Talk:Derry/Londonderry name dispute

message: I remember many years ago when Wikipedia first started I corrected 'Derry' to Londonderry (not knowing there was all this backstory to it - I tried to find Derry on Google maps and at that time it wasn't listed as a secondary name, so I assumed it was someone using slang, and innocent minded me corrected it only to end up getting banned from editing the article and served on my old talk page and abused) - it surprised me that Wikipedia would take--back then and now--such a partisan stance on the topic. I get that it's slowly been stacked by far leftists, but supporting communist radicals over the official name that the people, government, and foreign nationals know a region as is a bit absurd. Although it wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia has found itself in bed with terrorists. Cough, Lockerbie, cough. 121.210.33.50 (talk) 02:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia uses names most commonly used in published sources. And that's the first time I've heard the Apprentice Boys of Derry called Communist radicals! Cordless Larry (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Apprentice boys were a bunch of working class youths engaged in armed rebellion against King James. That sounds pretty radical to me . Tlhslobus (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Might I recommend Conservapedia if you find Wikipedia too leftist ;-) Anyway these talk pages are for discussing improvements to the associated article not  so that people can soapbox. Dmcq (talk) 11:14, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, but soap-boxing or not, the originator has actually raised a reasonable question regarding our usage that some readers might want to see answered, most logically in the Style Guides section. But supplying such readers with an answer might be complicated given our rules, so I've tried to start a discussion on the matter in a new section below.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The real question is - why does Wikipedia take a side rather than using the official name? 

message: I feel the article would be improved by saying something about Wikipedia's own usage in the Style Guides section, as that might be of interest to quite a lot of people (including me, both as a reader and as an editor), and because its omission probably must look rather strange to readers who may want this info (as I do). However I'm reluctant to try without first hearing positive feedback from here, both because I'm not too sure about what our usage actually is, and because reliable primary sources would not be a problem, but the likely shortage of Reliable secondary Sources probably would be, so that I suspect one could only include it by citing WP:IAR and WP:5P5, which, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO, I'm rather reluctant to do without getting favourable feedback here first. Tlhslobus (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's appropriate to mention Wikipedia's own style guides here. Wikipedia isn't a trend setter, it follows reliable sources. Mentioning it here could imply that Wikipedia is a source of a style for others to use and I don't think that's appropriate. Canterbury Tail talk 21:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your feedback. I don't think Wikipedia has any clear style guide on this particular matter (though if it does, I would love to see it mentioned in the article). But I think interested readers are entitled to know how we deal with the question and why, and I think it should be perfectly possible to provide them with an answer without implying we are a style guide to be imitated. I suggested the Style Guides section because it seems the logical place at present, but a separate Wikipedia Usage section would also be fine by me, even if it only says basically something like what you have just said above ("Wikipedia ... follows reliable sources.") with perhaps a few Wikilinks to relevant sections such as WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. Alternatively we already have one or more articles about Wikipedia, and it may be possible to give the answer there (if it is not already given there) and to Wikilink to there from our article. Or we might just say "For the main rules governing Wikipedia's own usage of Derry and Londonderry, see X, Y,and Z" (though I'm not yet clear to which sections we should link, but WP:COMMONNAME would probably be one of them; WP:ENGVAR might or might not also be relevant; and so on). After all we are supposed to be here to inform and serve our readers, not to keep them in the dark on the basis of unhelpful rules or traditions. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia Manual of Style for this issue can be found at WP:IMOS, specifically WP:DERRY. Even so I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia should not put its style guides in an encyclopaedic article like this, other usages and guides inform us we don't want to be the ones informing others from a process perspective. Canterbury Tail talk 13:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style Guides:Wikipedia? 

message: Why is this seen as a fair compromise? To have City as "Derry" and County of "Londonderry" when pageviews show the former with more than 3 million all-time views, and the latter with 700 thousand. Zilch-nada (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus emerged that, among sources seeking to use both "Derry" and "Londonderry", the "Derry/Londonderry" spelling was the WP:COMMONNAME. Supporters of the move cited MOS:ENBETWEEN in support of the proposal, but opponents of the move argued that the COMMONNAME status should overrule the MOS guidance. This latter argument had a sound policy basis (as COMMONNAME is a policy, whereas the MOS is a guideline), leading me to find a consensus against the move.The proposal also included a phrasing change from "name dispute" to "naming dispute", but this aspect of the proposal was not discussed at all. (closed by non-admin page mover)  ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:40, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Derry/Londonderry name dispute →  – Per MOS:ENBETWEEN, an en-dash is used to express a parallel connection between two words or objects. See Denali–Mount McKinley naming dispute and Eye–hand span. 〜 Festucalex • talk 13:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Support with a comment that opposing voters are making this more convoluted than it needs to be.  Killuminator (talk) 19:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

text: Support It seems the MOS would corroborate this move. Aneirinn (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 August 2023