion before that happened. Also, while I might have missed the final "OK I'm going to do this" statement, I would have expected such as (at the very least) a courtesy to the editors who have contributed to this discussion over the past month.

Beyond that, I would have hoped we (collectively) would have had an opportunity/time to change all the relevant links in advance to avoid the situation in which we now find ourselves: Namely, with several thousand links which are incorrectly pointing to a DAB page! (I seem to remember someone volunteering to address that issue - is it in progress?)

While I recognise the need to close this long-standing discussion somehow, I am dismayed at the manner it which has been finally implemented. Namely: Disorganised, unheralded, and lacking in structure. Guliolopez 18:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Changing links in advance was opposed by the opposers. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
(1) I didn't read that in this discussion anywhere. (2) "Preparing the ground for a move" does not neccesitate changing the links in advance. What it does neccesitate is some notice. Per comments left on WP:ANI and the talk pages of the editors/admins who pushed this change through, the means in which this change was instrumented was improper, discourteous to the contributors, and recklessly disorganised! (I had made my peace with those move, and respected the various editors who proposed it. NOW however I am not at all happy, and will push for an admin peer review of the behaviour of the admins involved!) Guliolopez 19:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

There was no consensus to do this. It was a war of attrition, where things dragged on so long, and the comments of numerous editors in the straw polls were discounted (often with insults and snark), that people got discouraged. Those sticking it out, determined to move the page, declared this to be "no opposition" or "no significant opposition" to the move. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Aye. Blatant disregard for process. There was no consensus; the length of discussion alone would have told even an uninformed observer that. It is against process to take such actions in the absence of consensus. zoney ♣ talk 21:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but 1. you only think process was disregarded because you didn't get your way, and 2. Process isn't everything on Wikipedia, nor is it sacred. Common sense trumps it. But process wonk away, you are great at it. pschemp | talk 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
He is making a good point there about the length of the discussion. I mean, he's right that the longer it got, the less likely it became to reach a full consensus. So... yeah. Someone had to do take a decision. You're right, Zoney — otherwise we would have been here forever! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Again you speak from a "getting your own way" (that argument works both ways) point of view. Being here forever is the desired option if there is no consensus. It means that things should stay as they are! It is breathtaking that you don't consider this a sensible option. zoney ♣ talk 22:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Yet there was consensus. You just don't like it. pschemp | talk 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

An ugly debate

(after about 6 edit conflicts) Hey guys. Could we get back to the issue? Once people start arguing about arguing, it goes nowhere. Anyway, if I could step into an ugly debate here, I'd like to point something out. Even if the most common usage is County Cork, that doesn't mean there should be a disambig page. I will insist that 90% of people typing in "Bush" will be looking for the modern president, but Bush is currently a disambig page. That's not a reason to get offended, and it doesn't hurt anybody who's searching for the modern president; a diambig page is there to help people. And while it may be more common in "What Links Here", I'm not sure that's not tainted by the templates at the bottom, and it's not sure that people don't type in cork to mean the material just as often. Not trying to add flames to the fire. Just a call to reason. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, what exactly is this article about? The County or the city? Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 17:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You can't tell that by reading it?pschemp | talk 17:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was Invalid move request: Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point; Wikipedia is not a democracy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork (city) → Cork — Request to reverse move (Cork -> Cork (city)) made without consensus or a requested move. Listed here to settle the issue and avoid move-war. Apart from reversing the move myself, I do not see any course of action other than this new formal move request. zoney ♣ talk 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  * '''Support'''  or  * '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Discussion

Rationale is that Cork (the city) is the primary meaning for the word on Wikipedia (and indeed on the Internet, even though the Google test is not a deciding factor), and arranging anything other than having the city article at Cork with a disambiguation header results in a high volume of traffic being unnecessarily subjected to a disambiguation page. zoney ♣ talk 21:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry zoney, you had better prove that "high volume of traffic" statement. Once again, you have no facts. pschemp | talk 22:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I "had better prove"? Or what? What kind of etiquette or language is that to use in discussing a matter with anyone?
But in any case, go look at the one and a half thousand incoming links to Cork. How many of them look like they are for the material, and how many are to do with Ireland? Where are 99% of new links to Cork going to be for? What does this say about what people expect to see if they go directly to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cork?
Sure disambiguation is helpful for multiple usage, but where use of Cork for other reasons is vastly outnumbered by the city, then there is no reason not to have the primary definition in the main location, with a separate disambiguation page. This is not some kind of odd arrangement to have on Wikipedia!
zoney ♣ talk 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I am discouraged from placing a requested move, while others are allowed to move pages at will regardless of the outcome of earlier requested moves? Why bother with having a Wikipedia:Requested Moves at all so, if individuals can just act as they like? Unfortunately, I consider it unallowable to have admins such as myself and others who are likeminded merely try to revert these actions by force; even though that is evidently how people play here now. My requested move action was an attempt to pursue other more refined avenues (very patronising to suggest it was WP:POINT). Angusmclellan has suggested I reopen it if I feel so inclined; but if it will result in acrimony, what is the point?

Well done. You have got your way thus far by brute force, disregard for any form of action by consensus, any reference to process, or any consideration of the majority view. Wikipedia may not be a democracy, but it was never intended as a dictatorship.

zoney ♣ talk 22:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how somebody should be able to get away with a unilateral move on a subject which was obviously controversial and in which the last vote showed was supported only by a minority. Wikipedia's not a democracy, but that's in the sense that it operates by consensus, rather than majority rule. There was clearly no consensus for this move, especially given that even supporters of a move do not seem to have come to a consensus as to what the best alternate title would be. john k 20:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin opinion

Hi... I've looked through this entire discussion... wow. I'm not sure I see why people are so passionate about this. My conclusion: (I am a neutral admin, previously uninvolved) and I think cork should be a disambiguation page. No term is most prominent, not the material, not the city, none of them. So the main reference should indeed be to a disambig. Support the action of Guinnog, and suggest that it be left as is. See, for example, Phoenix and Lift. I'm not sure that characterising the inputs of some admins as arrogant is necessarily the way to make a case for things, though. Support the close of this poll. ++Lar: t/c 22:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That's quite simply not true. The city is by far and away the most prominent meaning. zoney ♣ talk 22:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Zoney, prove it or stop making such assertations. pschemp | talk 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I concur with Lar. Things look best the way they are. -- SCZenz 00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Lar and SCZenz for your support. It took longer than I thought (partly as I couldn't help properly editing some articles I found), but I've done what I said I would do. In many (well, double figures), I was directing to County Cork. In nearly all it was (or should have been) a simple find and replace. I'll admit that the exit of a cork from a bottle led to some of the delay, and let me apologise for any errors I made; please check my work at Special:Contributions/Spellmaster. See Image:Awbtrawlofcorkdone.jpg for details. --Guinnog 03:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Well done Guinnog! I did about 90, including over 10 that went to cork (material). I was surprised that more than 10% were wrongly linked to cork - I think that proves the point that those authors thought it so obvious that "cork" meant the thing in a bottle that they didn't check where the link went to. I was also surprised how many piped links displayed as "Cork City" or "Cork city" there were. Thankyou to everybody who participated in the discussion. Now we can get back to improving article contents. Hopefully one day I'll get to visit Cork - I already use corks. --Scott Davis Talk 06:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I found a lot that were actually links to the material or the county too. pschemp | talk 06:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
This is my first visit here and after reading the talk here I agree with Lar. Cork should be a disambiguation page. feydey 13:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cork_(city)/Archive_2&oldid=1136638470"