• Support. Even the Library of Congress country study is titled with Ivory Coast so that readers will know what is meant; it uses Côte d'Ivoire, but its sources don't - except for Gbagbo's own book. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support In this case we should use our common sense, this is how most English speakers think of the country, in normal discussions Cote D'Ivoire would be generally regarded as an affectation, even among people who knew where you meant. PatGallacher (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The argument seems to be based around the policy of using the common English names for places. This policy is not uniformly implemented across wikipedia. See Kolkata (Calcutta) as an example. Kolkata is not an English word, but perhaps its lack of accent marks is less offensive to English-preferring readers. Kolkata is named as it is because it is the correct name for the place. Suppose Fred chose to change his name to Nathan and asked you to refer to him as Nathan from then on. Would you still call him Fred? The answer is No, because to do so is rude. Ignore the policy, it is wrong in this instance. Cliff (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please discount this argument as a violation of core policy; it is not our business whether our subjects like something, but whether it is verifiable. We are not here for the Sympathetic Point of view, but for a neutral one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom (overwhelming common usage) and Wikipedia's guideline on using English. A couple of points that are sometimes not fully considered:
  1. "Ivory Coast" is routinely and usually used in English sources as the unqualified name for the country, i.e. without a parenthetical "Côte d'Ivoire" whereas "Côte d'Ivoire" often carries a parenthetical "Ivory Coast". Therefore, "Ivory Coast" is preferable per the principle of least astonishment. As the nominee notes, educated readers who partake of multiple English news sources might be genuinely confused by seeing "Côte d'Ivoire" as a title.
  2. I realize this is original research but, in professional dealings with individual 10-20 Ivorians over several years, I have only had one person introduce himself as from "Côte d'Ivoire". The remainder have simply stated they were from "Ivory Coast". So it's clearly not a huge issue of contention or offense in this regard. —  AjaxSmack  06:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the sources provided in previous discussions, "overwelming common usage" is exagerated. I've pasted below some sources from a previous move request, because I think a lot of baseless claims are being made in this discussion. Moreover, proper reference works such as the CIA factbook or Britannica all name the country "Côte d'Ivoire". Since we are also a reference work, it would make sense to follow these sources, rather than newspaper journalists. See below for some more sources:

• • Close ties to France since independence in 1960, the development of cocoa production for export, and foreign investment made Cote d'Ivoire one of the most prosperous of the West African states, but did not protect it from political turmoil from Central Intelligence Agency
  • Cote d'Ivoire star striker Didier Drogba was voted the Man of the Match after his team's 3-0 win over DPR Korea in 2010 FIFA World Cup Group G here on Friday from Xinhua News Agency
  • Sven-Goran Eriksson, Côte d’Ivoire’s coach was quoted saying: “They’ve acquired discipline and organisation. These are good players, they listen and they want to learn and work. Côte d’Ivoire have a great team and a very bright future.” from The Hot News Herald
  • About one dozen people, including women and children, have been confirmed dead in Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire, after heavy rain storms this week caused mudslides in some of the most run-down areas of the country's main port from UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
  • Cote d'Ivoire will need a miracle and some help from Brazil if they want to reach the next round from Irish Times
  • Portugal joined Brazil in the last 16 of the World Cup on Friday after the pair drew 0-0 in their final Group G game, while Côte d'Ivoire were eliminated despite a 3-0 win over North Korea from Mail and Guardian
  • After their 3-0 win over Korea DPR, Côte d'Ivoire's players were looking back – both at their first two matches in Group G and at their FIFA World Cup™ debut four years ago from FIFA
  • Portugal stormed to life in a 7-0 rout of Korea DPR last time out, putting themselves well ahead of Côte d'Ivoire on potential goal difference from Soccerway
  • For the second straight World Cup, Côte d'Ivoire bumped into another hot group and are on their way out again at the first round stage from Super Sport
  • Brazilian Kaka is suspended for the game after being sent off in his team’s 3-1 triumph over Côte d’Ivoire from Betfred
  • Cote d'Ivoire coach Sven-Goran Eriksson said on Thursday that his former team, England, can beat Germany in the round of 16 at the World Cup from People's Daily
  • Of the more than 5 million non-Ivoirian Africans living in Cote d'Ivoire, one-third to one-half are from Burkina Faso; the rest are from Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Nigeria, Benin, Senegal, Liberia, and Mauritania from US Department of State
  • The mission analyzed the economic situation and outlook of Côte d’Ivoire in the context of Article IV Consultation and conducted the first review of the implementation of the economic program supported by the Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF) ., the IMF’s concessional window for low-income countries from International Monetary Fund
  • Côte d’Ivoire was once the economic miracle of Africa and a role model for stability on the continent from Lonely Planet
  • Côte d’Ivoire peacefully achieved autonomy in 1958 and independence in 1960, when Félix Houphouët-Boigny was elected president from Encyclopaedia Britannica
  • Côte d'Ivoire has been a WTO member since 1 January 1995 from World Trade Organization
  • Côte d’Ivoire’s civil war began in 2002 and has since fluctuated between periods of intense violence followed by relative calm from International Rescue Committee
  • The Côte d'Ivoire lies too far west to have been significant in the 17th and 18th century development of the Guinea coast gold, and slave trade from Geographia
  • In March, teams handed over the mobile clinics and the mobile nutrition programme they had managed in the western region of Côte d'Ivoire to the local authorities from Medecins Sans Frontières
  • Côte d'Ivoire's economy is based on the export of cash crops. It is the largest producer of cocoa in the world, producing 40% of global supply, and the fifth largest producer of robusta coffee from Foreign and Commonwealth Office
  • In the south of Côte d'Ivoire is a 320-mile (515-km) wide strip of coastal land on the Gulf of Guinea from C%C3%B4te+d'Ivoire&source=bl&ots=tozv-H-mxr&sig=FGttWwbEQVNl7wC3oUWLFdiat_Q&hl=en&ei=0GklTL2UL6L40wTZ4-nEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBjgy#v=onepage&q&f=false Cultures of the World : Côte d'Ivoire by Patricia Sheehan
  • Houphouët—who for more than three decades was "the 'active center' of an institutionalized state structure" in Côte d'Ivoire—sought during his long reign to recognize dissent but also to contain it within state structures, notably through cosultative mass meetings he called "Dialogue" from C%C3%B4te+d'Ivoire&hl=en&ei=U2slTLiVIYju0wTG1621BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CD8Q6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=C%C3%B4te%20d'Ivoire&f=false The Emergent Independent Press in Benin and Côte d'Ivoire by W Joseph Campbell Laurent (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found a couple uses of the name cote divoire but Ivory Coast is so overwhelmingly used in everyday English and the press that if we start to list these silly types of items as you did we'd run out of bandwidth here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So besides calling people who disagree with you "silly" and "trolls", do you have anything to contribute to your own move request? It seems that you want to change the country's name because you can't even write it properly. Laurent (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not glad that you have nothing better to say than dismissive insults and mockery at those whom you disagree with. I personally find not one item in the list to be silly. I happen to agree with the position of the one who made the list but to stoop to calling the World Trade Organisation, Encyclopaedia Britannica, the CIA, Chinese news, and the United Nations silly types of items which presumably are worthy of instant dismissal while claiming an obvious overwhelming use in presumably American everyday English for Ivory Coast does nothing beneficial for anyone. The usage in international media is generally about evenly divided. Ignoring that which you don't like is an example of why i voted as i did, which you subsequently commented on. Wikipedia is neither American nor yours personally. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 10:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• O P P O S E per the overwhelming idiocy and Americanism and Englishism of most everyone listed before me in this round. This has become not a perennial proposal but a semi-annual proposal and hell, there is already a failed RFC on this very matter already in the current version of the talk page. Come on. This is just hoping that people get so fed up that eventually those pushing for it will have a majority on the 11th or 26th try.
  As has been pointed out by a few others, the common name in the media you personally frequent does not make anything common, just common to you. The common name policy itself does not even address such an issue. What is common to me might be so unfamiliar to you that you believe it to be fictitious. If we were to ask some certain people we might find among them the commonality of the name being Kanata not Canada. It is all in whom you sample. Media, which are subject to style guides and publisher's preference are hardly an appropriate point of reference as they are expressing a bias. What ever happened to the simple concept of what does the country call itself when written in English? Yeah, it uses French when things do appear in English. The CIA also uses French. Here is a most wild thought - look at google maps. http://maps.google.ca/?ie=UTF8&ll=5.047171,1.054688&spn=21.62687,45&z=5 So notice anything in the naming pattern of the countries? Yeah, those countries of Arabic name bare both an Arabic and an English name whilst Côte d'Ivoire caries no English translation. Côte d'Ivoire is the proper name in French and English. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Don't forget Yahoo maps too http://ca.maps.yahoo.com/#mvt=m&lat=9.468648&lon=-3.978222&zoom=7 and Bing maps too http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&where1=C%C3%B4te%20d%E2%80%99Ivoire&q=ivory%20coast&form=LMLTSN&cp=7.515186849207126~-5.634990558028221&lvl=5&sty=r&encType=1 (i even searched for "Ivory Coast" and it told me 'no no, wrong name'). All these maps are from rather reliable sources and all treat Côte d'Ivoire as the proper name in English for the country. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  As for the nominator's rationale being a political leader being ousted as "Obviously time for another RM." If this passes i will say it is "Obviously time for another RM." to have the move reverted because not being able to pronounce it or a reader's presumed complete ignorance and the need to pander to the basest of intelligence is hardly becoming of a reference work. Such is why television shows like Hot In Cleveland so openly mock Wikipedia. But back on topic, if you insist upon abiding by google books and i insist upon abiding by google maps and they conflict does that then cancel out google as a reliable source? Does the fact that google books is merely a regurgitation get less consideration than google maps which is their own work? Most every fight here has cited American, Canadian, and British sources. All of them are of equally blah use because none of them are common to the people being written about.
  If such is irrelevant then as was mentioned earlier all places in India need to be titled according to their American or British or Canadian name rather than their local name in use in English. I dare someone in favour of renaming Côte d'Ivoire to request a move of Kolkata to Calcutta because Kolkata is so uncommon that in reading this it is the first time in my life i have ever seen the word Kolkata. Kolkata is not an English word and neither is Calcutta but Calcutta looks more normal to someone from western Europe or North America. And that is the substance of the reason put forward for moving Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast; those in western Europe and North America with little or no familiarity with French are often put off by the name of the country. It is an easy translation. Pandering to the lowest common denominator of human intelligence and respect has much of the media insisting upon using what is nothing more than a derogatory nickname.
  If you truly want to know what is common then sample large and small publications from various languages and places all over the planet. If the name remains the same despite the language of the document being German or Italian or Spanish or Japanese then you have probably found the true common name. Of course the common name policy actually expressly instructs you to disregard all non-English, which is actually part of the problem rather than an aid to a resolution, especially when looking for a common name that crosses linguistic boundaries to begin with. I don't know how else i can say that i oppose this and oppose the existence of the proposition. It was not time to make another request to move the article. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once many of us read "idiocy and Americanism and Englishism of most everyone listed before me in this round" we stop reading thinking it's just a common troll not worthy of any attention. You might want to tone down the scolding and just state your case. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't tone things down. And you gave me an edit conflict to finishing stating my case. I am very anti-English-only and in far too many corners of Wikipedia i am coming across sentiments that amount to 'if its not English don't link to it even if it has an article because it is inherently not notable and has no place in [whatever article it might be]' and that is where the elitism, Americanism, and idiocy is really obvious. And you can go back under your bridge now and read from there the extent of my involvement in this issue here on this very talk page. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 09:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You "don't tone things down" and you're "anti-English-only". That's not a good way to be a productive contributor to the English Wikipedia. Powers ^T 12:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I'm someone who closes a lot of RM requests, and I can say that, when I see someone use the word "idiocy", or otherwise show that they're unable to "comment on the content, not the contributor", I get the immediate impression that the editor is not serious, and is here to fight, not to edit. If you wish to be taken seriously, Deliriousandlost, comment on the content, not the contributor. Saying, "you can go back under your bridge now" tells me that you're hoping to be blocked from this project soon. If you can't behave somewhat professionally, please go away.

How disappointing, to have to address behavior issues in what should be a respectful and productive discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:27, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per WP:USEENGLISH and WP:COMMONNAME. Powers ^T 12:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Cote d'Ivoire is used considerably in English sources and it's the name the country is called in international relations. I don't agree with stubbornly insisting on "using English" if the French is commonly used in English anyway and is its official name in English. Rennell435 (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries. Rennell435 (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:USEENGLISH it seems to me that the French name has not clearly and undoubtedly crossed over into the English language lexicon due to the still common use of Ivory Coast, yes English absorbs others words/names from other languages(like any other language) aka San Francisco Sand Diego etc but here there is many sources here that still site Ivory Coast to cast doubt on the notion that the French name has really jumped into the English language lexicon without any ambiguity, so with that said i would suggest the name be in English Ivory Coast for the time being.--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Outrageous! The colour of the bikeshed roof should be blue, not red! There'll be blood shed yet over this, I tell you!! Fences&Windows 22:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol...we can never have too much levity around here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Well let's see where other encyclopedias put the article shall we? Encyclopedia Britannica and Yahoo both use Cote d'Ivoire. So does the World Fact Book. Google News shows 700 recent hits for Cote d'Ivoire vs 400 for Ivory Coast. Google's ngram book search shows that Cote d'Ivoire overtook Ivory Coast in popularity around 1993. I'm not saying that Cote d'Ivoire IS the common name, but I think it's at least clear that Ivory Coast isn't the common name. Usage is a mixed bag at best. I think we should default to the official english language name of the country in the absence of a common name. TDL (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WP:USEENGLISH Bhny (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we should use English, then "Côte d'Ivoire" is the right choice because that's the official name in English language. Laurent (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • USEENGLISH is nothing to do with official names, and I don't think there is a WP:USEOFFICIAL. Are you really saying "Côte d'Ivoire" is English and not French? Bhny (talk) 06:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are many English words of French origin, like "bureau", "accommodation", "crème brûlée", etc. and "Côte d'Ivoire" is just one of them. Whatever its origin, this is the name of the country in English language (not just officially but also in many encyclopedia, books, newspapers, etc.). Laurent (talk) 06:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict)Laurent beat me to the punch. "Côte d'Ivoire" is listed in many English language dictionaries and encyclopedias. Obviously the word is originally of French origin, but ~1/3 of all words in the entire English language are "French". The fact that a word is a loanword from another language doesn't mean that it's not an English word as well. TDL (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose Cote d'Ivoire, being used in English sources, is in effect one of the "English names" of the country. So are names like Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata, etc. insofar as they have entered common usage among (at least certain communities of) English speakers. I don't know if Cote D'Ivoire is the common name but "use English" is not really a valid argument against it. This isn't quite the same as, say, calling Munich "München". 146.151.66.63 (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as the current title is one of the two common names in use in English with the added benefit that it is the name listed in the ISO 3166. Neither name is dominant, and when there is more than one common name, we should defer to the name in English that the entity in question desires to use. --Polaron | Talk 02:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would rather say that we should defer to the name in English that is most recognizable. Powers ^T 11:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which, thankfully, is Cote d'Ivoire. Well said. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Powers ^T 12:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Ivory Coast is still used in English language news channels. I think some French speaking Africans keep the regular French name. In some encyclopedias, like Britannica, Collier's and World Book. The Britannica link for the country: [7] ApprenticeFan ^work 09:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Usage is pretty evenly divided. Stick with the current because it's official. A Google news search shows that the current name is more often used in the media (293,000 v 154,000 for Ivory Coast, and I think most governments have adopted this convention aswell. The English is certainly not the most common. Nightw 15:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not defer to official names; this is even less desirable when they (as Kauffner argues above) are no longer official. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The state's media does not deliberate on official toponymy. In this country, that would be the jurisdiction of the judiciary. So until a law is passed over-riding the naming policy of the Gbagbo administration, to call it "no longer official" is crystal balling. The name is still registered in English under ISO 3166 as Côte d'Ivoire, so it is still official. And we're not really deferring to the official here; we're choosing the name that, for the moment, is demonstrated to be marginally more common. Nightw 06:24, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Let's take a moment to look at yet another organization that represents the world-at-large (although our US compatriots may not know it very well}: FIFA. a quick glance here shows the official name "République de Cote d'Ivoire", but the name of Cote d'Ivoire, and the 3-letter code of CIV (just like the Olympics). (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FIFA and the IOC are both international organizations that use native forms of countries' names as a matter of course. We are an English encyclopedia that uses the English form of countries' names, so the two approaches are not comparable. Powers ^T 18:52, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • More seriously, they are diplomatic organizations that comply automatically with governmental pressures, whether from the government concerned or from a stronger neighbor (as with FYR Macedonia or Chinese Taipei). So here; that the former President insisted on this should matter only to those who had to please him; we answer to our readers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I can only comment from personal experience, but "Ivory Coast" seems to be more common amongst English speakers. The nominator's five arguments above make the case well also.  — Amakuru (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Again. sigh. — Coren ^(talk) 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Côte d'Ivoire" has been used in most of the reference books I've seen for well over a decade. They even used that name on Carmen Sandiego! Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There seems no doubt that the more common term overall is Ivory Coast, while the more common official term is Côte d'Ivoire (and not Cote d'Ivoire, which is also interesting IMO). Under existing guidelines, that means using the common name. While this seems doomed to remain a no consensus for now, consensus can change and I believe that Wikipedia is gradually moving towards attaching more importance to the official name, and that this ongoing discussion is an important barometer of that trend. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, not absolutely necessary, but it seems to be the more common name in Wikipedia's usual sense. (And "this has been proposed before" isn't a valid oppose argument.)--Kotniski (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Per WP:COMMONNAME and per the fact that wikipedia in English does not have to do the bidding of some government. The article is in English, therefore an English name should be used, provided there is such a common name. It is not a case of changing the actual name of the country (ie Burma) but just making the French one official. --Laveol ^T 08:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - It's clear the English media uses a generous mix of the two names. Since neither name is clearly prominent (this seems to vary from region to region), the official name seems appropriate. --HiltonLange (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know which form is common use, I would have thought that would be a reason not to vote. Kauffner (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, WP:NOTAVOTE. People are allowed an opinion, and of course, noting that "neither is prominent" backs up the entire argument. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 08:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After all, who could know which form is more common? It's a head scratcher, isn't it? Kauffner (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Happy to go with the accurate, official name since the "ivory coast" variant is not particularly dominant. Should anybody need more detailed reasoning, I could copy & paste from my response to the last identical move request, or the one before that... bobrayner (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per the deterministic naming algorithm at WP:How2title via 1 (start), 2 (it is a named entity), 3 (does not have exactly one obvious name), 4 (one of the names - the proposed title here - is clearly the most common name used to refer to this topic) and 10 (done).

  Also, per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAMES, WP:TITLE (proposed title wins on recognizability, naturalness and consistency with other similar titles - it's a draw on conciseness and precision), WP:UE (yes, yes, I know English sources do sometimes use the French form, but it's still French, not English) and just about every applicable guideline and policy. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per WP:COMMONNAME and also the fact that this is the English Wikipedia, not the French. Island Monkey ^{talk the talk} 09:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Common name? It seems that many editors here don't really know what the most common name of the country is, and just assume it is "Ivory Coast". So for information, today Côte d'Ivoire is much more common than Ivory Coast. A quick search on Google News for 2011 returns 51,900 results for "Côte d'Ivoire" but only 18,200 results for "Ivory Coast". Some British media like the BBC or The Guardian might use "Ivory Coast" but the majority of other media in English language don't. Laurent (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limiting the first search to English pages reduces that to 662 hits. Of course Côte d'Ivoire is common in French. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, WikiLaurent was correct. The reason you only got 662 hits for Côte d'Ivoire is because you limited your search to only recent news articles. The links provided by WikiLaurent were for all of 2011. Of course Ivory Coast is more common if you compare 6 months of it's usage to only a couple weeks worth of usage for Côte d'Ivoire. For all of 2011 there is 32,100 english language hits for Côte d'Ivoire and 17,600 hits for Ivory Coast. (See that the "Search English pages" is selected and so is "2011" for both searches.) Also, you can see from this Google Books Ngram (which is restricted to English language books) [8] that Côte d'Ivoire has been more common since the early 1990's. So how do you support the claim that Ivory Coast is more common when all evidence is to the contrary? TDL (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Comment Since there are many who have quoted WP:USEENGLISH to justify a move, it might be helpful to look at what the policy actually says. As per WP:NCGN#Use English: "If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name." and "If no name can be shown to be widely accepted in English, use the local name." Given that English language usage is quite clearly split between the two variants, and seems to slightly favour Côte d'Ivoire (see 32,100 vs 17,600 or [9] for example), as per policy we should default to the native Côte d'Ivoire. TDL (talk) 23:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the paragraph you cited is actually saying is that if some place is so rarely talked about in English, that no name can be shown to be widely used in English for it, the local name should be used. I don't think that's case here. Rather it's the case we have two names which are widely used in English. In this sort of case WP:UCN suggests that editors should reach a consensus about which name to use based on WP:AT's principal criteria for deciding on article titles: Recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.TheFreeloader (talk) 23:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I can see how you're interpreting the second quote, I think that the first quote ("If a native name is more often used in English sources than a corresponding traditional English name, then use the native name") clearly applies to this situation. This statement doesn't make much sense in the situation where no traditional English name exists. My point is just that the fact that Côte d'Ivoire isn't a traditional English name is irrelevant. It all comes down to WP:UCN. If the native variant is more common, then that's the name we should use. Given that every quantitative comparison that I've seen has favoured Côte d'Ivoire, that's where the article should be located. TDL (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's irrelevant at first if Côte d'Ivoire is traditional English, when deciding in regards to WP:UCN. But I don't think it's irrelevant when we decide that common usage is split, as in that case WP:UCN recommends we reach a consensus on which name to use based on WP:AT's other criteria. And those criteria include recognizability, naturalness and consistency, and on those counts I think the traditional English name wins out, as I think more readers will recognize Ivory Coast than Côte d'Ivoire as the name of an African country. And as for naturalness and consistency, I think this country is the only country where Wikipedia uses a local name over an English sounding name.TheFreeloader (talk) 10:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:Use English (with a nod to the essay: WP:Official names). Both "Ivory Coast" and "Côte d'Ivoire" are valid titles... But I have to favor "Ivory Coast". Other editors have based their opinions (both for and against) on the narrow language of these policy/guidelines, and have provided statistics to support their views. My !vote is based on examining the intent of the relevant policies more than their narrow wording. There are two principal criteria that have shaped my opinion: Recognizability and Naturalness. The fact is, while common usage may be in the process of shifting from "Ivory Coast" to "Côte d'Ivoire", that shift is not yet complete. At this point "Ivory Coast" is still more recognizable and more natural than "Côte d'Ivoire". Blueboar (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the grounds that: while both "Côte d'Ivoire" and "Ivory Coast" have currency and it seems similar ammounts of usage in RS thereby leaving CommonName inconclusive of itself, the additional element of the Ivory Coast being an English language formation (UseEnglish) and, previously a popular one (a historical angle on CommonName) tips it in its favour for me. I probably wouldn't have given my opinion but having heard of all the fury over this, and having read the discussion and in the course of that come to an opinion, I felt it my duty to give it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:GTBacchus has been arguing that we might make better progress using the RFC process. I don't see a need for it, but at this point I see I need to end the discussion about whether we need an RFC. Since I see no harm in making this an RFC, I am adding the tag to the top of this discussion section. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an RM with an RFC seems to be quite irregular, but it has in fact happened before to this article, and by the same admin. Keeping this article where it is obviously really important to somebody. Kauffner (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it is also really important to somebody. We could all work on something more productive than this endless debate; the gridlock isn't due to any single party, nor to either side of the issue. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't quite seem proper to have the same admin closing this discussion again. Especially not seeing as said admin has admitted to not being impartial in this matter[10].TheFreeloader (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... it's a little fishy and it's not like the support/oppose's were getting stale. It was still ongoing. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continually RFC'ing or RM'ing an article ad nauseum is the biggest waste of time ever. Playing Farmville is more productive. Can someone continue to WP:CANVASS to bring more "oh yes, move it" people? Sure. Does the argument ever get any stronger? No. Even a 2-1 or even 3-1 "support" will not be enough to take an article that is 100% properly named according to policy and move it to another name that only partly meets another policy. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is really lame. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hours invested in discussing this move over and over again, and in discussing the (ir)relevance of previous discussions, could have produced 2 or 3 FAs if they had been invested elsewhere. bobrayner (talk) 20:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Question for User:Fyunck(click): In what sense is it "ongoing"? Are any new arguments being advanced? Is anyone's mind being changed? Does the above discussion consist of anything but a rehash of what's been said before? I agree that the same admin shouldn't always be closing requests for the same article, but what are we doing? Is the goal to keep nominating it until we find an admin who says "yes"? Why not just leave it the hell alone? I'm tired of seeing this article come through WP:RM. Doesn't it get old for everyone else, too? There are a million articles that need improvement, and people would rather spin our tires in this same old mud pit? Why? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an abuse of power by the admin? As pointed out above, this is only the fourth RM in several years. This is at least a majority opinion, and there was a novel argument: the officials which made Côte d'Ivoire official usage are out of office. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, 4th RM and a couple of RFC's already. What an absolute waste. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, how about we just stop arguing and move the article then? Or that wasn't what you meant? ...No, what you are probably looking for is to bully everyone away from discussing this subject, because that way you can keep things the way you want them. It just doesn't work that way. Each of the last RM's were all started by people who did not participate in the previous discussion. And new people will keep coming here wondering why this article is named as it is, until we reach some sort of consensus on what to name this article and why. This is not an issue which disappears just by bullying people away from discussing it.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no title preference for this article. I think we should follow sources, and I think sources are mixed. My interest is in seeing naming disputes resolved, because WP:RM is my homepage around here.

I think it's fair to mention that, if we move the article, new people will still keep coming here wondering why the article is named as it is. Either title will result in surprising some significant portion of readers. Don't you think that's true? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might, but I think the solution here still is to reach some sort of consensus on what we call it and why, then at least we can add some sort of tag at the top of this talk page explaining the consensus opinion, like it's done at Talk:Gdańsk and Talk:Derry.TheFreeloader (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see that, and it might be possible. How does that start? Shall we begin outlining the salient points on each side of the discussion, and analyzing more carefully how they play out amongst each other? Shall we set up a sub-page for it?

I still think this is getting a lot more energy directed at it than it deserves, and before someone tells me I'm wasting my time on it, too, I just sorted about 400 plant stubs because I wanted to do something productive. I still might take another swipe at the RM backlog tonight; who knows? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, maybe some sort of mediation process could help create a consensus.TheFreeloader (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing because it's not like 3 days had gone by with no opposes or agrees. There were 3 postings just today when it was closed. I had never been involved in the other nominations here so I don't know about what has happened before but certainly the same admin (who some have posted is not down the middle of the road on this issue) should not close it a second time. That brings out the worst in the opposition. I also realize it's not a vote... it could be 75%-25% in voting, an admin can like the 25% arguments better and go with the 25%. That's fine with me, that's the way wiki works sometimes. But if it comes to another vote and it's 75%-25%, and again the same admin rules with the 25%, one can see that many will claim bias. For transparency sake it would be far better for a different admin to read through the posts and come to a decision. Now this was only 54% in favor of moving but I've seen far too many terrible turmoils in the "Burma", "Global Warming" and "Tennis player names" pages where things could have gone smoother with a little forethought. Maybe there needs to be a policy where once something has been voted on to consensus it can't be brought up again for 1 year. As to what other articles with Cote d'Ivoire or Ivory Coast call themselves seems irrelevant. You tackle one page at a time. If we worried about what other tennis pages were called when changing a name on another we'd never get anything done imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% with your last point. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I request that the ongoing/active discussion be re-opened, at least until an uninvolved admin closes it. Admins that have already closed RM discussions about this topic should abstain. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that discussion is repetition of things that have been said before. If there's an actual new argument, then why not articulate it on its own, and we can discuss its merits with or without an official "open discussion". This talk page section is open.

I just don't see the point in generating longer and longer lists of people repeating things we've all read before. The whole "Support, per WP:UE" / "Côte d'Ivoire is English" back and forth is totally unproductive; let's stop encouraging its repetition.

When a new argument has been soberly and calmly evaluated, then if it truly seems to change the lay of the land, we'll act as appropriate. Reopening the above will inevitably produce more unnecessary repetition of what we all already know about. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the archive again, and this is actually the third time that same admin has closed: June 2010, July 2010, and above. Since we are not getting answers here, I guess this goes to WP:ANI. Kauffner (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you want an uninvolved admin to close the RM? Well GTBacchus already did close the RM as "no consensus" a day before billinghurst's closure, and was quickly reverted by a "pro-move" editor. Are you just going to keep objecting to the closure until you find an admin who gives you the answer you want? It's not like this is a controversial close. There clearly isn't any consensus to move the article. TDL (talk) 02:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, I checked the archives, and I was actually involved in one of the previous move requests, supporting the current title. I'd forgotten about that. I have no objection to a less involved admin evaluating the discussion, but I think it will be hard to find any who will call it anything other than "no consensus to move". -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:42, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the name of this article and similar heated discussions about other articles (Danzig, Burma etc.) are premised on a monothetic approach. Is there perhaps a third solution, one in which neither heading is given priority? In such a solution, I would get a *slightly* different article (with an appropriate caveat) depending on whethe I searched for IC or CdI.Kdammers (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We already have this. It's called interwiki. People who like their article titles in French can go there. Kauffner (talk) 09:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to make the same errors: Cote d'Ivoire is it's English name, it happens to be from French. Kind of like creme brule...and words like transportation, communication, naive. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:02, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to have been some confusion. fr.wikipedia is for people who want article content written in French. However, people who want accurate and neutral titles, or who want articles about foreign subjects, should be able to get them on any wikipedia, including this one.

This may be an English language encyclopædia, but it covers foreign subjects too. Sometimes those foreign subjects have names which look foreign to some anglophones. If anybody is offended by that, they have my sympathy, but I can't fathom why they keep on returning to an article about a foreign country. bobrayner (talk) 12:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alors mes amis! Enjoy continental titles, even though Le français est difficile? The solution to this problem is obvious, n'est pas? Wikipedia Poseur. It's where the fromage hits the croissant. Kauffner (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this discussion a bit confusing, because I can't see why so much energy is devoted to this question, which I don't see as nearly important enough to warrant this level of controversy. What's really going on, here? Has it become personal? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've tried such solutions; if anybody wants the move discussion as to which one comes first, we can do it again. See the entry on Bolzano/Bozen in WP:LAME. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The primary argument of those wishing to retain "Côte d'Ivoire" as the main title header seems to be that the Ivory Coast's leaders, past and present, have declared that the country's French-language name is also its English-language name. This yearning to retain the French appellation across languages is obviously not shared by the leaders of Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of the Congo and Equatorial Guinea since they have not (so far) announced that the English-language names of their respective states are République centrafricaine, République démocratique du Congo, République du Congo and Guinée équatoriale, all of which are main title headers in the French Wikipedia. Furthermore, this declaration regarding the primacy of the Ivory Coast's French-language name apparently extends only to the English language and has been accepted only by the English Wikipedia since the Ivory Coast's name in the German Wikipedia is Elfenbeinküste, Swedish Wikipedia: Elfenbenskusten, Italian Wikipedia: Costa d'Avorio, Spanish Wikipedia: Costa de Marfil, Portuguese Wikipedia: Costa do Marfim, Polish Wikipedia: Wybrzeże Kości Słoniowej, Dutch Wikipedia: Ivoorkust, Estonian Wikipedia: Elevandiluurannik...well, we must have gotten the point a long time ago, but everyone is welcome to add more examples. In the English Wikipedia, which name shall it be, the English or the French? So far the French Wikipedia has prevailed with its Côte d'Ivoire. Participants in this vote are invited to sample as few or as many of the Ivory Coast's 154 interwiki links to determine which language, other than French, English and Simple English, is using "Côte d'Ivoire" (to quote Simple English: "It used to be called the Ivory Coast. Some people in the USA still call it this, but it is not the official name."). Every language has its own generally accepted names for geographical designations and only the English Wikipedia has insisted on retaining this minority-supported French designation.—Roman Spinner (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we should try to follow other languages' Wikis. I'd prefer we lead, or at least move independently. I would also challenge the implication that every other Wiki always uses their own language for all geographical places. Shall I look for exceptions to that, or may we agree that they must exist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, has "Côte d'Ivoire" been officially declared as the name of the country in, say, German? Interesting thing to check up on. Anyway, what other African countries do has no relevance to this country. Basically this is a repeat of some of the arguments above, that "Côte d'Ivoire" is not English. No doubt someone can respond it is English. C'est la vie. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 08:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it is not clear that the present rulers agree, having just replaced Gbagbo, the self-declared Renaissance Man who made the decision official. In the further past, the official name was Ivory Coast. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The English Wikipedia does lead — with 3,675,034 articles and 471,721,051 edits (as of this moment) and the present distribution of world population and access to the internet, no other language (Chinese?) has any realistic hopes of gaining. We also move independently — in most other-language Wikipedias, lead paragraphs of biographical entries append places of birth and death next to the vital dates, but we have consensus to limit lead paragraphs to key points of notability. On this point, however, our leadership and independence, such as they are, are misguided. A glance at List of sovereign states, shows this to be a unique situation (not at all similar to such relatively-frequent disputes as the Danzig/Gdańsk historical/current city name controversy). Of the 195 entries on that list, only one (Ivory Coast) has a well known, commonly used English-language name and yet becomes a redirect to a "circumflexed" French-language appellation. The fact that of the 154-language Wikipedias which have an entry for Ivory Coast, only the English Wikipedia has held to this (temporary?) deeply-disputed, minority-supported main title header which also exists only on the French Wikipedia, demonstrates the resistance to this quixotic leadership.—Roman Spinner (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice use of "quixotic", I guess. I still get absolutely zero (0) from comparisons to other Wikis. Those mean absolutely nothing to me. We make our decisions based on a consensus understanding of how to apply our foundational policies. All of those Wikis can be wrong, or they can all be right. We still have to make our own decisions. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. In relation to above, it seems from this UN source that Côte d'Ivoire has been declared as the official name in English, French, and Spanish (the UN languages using the Latin Alphabet). It appears the UN names are the ones used by the Russian and Chinese wikis (not sure about Arabic), however relevant that is. So looking at the Latin wikipedias, the Spanish wiki does not follow the official name, the English does, and the French I assume is irrelevant. In regards to internal english wiki consistency, Côte d'Ivoire is comparable to East Timor, which has ended up at that name instead of its official Timor-Leste. There have been move requests and various discussions there too, so at either name obviously there will be an issue. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ARBMAC2#Naming Conventions for ArbCom's endorsement of policy: we don't follow any official source, but what anglophones will recognize. What the UN calls this country has less relevance than with the Republic of Macedonia; the political pressure for Côte d'Ivoire has passed with the dictator who preferec it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should billinghurst close yet another Côte d'Ivoire/Ivory Coast RM? Your opinion goes here. Kauffner (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion should be re-opened so that a truly uninvolved admin can take a look at it. Would someone please re-open it? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course billinghurst has an opinion. It is unrealistic to expect him not to have one. That doesn't make him involved. His closings on this page have been disputed before, and this last one was certainly disputed. Once one of his decisions are disputed, the admin is considered involved in that topic, according to WP:INVOLVED. What's more, it can't possibly be coincidence that the same admin closes three times in a row. He must be gaming the system somehow, although don't know if there is a directly relevant guideline for that. Kauffner (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference between reopening the discussion and just starting an RfC? We need wider input. Why not call it an RfC? Is there a reason not to have an RfC? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Re-opening the discussion has no real meaning. Anyone can move the page if they think there's a consensus to move it. Wikipedia does not run "by the book". Just say what needs to be said, and do what needs to be done. Be alert at all times regarding consensus, and you won't go wrong. Forget all this red tape.

If the article should be moved, then first a stronger consensus should be demonstrated. How do we demonstrate it? We get wider community input, and we clarify the arguments on both sides for maximum effectiveness. I suggest a sub-page to outline the case for each side. I would make that suggestion just the same in an RM discussion as I would in an RfC. Why not just do that, instead of opening and closing formalities? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I believe there is a consensus of valid arguments to move it. The name used by the UN is not valid or relevant; we have policy on that, endorsed by ArbCom decision in the case of the Republic of Macedonia; neither is the preference of a former government of the Ivory Coast - since, even if it were valid, it cuts both ways. Let whoso disagrees say so now. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Often there are good reasons for formalities. The community has agreed that the way we determine consensus regarding page moves is via RM discussions closed by uninvolved admins. Involved admins such as yourself - as demonstrated by your belief that stronger consensus has to be demonstrated "if the article should be moved" (not to mention your previous direct involvement in these discussions) - have not allowed this to happen. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care where the article is, Born2cycle. My only reason for opposing the move is that there's no sense bouncing it back-and-forth any number of times before there's a clear picture of what the community decides. Moves between two controversial titles are discouraged. If you move the page, we'll just keep having this conversation over at Talk:Ivory Coast, and there will be more Requests, until there's actually a clear answer.

What I'm suggesting is that we get to that answer, whatever it ends up being. If the consensus is for "Ivory Coast", then I'm behind it 100%. Now it's not clear; it's muddy. Let's make it clear. If we do that, then we can stop having that conversation once and for all. Clarifying what the community wants is worth doing, and whether we do it in an RM discussion or an RfC doesn't matter very much. Do you understand what I'm saying?

By the way, the process at RM is not, and never has been required for moves. At Requested moves, we offer one way to do it. There are many others, and RM as a formality has never been required here.

We determine consensus however we happen to determine it, and that is a major strength of the wiki. You never "need" a formal move request. Just do the right thing, and make sure you did your homework. Be smart about not surprising people, and describe what you're doing as you do it. It'll be fine; you're free here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that bouncing between A and B is, and should be, discouraged. What I disagree with is treating A and B equal when the article has been at A for a long time, has never been at B (or hasn't for a long time), and there have been multiple attempts by many people to move it to B. In many such cases the argument for B is stronger, but only slightly stronger than for A, which is why it keeps getting seen as "no consensus". However, if the case is truly stronger for B, then once it moves it is likely to stay there. I believe it's likely that that is the case here, and you can never know for sure until the article is moved. So while bouncing is and should be discouraged, in a case like this moving it once to the alternative just to see how that goes, in case it does garner significant consensus support once moved, should be encouraged. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, if you're right, an RfC would cement your point and make you "win". There is no reason for you to come out against an RfC, because all it can do is help you. You want another weak, low-weight RM decision, when instead you could get a significant, strong, well-supported RfC decision. Why you're opting for the lesser form of support is completely beyond me. You seem to want to prolong this for more months than it deserves. Let's just do it right, and get it done with. Why on Earth not? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like formalities, an RfC would be a more appropriate one at this point. It's clearly a big-deal case that will probably set lots of precedents. Is there any reason not to "escalate" to an RfC, to get a broader base to whatever we decide? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GTB, in controversial cases, as this title obviously is (and was before the latest discussion started given its history) the RM process is required, as required as anything can be in Wikipedia: "This [RM discussion] process is only necessary if there is any reason to believe a requested move would be contested. ... If there has been any past debate about the best title for the page, or if anyone could reasonably disagree with the move, then treat it as controversial. " And for good reason I might add.

Until an uninvolved admin closes this discussion, I see no point in even contemplating an RFC. Once that occurs, if it's closed as no consensus, then I could see a reason to go to an RFC. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, quoting rules to me is a terrible idea. It's not going to lead to a discussion that you want to be a part of. I'm serious about this. An RM request is NEVER REQUIRED. Read our policy on ignoring all rules, and believe it. Treating a move as controversial DOES NOT MEAN that a specific bureaucratic hoop has to be jumped through. It means that we should be very careful. RM is one way to do that, but in this case, I'd say RFC is a better way. Don't start telling me how RM works, because half of the procedures on that page were developed by... hmmm, guess whom? How many thousand move requests have you closed, Born2cycle? Quoting rules to me that I developed is very unlikely to advance your position in a discussion with me. Get it?

You're being bureaucratic, and you should stop, forever. Being bureaucratic on Wikipedia is a Very Bad Idea. This case deserves an RfC, and you're arguing to deny that level of attention to this case. I might as well ask whom you're trying to hide it from. RfC is a Very, Very Good Idea in this case, and the only arguments against it are bureaucratic nonsense.

I'd say in general that any move request that goes to RM for a third time is already overdue an RfC. Maybe we should add that to the RM page. Then you could quote it later to someone else, as a "rule". God, I don't understand why people love "rules" so much... -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, simultaneously arguing for an RFC and against bureaucracy is hilarious. In any case, until and unless an uninvolved admin closes this discussion as "no discussion", I see no point in even contemplating the additional bureaucracy of an RFC.. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not suggesting it because I think there's a rule to be satisfied. I'm thinking about the very pragmatic aim of attracting maximum participation. Arguing to apply one process when another is suggested by the bureaucracy is not bureaucratic, it's called cutting red tape, and using the system in ways it wasn't meant to be used. That's like anti-bureaucracy. I can not (nor would I) dismantle the structures we've created, so I'm suggesting we use them with an eye to their effects, and not with an eye to how well they satisfy some formal procedure.

If I knew a feasible way to drag this issue before a larger audience than an RfC would attract, I'd suggest that instead. Skywriting is expensive these days, so you understand we're working with limitations... Anyway, whether you see a point in contemplating an RfC won't stop anyone else from setting one up.

Also, as long as we're entertaining each other, I find it funny that you're actually arguing against advertising this discussion to a wider audience. What negative effect of an RfC do you fear? What's there to oppose? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never argued against an RFC. I argued against starting a new discussion (via RFC or any other mechanism) instead of re-opening the active/ongoing RM discussion that was prematurely closed by one biased admin (you), re-opened (me), then improperly closed again by another biased admin. All that is moot since it was re-opened. We don't reach consensus by closing discussions. As I stated at the ANI, I have no objection to adding an rfc tag to this discussion. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]