Talk:Cork (city)/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: # 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)
thread_title: Support votes

message: # 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)
thread_title: Oppose votes

message: #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)
thread_title: No vote

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Cork was formerly a county borough; 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: The article name - oh no not again!

message: As I see it, the process needs to be something like the following:
#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.
#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.
#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.
#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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just so we're clear, what was your proposal Guinnog? (I think ScottDavis's approach is reasonable) Guliolopez 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: "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)
thread_title: Process

message: 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.
*#Cork, County Cork
*#Cork, Ireland
*#Cork (city)
*#Cork City
*#Cork (County Cork)
*#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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Requests for facts in support of "status quo" argument

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Other measuring methods

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Precedence

message: 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
----
* Preferred: 7; Acceptable: 2, 4, 5, 6, 8; Unacceptable:  1, 3 --Serge 22:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Makes sense. I support what you have done. --Guinnog 18:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It was not unilateral. --Scott Davis Talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Serge shouldn't have put that statement in either. Another example of needless complicating factors. pschemp | talk 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Unfair

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Subtotal

message: 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)
replies: text: Just because you say its not an option doesn't make it true. Frelke 18:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: Concur with both Djegan and Frelke. - Francis Tyers · 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes exactly, that's why we are going with Guinnog's more simple discussion anyway. pschemp | talk 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a poll 

message: 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)
thread_title: Poll format

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Concur with both Djegan and Frelke. - Francis Tyers · 23:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes exactly, that's why we are going with Guinnog's more simple discussion anyway. pschemp | talk 00:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Poll credibility

message: Merging Cork (material) with Cork cambium? - Francis Tyers · 13:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: How about?

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think so. Frelke 14:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Consensus to drop straw polls in this debate? Frelke 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Could you list those four options here again? pschemp | talk 19:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Serge, with all due respect, your plan is needlessly complicated. A discussion is fine. pschemp | talk 20:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Consensus to drop straw polls in this debate? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Consensus to drop straw polls in this debate? Frelke 18:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Could you list those four options here again? pschemp | talk 19:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Serge, with all due respect, your plan is needlessly complicated. A discussion is fine. pschemp | talk 20:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Consensus on polls

message: Is there consensus to archive everything before Talk:Cork#Requested move?Frelke 16:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consensus to archive talk page

message: 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)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: *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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thanks, we'll get on with the discussion then. pschemp | talk 21:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: 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)
thread_title: [[Cork (city)]], [[Cork (Ireland)]], [[City of Cork]] and [[Cork, Ireland]]

message: 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)
replies: text: Changing links in advance was opposed by the opposers. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yet there was consensus. You just don't like it. pschemp | talk 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved!

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

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support Nothwithstanding the arrogant tone of some admins, I think their is a good case for location at Cork. Djegan 21:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Zoney, prove it or stop making such assertations. pschemp | talk 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with Lar.  Things look best the way they are. -- SCZenz 00:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I found a lot that were actually links to the material or the county too. pschemp | talk 06:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Uninvolved admin opinion