Talk:Yogurt/Archive 3

message: Can someone spread out the images over the article so that they don't all gather together in two spots? Also one or two could probably be cut. Xiner (talk, email) 21:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look again; they're from three different national pavillions at an International Fair. They are probably the easiest way to show multinationalism without copyright violation, unless some editor is both in the Caucasus and can upload photographs. I will look to the captions, which are redundant. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The pictures 

message: How about a section on a live yoghurt culture's amazing ability to reproduce indefinitely when milk is added? I will get onto myself when I get time, but maybe someone a bit more knowledgeable with biochemistry could help out. - Bennyboyz3000 03:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A section on reproductivity 

message: I've always thought that cultured buttermilk was made with mesophilic cultures, while yogurt is usually made with thermophilic cultures.
Is it really appropriate to say that cultured buttermilk is yogurt?
ASL 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is buttermilk yogurt? 

message: So...what was the final ruling for the naming of this article? I think it needs to be made clear, because it will always be a contentious topic. If the article is to remain Yoghurt, then why? It seems odd that there has been no concensus on the naming, yet the manual of style was not followed in that case (no concensus = follow the naming conventions of the original author, which was Yogurt). Please clarify this, so that the topic is CLOSED. 132.170.188.103 17:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is to remain yoghurt because it was created as that - however apparently the version was not saved in the history. You'll notice that in the history - the title is still yoghurt - meaning whoever really created it set it up as yoghurt - and there is no N next to the guy who claims to have created the article - meaning that was not when the article as created.danielfolsom © 17:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (for the record, I fixed it back to yoghurt even though i'm an american after someone vandalized half the article to "yoğurt") The version in the history will show the _current_ title always, look at a version right after a pagemove to yogurt to verify. It's not clear the N always existed, and there's no Yogurt article on nostalgia.wikipedia.org.  is the first edit with the "yoghurt" spelling at all, and  is absolutely convincing. The article used "Yogurt" throughout for the first twenty-six versions, being switched from one consistent spelling to another. --Random832 06:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, what Random832 said. This can be trivially verified by looking at the first revision. --moof 07:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. The title on viewing old versions is always that of the current version, and I don't think the N existed back then. And what reason does he/she have to lie? --Random832 07:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why the hell would a person spell the title one way, but not spell it the same in the article. What i've most often heard is, just like the first edit on Wikipedia, the real creation edit was lost. However, it's possible that someone just created an article called, "Yoghurt", and then put next-to nothing in the text box, like just "Yoghurt" and then this person said "Created article" because they added all the text (For the record random832 - I'm and american too, but that has nothing to do with it - you even if I was Russian I'd be expected to follow Wikipedia rules).danielfolsom© 15:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that the first version with "yoghurt" in the article text is actually http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoghurt&oldid=756214 which appeared about 2.5 months after the article was created and about 3 weeks before the link [1] given above by Random832. Also note that link [2] may be "absolutely convincing". Nevertheless examination of the immediately preceding revision, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yoghurt&oldid=2041822, with your browser's find function will demonstrate that the article contained both spellings immediately before that edit. I made the changes that I did in accordance with a suggestion of mine on the talk page a month earlier (more than meeting the requirements of policy for discussion of this type of spelling change/article renaming at the time). During the lifetime of this article it has used the "yogurt" spelling exclusively for about 2.5 months, both spellings for about 10 months and the "yoghurt" spelling exclusively for over  3 years. It has also been the subject of two lengthy debates, neither of which led to its title being changed. Why do we need to revisit this ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because spelling it with an h is strange to a majority of English speakers.  It will always be questioned.  Just sayin'. SchmuckyTheCat 22:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Serves me right for asking, <grin>. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The article contained the "Yoghurt" spelling in _one_ place, where it otherwise used the "Yogurt" spelling throughout. If some newbie added a line that spelled it as "Yogurt" now, and I used that as a justification to change the whole article to it later on, that would be unacceptable (a clear WP:POINT violation if ever there was one, but even otherwise it'd be unacceptable) --Random832 22:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well actually it contains three (look at Tarquin's revision just previous to the diff, not at the diff itself) but who's counting, <grin>. And I didn't just make the change out of the blue, I suggested it on the talk page a month earlier and had no objections. That met the requirements of policy for this type of change at the time. I certainly didn't realise I'd still be defending my actions years later. And I don't see the relevancy of bringing up WP:POINT, a policy which did not exist at the time, and which, even if it had, is hardly applicable to a change previously suggested on the talk page and not objected to. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

text: (two _places_. there are multiple occurences in the second place i named) I didn't mean you violated WP:POINT, I meant I would if i made such a disruptive edit and said "well, i did that because he did the same thing three years ago!" _i_ would be in violation of WP:POINT. which is why i didn't do it, and i even changed it back to yoghurt recently from someone else's spelling changes. I didn't mean to imply your original edit would have violated that (though, i'm not convinced it followed the rules regardless, how much traffic did this talk page get back then?). Anyway, my original question wasn't meant to be combative (when i described your edit as being a "clear violation", i was leading up to a sort of 'and now, you know... the rest of the story' kind of moment with this edit _not_ being part of the later edit wars, but a simple well-meaning edit. But i'm curious as to why you changed it to a spelling that only appeared in one section (apart from a brief mention of the spelling differences themselves in the lead), rather than what the whole rest of the article was using. --Random832 03:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, with regard to WP:POINT, that's fair enough. The answer as to why I picked the "yoghurt" spelling rather than the "yogurt" one is contained in the third revision of this talk page, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Yoghurt&oldid=2387041, in which I made the initial suggestion that "yoghurt" should be used. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Ruling? 

message: Google Book Search, Google Book Search 2 Chapultepec 11:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Laveol, I know the article Bulgars. But I can't see anything insultive. What I'd like to say is there is a term "hunno-bulgars" and this is used by the scholars. Chapultepec 12:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hunno-Bulgars

message: if possible, could an informed yoghurt expert please post something about pressed yoghurt?
thank you,
susut-nohr family —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.68.172 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pressed yoghurt 

message: Ok, come on people - it's been discussed - it's over, and sadly you'll have to see an h instead of an o. The worst part about this is - no one here actually cares about the article - if you did you'd be able to deal with the spelling changes - but half of you at least would just try to change the name and then move on - maybe watch this page in case another name debate comes up. The article is fine - I can't believe someone tried to put a poll up on here.danielfolsom 02:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the archives, and most of the opposition seemed to hinge on an argument that the less common name was the first version used in the article...which was shown not to be the case in the edit history. In any case, the last poll was in October '06. Since AFDs often reoccur in much shorter time frames I do not think it is too soon to post a poll for a much lesser change. If no one cares about the article, changing to the more common spelling should not be controversial. Antonrojo 03:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: People care about having american english or british english - not the article. Seriously though - is everyone here really so stupid that they're baffled by an h. "Hmm ... I know what yogurt is, but yoghurt? WTH? That could be anything!"danielfolsom 23:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finish Up with the Naming

message: There's obviously no consensus either way - so barring any reason to keep it open (and I don't mean a reason like "but it should be yogurt!" I mean a legitimate reason to expect a consensus one way or another) then I'll remove this of WP:RM in about an hour. Then finally people can focus on the article and not the spelling.danielfolsom 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't close it early. SchmuckyTheCat 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly don't close this early unless you are going to move it.  I have made the point that I believe if moved, there would be more support to keep it and a consensus to leave it.  Right now we have consensus to rename, but apparently not strong enough.  Personally we need to take this to a review process were the root issues of how we got here can be discussed.  Saying the spelling is stable, while being correct, is problematic since those who object to what may have been a move without consensus was used to justify the current spelling in the name and the article.  Why should those who are playing by the rules not be served by having a fair decision be made once and for all to revert back to the historical version?  Do we have an option like deletion review? Vegaswikian 19:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure the spelling is stable.  I took a stroll through the archives for the talk page and there has been arguments over "yogurt" vs. "yoghurt" since 2004. The only things stable about the spelling is the constant fighting over a single letter and that the editors involved in the arguments have shown restraint and not edit/move warred over that letter too often.--Bobblehead (rants) 19:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose closing for there is consensus. Danielfolsom, what gives you the qualifications to judge the opposing votes? It is not stable and should not be closed because you want it to be. Your reason is not any different than the one you use to contrary. You say because it should stay this way because its here and has been stable for a long time. But, there are many articles that are blatantly wrong, yet they are "stable" under your definition because no one has bothered to check them, or come to view them. Check the random article link from time to time, and you'll see what I mean. BTW, that is how I got here. :) - Jeeny Talk 19:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, there is no consensus; as there never has been. Even if this were a vote, and it isn't, 14-10 is not the sort of supermajority required. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do I bother? Because it's nice to have a flagrant example to tell the Br/Am edit warriors - and by extension the BC/BCE Date Warriors, and all the other pointless contentions - to back off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said.  We ought to be firm on the point that we don't move pages from one perfectly acceptable spelling to another on the grounds that someone was "wrong" two years ago.  That is way too far removed from building an encyclopedia.  The 'h' is neither misinforming, misleading nor confusing anybody.  Being so insistent about making styles conform to whichever standard is against the spirit of our naming conventions. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the move to "h" was wrong then (move without concensus away from the original form) and wrong now (not the most common name in any version/dialect of English, so it fails WP:NC(CN).)  That seems to me to be a reason to move, overriding "stable".  (These aren't supposed to be votes, anyway; the closing admin is supposed to look at which reasons have more weight, rather than how many votes are for the alternatives.  Only Wikipedia:Deletion review is supposed to count votes.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "not the most common name in any version/dialect of English" — I think you have been confused by the use of "yogurt" by the Oxford English Dictionary. "OED English" is regarded as a language variant of its own, and does not entirely reflect common UK English usage. "Yoghurt" is by far the most common spelling in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, at the minimum. - Mark 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See, what I'm saying is that failing WP:NC(CN) isn't a reason all by itself.  Normally the policy is to use common names, not because it says so somewhere, but to reduce confusion.  Nobody has made any argument that the spelling with the 'h' is confusing anybody, so I don't see a compelling reason to move an article that's at a perfectly good title.  I don't mean "perfectly good" in the sense of satisfying every "rule"; I mean it in the sense that it's not actually hurting the encyclopedia to use the slightly less common spelling.  It's not worth moving this page over, considering the history of controversy.  It's in the same spirit as how we deal with BC(E) and colo(u)r, namely: stop arguing about it, and leave things the way they are. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus does not require a supermajority, but 60% may be the lower limit of one, Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority.  As Arthur notes right above, the closer should look at reasons. And to those reasons, the oppose votes don't look at the merits of moving, they simply oppose based on "status quo", a concept which isn't well-respected because it is anti-wiki. SchmuckyTheCat 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, claiming that keeping this article at "Yoghurt" is maintaining the "status quo" is a non sequitur.  The relevant "status quo" (don't mess with articles ["crappy stubs" are fair game] to alter the article's already "national variety" established spelling) is, in this case at least, a stronger reason to move it back to "Yogurt", rather than to keep it at "Yoghurt".  Tomertalk 21:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

text: MoS is on both sides; it's not entirely consistent.  We should take as an indicator to stop thinking the buck stops there; ultimately, it doesn't matter what MoS says, it matters why it says it.  There's no good reason to prefer either spelling, so it was wrong to move it, and it's wrong to move it back.  The spirit of the whole cease-fire on national varieties of English is "stop worrying about it".  Both varieties are fine, and not worth moving pages over. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ok if there was this much opposition to closing it then I wouldn't have brought it up - but I think that there's obviously no consensus either way (14-10 qualifies as no conensus - sometimes 14-8 qualifies as no consensus) and based on the way things have been going I don't think we'll see some splurge of voters come and vote for one side.danielfolsom 21:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't oppose closing the RM discussion; I oppose people worrying about national varieties of English. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh ok - well I agree - I actually can't decide which one should technically be the right spelling - but I do know that we've had this for a while and there are a lot more important things (see WP:Backlog) to worry about than changing a name - which is why I opposed.danielfolsom 22:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You oppose, because you want to ignore several years worth of griping to save an administrator less time than it took to write this response? SchmuckyTheCat 23:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not to save anybody time, it's because we don't make changes based on national varieties of English, and if we do it here, people with bitch that we have to do it everywhere else.  The point is to not worry about extra or missing 'h's and 'u's, because they're not confusing nor hurting anybody, and they're not making the encyclopedia any worse. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was, specifically, the reason for the oppose of the last person. (Danielfolsom) SchmuckyTheCat 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait what - the Backlog is for everyone - they have the pages without citations pages needing to be rewritten etc. So it's not about saving an admin time- it's about people like you and me actually doing productive things rather than arguing about a letter (and even more so: It's about people like you who vote in things like this instead of even knowing about the backlog...). I mean this page's name is going to be changed every five seconds if this is allowed - I mean you'll have the supporters of yoghurt saying we were wrong to move it when it was stable and you'll have the supporters of yogurt saying it was yogurt first - so I say, stop worrying about sill spelling differences and actually do something productive.danielfolsom 23:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Planned Closing

message: I couldn't help laughing at the irony of someone adding an 'h' all over the place and then writing 'no, we practice consistancy' ... will we now have the unedifiying sight of a battle for this new spelling and the substitution of 'a' throughout WP wherever consistency is found? ... just a thought.  :) Eyedubya 11:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistent Japanese Yog(h)urt 

message: I see there were 18 votes in favor of the change, and only 13 opposed.
Why isn't 58% a strong enough majority to warrant change, especially considering the history of this article name?  58% would be considered a very strong mandate in a hotly contested political election. Can this decision be appealed? Or should we have another poll? --Serge 19:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh.  Tomertalk 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A)Because wikipedia is not a democracy - I kidna hope you didn't vote - because technically only users that know the rules should vote - but essentially, what matters more than vote numbers is what people say - it's up to the admin to say, "hmm, this side had better arguments". B)Occassionaly numbers can overrule arguments - i've never seen that done unless it's above 70%. Why don't you stop complaining and edit the article - both sides said that it shouldn't be brought up again - so I'm not sure why you insist on doing so - if you try doing another poll you'll be reverted by day's end. Why don't you focus on the contents of this article - it could be improved in many ways - the spelling however, is not one of them.danielfolsom 02:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Surely, 18 to 13 is a majority, while a consensus is a consensus. It has nothing to do with whether or not WP is a 'democracy'. Democracy has any means at its disposal for making all kinds of decisions - some are participatory, hands-on and consensus orientated (hard to achieve in asynchronous telepresent cybespace), some are poll-based (countable) and others appear to be a version of law. WP seems to the latter. Eyedubya 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonono - really, look at WP:NOT - democracy is listed.danielfolsom 02:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the link - WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy - however your right in that a majority is not a consensus - but my point is it's the same principle.danielfolsom 02:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It was actually 17-14 (only 54%), if you're going to insist upon counting !votes (which, I emphasise, doesn't ascertain consensus). - Mark 02:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of curiousity - how was it 17-14?danielfolsom 02:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is 58% not a consensus?