Food and drink B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Food and Drink task list: To edit this page, select here Here are some tasks you can do for WikiProject Food and drink: Help bring these Top Importance articles currently B Status or below up to GA status: Agaricus bisporus (i.e. mushroom), Beef, Bread, Curry, Drink, Food, Ham and eggs, Soy sauce, Sushi, Yogurt Bring these Top Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Beer, French cuisine, Sugar Bring these High Importance articles currently at GA status up to FA status: Apple, Burger King, Fish Participate in project-related deletion discussions. Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this. Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here. Provide photographs and images for Category:Wikipedia requested images of food Consider joining this project's Assessment task force. List any project ideas in this section Note: These lists are transcluded from the project's tasks pages.

I'd imagine it's just phrased badly, but... is there an inedible kind?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.100.205.16 (talk) 06:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Also, this caption is for an image of File:Yogurt.jpg which is not illustrating yoghurt in any shape or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.15.216.58 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in BBC's Rick Stein's Food Heroes that yoghurt is a Turkish word which means what it is - yoghurt. Rick Stein also said that Americans irritatingly pronounces it "yo-ghurt" which I thought was funny and very true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.151.126 (talk) 18:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yogurt is not a turkish word, but a turkic one, make a difference, people ! - Tourbillon ^A ? 19:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yugur is a Turkic word, Yogurt is Turkish.. as long as Turkish is a Turkic language, it's not so important.

Yogurt-mak also a verb, "to have something tickened" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.248.140.221 (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In order to attempt to facilitate a compromise everyone can live with, I'm working on a script for monobook.js to allow people to see the article in their preferred spelling. In order for this to work, i have had to add markup to sections that discuss the spelling issues. Please do not remove these tags for at least the next few days. --Random832 19:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - although the last solution which did almost the exact same thing was deleted ({{sp}})--danielfolsom 19:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My solution is intended to have the minimal invasiveness to article content - a span class around sections that discuss spelling differences [to tell the script to leave them alone] and the rest of the logic is entirely in the script. It's at the bottom of my monobook if anyone wants to test it out [it uses an error handling script, just remove the try/catch lines to remove the dependency on that. it also depends on the function $() as an alias for getelementbyid] --Random832 20:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still find it absurd to use a lesser spelling for the main and use such methods to accomodate the more common one as an alternate, but I think this isn't a bad idea. --65.206.50.107 23:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solution - suggests that there is a problem. I'm staggered that some people can't seem to grasp that us Non-USAsians have learnt to accept that there are going to be articles written with an unfamiliar spelling and that learning about alternative spellings in such a way is just part of life's rich tapestry and not a problem. Jooler 00:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a american, and frankly I have seen simmilar reactions from non-americans on pages like color (though not to this extent) - but I think any reactions to these spellings should be reverted and shunned, thus I agree with you --danielfolsom 02:10, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Suggests there is a problem" - of course there is a problem, regardless of whether you think the problem is the spelling or ignorant people complaining about the spelling. --Random832 03:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And "any reactions should be shunned" is an overly simplistic way of thinking of it - this case is special for two reasons - because the spelling without 'h' is more common _even in the UK_, and because the article was standardized on the other spelling first. Those, and not "americans are more boorish" as you seem to think, have been the source of the increased controversy here. --Random832 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"because the spelling without 'h' is more common _even in the UK" - I suppose you're using Google hits support this assertion. Google hits are determined by page links to pages containing the word not the number of pages with the word itself. Thus a page in the UK that links to a US page with the word 'yogurt' will show up under 'yogurt' and not 'yoghurt', and if the page itself contains 'yoghurt' it will show up under both. A better way is to use Google searches http://www.google.com/trends?q=yoghurt%2C+yogurt&ctab=0&geo=GB&date=all&sort=0 Jooler 07:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh -that's right- because wikipedia policy definitely dictates what spelling should be used based on popularity! --danielfolsom 11:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely countering the assertion that "the spelling without 'h' is more common _even in the UK". Jooler 23:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok - the comment was more so directed at dscarth though--danielfolsom 03:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the "established" spelling was johgort or some other minor variant instead of "with an h", would you still be arguing that point? Popularity is the issue here. --Dscarth 16:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - it's not, Wikipedia guidelines are the issue here. And I'm from the u.s. and I use the yogurt spelling - so don't try to act like it's a British conspiracy or something - if jogurt was the established spelling and it was part of the English language then I'd support that too.--danielfolsom 03:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have Javascript disabled due to some sites abusing javascript like disabling keyboard and mouse buttons, popups, browser hijacking, etc. Dave Rebecca 19:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yoghurt is definetely the more traditional spelling so this spelling should go first as well as be the article name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.59.47.75 (talk • contribs)

Take a stroll through the archives. Already been covered and recovered. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should not we have the license to close down threads bringing up this point again... ALTON .ıl 05:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should. Consensus has not been reached on the issue, and even it it had, based on WP:CONS, 'consensus can change'. I'm not sure what 'closing down threads' means exactly since deleting talk page text is usually frowned upon, unless you are suggesting treating such comments as vandalism and blocking those editors. Antonrojo 15:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is still no consensus. I had argued the last time and we had not managed to gain a sufficent majority of opinions to warrant a change of name, nor had we come to an agreement. For some reason the yogurt discussion seems as polarizing as an abortion discussion, there's little middle ground, and frustrating to both sides. --Dscarth 19:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Dscarth says people will recognise no possible compromise or centre ground and it becomes a matter of honour to protect their neighbourhood favourite spelling irrespective of the colour or flavour or if the yoghurt is savoury, sweet or sour despite the furore caused.

As Dscarth says people will recognize no possible compromise or center ground and it becomes a matter of honor to protect their neighborhood favorite spelling irrespective of the color or flavor or if the yogurt is savory, sweet or sour despite the furore caused.

The whole thing becomes a matter of theatre and humour to many. It has caused me to snigger to analyse the maths that has been used in the past as people labour and manoeuvre with each instalment in defence of a point of view, I am just grateful it is not packaged in grey aluminium.

The whole thing becomes a matter of theater and humor (or humour) to many. It has caused me to snicker to analyze the math that has been used in the past as people labor and maneuver with each installment in defense of a point of view, I am just grateful it is not packaged in gray aluminum.

One little titbit in closing; the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following spellings in citations:

One little tidbit in closing; the Oxford English Dictionary gives the following spellings in citations: 1625 Yoghurd - 1687 Yogourt - 1837 yahourt - 1883 yaghourt - 1912 yaghourt - 1925 Yoghurt - 1970 yogurt - 1980 yoghourt

If forced to express an opinion, for this article it is Yoghurt because that is the established spelling.--Drappel 22:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me fix that for you: center, neighborhood, color, flavor, yogurt, theater, humor, laugh, math, manouver, installment, defense, aluminum. I may have missed something obvious, but this variant of the spelling has been contested for quite awhile. Established is merely POV. Dick. --Dscarth 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, as for the Oxford English Dictionary, regardless of what they cite as historickal spellinges, they lead with "yogurt". --Random832 23:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fellas - we just had this discussion, so can we not flatter an obvious troll?--danielfolsom 04:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi people, this is an unrelated point- I know that in India, people say yogurt with the short 'o'..could we edit to include this information? Also in India, yogurt has been eaten for generations and it partly orginates from this area as well; it is known as dahi in much of the subcontinent and is referred to colloquially as khata, "sour" in many a Punjabi village. Can we please include the former? Thanks! :)

Could we add a note about the Canadian spelling? Many packagers use the term 'Yogourt' because it can serve both the french and english spellings. Many US made products carry two different spellings, but those that are made in Canada almost always contain just 'Yogourt'.

Not that it matters at this point, but I have never, ever seen it spelled any way other than "yogurt" until I have read this article. Zarggg 02:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any cultural or sentimental attachment to any particular spelling for the product which one dictionary defines as "A custardlike food with a tart flavor, prepared from milk curdled by bacteria, especially Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus, and often sweetened or flavored with fruit," as I mainly started eating it about a week ago. Growing up, I don't recall any of my family or friends eating it, and I haven't paid much attention to it until aforesaid time.

But a short while ago today I noticed that there are a number of spelling variations of the product. So I decided to investigate further to figure out the preferred spelling and because I enjoy learning about words. Whereupon I noticed Wikipedia's spelling for the entry, which I found to be curious given my investigations. What follows are the results of my investigations.

OneLook Dictionary Search lists 26 dictionaries altogether, and 19 dictionaries in the "General" dictionary category, for the spelling of yogurt.

Whereas OneLook Dictionary Search only lists 18 dictionaries altogether, and 14 dictionaries in the "General" dictionary category, for the spelling of yoghurt.

Each of the following dictionaries by major dictionary publishers have the entry for this product under the spelling of yogurt, with yoghurt being given as an alternative spelling: Compact Oxford English Dictionary; Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary; Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Eleventh Edition; and The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000).

Google Search currently lists 16,700,000 results for the spelling yogurt.

Whereas Google Search currently only lists 5,650,000 results for the spelling yoghurt, which is only 33.83% of the total results for the former search.

I have three different brands of this product currently within my residence. Those brands are as follows: Dannon, Publix, and Coburn Farms (a Save-A-Lot brand). They all spell the product as yogurt, but not yoghurt.

Based upon my investigations, I conclude that the preferred spelling for this product, to an overwhelming degree, is yogurt, and not yoghurt.--209.208.77.247 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a brand of Yoplait with me right now that says "Yogurt". Klosterdev (talk) 23:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your independent research. I have checked it out, and it appears to be conclusive. I don't feel that a consensus is an appropriate course of action anyway. Unless you are an etymologist, yogurt producer, yogurt reseacher, or have similar qualifications, you have no business voting on the spelling of the term. It also appears that voters were not evenly distributed (geographically), and are likely a group of friends. Anyone could call a simple consensus on the spelling of any term and have all their friends vote for something unusual. It is neither objective nor appropriate. This is compounded by the fact that the evidence for the spelling "yoghurt" is nothing more than people calling the evidence for "yogurt" into question by citing ethnocentrism. And yes, I have read all of the discussions on it. Quite hypocritical if you ask me. [User:Laplacian54|Laplacian54]] (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why Fermented milk was redirected to Yoghurt? Fermented milk can be any number of products in the English speaking world such as yoghurt, cultured buttermilk, sour cream, crème fraîche and a host of other fermented milk products that are made internationally and have no English name, e.g., kefir and filmjölk. It would make more sense to have a Fermented milk products page that lists all of the various types of fermented milk products (such as yogurt, etc) that link to more specific pages that address each type of fermented milk product. Anyone against removing the redirect, and perhaps creating a page called Fermented milk product (and then redirecting Fermented milk page to Fermented milk products? A good reference page from Canada to start the new page: Fermented Milk Products apanda 21:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was redirected because someone thought it was a good idea. If you think your idea is better than be bold. SchmuckyTheCat

WP:STEAM (in other words, every time this comes up, you crush opposition and keep more than one person from gathering, and sacrificing everything at the altar of "pre-existing consensus" - "license to close such discussion" wtf. --Random832 04:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that it was not Dannon, but Colombo which first introduced yoghurt in the US.

Yogurt didn’t debut in the U.S. until 1929, when Armenian immigrants Rose and Sarkis Colombosian and their sons hand-filled the family recipe into 8-oz. glass jars and distributed them via horse-drawn wagon throughout the Northeast. http://www.foodprocessing.com/articles/2004/177.html

Not sure when the distribution itself began, but NY Times: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9807E7DA133BF93BA35751C0A967948260 states that Rose Krikorian Colombosian, who with her husband founded the first yogurt manufacturing plant in the nation, in her obituary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.209.59 (talk) 20:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand why this article is titled "Yoghurt" instead of "Yogurt". Every photo on the WP Commons of a package of this product says "Yogurt" -- which makes "Yoghurt" a confusing title for the article. Never in my life have I seen the spelling "Yoghurt". I went down to Food Lion, Wal-Mart, Lowes, and BP, and I could not find one single yogurt product labeled "Yoghurt". So from what I've been able to learn, "yogurt" seems to be the modern spelling, which would seem to make it the most appropriate choice for the article. Pierce Phillips (talk) 23:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed ad nauseam. WP is international; "yoghurt" is a perfectly good spelling, even if it is not the most popular in the U.S. --Macrakis (talk) 02:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as the folks on Conservapedia point out, Wikipedia was founded by Americans, is hosted in America, and the majority of its userbase is American. Besides the fact that dropping the silent H is progressive -- it's part of how languages evolve to meet the needs in the most simple way possible -- and aren't you folks all about change and progressiveness and evolution? Pierce Phillips (talk) 12:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if you want yogurt you look at Conservapedia; if you want yoghurt you look here. Everybody gets what they want -- no tyranny of the majority. Isn't freedom of choice wonderful ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...you didn't make yourself at all clear, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that your point was somewhat silly. Back on track: if "yogurt" is such a widely-used, modern spelling -- to the point that it appears in every picture here on Wiki showing a package of yoghurt -- then why isn't it the title of the article? Why are we hanging on to an archaic silent 'h'? Pierce Phillips (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back and read the Talk archives. All this has been argued before. --Macrakis (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce, different variants of English as accepted, per Wikipedia policy. The assertion that Wikipedia is an "American" project is a misconception - it's always been an international project. In fact, the target audience for Wikipedia is people who can't afford to pay for encyclopaedia access - in other words, the target audience is decidedly non-American. All English - regardless of region - is dominated by archaic spelling...things like "ie", "c" and the final silent "e". Kwibling ova a singl letu yogut is sile. Guettarda (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

in other words, the target audience is decidedly non-American

This also is incorrect. English Wikipedia is a reference for all English-speaking individuals. Whether they want to pay for an encyclopedia is not the main issue (maybe it is for some, but there are more important reasons for creating Wikipedia).

« D Trebbien (talk) 17:22 2007 December 28 (UTC)

Image usage issues give me headaches and I usually do my best to not involve myself in them but couldn't a suitable "yoghurt" package image be added to commons simply by someone snapping a picture of such a package and uploading it? Is formal permission required from the product manufacturer? Surely a simple e-mail response from the manufacturer would be sufficient to grant such permission?Zebulin (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather bizarre digression, but to answer your question, taking photos of brand name products is creating a derivative work, which is still subject to full copyright law. It's less of a hassle to have these unlabeled products. ALTON .ıl 03:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is rarely going to be a derivative work, but in any case it is fair use to take a photograph of a packaged product including artwork, brand name, and trade dress and publish it without the copyright and trademark holder's permission. --Macrakis (talk) 04:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the usage of yoghurt for the entry title has nothing to do with internationalism. As I point out in my above post under 209.208.77.247 at 00:15, 25 November 2007 (UTC), yogurt is the preferred spelling for even the British dictionaries, and yogurt is a far more common term for this product on the internet (based upon Google searches).--206.148.136.37 (talk) 03:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I firmly believe the proper and preferred spelling internationally is "Yogurt" and as such should be the title of the article. Go to the Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com) and type "yoghurt" and they classify it as a misspelling (see: address bar redirect), and reccomend the usage of "yogurt". Go to the Merriam Webster English Dictionary (m-w.com) and "yoghurt" is classified as a variant of the main entry of "yogurt". Cambridge International Dictionary of English (at dictionary.cambridge.org, which by the way uses 'colour') prefers "yogurt" as the main entry. A cursory search of google (non-scientific) shows: Results 1 - 10 of about 19,700,000 for yogurt, Results 1 - 10 of about 5,780,000 for yoghurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dscarth (talk • contribs) 21:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, this article should be moved. Who will propose it? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one with any sense. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, the title of this article has been contentious ever since it was first changed from its original name, in violation of the MOS which says, "the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used, unless there is reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic". The original name used for the title of this article, and within this article, was Yogurt. [1], and I don't see that there was any "reason to change it on the basis of strong national ties to the topic". The fact that it was changed never-the-less is arguably the root cause of the controversy (similar articles which adhere to this simple rule don't seem to have such a contentious history over their titles), and can be easily remedied. Why would it have to be someone without sense to propose a simple remedy? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you not read all the archives (listed at the top of the page) and the failed attempts to move it back? It's been thoroughly debated several times in the past and the end result has been no consensus to move it back. It would require someone without sense to propose the move anew because they would get shut down pretty swiftly by those of us who are sick of arguing the point and have accepted that maintaining the status quo is less disruptive than starting a fresh argument about the Americanisation of articles and the spirit of the "first major contributor" rule. - Mark 02:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article had originally been named yoghurt you would have a point. But since it was originally named yogurt [1] this is not about Americanisation of articles but about Britishization of articles. If there are repeated attempts to move yoghurt back to yogurt without achieving consensus, but yet the attempts keep coming, have you considered that the nonsensical position is to continue supporting leaving the article at yoghurt, and that what probably does make sense is supporting moving the article back to its original name, yogurt? Consider this (assuming stability is what you truly seek): if consensus is achieved to move the article back to its original name yogurt, what grounds would anyone have a year or two or five later to argue that the article should be at yoghurt? None. But, as long as the article remains at yoghurt, the argument can be made, and will be made, over and over, that the orginal rename from yogurt to yoghurt was unfair and contrary to WP naming policy, conventions and guidelines (not to mention that the yogurt spelling is used in Great Britain but the yoghurt spelling is virtually unheard of in the States), and, so, the article should be moved back to yogurt.

You can disagree all you want, but the fact is that since this article was originally at yogurt, and because by every reasonable measure yogurt is the more commonly used name, people will justifiably seek to have this article moved back to yogurt, until it is moved back, or forever, whichever comes first. Mark. My. Words. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside all rationalizations and posturing in support of a given perspective, what Born2cycle states here is the social mechanic that is at play- and should be accorded appropriate (primary?) consideration when determining the naming convention.Mavigogun (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the main point I was making was that, contrary to Derek Ross' point, someone would not have to lack sense in order to propose that this article be moved back to its original title at Yogurt.

For those who may not know, Derek is the one who originally moved this article from Yogurt. He did make a note at the time on the talk page, but there was no discussion about it, and apparently no one even noticed until a month or two later. But that hardly establishes consensus for the move, and we've established many times since then that while there is no clear consensus to restore the original, there has never been consensus favoring the new title either. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I still support a move back to Yogurt. Dscarth (talk) 03:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved back to Yogurt. 16.6 million hits vs only 4 million for Yoghurt. –xeno^talk 04:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

whats the ph (range) of yughurt? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chendy (talk • contribs) 20:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if this has been raised before but I think it maybe better to merge Frozen yoghurt to the the Yoghurt page although the Frozen yoghurt has enough references/notability to stand on its own I believe it may flow better if it it was incorporated into this article. I don't think the article is too long to merge either. --Sin Harvest (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge I think the yoghurt article is long enough, and if we merge in all the other yoghurt-related articles (frozen yoghurt, strained yoghurt, lassi, etc.) it will be much too long. --Macrakis (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough --Sin Harvest (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to list Frozen yoghurt in the Varieties section rather than the See also? A more informative heading and a better list of varieties, it seems to me. Should I? — the Sidhekin (talk) 18:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frozen yoghurt isn't a "variety" of yoghurt -- it is a dish prepared with yoghurt, just like tzatziki, lassi, Azerbaijani yoghurt soup (yogurtlu aash), etc. They should be listed together somewhere, perhaps near the top of the article. --Macrakis (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean, but with Tarator, Ayran, Lassi, and Yop on the list, I read "variety" to include such.

But again, I can also see those in a seperate list, also including Frozen yoghurt.

And then, why is Kefir on the list of varieties? The fermentation of Kefir is not by bacteria only, so it is not even a yoghurt, is it? And if by some definition it is, is also Blaand and/or Cheese?

Hmmm ...— the Sidhekin (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on removing the merge tag unless someone believes there is some merit on merging? Although I personally thought the flow maybe improved with a merge I also don't think it is such a big deal and am not going to make a huge fuse over such a minor merge. --Sin Harvest (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following sentence has been changed:

"The use of yoghurt by ancient Turks is recorded in the books..."

to

"The use of yoghurt by medieval Turks is recorded in the books..."

because ancient implies an era from 30th century BC and finished 5th century AD (with the fall of the western roman empire) while in the sentence it talks for the period of 11th century AD and that's 5-6 centuries after the end of anything ancient! A.Cython (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The section on culture states that yogurt is not pasteurized. While it is true that the yogurt is not re-pasteurized after culture fermentation, the source milk is pasteurized beforehand. See http://www.aboutyogurt.com/lacYogurt/facts.asp#q3 24.243.128.189 (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this section is a necessary part of the article. I think that it does not contribute to the knowledge of yogurt and is simply inappropriate. Furthermore, the picture is even more inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.142.211 (talk) 02:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Yoghurt with added fruit jam was invented to protect yoghurt from decay."

Does the addition o fruit jam protect the yoghurt from decay or deos the sugar protect the fruit from decay. 78.151.174.92 (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that variations of this kind of food are named Tarator in Bulgaria, Albania, and central Balkans, Cacik in Turkey, and Tzatziki in Greece. I don't think that Cacik is an alternative name of Tarator. Yet the article currently says "Tarator (or Cacik)" suggesting that both names refer to exactly the same food (or maybe it means both Tarator and Cacik, it which case the wording should be something like "Both Tarator and Cacik"). Of course my knowledge on this food is limited, so I would like to hear from other more knowledgeable people whether Cacik is truly an alternative name of Tarator, and whether you think we should change the wording in the article. NerdyNSK (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to my knowledge they are very similar, probably just regional variations. Even from looking at the articles, one can see that they are almost the same. Basically, you would be served Cacık in Turkey, but not Tarator, and in Albania et al. you would be served Tarator but not Cacık. I have reworded the passage in the article. BalkanFever 10:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is true that all of these foods are just regional variations (which could be explained in the article if we can find references), with only slight or even no differences, maybe being derived from the same source, but they do have different names on each locality. Great re-wording, thanks! NerdyNSK (talk) 11:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you can find tarator in turkey with the name tarator, cacık is yoghurt + especially cocumber +water Girayhan (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This section seems a bit simplistic, e.g. the long "o" is predominant but not exclusive in the U.S. so I've amended that. Hakluyt bean (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to put the following into your own words but this is what needs to be edited and why.

In the "Homemade" section
Bacteria in yogurt is killed by metal, requires use of glass for fermentation, this is true of many fermented foods. -- To an Editor: This is known but you will have to decide what citation you want to use for it.

Add the requirement of non-metal containers (ie plastic or glass), also you may add that it can be made in a dehydrator that has a low enough setting.

People that know how to ferment can catch this and because current speculation about the "possible" correlation that aluminum may have on internal probiotics and the ("2nd brain") enteric neural / nervous system, this will be caught, especially by those researching from that angle.

DreamWeaver (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is all utter nonsense. Fellow editors, please ignore. --macrakis (talk) 14:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there's some strange fonting in certain parts of this article... stuff spaced out too much, etc. anyone know why? –xeno (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image File:Yogurt.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't deserve to be in the lead as this information doesn't have any particular importance to the subject of yoghurt as a whole. It should be in a small subsection somewhere in the main body of the text.

In an archeology book I read about 8 years ago yogurt creation was attributed to a juice (yonitattva/texts about this practice) from the semen of the yoni during yoni puja (yoni worship)(more yoni worship) being added to milk and allowed to ferment thus creating a holy food. The text mentioned this along with the usefulness of douching with yogurt to restore the natural balance of the vagina because the yogurt was created from the bacteria of a healthy vagina. I can not find the text online nor the public library. I suppose a trip to Washington University of St. Louis library might turn up the text. Hopefully someone else has found this sourced in their research? Alatari (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article about the Harrapans suggest yogurt came from their period starting with their domestication of cattle from 7000bce. No mention of religious practices and the 'holiness' of yogurt. Started search through Google Scholar for clues. Alatari (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

history of fermented foods doesn't go back far enough. Alatari (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tells of a twig used as a starter but doesn't name the plant Alatari (talk) 08:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno's move, without discussion, in an article that has a history as contentious as this one, is disruptive and contravenes one of the principles oput forward in a recent arbcomm case. Since the article was stable at the BE spelling for the last few years, can we just move this back and avoid the fuss? Guettarda (talk) 05:48, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found some compelling arguments at Talk:Yogurt#Yoghurt? to justify making this move, but I'm not particularly fussed either way. –xeno^talk 05:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what part of that argument did you find compelling? The rationale you used in your edit summary was that it was "most common". Well, current policy does not accept that as a reason for switching between AE and BE spelling, and a recent arbcomm case has described actions like this as "inappropriate". In addition, the issue has been discussed in the past here, and while consensus can change, no move request was made. So - policy says "either is valid", consensus says "leave it here", the arbcomm says "moves like this are inappropriate"... So why move it? Guettarda (talk) 06:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was substantial reasons to move it - a) it was originally started as Yogurt b) it's an international subject so BE vs. AmE doesn't really help and c) there are four times as many references to "Yogurt" as there are to "Yoghurt". But again, if you feel so strongly about it, go ahead and move it back, but I don't feel the arbcom principle justifies it. –xeno^talk 06:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(a)Yes, it was originally started at "yogurt", but it has been at "yoghurt" for the last 4+ years. Its move to yoghurt predates the development of rules regarding issues like this, so that argument doesn't have much weight; (b) it's only in the case of international subjects that spelling debates matter, so I don't see your point; (c) the frequency of one spelling over another isn't a valid argument when it comes to issues like this in which policy permits either spelling, and (d) it's precisely issues that this that the arbcomm is talking about, and it's precisely about issues like this that they have ruled in the past (e.g., the two (iirc) Jguk cases related to BC/BCE/AD/CE). If you believe there's a case to move it, put together a proper move discussion. Guettarda (talk) 06:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm don't think we need to worry about everything arbcom has ever said before making editorial decisions in good faith. Your rallying cry is unhelpful here. –xeno^talk

Let's see...you chose to act against consensus (several past move discussions have supported leaving the article here), policy (which allows different varieties of English) and a recent arbcomm decision (which describes actions like yours as "inappropriate"), but my pointing that out is "unhelpful"? Interesting. And "rallying cry"? Care to explain what you mean by that? Guettarda (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom rulings cannot (and should not) be gathered together to create a Wikipedia rulebook. If yoghurt ever goes before arbcom (heh) they can tell us how they feel their e.g. in "date delinking" applies to this case. I still think there were substantial reasons for the change, so I don't think the principle holds nor do I find it worthwhile even bringing it up. Bold is the first step in establishing new consensus. After you raised a concern, I invited you to revert. And here we are discussing.

The article was originally created as "yogurt" and there was significant opposition to the unilateral move to "yoghurt" way back when. As for the past move discussions - I don't really see that there ever has been a consensus reached, more like "no consensus" every time - so doesn't that mean the original title should be restored? Just because the less common spelling has been held on to so strongly over the years doesn't mean we shouldn't apply our newer, better rules ex post facto and restore the status quo.

Personally, I don't care about the end location of this article - that's just how I see it. Please visit my talk page if you want to discuss the meta-concerns further. –xeno^talk 03:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Yoghurt → Yogurt — To restore the status quo that existed before it was moved to the less common spelling. –xeno^talk 06:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the article was moved over four years ago, and has been stable at this spelling for several years. Policy and common usage permit the existence of multiple variants of English as long as there is consistency within articles. Back when the article was moved, the rules about moving between different spellings were still fairly flexible. When this became a problem, the community and the arbcomm developed firmer rules. At this point in time, switching between different accepted variants "it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change". The mere fact that one spelling gets more Google hits than another isn't "some substantial reason". To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet come up with a way to determine the level at which a difference in Google hits indicates a "significant difference" usage in English. Not to mention "American spellings are more common than English spellings" isn't, and has never been, an acceptable reason for switching from one spelling to the other. Guettarda (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move this spelling is ridiculous. Nobody uses it in the real world. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose. No reason to move arbitrarily to another regional English title. --DAJF (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per what Guettarda said. Although "yogurt" might be slightly more common, both terms, "Yogurt" and "Yoghurt", are generally equal in their prevalence worldwide. The article has kept the same title for years, and although the length of something's existence is not a determining factor, there is no compelling reason why we should switch to another nationality's term when this is not a clear case. Jamie^☆S93 15:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - we don't need to be messing around w/ regional varieties of English. It's fine where it is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Can anyone point to a valid spelling (preferred spelling) in a regional language as yoghurt? Firefox spellchecker uses it for UK, but apparently that is incorrect, and allows both (plus yogourt) for Canada. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you checked the archives? There are tens of thousands of words already written on this question. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And all of them say this spelling is obscure and weird. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
      • Ok, until someone provides a link that states otherwise I can accept that. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Schmucky is wildly misrepresenting the archives. Obviously the discussions that led us to keeping the article at the current title amounted to more than "this spelling is obscure and weird". Schmucky insults you to expect you to believe such tripe. Schmucky - please. We both know you're cleverer than that.

          Replying to 199.125.109.99, I think the argument for not messing around w/ regional varieties of English is hashed out pretty thoroughly in Archive 4. Look for the conversation beginning with "GTBacchus, I don't know what your argument is." It's a bit long-winded, but I think it's pretty clear if you read it.

          It boils down to: The Regional-varieties-of-English Ceasefire is a Good Thing. It's like the Date Formats Ceasefire, that says "don't go changing "BC" to "BCE" or vice-versa. Leave such things alone. Leave "honour" at "honour" even if you think you can make a good case for "honor". Don't spend your time building such cases.

          That's good policy, and we shouldn't look for ways to pick at it. Race each other to see who can stop caring about it first, instead. Then you're following the spirit of the ceasefire.

          Or, more briefly, "this spelling is obscure and weird". -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support since the original article was created at "Yogurt" and per the policy on varieties of English, that is where the article should be. The original move was the one that was against policy and this move simply corrects that oversight. --Polaron | Talk 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This view is profoundly anachronistic, and calling this a "policy" is misleading. The idea that Wikipedia does not endorse one regional variety of English over another has been there almost from the start, but the first injunction against switching between different styles "optional styles" only dates (to the best of my knowledge) to the Jguk arbcomm case and was accepted by the arbcomm on June 30, 2005, after this article was moved to "yoghurt". More importantly, the article included a mixed spelling style since January March 2002 (less than a three months after it was originally created) and "yoghurt" was used in the lead since early 2003. The mixed spelling style was standardised (to yoghurt) in late 2003, and has pretty much remained that way since. All of this predates the arbcomm ruling that calls it "inappropriate" to move from one spelling to another. Guettarda (talk) 17:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history of this article is really messy (it includes moved to Joghourt and Yoghurt. and Yogurt.) but after restoring deleted revisions, the oldest move that I can find is this one, a cut-and-paste move from yoghurt to yogurt by User:Marcus2 on May 7, 2005. As far as I can tell, the oft-made assertion that this article was originally at "yogurt" is something of an urban legend, and is not supported by the page history. (Granted, it's an honest mistake, since parts of the history were deleted) Guettarda (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually disregard that last comment of mine. I knew that the current way of recording page moves in the article history wasn't an original feature, but I didn't realise that they weren't recorded at all in the article history. Guettarda (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The earliest version of the article that I can find, in 2002,[1] clearly uses "yogurt", regardless of how the page name may have been misspelled. The first yoghurt spelling I can find was introduced in March of the following year.[2] 199.125.109.99 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • But if someone wants to make an argument based on where the page was originally, the only thing that matters is where the page was originally. But that argument is both anachronistic and wikilawyering. As Derek Ross said somewhere in the archives - you can't complain about something being done "against the rules" if it was done before those rules existed. Anyway, as far as I can tell, the "policy" that Polaron is talking about doesn't exist. Guettarda (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are two questions here, while the article in 2002 clearly used the word "yogurt" 21 times, what was the article named, and two, if it was named "yoghurt" do you revert to the first use going by how it was spelled 21 times or how it was spelled 1 time. It seems that in March of 2003 the article may have been renamed at the same time that the alternate spelling was introduced, and in the years since some bizarre explanations have been posited to justify that alternate spelling, all of which in my opinion should be rejected. And yes RM does exist to fix "hypothetical" mistakes whenever they occurred, even if they occurred centuries ago. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 02:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • • • Is it necessary to point out that RM has existed for less than five years? However, the position that Wikipedia exists to fix the mistakes of centuries-old history is the fundamental doctrine of all of our nationalist factions. Rather than lend any comfort to them, I will upgrade my !vote, immediately below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose Long stable here, which is what policy actually prefers. RM does not exist to fix hypothetical mistakes from 2003. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose : why fix something that isn't broken? +mt 17:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As judged by the constant question about this weird spelling, it is broken. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

The spelling is not debatable, since there are many spelling variations. It is spelled correctly. It is easiest for us to keep as is. +mt 04:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not this again. older ≠ wiser 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to give a reason? Admins generally ignore comments like yours since you haven't given a reason. TJ Spyke 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the archives. I don't see that anything substantial has changed. older ≠ wiser 03:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • TJ, speaking as an admin who closes a lot of moves (though obviously not this one), I see this opinion from Bkonrad, and I think, "better read the archives; this guy tends to make well-reasoned arguments." We don't simple-mindedly ignore established editors with good reputations, who indicate familiarity w/ the history, by saying, "not this again". -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support. Yoghurt isn't even the british spelling as far as I'm concerned, the Oxford English Dictionary lists "Yogurt" as the primary variant. This should have been moved back *years* ago, when the first discussion took place. Ridiculous to leave it be. -Dscarth (talk) 18:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support By far the more common spelling and what the article was originally known as. TJ Spyke 03:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support The original page spelling has been destroyed by various moves/deletions on the 'yogurt' article history but the very first article incarnation spelled it 'yogurt' throughout. Since the English language arguments are a wash, google searche counts are ignored and so are the spellings in other language wikipedias then we fall on the original spelling. Lock the Yoghurt page permanently after the move. Alatari (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• very weak Oppose The usage is common for both spellings and the internal spelling is 'yoghurt' and I've come around to the understanding of WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English. This argument seems unnecessary to me now and a waste of time considering WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English. Understand that I am also supporting the 'enemy' because I'm a strong believer in simplification of the English language to fonetik (:p) spellings only and eliminating tradition. Chang 'caught' to 'cawt' IMO. Alatari (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't believe that the argument that it started as Yogurt is relevent here: the MOS rule may not date back to 2002, 'Yoghurt' first appears in the article in a March 2003 edit (ten edits into the history), the spelling was standardised to Yoghurt that December (around 30 edits in), it wasn't reverted to 'yogurt' until the next September (ironically by some one named Neutrality), and was then reverted and left until the next May. Over the span of a full year, a consensus appears to have been established here. To my knowledge (as I refuse to go through 2005-2009 tonight, sorry) it's been maintained ever since. - BalthCat (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, yoghurt isn't the most common spelling (See: Google searches, which I realize aren't scientific, but they are a good informal polling as far as I'm concerned)... plus "Yogurt" is the primary entry of both Merriam-Webster (US) and the Oxford English Dictionary (UK) and "Yoghurt" is classified as a variant. This isn't a AmE vs BE issue, this is a stupid "h" issue. Furthermore, there was no consensus then either, I've been at this for years. -Dscarth (talk) 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As per WP:MOS#National_varieties_of_English: No variety is better than any other. Internal consistency has been maintained. There are no strong national ties to the topic. Retaining the existing variety is preferred. There is no alternate common word, only a more prevalent spelling. The ArbCom statement only reinforces the MOS (dating back at least to 2007) Regardless of the google hit prevalence of "Color" or "Realize", the MOS does not support changing the spelling of "Colour" or "Realise" unless there is a national tie. There is none in this case. (Besides: site:.uk, site:.au, site:.ie additions to the google string actually reverse the results, dramatically from .ie sites.) I'm sorry to say that I'm irked. It looks to me like xeno went ahead and changed the spelling with insufficient cause (google results) despite a specific MOS preference for maintaining status quo. It doesn't help that his description for this move request essentially dismisses four years of consensus. I am having a hard time not seeing it as flagrantly dismissing the concerns of another admin AND years of consensus in the archives. - BalthCat (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't dismiss his concerns, nor did I ignore consensus in the archives - since consensus does not exist therein. –xeno^talk 12:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...curiously, the article remained a mixture of British and American English until October 29, 2004. [11] The internal spelling has remained at yoghurt for the most part ever since." (User:Bkonrad, October 2006) The majority of support for the move is based on two things: either the irrelevant argument that one usage is predominant, or that article creation trumps all. More specifically, that article creation trumps peaceful article evolution. Do you really think it's sensible that some one can come along (let's say) ten years later, and say that because an article was moved from AE to BE (or other) in the archives the entire article must be rewritten? It's pretty dangerous to let this technicality rule. Are you really supporting less than three months of (early Wikipedia) article time as justification to dismiss six YEARS of established use? The more I read the archives, the more I want to retract my weak support below. - BalthCat (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• However...: At the moment I believe that this may be an appropriate time to consider breaking the rules. This article has been moved, nominated for move, complained about, edited to change all the spellings, etc. countless times in the past few years. Frankly, I'd like to take it off of my watchlist. Perhaps, since 'yogurt' does appear to be most prevalent, it may be worthwhile looking into going against the MOS in this particular case. To save us all time and headaches. But that needs to be the context of the discussion, rather than "It started as Yogurt" or "It's just more popular!" I think we really need to phrase this in terms of "Is this worth the aggravation". Maybe that's me giving up on standards or principles. So be it. I have weak support for going against the MOS and burying this FIVE year old battle. (Not that I've been in it the whole time...) - BalthCat (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be more convincing if there were any reason to believe this would end it. But there isn't; people who write "yoghurt" will come along in a few weeks or months, and protest that this was done "against the rules" - and they will be right. For what it's worth, I write "yogurt"; I'm writing for the enemy here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you read the archives, and this debate itself, it is never argued that "yoghurt" is a correct spelling. There is no large contingent of editors making the case for "yoghurt" The only argument ever brought to bear against this move is "this is the status quo location." This is a WP:ZOMBIE argument. It is arguing for an outcome that nobody actually wants because of several years of procedural wank. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
      • Then I will supply that alleged omission myself; of course it's a correct spelling, as the Oxford English Dictionary attests - so is yoghourt, which the OED cites from Waugh and from the Sunday Times. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be because it essentially goes without saying that yoghurt is a correct spelling. And yes, BOTH sides are relying on "procedural wank". One side likes the predominant spelling of 'yogurt' and wants to impose it based on a 2.5 month head-start technicality in the MOS. The other side doesn't like an MOS argument that relies on ignoring a line higher up (order-wise) in the MOS (and/or objects to the "most used" argument on principle) and is relying on lack of consensus to change and established usage (since 2003) to resist. - BalthCat (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • PMAnderson, if this proposal succeeds then, say, six months from now, you think someone is likely to propose a move back to yoghurt on the grounds that this move was made "against the rules"? Such an argument is weak since this current proposed move is justified on many other grounds too - including most commonly used name, original usage in this article and that the current spelling is not the most common spelling even in the U.K. It's no guarantee, but I think there is plenty of reason to believe this move will end it. There is, however, no reason to believe that this proposal failing will end it. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, there are provincial speakers of British English, who will use this as an excuse to get what they're used to; they show up on other articles. This article is useful in persuading those subject to reason that we do not endorse mindless employment of American English; one reason to keep it as it is. (It would be helpful if its talk page had less mindless endorsement of American English on it.) Those who are not subject to reason can only be dealt with by declining to reward their behavior.
      • The analogy with provinicial speakers of American English may be too obvious to draw. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Dear closing admin, as long as this article remains at Yoghurt there will be good reasons to move it (from original usage in this article, to most common usage, to the "stupid h" argument), and proposals will continue to be made accordingly. Once this article is moved to Yogurt there will no longer be any justification to move it. Disagree? Say this proposal succeeds... six months from now, what would a justification be to move it back to yoghurt? I can think of none. And PMAnderson's concern about this move not ending the debate can be addressed in your closing comments, if you explain exactly how this move does not break the rules (at worst it's an exception to WP:MOS, a guideline, not a policy; but arguably it's not even an exception to that). In the name of true stability, please approve this move. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument makes sense, to an extent. The fact that you can think of no reason to move it back, though, does not begin to convince me that nobody else will. I've been here too long to believe that. What convinces me that we should leave it here is stability is a larger scale than you might be talking about.

    There's a principle that we apply to a lot of style conflicts here, and it boils down to a "ceasefire". Because we're not going to convince everyone to spell words the same way, and because time spent arguing about how we spell words is not time well-spent, we reached an agreement long ago to just not mess around with them. This applied originally to British versus American spellings, for words such as honour and color. It was later extended to apply to formatting of historical dates: the "BC"/"AD" system versus the "BCE"/"CE" system.

    The ceasefire is good policy because it ensure stability across the project. If we start going back into the histories of articles and trying to decide which was used first, or if we start trying to decide which style is more common for each topic... then little fires break out all over Wikipedia. "If they moved "yogurt" after so long, why not move "honor", too? Why not standardize to American spellings project-wide?" (Note: I'm American)

    That's the argument for "leaving well enough alone", and if we were able to learn it for honor/honour and for BC/BCE, then we can learn it here, too. I don't think it's the most compelling argument in the world, but I find it more convincing than the other one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point and agree it can and should apply in many similar cases. But I think there can and should be exceptions, for good reason, and I believe this is one of them.

  It is true that just me not being able to think of a good reason to move this article back to yoghurt from yogurt is irrelevant - but my point is that nobody has been able to provide a justification for such a move, not in this discussion, nor in any of the previous ones. While that does not guarantee no such justification will surface, given that there has been so much discussion and it hasn't yet surfaced does strongly indicate that it probably won't, ever.
  I think the fact that this article was originally at yogurt is very significant, perhaps not unique, but limits the scope of potential copy cat cases drastically from the potentials alluded to.
  No one, AFAIK, has argued or even implied that this article should be changed because all articles with BE titles should be changed to AE, and I just don't see how this move would provide basis for such an argument.
  Finally, given how many times this move has been proposed (which also differentiates it from almost all other situations), I think it's time to give yogurt a shot as a solution to ending the strife, once and for all. It is almost certain that this proposal will be made again, sooner or later, if it does not succeed this time.
  For those who are genuinely interested in stability and ending this debate, it is time to give yogurt a chance. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An additional point, GTBacchus, is that naming policy clearly states, "you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result". Since the Google test result (see below) is strongly in favor of the no-h variant, that means anyone in the future proposing a change back to yoghurt is not only going to have to present an argument, it will have to be one that "strongly goes against" these Google results. I just don't see how anyone will be able to meet that hurdle. It is time to give this article a chance at yogurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You may be right. I don't like the idea of setting a precedent that Google tests may supersede the regional variant ceasefire. I realize that Wikipedia doesn't run on precedent, but we all know that it's a force at work. The entire reason for my opposing the move is that we should learn not to care about it, and that is still a very strong reason for me. However, unless I'm in a position to actually convince people not to care about it, the solution is a non-starter. The ideal solution would be that people just realize that the 'h' is not hurting anyone, that it does no harm, and that lobbying to remove it is a terrible use of our time on Earth. Despite all the Google tests in the world, nobody advocating for the more common spelling has indicated that anything is at stake other than their own comfort level with the presence or absence of an 'h'. I think that moving pages for no good reason is a Bad Idea, and I don't accept "we'll hold this issue hostage until we get our 'h'-less yogurt" as a good reason. I don't think that's anyone's intention, but it sure is the result. Can you tell me what is worse about a world in which we keep the 'h', that doesn't boil down to, "because we'll keep clamoring until it's done"? If that's all there is... is that really something we want to capitulate to? Is this a principle that's worth taking a stand for? Why is it worth it to those who want the change. That's my most serious question: why is it worth it? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually agree with everything you say here, GTBacchus. Where I do disagree with you, apparently, is whether this argument applies to this article and to this proposal. If yogurt was not an acceptable correct spelling in all English speaking areas, including the UK and Australia, then the argument would apply. But since yogurt is an accepted correct spelling in all English speaking areas, the "regional variant ceasefire" argument doesn't apply, because, although the current name, yoghurt is a regional variant, the proposed name, yogurt is not a regional variant. That's the whole point here. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You argue your point well. I'm going to sleep on it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B2C. some clarification. Above you say—naming policy clearly states, "you'll need to build a strong case if you propose a name change that strongly goes against a *clear* Google test result"—but I can fin d no such text in the linked naming convention page. Where is that being quoted from? older ≠ wiser 12:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The current, perfectly good, spelling has been stable here for a long time, and pace SchmuckyTheCat, is in fact common in some English-speaking parts of the Web (and perhaps of the world...): Google search [site:uk yoghurt] (334k) vs. [site:uk yogurt] (172k) etc. Too much time on WP is spent on silliness like this.... --macrakis (talk) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the no-h variant is more than half as frequent as the h variant on UK sites (the ratio is merely 1:1.8) supports the argument that this is not a British vs. American variant issue at all, but, rather, a most commonly used name determination. In contrast, the no-h variant is 7 times more frequently used on .com sites than is the h variant (7:1). On .org sites the ratio is about 6:1 in favor of no-h, and on .edu it is 11:1. While the ratio on Australian sites (.au) is 1:3 in favor of the h variant, on Canadian (.ca) sites it's 8.5:1 in favor of the no-h variant:

Results 1 - 10 of about 348,000 for site:uk yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 189,000 for site:uk yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,900,000 for site:com yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,850,000 for site:com yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030,000 for site:org yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 172,000 for site:org yoghurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,800 for site:edu yoghurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000 for site:edu yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 74,700 for site:au yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 233,000 for site:au yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for site:ca yogurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 18,900 for site:ca yoghurt.

Again, these WP:GOOGLE results clearly show that the application of the WP:MOS mere guidelines (not policy) here as if this is a locality spelling issue is largely a red herring. That is, while in some localities the h variant is more commonly used than is the no-h variant, the no-h variant is widely (relatively speaking) used in those places too, but in other places the h variant is relatively unused as compared to the no-h variant. This is a simple case of most commonly used and even most easily recognized, and the no-h variant is easily favored by both of these naming policy criteria. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not one person I have seen in the archives of almost five years has said that 'yoghurt' is the majority spelling. Google all you want, but you only need ONE location with a prevalence of a spelling in order to trigger locality issues. You've just proven .uk, .au and above I showed a significant increase in .ie. We can all google if we need to, but it won't help us in this argument. - BalthCat (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as note above, this is a valid spelling and has long been the spelling of the article. Pahari Sahib 22:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as both seem to be correct, there will be a next move of undoing the renaming etc etc. I think it is well described in the article where what is being used and that both versions are correct. Renaming is unnecessary and does not solve the problem. Or rename it to Yogurt/Yoghurt (but maybe we get a motion to rename that into Yoghurt/Yogurt....) :-)) Knorrepoes (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - (All the Yogurt I've ever eaten has not featured an H in it.) -TamaDrumz76 (talk) 16:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

General

Is one of the present supporters planning to suggest this again in a few months? If not, I see no reason to expect a continuous stream of protests; most people will accept "we use both British and American English". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Yogurt" is British and American english. "Yoghurt" is a bastardized spelling. And for the record I've been at it for years. -Dscarth (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bastardised? Uh, not to be cheeky, but ^{[citation needed]} - BalthCat (talk) 12:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal fails again this time, I personally will not propose it again in a few months, but I think that since yoghurt is so widely perceived to be incorrect, it can be virtually guaranteed that someone will propose this move again, sooner or later.

The framing of this debate as if it's about "British and American English" is a red herring. This is about most common usage. While yoghurt is used somewhat more than yogurt in a few select places like the U.K. and Australia, both variants are widely used in such places. But in places like the U.S. and Canada, yoghurt is virtually unused, relatively speaking. See Google test results above. So in all places yogurt is commonly used and generally recognized while yoghurt is a specialized variant with limited usage, relatively speaking. That's the reason this title should be changed (not to mention that it is the original usage for the title and content of this article), and why the issue will be raised over and over as long as it remains at yoghurt. It is time to give yogurt a chance. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT "virtually unused, relatively speaking" in Canada. I spell it that way, and I didn't just dream it up. Pretending that Google results would correlate to population, 10% of a population is significant, and not "virutally unused". You also need to be careful in assuming that yoghurt's web presence, driven by corporations with international outlooks, isn't actively being homogenised, especially in Canada, where a tenfold larger population lies directly to our south. If you google .coms in Canada (option at google.ca) the ratio drops to 4:1. At .gc.ca the ratio drops to 3:1 with 4:1 at .agr.gc.ca. You can do lots of things with google, but proving 'yoghurt' is a fringe variant isn't one of them. BalthCat (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, AE/BE isn't the only locality issue. That BE generally represents a quick example of commonwealth English doesn't mean the MOS is telling Ireland to go pound sand because it's not one of the Big 2 Anglos. As I read it, it is actively saying that if both uses are valid, NO English speaking regional variant needs to be replaced. Ireland's 13.5:1 ratio in favour of yoghurt implies that this is the situation that applies. The ratio of preference in Ireland is actually higher than any other ratio you quoted, and from what I can tell it's second only to .us (20:1), showing that Ireland uses 'yoghurt' about as much as America uses 'yogurt'. Or perhaps more tellingly, Ireland only uses 'yogurt' about as much as America uses 'yoghurt' BalthCat (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments Supporting "Yogurt"

• The article was originally titled "Yogurt".
• The article was edited primarily in the "Yogurt" form until this edit in 2003.
• The word "Yogurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (m-w.com), Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com), American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.com), and the Cambridge University Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org).
• The word "Yogurt" is the primary encyclopedia entry for the word in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (britannica.com) and MSN Encarta (encarta.msn.com).
• WP:GOOGLE results clearly show the no-h variant is more than half as frequent as the h variant on UK sites (the ratio is merely 1:1.8) supports the argument that this is not a British vs. American variant issue at all, but, rather, a most commonly used name determination. In contrast, the no-h variant is 7 times more frequently used on .com sites than is the h variant (7:1). On .org sites the ratio is about 6:1 in favor of no-h, and on .edu it is 11:1. While the ratio on Australian sites (.au) is 1:3 in favor of the h variant, on Canadian (.ca) sites it's 8.5:1 in favor of the no-h variant:

Results 1 - 10 of about 348,000 for site:uk yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 189,000 for site:uk yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,900,000 for site:com yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,850,000 for site:com yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 1,030,000 for site:org yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 172,000 for site:org yoghurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 111,000 for site:edu yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 4,800 for site:edu yoghurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 233,000 for site:au yoghurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 74,700 for site:au yogurt.

Results 1 - 10 of about 161,000 for site:ca yogurt

Results 1 - 10 of about 18,900 for site:ca yoghurt.

While in some localities the h variant is more commonly used than is the no-h variant, the no-h variant is widely (relatively speaking) used in those places too, but in other places the h variant is relatively unused as compared to the no-h variant. --- WP:Google courtesy of Born2cycle

• "Yogurt" is also the simplest spelling and all other spellings can be derived from it. "Yogourt" (Canadian spelling) cannot be expanded from "Yoghurt". –xeno^talk 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Because of all of the above, this move will continue to be proposed, sooner or later, over and over, as long as this article remains at yoghurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Because of the dearth of arguments in favor of having this article be at yoghurt in the first place (the only arguments presented are against change, not in favor of yoghurt over yogurt), if the article is moved to yogurt it will be stable there. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments Supporting "Yoghurt"

To be included.