Talk:Cork (city)

Question

Why does Limerick have a far better article than Cork? Ludraman | Talk 21:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's improving - I added a lot (not comprehensive but a start). Also someone added a culture section and good external links. Zoney 13:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Face it, Limerick is just a better city :-) Seabhcan 10:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because Cork people are lazy, unfortunately. dahamsta 01:00, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Photos

We need a photograph or two of Cork!!! Patrick Street? Grand Parade? The view from a bridge in the city? Cork Opera House? The Jack Lynch Tunnel? The docklands?
Zoney 13:20, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There's already a photo of the Lee on the page, but I live in the city center if there really is demand for more photos. Dahamsta

• Yes! More photos please! A view from the north bank on Patrick street would be nice. (What's it called up there? St. Particks' hill?) Wijker 21:50, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's a photo of City Hall at night here if you want to use it. Not au fair with linking images yet. --dahamsta 14:26, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Feel free to use images from http://corkspace.com content is published under a creative commons license.

Chanel Photo?

What does is this photo intended to illustrate? That Chanel is available in Cork City shops? Seems a bit pointless - no? (Chanel merchandise is available globally)

I expect this section of the article would be much better served with a photo of the redeveloped Patrick Street area, highlighting the (expected) impact to city centre trading. Are there any appropriate (public) photos of the area that might provide for a suitable replacement to this pic? Guliolopez 19:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well some one reomoved that photo, and i suppose it was replaced with the apple logo, which i removed. Ok so Aplle has it's Euro HQ in Cork, but it mention of such is no more then any other of the companies mentioned, so i dont see how the apple logo is any more warented then say logo for Murph'y or Beamish logo, which are more irish then apple. I could see if iwas a picture of an apple stor in the city, if their is one, or of the HQ or something, but the logo, umm no. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Page move

City article moved here, see Talk:Cork (disambiguation). Main justification, what links to Cork more. zoney ♣ talk 12:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Population

I don't know where the figure of 257,000 for the population of Greater Cork came from, but the census figures for Cork city and suburbs comes to 186,239 (2002 census, vol 1, table 5). BrendanH 15:40, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've restored my population figure of 186,239. This is based on the 2002 Census figures for Cork City plus its suburbs, as in Table 5, Volume 1 of the Census, http://www.cso.ie/census/documents/vol1_t5.pdf. I can't see any basis for the 250k+ figure. BrendanH 10:28, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say but that figure if 186,239 misses out on a lot of suburbs which although, are not technically part of Cork City, are no indistinguable from the City itself. Suburbs including, Glanmire, Douglas, Ballincollig, Little Island and Glounthane are all missing from this figure and in doing so doesn't give a correct population figure for the Greater Cork Area. A good average I've seen for this figure vary from 250,000 to 300,000 but the figure you quote of 186,239 is far too low for the Greater Cork Area. In fact, the Europa study stated a population for greater Cork of 231,000 in 1991. http://europa.eu.int/comm/regional_policy/urban2/urban/initiative/programmes/cork.html Here, the Education Ireland website states that the population of Greater Cork is around 300,000. http://www.educationireland.ie/htm/study_abroad/ucc.htm

I'm actually from Cork, a figure of 300,000 would prob be a good average. Although this also swells to more than 350,000 when other commuter towns are added in Niall123 19:00, Dec 08, 2005

I believe that we must be careful when quoting figures for cities, areas must be defineable so that the integrity of the figures can be retained. In Dublin this is less of an issue as apart from being relatively compact and over defined we have the Dublin Region and Greater Dublin Area which are clearly defined by law. Djegan 19:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Djegan, the main problem is that as well, Dublin also doesn't have a defined area for its Greater Area. Its greater area is determined by the official city population plus other defined town councils including Finglas, Tallaght and other areas. At the same time, townships of Glanmire, Douglas, Ballincollig, Glounthaune and Little Island are not being included in the Greater Cork area. While all this "Greater Area" debate is all a particulars person's view, I just think that including such areas would be more representative of the Greater Cork Area on the whole. Niall123 20:30, Dec 17, 2005 (UTC)

This article is about the city of Cork, that is, the area of the city as defined by the laws of Ireland. It is not about the city and its "suburbs"/"environs", therefore a figure of 123,062 is the only valid one as taken from the Census of 2002 as issued by the Central Statistics Office. We are not in the business of quoting higher figures because they make our county/city/town/etc seam more important. Djegan 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

WP policy is to go with common names and references, not with official names and definitions, as regards the titles for articles (and therefore to at least a degree conversely, the scope of the articles at those titles). What do people mean when they say "Cork city"? For infobox purposes it does seem reasonable to go with the city boundary, if only because those are going to be the only "crisp" figures available. OTOH the GCA is hardly an unnotable concept ([1], [2], [3], etc) but is probably not worth a separate article at present, so it's entirely reasonable to discuss it within the body of this article. Alai 21:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To expand my reasoning; the infobox should contain figures and facts that can be cited and sourced as neccessary (in fact this is a general requirement in any case, but i am not insisting that people go crazy in providing undeniable authoritive references). For instance their is no point in quoting an area figure and then quoting a population figure for an expanded (or different) area; that would be meaningless and contradictory in nature.

Regarding the (Greater) Cork Area i am not aware of any statutory basis for it, unlike for instance the Greater Dublin Area. However in principal i have nothing against its discussion in the article (until it merits its own) as long as its treated appropriate and not in a misleading or false way.

Djegan 22:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on all points. I think something's worth putting in, simply because the 180,000/200,000/250,000/pick a number figures are indeed commonly bandied around, and because the boundaries are by no means obvious or intuitive. (I managed to live "outside Cork City" for several months without noticing. No foolin'.) But on a basis where it's clear what's being talked about, and the (lack of) solid statistics for it. Equally, it should be made obvious what the basis for the "official boundary" figure is, for the sake of clarity and to forestall future flip-flops. Alai 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly ambiguity over the boundaries of cities in the republic is a fair point, Limerick and Waterford seam to be equally ambigious. On a related point the most recent law i can find on the boundary of the City of Cork (then the County Borough of Cork) is the Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1965. That law defines it purely in terms of how it would be surveyed or mapped without reference to the final area. Djegan 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the Metropolitan Cork figure should be included. The following is a quote from the CASP, "Redefinition of Metropolitan Cork: A key component of the overall strategy is the concept of Metropolitan Cork, which encompasses both the City proper, and the settlements of Ballincollig, Blarney, Carrigaline, Douglas, Glanmire, Glounthane, Carrigtwohill, Midleton and Cobh.". While I have no real problem including Douglas, Ballincollig or Glanmire in the population of the city, it is clear that Midleton and Cobh are separate entities in there own right. My preference is towards only including the two CSO figures (123,062 for the city council area; 186,239 for the city and suburbs) Irlchrism 10:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I actually agree with the Metropolitan Cork figure and article being included. Yes, the boundaries of Cork city are definitive. While the official population of cork being 186,239 this does not nature of the whole metropolitan area as a whole. As we speek there are a number of dicussions going on about a land grab by Cork City Corporation from Cork County Council. Such a move would be the correct thing to do, especially considering such areas as Douglas, Glanmire, Ballincollig, Donnybrook, Rochestown, Curraheen are basically part of the city, with no clear distinguishable break between them and the city proper. Anyways, considering that Cork Corporation has put forward this document, then it is a valid document and deserves an article of its own and a mention on the Cork City article. Why not mentioning "Metropolitan Cork" eventhough numerous papers have been done on the subject is very strange .Niall123

Just to say that the 2006 Cencus regarding Cork is to be different to the previous ones. The CSO is after saying that the Metroplitan figure for cork is the figure which is going to be used as the population of the Greater Cork area. .Niall123

Port of Cork

For somewhere that boasts the 2nd largest natural harbour in the world(?) there really should be some mention of it in this entry at least. A dedicated Port of Cork entry would be better. Frelke 21:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I've put in a big expansion of the Cork Harbour article today, if anyone would like to take a look and/or change it. It discusses the fortifications of the harbour and also adds a section on industries around the harbour. The industries could do with considerable improvement still.Irlchrism 16:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Colleges and Universities

An "endless list" of them? Come on now lads...

headings - see also, also see

I dont want to get into a edit war or anything but i think the correct heading is Also see. You can see examples here Ablaze 10:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

• but the standard headings say "See also", including your example from the manual of style. Just about every other page says "See also". It also says, Do not vary the wording or capitalisation of these headings - Ali-oops^✍ 11:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yup! Your right there. I'm going to put that mistake from me down to a memory laps from lack of sleep :o) The Correct way is See also, i got confused when i saw it with a capital A in Also and thought someone changed it around. There are several articles that use Also see and from now on i'll be looking out for them! Thanks! Ablaze 12:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

History

There's a sentence in the history section "In 1825, over 1800 Irish residents depart from Cork to emigrate to Peterborough, Ontario, Canada assisted by Peter Robinson (who organized the scheme on behalf of the British Government). This results in the area known as "Scott's Plains" being renamed "Peterborough" as a tribute". This is more relevant to the history of Peterborough than Cork. I don't want to remove it without getting others opinions first though. The majority of the 1800 people were from the North -West corner of Co Cork--not from Cork city at all.

- I agree, it should either be moved or deleted. It really interrupts the flow of the article.

I've added an article on the History of Cork. Contributions, especially on the 18th and and 19th centuries and also pictures, are most welcome.

Jdorney 13:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Culture

"The local synagogue on South Terrace, near Shalom Park and the other traditional Jewish areas of the City like Monray Terrace attract large gatherings on a weekly basis." - I was under the impression that Cork's Jewish population had declined to the point where it is in single figures. Irlchrism 12:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the remark about the mark left by the Jews of Cork, and about the "Jewish Quarter". The mark they left is from the people, and since the initial edit we have mentioned three prominent individuals who contributed a lot to the city and its culture. But without having more specific detail behind it, I think the "Jewish Quarter" idea is a bit romantic. Yes, there was a particular area where most of them lived, and yes, there is still the synagogue, but the only thing remarkable about the area was that so many jews lived there. BrendanH 20:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA

Hi. I have removed this article from the Wikipedia:Good article listing due to the following:

• No references. One of the GA criteria is that a reference section must be provided. Inline citations are preferred but not required. When this issue has been addressed, please feel free to re-nominate. Thanks! Air.dance 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you but we don't need to know about Roches Stores.

Proposed general "cleanup" changes

I see some value in making some small (but comprehensive) changes to article. However, wanted to allow for some discussion or comment before I effect changes.. (Don't want to make "one sided" revisions). Proposed changes are as below. Comments welcome.

1. Remove "very" from the sentence: "or to feel they have a very distinct identity from the rest of Ireland." (POV/Unnecessary hyperbole)
2. Summarise "Railway Heritage" and "Tramway heritage" sections. (Possibly more relevant in the "Transport" subsection and/or "History of Cork" article).
3. Minor summary and reordering of "Places of Interest" section. Currently somewhat disjointed, & not as easy to read as it might be.
4. Delete/reword the following (as is "not notable" and/or POV?): "In 2005, Smart Telecom also made Cork one of the first citywide high-speed Wi-Fi network in Europe. However, further examination of this rather misleading claim reveals that coverage consists of a paltry 1.5 sq kilometres, leaving citizens living or working only a few blocks outside of the very core of the city centre with no access to this network."
5. Delete (POV and not relevant in context of article on the city): "(some consider leaving Co. Cork as being abroad owing to the vast size of the county which makes it rarely necessary to leave, and cultural and dialect differences)"
6. Minor reword of section on "how Cork people view themselves". Reads somewhat POV, is quite generalist, and lacks references (in particular to what the "significant differences" are between Cork and other areas of the country.
7. Delete (NN? / POV?): "Cork is home to ... many superb musicians including ... The Citadels" ("The Citadels" appear to be a very new band, and are likely NN as representatives of cork musical talent - at least, not yet)
8. Delete (POV?): "Unlike other modern European cities, there are no rear exits on the bus, forcing all passengers to enter and exit through the same front door, further exacerbating the already inefficient system."
9. Remove the following from "External Links":

• • "University College Cork", "Cork City FC", and "CIT" links. (Already links in body of article to relevant wikipedia articles.)
  • "Gay Youth Group - Cork's Gay Youth Group" (listed twice)
  • "Cork city becomes the first citywide high-speed Wi-Fi network in Europe community wireless network - Story from www.theregister.com" (Need to be careful linking "news stories" as they quickly become outdated/irrelevant)
  • "Liverpool's 'Nerve' magazine - An article on the Capital of Culture year". (Already several "Euro Cap Culture" related links - Also less relevant now that no longer ECC)

Guliolopez 19:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Given no comment or objection, have made the above changes. I still think that (per Wikipedia:Article size) further summarisation (or bolder "culling") needs to be completed on much of the content. Including - possibly:

• the comments on the "international restaurants" that are in Cork (there are international restaurants in most of the worlds larger cities - is this really worth mentioning),
• the stuff about "nightlife" (which is a quite weak and doesn't add much value),
• the "retail" section (do we really have to list every shopping centre),
• the "cork airport" subsection (much of the content already in the main relevant article),
• the commentary on the ins and outs of using buses in the city (including unreferenced and possibly POV commentary on how the lack of a 2nd exit "exacerbates an already slow system")
• further summarisation on the "rail heritage" section (or just move most of it to History of Cork)
• a serious cull of the "external link". (Seems to have more external links than most other articles.)
• etc.

Guliolopez 18:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if there is enough information in the railway and tramway heritage section to justify putting them into an article of their own? 195.73.119.90 17:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Their is more than enough for a Transport in Cork article, or similar. New articles when substantial and informative (and encyclopedic) are always welcome. Djegan 18:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

List of 3rd level institutions in Cork

Am planning on removing list because:

1. All but 2 of the institutions are already linked from the main body of the Education section (and so this separate "list" adds no additional information)
2. There is no precedence for "lists" of this kind, either in the article itself, or in other articles of this type. (IE: There are no other "lists of X in Cork" in this article, or "lists of 3rd level institutions in Dublin/Limerick/etc" in those articles).
3. This is an article which deals with Cork in general, and this list is too specifically related to education at third level. If this was an article about "Education in Cork" or "Third-level Education in Cork", then I could see a place for it. However, it is likely too specific for a general Cork article.
4. Finally, this article is already too long per Wikipedia:Article size, and so - in conjunction with each of the above am going to remove the list.

Guliolopez 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree, indeed those who want to "keep together" the relevant articles can help by categorising them in Category:Education in Cork.

Djegan 19:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Cork city disappearing !!!!

According to the newly released 2006 Census Preliminary report, the population of County Cork has increased from 447,000 to 480,000, whereas the population of Cork city has decreased rapidly from 123,000 to 119,000. Ultimately if this trend continues, there will be no more city. The city boundary must be extended again. The same must also be done to extend the Limerick city boundary. Both of these cities may lose out on vital EU funding because of this.

Well at least your honest on your agenda, but I think Cork and Limerick cities are here to stay. Djegan 19:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Cities in Ireland

Unfortunately it appears content (irrespective of quality) is now determined by straw votes, see Talk:Cities in Ireland. Comments welcome. Djegan 19:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No. Its by consensus. The vote in question was purely to indicate consensus as you seemed to be saying that there was no consensus. BTW, have you read WP:SPAM? Frelke 07:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

External links, linkspam and link farming

Per notes from "Proposed general 'cleanup' changes" above, (and unless there are any objections), I'm going to engage in a serious "cull" of the "External links" section.

The External links section of Cork remains one of the largest on any page in WP, and seems to be used as an advertising "link farm" for every nighclub/pub/theatre/community group/gig guide in the city. The External links section (per my understanding of WP:EL, and per convention in similar city articles like London, Paris, Berlin, and even Dublin) is supposed to be used to link sources, reference "official sites", and generally support the wider topic.

It's not supposed to be used (per WP:EL) for links to blogs, to promote sites, or to link "off topic" sites only vaguely related to article content.

To that end, and unless there is justification otherwise, I plan to:

• Consolidate the 3 separate links to the Official Corporation site http://www.corkcity.ie (redundant)
• Remove the two links to blogs (fail WP:EL: promotion/blog)
• Remove the links to the four "city of culture 2005" event sites (out of date/relevance to topic)
• Remove all the links to Gig-guides/nightclubs/etc (fail WP:EL: promotion/relevance to topic)
• Reduce the number of "maps" links (redundant)
• And generally tidy up the "categories" (If we have to have categories we have too many links).

To ensure concencus, and in fear of being accused of blanking, I welcome any comments before I do this. Guliolopez 15:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. This section is way too long. Demiurge 15:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Given no objections voiced, I have gone ahead and tidied much of the spam/redundancy/outofdate links from the External Links section. Frankly I think this could be reduced even further, but I am not WP:Bold enough. Guliolopez 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well done! It looks a whole lot better - Alison^✍ 17:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Still trying to learn the rules. I submitted cityofcork.com as a link but it was removed as irrelevant. It's my site but I believe it is relevant,appropriate and contains info about Cork community that can't be found elsewhere. Please advise. Squibs 16:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK Squibs - Welcome to Wikipedia - A good place to start for the guidelines around adding external links is at Wikipedia:External links. Pay attention to the "What should be linked to" and "Links normally to be avoided" sections. A quick review of these guidelines might confirm for you why your link was removed.

The simplest point from these guidlines that I can point out to you is that "Links added for promotion of sites are not appropriate". Wikipedia is not set-up to promote sites or act as a linkfarm for "associated topics/sites". If an editor felt that the link to your site was added purely for promotion then that may explain its removal. (See also Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming). If you added your site for promotion then I would recommend that you instead look at the various resources on the web which give suggestions on marketing/promotion and improving ranking in search results.

In general only links to official sites which relate to the topic are considered appropriate. Hence the link to the official Corporation site, the official Port of Cork site, etc. Alternatively if the article references a source from an external site it may be appropriate to link it, or if the site contains more extensive reference material related to the topic.

Per the guidelines - even if the website is considered appropriate based on the above - it is not generally acceptable for the person who owns the site to post it. This is because of POV concerns.

Hope this answers your question. Guliolopez 18:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I just purged three more external links. None seem to be of the quality expected for additional inoformation on Cork. A few very high quality or officvial sites sems to be the way to go. If people want community forums or photos then google is a great tool. David D. (Talk) 22:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork dialect and accent

"So" and "like" are used to end sentences in other parts of Co. Cork (I'm thinking of West Cork because I know that area, but I suspect the use is more widespread) and are therefore not limited to Cork City. I'm pretty sure "boy" is as well, but I remember the other two more clearly.

I remember high rising terminals being common, although someone else will need to verify that. In fact, if I am not mistaken, it is not uncommon forthe last syllable to consist of three tones in what musicologists would call a lower mordent.

I have often heard it said that the Cork accent sounds like a Welsh accent, although I find it hard to hear that myself. However I have been told that a good few Welsh people did settle in Cork, hence a number of Welsh surnames. Ireneshusband 09:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the retail should be deleted as the information is not relevent. This is an encyclopedia not a shopping guide. There is nothing notable mentioned in this section that makes it any different to the retail in any other part of the country. I am trying to make this article look attractive. If it stays the way it is people will say " They just want me to see all the high street stores there is in Cork ". This is a way of influencing there decisions and to be honest I don't think it's right, especially when this is an encyclopedia we are contributing to. Anyone agree.--Candelwicke 19:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. I only meant the retail section. Thank You. And just because it is a city I do not think it should be treated better. This section should be removed. Do you agree Djegan. Does anyone else agree. Sorry for being a nuisance, I thought I was helping. If it shouldn't be deleted I am disappointed, I thought it was not relevent....--Candelwicke 19:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 06:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Cork → Cork (city) — Neither the Irish city nor the material is clearly the main usage of the term. Cork (city) currently redirects to the article about the city at Cork. The disambiguation page already exists at Cork (disambiguation), but would need to be moved to Cork and updated to refer to Cork (city) (or whatever turns out to be the preferred name for the article about the city) instead of Cork for the city. Serge 06:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

NOTE: If you prefer this article be moved to something other than Cork (city), like Cork, County Cork (per WP:NC:CITY for Ireland), Cork City or Cork, Ireland, please specify that in your vote comment. This applies for Oppose votes as well as Support votes so that opposers to the move can still influence where exactly the article is moved if the majority ends up supporting this move request. If no preference is specified then Cork (city) will be assumed to be your preference. --Serge 06:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Support votes

1. Support move to Cork (city) Cork, County Cork. The term is not primarily used for either the city or the material and so should be a disambiguation page. --Serge 06:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
2. Support a move, but prefer Cork, Ireland to Cork (city). Isn't City, Country or City, US State normal for places where there is a possiblity of confusion? (See, e.g., Tripoli, Lebanon.) Cork should be a disambiguation page. --MCB 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Comment - The form City, Country or City, US State is applicable to the United States but not Ireland, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements). The current form Cork is correct for this country, Ireland. In fact the referred manual of style {a guideline and NOT an official policy} suggests that Cork, County Cork not Cork (city) is the correct place if not Cork. {oh, not another vote when this one is over!}. Djegan 21:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Support a move so that "Cork" can become the disambig page, which is needed for this multiple-use word. Slight preference for "Cork, Ireland" for this article, but "Cork City" or "Cork (city)" are also reasonable. -R. S. Shaw 22:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
4. Support Cork as disambig. Preferences for city article's new name: (1) Cork (city) (2) Cork City (3) Cork, County Cork (4) Cork, Ireland. I note that we do currently have Antrim, County Antrim, Leitrim, County Leitrim, Louth, County Louth*, and Mayo, County Mayo. (* actually I've just moved this from Louth Village, Co. Louth). I note most objectors object to the work required rather than the principle involved. Perhaps supporting voters should be required to pitch in for the replumbing work? In which case, I withdraw my vote. Aren't there bots for that kind of thing? jnestorius^(talk) 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Support a move, the city article should not be primary disambiguation. Gene Nygaard 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Support changing Cork to a disambiguation page. No strong feelings on Cork (city) vs. Cork, Ireland. Dppowell 03:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Support per nominator. --Yath 03:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Support Cork as disambiguation page, without preference as to use of Cork, County Cork, etc., for city. ENeville 20:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Support Cork as disambiguation page; if we cannot agree to make it the page on the world-wide material, then having it as a disambiguation page means Special:Whatlinkshere/Cork will be useful for determining bad links. Right now Shoe, Collecting, Tartaric acid, and Snowy Owl all mislink to the city's entry; without a disambiguation page at the main location, these each have to be spotted by hand, one reason for the Primary Topic guideline. With all links pointing directly to an unambigous article, fixing bad links becomes vastly simpler. -- nae'blis 03:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Support Cork as disambiguation page. Cork, County Cork would be my suggested target and if there is no consensus on the new name then the WP:NC guideline should be used. To argue that Cork (material) is not the better know name seems to represent a bias that may not be supported by the larger community. Vegaswikian 21:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oppose votes

1. Oppose - Cannot see any substantial reason for a move and the resultant upheavel. It has to go somewhere so it might as well stay. Djegan 10:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Comment - I think people need to come up with really substantial reasons to move or change the status quo, is all this just to slavishly follow the manual of style {abeit in error, in some instances} or will their be real benifit? I suggest no to the latter question. What about categories, templates, etc, they cannot be considered in isolation - all this for what? Djegan 22:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   I don't think the "status quo" carries any weight in Wikipedia. Whether something has been in violation of policy or convention matters; whether it has been in violation for 3 minutes or 3 years doesn't matter. --Serge 22:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Its worth considering their is a distinction between "guidelines" and "official policy" - see my comments below. Djegan 23:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Agreed and considered. Exceptions to policy should be extremely rare. Exceptions to guidelines (which should be based on convention) can be much more common, but still should be based on reason. And "to maintain status quo" isn't a valid reason for an exception to widely accepted guidelines like WP:D. --Serge 23:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Fundamentally you need to demonstrate need, beyond simply adherence to a guideline. Are you part of the newly instated guidance adherence patrol? Djegan 23:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   I routinely favor decisions in opposition to guidelines, but I always understand the burden is on me to provide a reason to make an exception. But if I need to spell it out for you, in this case, anyone searching for cork is very likely to be looking for the material, not the city (and vice versa). Taking such a person to one of the articles (or the other), then requiring to get to a dab page, then finally click on his ultimate destination is unnecessarily cumbersome. This situation is not unique to Cork - it is routinely encountered in Wikipedia, and, for this reason, conventions and guidelines based on them (WP:D) were developed to send a searcher in such a case directly to the relevant disambiguation page. But with that explained, the burden is still on you to explain why Cork should be an exception to all of this. --Serge 23:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Burden on me? The burden is equally on you to back up your claims as well! All see are claims, from you in the preceeding comment. Where are the facts and/or statistics to back up your claims? Djegan 23:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose While I concede that there's a need to differentiate Cork (the city) and Cork (the material), I think the current model already achieves this (if incompletely). I unfortunately can't support the proposal(s) on the table to do so more completely. (Mainly because the alt naming options for Cork - Cork (city), Cork, Ireland, and Cork City - are all inherently problematic). And I can't think of an alternative. Therefore, weighing the limited perceived DAB improvement with the effort required to "re-link" approaching 1500 inter-article and inter-wiki links, I think the naming should remain as today. Guliolopez 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose It seems to be fine as is. The dab page is accessible from the Cork page. Not sure any move is an improvement. Frelke 15:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   Assumed by whom? By you, I assume. Not by anyone else it seems. Please do not qualify my votes in any way without asking. As I haven't updated my vote to indicate a preference, it can be assumed that I have a reason for not stating a such a preference. Frelke 13:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose as per Djegan, Guliolopez, and Frelke --Kathryn NicDhàna 17:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   Leave page as is. Already have a linked disambiguation page Cork (disambiguation), which is also fine as is. --Kathryn NicDhàna 03:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Guliolopez - Alison^✍ 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

   Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

   Oppose per Guliolopez. Leave Cork as it is and create a separate disambig page - Alison^✍ 01:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

6. Oppose it is fine the way it is. Anyone looking for the material can find it easily for same reason as others oppose. ww2censor 05:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose Didn't we vote on this last week? Leave as is; Per my vote in previous discussion. IsaacAsv 12:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, fine as is. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose. The previous survey (just last week) was strongly opposed. In any case, Cork, County Cork should be the preferred name if the article is moved. I suggest that more discussion and fewer surveys would be helpful to build a consensus. -Will Beback 20:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose I'm not irish, I'm not biased but this move seems to be unnecessary. Cork the city predates the English usage of cork the material as far as i can tell from OED, so that seems to be a nod in favor of a status quo. Cork (city) is a horrible name for the article, this should not happen. If there has to be a move, and I think there should not be a move, I could live with Cork, County Cork or Cork, Ireland. I find it ironic that the user that started this vote is strongly campaigning to have major cities with stand alone names. Cork may be small but it is very well known. David D. (Talk) 21:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose per Giulio Lopez, a lot of work for nothing, rather like repeatedly requesting moves. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose I see no particular reason to move. Moving the page would mean everyone gets the wrong page; having this page here means that some people do (but can find their way to the right page just the same). —Felix the Cassowary 00:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Isn't that an argument against all disambiguation pages? jnestorius^(talk) 03:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

    Yes. But disambigs are still useful in some circumstances, such as where straight-to-one-article would be POV. I’m also inclined to think that well-known (even if small) cities like Cork, are usually a fitting choice of a straight-to-one-article (which is why I see no reason not to). —Felix the Cassowary 04:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

13. Oppose, well-known cities such as Cork should stay at the primary name page. Most of the links to Cork in Wikipedia are to the city. zoney ♣ talk 16:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

    Your last statement is fairly disingenuous; most of the mislinks to Cork for the material have been fixed. Our fine-grain detail to UK geographic/historical topics doesn't necessarily mean that the Irish city is the most commonly known usage amongst English speakers, but apparently that's difficult to prove. -- nae'blis 17:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No vote

1. I would vote to support a move to Cork, County Cork except for the fact that there has apparently been another recent vote on the matter that I missed (where is it?), and it is unfair to call another vote and advertise wider if the first one reached consensus. I'm also somewhat confused that I appear to agree with Serge (partly at least) about a page rename. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   The previous vote, at Talk:Cork (material), was substantially different. It was about moving

   Cork (material) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city)).

   There was no consensus to do that. However, many of the oppose votes there indicated they would support a move of the dab page to Cork, indicating there was consensus for that. So, this vote, at Talk:Cork, is about verifying that consensus, by requesting moving

   Cork (disambiguation) to Cork (after moving Cork, the article about the city, to Cork (city), Cork, County Cork, or whatever consensus decides).

   It was supposed to be a rubber stamp, but many of the people who indicated they would support this move in their comments in the previous survey, are reluctant to vote accordingly now. I'm not sure why.

   As far as being confused about agreeing with me, unless you change your vote to support this move, we're not agreeing. Also, I have consistently supported disambiguating any article names, including city article names, per the relevant guidelines (in this case WP:NC:CITY#Ireland), when disambiguation is required. What perplexes me about this situation is that it is perhaps the most obvious case of a need for disambiguation - an obvious absence of a clear primary topic for the name in question - and yet there is still so much resistance to putting the dab page at the name. It's bizarre. --Serge 17:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

   i don't think its bizarre, none of what you say above was oultined here. You seem to be assuming that everyone voting here has an intimate knowledge of the Cork (material) talk page. That is a bad start. On top of that you seem too eager and are agressively trying to push through your agenda. I am sure this is a turn off to many. In summary you need more patience and need to outline the whole proposal. You need to convince us you are right. To date, this whole thing seems very embryonic. David D. (Talk) 20:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

Please don't remove comments from talk pages, Serge. I thought you were voting late on the tabled move proposal, so I added the comment about no consensus having been reached and the discussion being done. I still think this has already been covered in the recent discussion, and that the lack of consensus is a reason to leave things the way they are, not start another move proposal. --Kathryn NicDhàna 07:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not close surveys that have just been opened. To the contrary, the voting at Talk:Cork (material) indicates there was opposition to making the material cork be the primary Cork page, but there is likely to be a consensus to make the disambiguation page be the primary page. We need this survey to confirm. Thanks. --Serge 07:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. I don't oppose a move, but I don't think it's overwhelmingly necessary to move it, either. I'm open to being convinced either way, though. john k 12:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• This is a case where WP:NC(CN) does not help, because the term is the most common term used to refer to two well-known subjects (the city and the material). Please read WP:D and explain to me why it does not apply to Cork. Cork is a ubiquitous material that can be found in most modern households (if not as a wine stopper, then as a cork board, a dart board, a hot plate, a coaster, as a polishing material, etc.) and is universally known by all English speakers. Furthermore, it has a historic -- even pre-historic -- and important role in the evolution of human culture. The city in Ireland is certainly large, important and well-known, but not as well known as the material. There is an argument to be made (and it has been made), that the material is the primary usage. But to argue that the city is the primary usage makes no sense. Note that all those who have voted to Oppose so far have a distinctive bias, arguably violating WP:NPOV. On each of their talk pages is evidence of a high interest in Ireland and of Irish subjects. We should name this article in accordance to WP:NPOV and WP:D; it should be moved to something like Cork (city) so that the dab page could be at Cork. --Serge 18:53, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• And the alleged "resultant upheaval" (editing work) that may result due to this move is not a reason to not do the right thing. --Serge 18:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge. Again, we agree on some things, but not on others. As you note, the WP:NC(CN) guidelines (among others) are not well placed to help with this - because of the reasons you point out. Also, I will apologise for suggesting that the amount of work involved in undertaking something should influence a decision on whether to do it or. (Unfortunately cost/benefit analysis is a reality day-to-day for me, and I may have carried that into the discussion here - where I felt that the cost of the move outweighed the incremental benefit of further disambiguation). However, while I acknowledge that you tempered your comment with a qualifier, I don't agree that having an interest in WRITING about a subject neccesarily obscures or invalidates an argument about a subject in the context of NPOV. (I'm not saying that I'm neccesarily dispassionate enough to COMPLETELY divorce my interest in "writing about the subject" from my interest in "the subject itself", but it's not fair to say that one can't - or can't try.) Guliolopez 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean any offense by noting the fact about the interesting common denominator that the first four five folks voting to oppose happen to share...--22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

With respect we all have a reason to be here, otherwise we would be doing other things. Fundamentally we are all a bit biased, biased on our own background or manuals of style. The manuals of style are incidentially guidelines, as distinct from official policy. People vote for different reasons {I could insinuate that your vote was because your not Irish/from Ireland etc, but thats just as irrelevent as where I am from because my vote is mine and do not need to demonstrate its worth on a scale and its not kindergarten anyhow - many of us are adults} and incidentially, the current proposal violates the WP:NC:CITY guideline - but thats just a guideline. We do not move articles for the sake of following selective guidelines, we need to demonstrate need and benifit; and consensus. Djegan 23:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing necessarily wrong with bias. We just need to be aware of it so we can do our best to put it aside when making decisions in accordance with WP:NPOV. We do move pages for the sake of following guidelines; the need and benefit of following the guidelines is inherent in the guidelines. What needs to be demonstrated is reason for making exceptions to the guidelines. In this case the WP:NC:CITY guidelines for Ireland say the article about the city should be at Cork, County Cork. I'll add that to the list of suggested alternatives. But no one has addressed why we should make an exception to WP:D and put the article about Cork, County Cork at Cork. --Serge 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Its unhelpful to misrepresent my comments, viz "we are all a bit biased" is not the same as "nothing necessarily wrong with bias". As for "why we should make an exception to WP:D" - that is a guideline {and not an official policy} and the purpose of this vote. If its a mere administrative matter or official policy concern then take it to the relevent administrator noticeboard for immediate correction. Because their is not one, just this vote will decide. Djegan 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Heck' why not propose to move George W. Bush to George Walker Bush because the former is an exception to WP:D because their is a George Washington Bush? Then we can spend the rest of our lives making WP:D based proposals throughout wikipedia with little time to actually improve content. Wikipedia is about more than guidelines and votes, its about quality content. The latter is my bias. Djegan 23:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably, George Washington Bush is not well-known as George W. Bush, at least not in comparison to the U.S. President, so there is no disambiguation issue to resolve in that case per WP:D. Clear, the president is the primary topic for that title. According to WP:D a disambiguation page should only be at [[Subject (disambiguation)]] when there is a clear primary topic for [[Subject]]. For example, the disambiguation page for Paris is at Paris (disambiguation) because there is a clear primary topic for Paris. For cork, however, it is clear that there is no primary topic, therefore the disambiguation page should be at Cork, not the article for one of the competing uses of that term. Cork could and should be the quintessential example of this logical and rational Wikipedia convention. --Serge 23:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you demonstrate "that there is no primary topic" for cork or Cork? Djegan 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because that would require doing something like choosing 1,000 English speakers worldwide at random and ask them what "cork" means. But do you really require such a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic? --Serge 00:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So its point-of-view then? Djegan 00:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. Why do you ask that? Again, do you really require a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic? --Serge 00:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, more assumptions. Renaming articles is a serious matter, we need to demonstrate need. Djegan 00:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For the third time, do you really require a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic? --Serge 00:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly a demonstration has not formed part of the survey, as yet. Theirfore we are talking your comments on face value. Djegan 00:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

For the fourth time, do you, Djegan, really require a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic? (by the way, if you don't, then the lack of a demonstration is moot; if you do, then I suggest you're presenting an Argument from ignorance, a logical fallacy). --Serge 00:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourth time or otherwise, I am not sure what your point is until you make it. But I am sure that we can take {notwithstanding the technical limitations of wikipedia} it that "cork" refers primarily to the material whilst "Cork" refers primarily to the city. Its a matter of perspective. Djegan 00:58, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is you will not answer a simple yes/no question even after I asked it four times. I believe the reason for this is because you realize an answer of yes (meaning you do require a demonstration to be convinced that neither the material nor the city is clearly the primary topic) is silly and illogical, and understand that an answer of no makes your point about there being no demonstration to be moot, and you'd prefer not to admit this, so you evade the question. By the way, precisely because of the technical limitations you cite, there is no semantic difference between Cork and cork in Wikipedia usage (particularly in searches and titles which is what is relevant here), and, therefore neither can be the primary topic. --Serge 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm with John. Although I originally supported the move, now I think about it it's probably more bother than it's worth to move everything around. It's not like anyone looking for the material cork isn't going to be able to find it because of this page. I do agree that the material is probably referenced more than the city, but I don't really have much of an opinion on this move right now. Pauric 17:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Some notes: (1) I don't that it is reasonable to keep resurrecting closed votes in a new form if the first one doesn't go your way. And (2) I don't think it's appropriate to "lay the groundwork" for a succesive vote if this one doesn't confirm a concencus either. IsaacAsv 12:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish bias?

I would like to remind everyone about Wikipedia policy that requires views to be represented without bias. Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but so far seven of the eight people who have voted to oppose this move request all show evidence of having heavy interest in Irish subjects on their User and/or Talk pages. I also think it's important to point out to those who can put aside this bias that Cork is a small city with less than 120,000 residents. It is not by any stretch a world-reknowned city like Paris, London, or Chicago. According to disambiguation guidelines and the guidelines for naming cities in Ireland, because the material cork is such a common use of this term, this entry about the city should clearly be at Cork, County Cork. If we are going to make it an exception and keep the city at Cork, we need to have a better reason than "maintain the status quo", which has no basis in Wikipedia. --Serge 15:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh god, if we make an exception then wikipedia is going to fall apart at the seams! A hardcore Irish biased is menacing guidlines and policy adherence patrol! Whatever, now move on, your desparate to get the vote your way, and who would not. Let the vote continue and stop the biased claims. I am sure if you dont get the result you want then we will be "treated" to new vote next week. I think the claim that their is an Irish biased is laughable, accept that fact that it is a vote on an Irish city theirfore simple common sense might tell you that Irish people (and Irish interested editors) might be more involved then other nationalities. Its really quite simple, but that does not invalidate their votes and comments. Its not for you to decide the weight of individual votes just because they do not fall within your need. Djegan 15:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it's patently obvious that the support vote is being forced through by a biased cadre of dendrologists. Sound silly? - Alison^✍ 15:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Its good to see that at the head of the list of Noted dendrologists is an Irish academic, Mike Baillie, who specialises in Dendrochronology. So the much more important question is "Why does an Irish Dendrochronologist head the list of Noted dendrologists on WP". More Irish bias, I guess. Frelke 15:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alison, there is no evidence for a dendrology bias in the Support votes. Again, the evidence for the Irish bias in the oppose votes is on the Talk pages of 7 of the 8 opposing voters. --Serge 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, please! Grow a sense of humour. I swear ... - Alison^✍ 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me for seeing nothing funny in your misrepresention of my point and in your attempt to dismiss it. --Serge 19:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're excused! Time to move on ... - Alison^✍ 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked, to find that everyone is !voting for the importance of the subject they know best. Serge, this is how WP works; whether we have more Irishmen or dendrologists is really what WP:RM is meant to determine. Calm down. Septentrionalis 18:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thats it keep digging yourself deeper into a mess. It does not really help your situation by claiming that people are biased, your simply filling the page up with irrelevent comments that will alienate the people your trying to reach out too. Since when are peoples race, ethnicity, nationality or interests theiron relevant to voting and discussion? Will their be a wikipedians members interest in future for political interest, sexuality, educational level, colour of hair, fingernail lenght, etc? What about the people that have not expressed an interest in all things Irish on their pages, maybe their biased and should not be considered. Come on now really Serge, most of us are adults and not little childern. Get real. Move on. Djegan 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Irish interested voters were spread out even somewhat evenly between Support and Oppose votes, that would be one thing. But when they're virtually all on one side, that indicates a likely violation of WP:NPOV, which is not a guideline, but policy. No, Septentrionalis, we're not supposed to be determining if there are more Irishmen or dendrologists. All the Irishmen and dendrologists are supposed to be putting aside their biases, and voting accordingly. That's what is not happening here.

The Irish bias is to have the city at Cork. The dendrology bias is to have the material at Cork. The compromise position in accordance to WP:NPOV, WP:NC:CITY#Ireland and WP:D is to have the disambiguation page at Cork. --Serge 18:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, you cannot determine the conscience of a voter. Djegan 18:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course we cannot determine the conscience of a voter. Note that I'm talking about general tendencies, not any one in particular. --Serge 19:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, you ask, "Since when are peoples ... interests ...relevant to voting and discussion? " Answer: when their interests create bias that is not put aside as it is supposed to be per Wikipedia policy. --Serge 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So what is the hissy-fit for? Djegan 19:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

To point out that most opposing voters appear to be expressing biased views, and not expressing views nor voting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. --Serge 19:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude, you're having a hissy fit. Please ... breathe slowly, step away from the keyboard and come back to us when you're ready. You're seeing bias where there's none - Alison^✍ 19:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not having a hissy fit. But accusing me of having one, rather than addressing my arguments, only exhibits the weakness in your own position. Do you really believe there is no bias in the oppose votes? Have you checked the Talk pages of each of the oppose voters? Have you noted the absolute lack of reason to make a small city an exception to all of the relevant conventions and guidelines? --Serge 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see you balling up your fists from here. Serge - how old are you, BTW? - Alison^✍ 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You are ignoring my relevant questions of substance and are asking an irrelevant personal question. --Serge 19:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm pretty-much ignoring everything you're saying here, as you've now gone so far off the rails at this stage. Were we talking about a vote or something? :) - Alison^✍ 20:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on their, if my interests are biased then maybe you age is to. Come on it works both ways. But you will not face that. Djegan 20:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, read WP:VOTE, because you started the vote. If you think that discussing and voting for the moving Cork is a matter for WP:NPOV then please by all means post a note to one of the administrators noticeboards requesting immediate moving because its in violation of official policy that people are bias of because their Irish. I suspect you will be promptly laughed out of wikipedia. Get real, its a vote for consensus, not a vote to rubber stamp a move in accordance with official policy. Consensus (i.e. this vote and discussion) and NPOV (i.e. an official policy) are not one in the same thing. Djegan 19:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, I've touched a nerve. Q.E.D. --Serge 19:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious. Are you so invested in this that you have to waste such time going into the minutiae of your own sense of vindication? - Alison^✍ 19:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mere dismissiveness. --Serge 19:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Mere hilarity, actually, at your bloated yet fragile ego. BTW, I noticed your cry for help over here. Time to rally the troops, eh? - Alison^✍ 19:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No you have not. But what you do need to do is actually backup your claims, your a one man show, and it shows by the poor attempt to pass guidelines and policies as requiring a move. This move will be decided by consenus alone, and guidelines will be guidance. If you think an official policy requires it be moved then put a request on an admin noticeboard and it will be decided in ten minutes. Djegan 19:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I never said policy requires a move here. That's your spin. I've said that policy requires expression of views from an unbiased POV. Please understand and appreciate the difference. --Serge 19:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that, someone is from/ethnically Ireland/Irish respectively does not mean their biased {where has anyone claimed that they are from Ireland or ethnically Irish and are voting on that basis alone}. Your just making assumptions that people are biased because of your own bias, you have tabulated the votes that you accept and those you will ignore on that basis. We have a word for that type of thing: discrimination. {maybe the old saying "takes one to know to known one" is correct after all?} Djegan 20:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alison has already admitted to not reading what I'm writing (but responding anyway). Apparently, you are too. If you did read what I wrote, you'd know that I've never claimed that any bias here is based on where someone is from or their ethnicity. --Serge 20:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Too right. You're a scream! But hey - don't go judging Djegan based on my actions, ok? That's just more bias. Besides, I actually am reading what you're writing. Wouldn't miss it for the world :) - Alison^✍ 20:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge, some of your comments that suggest you think opposing votes are biased, they speak for themselves. Whole sentences quoted (so your ellipsis are you own):

Do you really believe there is no bias in the oppose votes? Have you checked the Talk pages of each of the oppose voters? Have you noted the absolute lack of reason to make a small city an exception to all of the relevant conventions and guidelines?

To point out that most opposing voters appear to be expressing biased views, and not expressing views nor voting in accordance to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.

Djegan, you ask, "Since when are peoples ... interests ...relevant to voting and discussion? " Answer: when their interests create bias that is not put aside as it is supposed to be per Wikipedia policy.

If the Irish interested voters were spread out even somewhat evenly between Support and Oppose votes, that would be one thing. But when they're virtually all on one side, that indicates a likely violation of WP:NPOV, which is not a guideline, but policy.

Again, the evidence for the Irish bias in the oppose votes is on the Talk pages of 7 of the 8 opposing voters.

Perhaps it's just a coincidence, but so far seven of the eight people who have voted to oppose this move request all show evidence of having heavy interest in Irish subjects on their User and/or Talk pages.

I didn't mean any offense by noting the fact about the interesting common denominator that the first four five folks voting to oppose happen to share...

Note that all those who have voted to Oppose so far have a distinctive bias, arguably violating WP:NPOV. On each of their talk pages is evidence of a high interest in Ireland and of Irish subjects.

And some comments from here[4]:

The Irish bias is obvious - 7 out of 8 oppose voters display heavy Irish bias on their own Talk pages. If you want to blame me for pointing out plain fact... whatever.

The Ireland guidelines indicate the city should be disambiguated as Cork, County Cork, but the Irish biased are opposing the requested move to the disambiguated name. This city has less than 120,000 residents. Your assistance is appreciated.

Regards. Djegan 20:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, do you understand and appreciate the difference between an Irish bias that exists for unknown reasons (which is what I'm contending and is consistent with all of my statements) and an Irish bias that is specified to be based on being from Ireland or being of Irish ethnicity (which is what you're accusing me of doing)? --Serge 20:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I do understand the difference, and I also know which one is more serious {the latter}, but have I actually accused you of it, explicitly - or is that simply your interpretation of my comments? Djegan 20:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, you strongly implied that I was contending the Irish bias was from those who are "from/ethnically Ireland/Irish" when you wrote the following:

The fact that, [sic] someone is from/ethnically Ireland/Irish respectively does not mean their [sic] biased {where has anyone claimed that they are from Ireland or ethnically Irish and are voting on that basis alone}. Your [sic] just making assumptions that people ...'

If your point wasn't to accuse me of doing so, what was the relevance of saying this in reply to me? --Serge 21:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So that you would accept it, as you have. Djegan 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your use of sic above was calculated to humiliate Djegan. Why are you doing that? Alison^✍ 21:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Admittantly I am not that bothered as my standards on talk pages regarding spelling and grammer is not as high as in non-wikipedia corresspondence. Notwithstanding from the respected editors talkpage, conflict seems to be the status-quo. And move requests a way of life. Djegan 21:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we please call a halt to the "Irish bias debate" - it's not contributing to the original intent

Serge/(All). I'm worried this is never going to end. (And even when it does, it will start again). I had hoped (by my earlier comments to you Serge on your original assertion of NPOV) to help prevent this flame war. I possibly should have been clearer in my points. To state again: I respect your reasons for opening this poll. I understand your (original) hope was to gain a concencus before making wholescale changes. This is laudable. However, you can't open a poll and then challenge everyone who votes in it. I'm afraid that your challenges on the partiality of voters in a poll that you opened is not helpful to the discussion. Please remember that there's a reason that voting isn't recommended to resolve issues in WP. (See Wikipedia:Voting is evil, Arrow's impossibility theorem, Voting paradox and all kinds of essays on the subject). In short, it's not helpful in the context of the original goal. Serge - As the instigator of this, you should consider calling a halt now, and avoid further challenges to the reasons why others may have voted. It's unlikely to end well. It's already resulted in a 2500 word flamewar unrelated to the original discussion. Guliolopez 21:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I am quite happy to hold back, incidentially Serge has started a redirect campaign[5], [6], [7], [8]. Djegan 21:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points, Guliolopez. I'm done. --Serge 21:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The article name - oh no not again!

Before we go off and start fixing all the broken links (I am sure those that pressed the move button last time will help but I am not holding my breath either) it maybe worth considering that Cork is, in strict legal terms, not in County Cork but rather is a distinct entity separate from the county. Does not really matter what WP:IMOS says. This article should be at Cork, Ireland if anything, with no reference to county in the title. Djegan 09:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Djegan, do you have a citation for the claim that Cork City is not in County Cork, but is distinctly separate from it? How about Cork (Ireland)? --Serge 09:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork was formerly a county borough[9][10]; those two sections make it clear that cities and counties in Ireland are distinct from one another, for instance "The State continues to stand divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities which are the areas set out in Parts 1 and 2, respectively, of Schedule 5" makes it clear that cities and counties are on the same administrative level and theirfore separate of each other and that cities are not a subpart of counties as towns are a subpart of counties. Djegan 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Duly reverted to the previous state. We had an unsuccessful RM barely a month ago, and now everyone seems to have invoked their favorite naming convention. Duja► 10:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I have always respected RM's {and would respect a formal RM vote}, so should everyone else. Consenus is valuable, it encourages fairness and transparency. Djegan 10:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The disambig question

As I said have previously stated, I have no opinion on what the article relating to the city should be called. However, Cork should be a disambig page. The OED, while in case of Turkey mentions the country as the first definition, doesn't even give the city of Cork a mention. If the usage was so common in English, that would have been included. No topic on Wikipedia is inherently more important than any other but some are more common in modern usage. I've seen a lot of invalid reasons up there and on ANI for letting Cork be the city article including,

1. it will take effort and/or cleanup to do the move
2. most of the links are for cork the city (only because the other ones have been fixed to point to the material!)
3. you will be "pissing off" the Ireland crowd
4. people can't be bothered to agree on good name for the city article
5. "because we had this discussion last week"

However, I don't see any that are based on the facts of modern worldwide English usage, indeed not one. Facts and research are the important thing here, not subjective opinions about a word. Now, I'd like to see the proof that the OED is mistaken and that Cork the city is a more common usage in every country that speaks English. Facts are not determined by polls or subjective discussions. Facts are based on research, and what we do here is based on facts. I'm waiting for a convincing fact based argument. (If you want to claim its important because Google returns tourism website hits before the material, the fact that a lot of money goes into tourism advertisement and making those pages hit the top of search engines has nothing to do with how the word is used in English.)

If facts can't be brought forth for either definition, then NPOV dictates we do the neutral thing and make Cork a disambig page. "The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight." Keeping Cork directed at the city article gives the city undue weight, plain and simple. pschemp | talk 16:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pschemp, where were you and your argument when we voted on exactly this issue a few weeks ago? Well, your argument was here (presented by yours truly), but we needed a few more people to vote who didn't have Irish topics referenced all over their talk pages (as did almost every oppose vote). There is no objective reason to put the city at Cork. The only reason it is there is because the majority of Wikipedia editors interested in "cork" have an Irish bias of one sort or another. --Serge 17:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this topic can be discussed without accusations of bias. People need to focus on the facts of usage, and bring proof of that. pschemp | talk 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's a fun little calculation. Using the 1997 wine consumption statistics here For just the English speaking countries of the US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, (didn't include Ireland just to be safe) and the 1997 population statistics, and the fact that a bottle of wine is about 750 ml, I calculated an approximate 4,416,695,373 bottles of wine consumed by these English speaking countries. That is over 4 billion corks that English speakers come in contact with, just from wine. That includes neither other corks or cork products nor other English speakers. The paper [11]here shows that merely 3 million tourists visted the whole Cork/Kerry Region in 2003. Nearly 13 times more corks were used in these countries than the number of tourists who came to Cork plus the population of the area. To claim the city is more important than the material is not proven out by fact. pschemp | talk 17:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

How about Cork being the disambig page and the city being Cork (city)? I agree with pschemp's points above, and my dictionary doesn't mention the city either. However, I wasn't a big fan of the Cork, County Cork solution either. Philadelphia points to the city on the U.S. eastern seaboard, even though I think of it as a brand of cheese; but we must be guided by usage and not by considerations of nationalism here, and I think for Cork (a lovely city where my grandfather was born incidentally), the arguments are different. --Guinnog 17:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed and Philadelphia brand cheese (which doesn't even have an article) was named after the city. There is no such etymological connection between Cork and cork. Incidently, the unabriged Random House dictionary (one of the few to have Cork as an entry) give the first definition as the county, and the second as the city. More proof the city isn't the main usage. pschemp | talk 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork should be the city. - Francis Tyers · 18:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? --Guinnog 18:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to offer any non-subjective proof with your opinion? Otherwise I can't see where this comment adds anything of value to the discussion. pschemp | talk 18:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

OK - So it sounds like this discussion is about to "kick-off" again. To avoid an open-ended holy war (as witnessed after last night's unliteral move, and by some of the misinterpreted arguments in previous attempts to close this), we need to find a means to structure this. Possibly under WP:RM or some other approach. If we just charge into this, there will be chaos (again). Guliolopez 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see a holy war here, I see a discussion requesting facts which is what should have happened the first time. RM isn't going to help anything, but people presenting facts instead of opinions might. The last attempt at "structure" was a misearble failure. Why not try talking about it with facts? As I said before, if neither side can prove they are used more, NPOV makes the answer simple. pschemp | talk 18:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi pschemp. Firstly we all need to be careful with the language we choose. Even if not directed at anyone or anyone's argument, using strong words or adjectives will only serve to fan the flames. (Declaring previous attempts at consensus building a "miserable failure" may not be well received by those who participated in those attempts). If we use language which "gets peoples backs up", then we're not going to progress.

Please understand me. I'm just trying to avoid another flamewar. (See 2500 words above which were spawned by a similar approach.) That was the intent of my recommendation on structure - nothing else. I'm not suggesting another "vote".

With regard to taking a scientific approach and discussing facts. In the previous discussions there was a measured attempt to consider facts: take this google test discussion. In each of these cases, the means of measuring and comparing data ("facts") could not be agreed. And so the discussion stalled.

Here we had two different approaches to interpretting the google results. One in terms of ranking (qualitative/weighted analysis). The other in terms of volume (quantitative analysis).

For every set of facts that's represented, there could be an alternate view point.

Take the "4 billion corks V 3 million Cork visitors" you offered. To be honest, while I acknowledge the science of the approach, I don't agree that this is a fair comparison, as it does not consider those people who have heard of Cork, but not visited. You can extend that position with respect to those who "know of wine, but don't drink it". What we need to do therefore with this set of facts (or any other one thats presented) is to agree a means of rationalising the "knowledge of, but no first hand experience of" factor. (Or any other "gray area").

I'm not saying we have to do this in advance of the discussion neccesarily, but (I think) we have to agree on the method and science of measurement somehow - as that seems to be at the heart of the proposal. Guliolopez 19:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I voted oppose and have no connection with Ireland. My primary reason for voting oppose was that the plan for the move was very premature. The proposer had not laid out a strong enough argument and previous arguments had not been referencd. I would be happy to vote support if there was a consensus on where to move Cork and the other items that would inhabit the disambig page. These things should never be rushed and since this is wikipedia we have no deadlines. David D. (Talk) 19:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Agree with several of the points above. Can we take it as read that:

1. The status quo is imperfect; there is significant dissatisfaction with Cork pointing to the city.
2. We are all aware that issues like this can stir nationalistic feelings, and we should all be careful to avoid inflaming thse feelings.
3. We must discuss civilly and adhere to Wikipedia policies, and decide on that basis what to do.

Now, my proposal was for Cork to point to the disambig page, with the city article at Cork (city). Anyone think that would work? If not, why not? --Guinnog 20:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cork should be disambiguation. That is the consensus here from what I've seen, and I agree with it. That means that the article about the city cannot also be cork. That much is basic logic. I chuckle thinking that Cork is a city in Ireland (where did all the people go?) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

After the last 24 hours it is very apparent their is a problem. But pressing the move button unilaterially and ignoring the issue (a "screw process" approach) will not resolve it alone; because those who have a real interest in the moved articles are left to fix the many broken links (where were all those people last night who pressed the move button when they screwed up links, fixing links and setting up bots, I think not). The issue needs to be discussed and maybe a move request is needed, but proposals to move the article at present need to to sensible and sound - both the arguements and the proposed relocation - and though out. Because otherwise you damage peoples faith in the system. We can all play the your biased and theirfore dont count game, but it does not help. Its not playschool. Most people here are adults and vote accordingly, the standard of contributions by people on both sides is often high. Djegan 23:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, cork should be a disambiguation page. It potentially refers to a city, a county, a material, or one of several people or organizations -- and which of these is the predominant meaning in a context-free reading depends on where you learned English and where you live. It's a word that without context has an ambiguous meaning, and disambiguation pages are our solution for those situations. —ptk✰fgs 00:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Technical limitations of wikipedia notwithstanding, "cork" does not refer to the city or county. Wouldnt it all be so much easier if their was not that technical limitation. Djegan 00:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I am stunned at how process is being ignored and subverted in this manner. This was discussed twice recently, and the decision was to leave the pages and many, many links the way they were. The way this move and renaming was done - abruptly and with no concern for process - is inappropriate, and insulting to the many Wikipedians who have participated in these discussions, and who work on all the articles affected by this decision. The fact that the opinions of those who routinely work on these articles are being disregarded specifically for our interest in the topic is surreal, appalling, and more that a bit bigoted, imho. The fact is that this is the Wikipedia for those who speak English. It's not American Wikipedia. Just because some Americans are unfamiliar with cities in other English-speaking countries is no reason to bias the encyclopedia towards that unfamiliarity. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn, I've read your post twice. I don't see an argument for why Cork should not be a disambiguation page. Did I miss something? Or is your argument simply that the majority of those voting want Cork to be the article about the city? Are you saying that Wikipedia is a democracy? If not, then what reason is there other than the majority will? --Serge 00:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If their was a name for it then that would be Screw Process II, referring to a previous incident. Djegan 00:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Kathryn, I'm not American, for whatever difference it makes. I know Cork well (the city and the county, as well as the material cork). Let's not focus on your annoyance at how the move was done, but on where we go from here. I don't think leaving the status quo there is an option, as I and several others have said. Based on Wikipedia policy, and remembering we are serving an international audience here, do you have any serious argument against my proposal above? --Guinnog 00:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

And I am an American, for whatever difference that makes ;-). Along with a number of other editors, the last two times this was brought up I agreed that the "status quo" is an option, and the best option. Because changing Cork to the disambig page would then involve a ton of work repairing/refining all the links that are intended to go to the city; and as per Djegan: "because those who have a real interest in the moved articles are left to fix the many broken links" [emphasis mine] I am for leaving the City at Cork, with the link up top, as it is, to the disambig page for the material and county. If those participating in this discussion haven't read the previous Proposed Move discussions, please do so, as after the first one, and then certainly after a second right on the heels of the first, I think we all really assumed the decision was to not tamper with the current setup. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The disambiguation work should not come into this discussion. Laziness is no excuse for not doing the right thing. You should know better than to assume that it will be less work keeping as it is, because as you have seen, the issue will come up again and again and again. At some point, it should have occurred to you that what you are looking at is not the final solution. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 03:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask you Kathryn, whether you have any type of argument based on fact. "Because we talked about last week" and "Because it will take effort to fix" are not valid reasons for leaving something at an incorrect title. Please present some facts based on usage as to why cork shouldn't be a disambig page. Otherwise your argument is little more than an inflamatory opinion. pschemp | talk 04:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

If I personally fix all the links (as I am perfectly willing to do), will you accept my proposal above? --Guinnog 06:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Look people, before we go prematurely or unilaterally moving again lets remember if we do so we will be back at square one in twenty-four hours, in all chance. I think we can take it that their have been two votes already and that a third will be needed to sort it; because putting individual editors in a corner and getting them to explain themselves doesnt work and just will not cut it. Djegan 07:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. There is nothing unilateral or premature about the discussion we are having. We work with consensus here, not voting. Your pessimism is unhelpful and I think misplaced. I have made a reasonable proposal which follows policy and has the support of several others. If you have anything substantive to add to take the discussion forward, now would be a good time to add it. Nobody is putting anybody in a corner; I was (and still am) offering to help. --Guinnog 08:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Certainly as this argument has progressed i feel I am swayed to having cork as the disambiguation page. So are you sure that Cork (city) is the optimal name change? David D. (Talk) 08:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think so, as I do not like Cork, County Cork (sounds awkward; I know this is the naming convention for American place names, but I cannot picture an Irish person ever saying it like this). Cork (city) seems like the best, simplest place to move it to. Obviously I am open to persuasion on this if anyone has any better proposal to make. --Guinnog 09:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal is good. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on that anyway; WP:IMOS suggests that Cork, County Cork is the correct form, but for a city that was previously a county borough in law its entirely incorrect and awkward as the city and county are legally distinct from each other. Cork, Ireland would become an endless republican/unionist battleground. Options like Cork City just underline confusion and illiteracy when proposed. If their needs to be a change then Cork (city) is prob the best alternative. Djegan 09:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer Cork, Ireland to Cork (city) for reasons outside of scope of the current discussion, but the WP-wide convention of "comma for cities needing dab" I'd like to see does not exist (yet); I fail to see the republican/unionist issue when Cork is in Ireland one way or another. I'm fine with Cork (city) as well, though. But I'm curious—which part of WP:IMOS suggests the City, County format? It seems strange to me—while US convention City, US-state makes some sense, as US states are fairly widely known, but locating other countries' cities per respective counties/regions would be extremely difficult. City, Country or City (Country) when the city is the only one in the country would seem far more natural. Duja► 14:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Its not explicitly declared in the manual of style, but is a convention referred to in the third example of Naming articles: English versus Irish and also referred to on the talk page. Also the majority of Irish articles use the convention. As for Cork, Ireland I think it could be a preferrable option but think we should give some time and invite comments on the respective noticeboards for Ireland and Northern Ireland. Djegan 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Process

As I see it, the process needs to be something like the following:

1. Decide what name the article about the city should have if it is to be moved. People should be able to participate in this discussion about a preferred alternate article name even if they'd prefer the status quo.
2. Decide whether to move the city article to the consensus alternate name. This is now a binary choice, as the preferred alternate name is already decided.
3. Move the article and fix all links that pointed to Cork to point to the correct target. This can be done with AWB or similar, but needs humans to check, as some of the links might be better pointed to something else (most likely either Cork (material) or County Cork). Link fixing can start before the article actually moves, provided that the move is definitely going to happen.
4. Once all links have been changed, only then can the redirect at Cork be changed to point to Cork (disambiguation).

--Scott Davis ^Talk 14:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I prefer Guinnog's proposal above. It is much simpler. Besides, Cork should be the disambig page, not Cork (disambiguation).pschemp | talk 17:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get bogged down in process here. I strongly suggest that unless any cogent reasons in terms of usage and/or policy can be raised, we should adopt what I suggested above. Making the process more complex just makes it take longer, with no benefit I can see. Again, I also think we should accept that the status quo is unsatisfactory and needs to be changed. --Guinnog 18:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, what was your proposal Guinnog? (I think ScottDavis's approach is reasonable) Guliolopez 18:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

If you look back at the last move request, it accomplished all of the above, and failed. For example, I asked everyone, including opposers, to specify their preferred new name for the city in case the Cork (disambiguation) -> Cork move request succeeded. Almost everyone refused to participate. I even added reminder notes that all oppose votes without an explicit preference would be taken to mean a preference for the default of Cork (city), per the instructions, but I got criticized for leaving those reminders. Maybe you'll have better luck, but I'm not holding my breath. Never-the-less, from that last experience, I recommend the following:

• The move request at WP:RM is dual:

  Cork -> TBD

  Cork (disambiguation) -> Cork

• Specify all these choices explicitly and clearly for TBD in the survey.
  1. Cork, County Cork
  2. Cork, Ireland
  3. Cork (city)
  4. Cork City
  5. Cork (County Cork)
  6. Cork (Ireland)
• Votes should specify Support or Oppose, and the preferred destination (1-6) in case support for the move is established.
• If someone doesn't specify a preference, it should be clearly stated what that will be taken to mean (either a default of one of the choices, or no preference).
• Keep the survey open until you have a 2/3 consensus or one month is up, whichever comes first (the previous survey was closed prematurely - this continuing discussion is evidence of that).
• In fact, consider simply reopening the last survey.
• In any case, broadly publicize this survey.

--Serge 18:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason that backfired was possibly threefold, one when you vote to oppose a move it is not mandatory to suggest what title it should get if it is moved, secondly you placed the statement after every oppose vote when you could of placed it once at the top of the move request section for all to read (indeed the record shows that you did not place it after even a single support vote) and thirdly the wording was unhelpful, if not suggestive of a support vote whn people had infact opposed:

"Note: preference for new name not specified so Cork (city) is assumed. If you update your vote to specify a preference, please delete this note. --Serge 00:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)"

In summary dont blame anyone else for the misfortune. We're not kids. Djegan 18:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I'm sorry, I don't understand.

• No one said it was mandatory to specify anything. I did remind those who voted oppose that the instructions said that Cork (city) would be assumed if they did not specify a preference (in case Support prevailed).
• You say you could of placed it once at the top of the move request section for all to read. I did place a NOTE: at the top of the move request section saying this for all to read.
• I also put reminder notes at individual oppose votes in case someone (like you apparently) missed the general note.
• Since the proposal was to move Cork to Cork (city) I saw no reason to remind those who voted Support without specifying a preference that their preference is being assumed to be Cork (city). Did you a reason to do so?
• I don't understand why you think the wording was unhelpful, or why you think it was suggestive of a support vote. I was simply reiterating what the note at the top said, in case it was missed.
• I'm not blaming anyone for any misfortune.

--Serge 19:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion (repeated)

My suggestion has, I think, the merit of simplicity. Cork to be a disambig page. Cork (city) to be the article on the city. Me to adjust the links (along with anyone else who wants to help of course). The onus to be on those opposing this to come up with good reasons and (if possible) viable alternatives. By all means publicise it as much as desired; but I think all those interested must have heard of it by now, given the prior debate. Let's not get into voting again and (another) multistage decision-making process. Let's finish it off and get on with something more contstructive. Please. --Guinnog 18:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The city article has stayed here for well over a year (perhaps two or three) without problems, notwithstanding recent issues. So I think its not unreasonable that we should give people resonable time to decide and contribute to the discussion, before starting another series of votes, because the world will not fall apart overnight if closure is not got before the next morning. Djegan 18:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree that we needn't be in such a hurry that anyone will feel they have missed a chance to contribute to the decision. I feel quite strongly though, that having "another series of votes" would result in another decision that people will be unhappy with. Wikipedia:Discuss, don't vote is a principle that will stand us in especially good stead here. Given that this has been discussed here since 1 November (16 days ago), and has made it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (where I became aware of it), how much more time would we need, and who needs to hear about it who hasn't already heard about it? Shall we say another 48 hours? But I feel that voting was the problem the last time; let's not vote, let's agree. It's much better. --Guinnog 18:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point I am not saying that a vote is a must, just replying to your previous comments that suggested it, a clear consensus would be sufficent. Djegan 18:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guinnog. Per Djegan's comments - I don't agree that we should just "get on with it" and move Cork to Cork (city).

Again, I'm not saying that we need a vote or that we shouldn't update the current organisation (as there are obviously at least 3 or 4 editors who think it should happen). I don't, however, understand the urgeny.

We need to figure out where we're moving the page before we move it: per Scott, Djegan, and Serge's more recent suggestion (and original attempt; which I respected, despite the outcome). Otherwise we'll have to re-do any updated links after the fact.

48 hours is not nearly long enough for consensus in figuring that out. (Certainly not on the Friday in advance of a holiday week). Can we give this at least 3 to 5 days?

(PS + FYI - The escalation to the admin noticeboard was not as a result of any of the original discussions or their "failure". It resulted from a unilateral move by an editor who did not reference the previous discussions and recognise the potential for controversy.)

Guliolopez 18:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In fact that unilateral move was done without any discussion or warning and the original mover later admitted they were unaware of the discussion and vote on the talk page. Djegan 19:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, we're moving forwards. No vote, let's just agree what we should do and do it. Let's do it right this time, in a way that everyone (or as many as possible) will feel happy with. Again, I read the history and I know the history. I don't want to get bogged down in recriminations over "who did what" any more than I want to get tied up in process here. I am assuming good faith here, I don't see reason to do otherwise. Lets just mend it so it stays mended. And, again, don't worry about the overhead; I'll happily fix the links if it helps end this and lets us move on. Timewise, I don't see why the decision need take more than another 48 hours, after the volume and time of prior discussion that has taken place. As on everything though, I will try to be reasonable if there is good evidence that anybody will be disdvantaged by doing it the way I propose. --Guinnog 19:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So where is the consensus that any move should happen? Frelke 19:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Here (scroll up), and also at Talk:Cork (material). I see no good reason in Wikipedia policy, usability, or anything else other than inertia ("it's been this way for ages") and workload ("it'll mean changing loads of links") to have Cork point to the city. On the other hand I see good arguments (especially those of pschemp) above for moving it. I think I have answered the two categories opposing the change above; the third concern I see, that process was not followed, I hope we are answering by having this discussion. --Guinnog 19:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no way anyone can reasonably claim there is consensus to move this page without doing another vote, sooner or later, because a very recent survey indicates the apparent absence of such consensus. The only way to move this page with minimum controversy is to do another formal WP:RM request and have another survey. I do believe if we get the attention of more people with an objective view the consensus will be established, but it needs to be shown to exist in a survey to have any credibility. --Serge 19:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would nonetheless claim just that; I think that the several discussions and votes which have already taken place, the discussion just above, and even the good work of Guliolopez below, would all point to substantial and justified dissatisfaction with the current status quo. I worry that having yet another vote will only delay progress and possibly lead to more controversy, not less. I believe that reasoned discussion based on policy and on merit will be more likely to achieve a harmonious outcome than voting again. --Guinnog 20:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In the recent survey Guliolopez opposed the move on the grounds that he felt there was no good alternative name for Cork the city and it would be too much work to fix all the links. I see nothing that indicates he has changed his view, and, in fact, the facts he presents below only support leaving the city article page at Cork. While there are a few of us who express "substantial and justified dissatisfaction with the current status quo", I don't count Guliolopez among this minority. Note that most of the opposers are keeping quiet for now because they are happy with the status quo. If you think there is anything close to a consensus established here to change, you're not paying attention. --Serge 20:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I am going to be honest up front; comments like that are unhelpful. Djegan 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unhelpful with respect to accomplishing what, Djegan? Is ignoring the reality of the situation "helpful"? Do you think comments like "Cannot see any substantial reason for a move and the resultant upheavel. It has to go somewhere so it might as well stay" are "helpful"? --Serge 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Because if you turn it into an Irish bias issue like you did the last time (just read his comments above) then you can be sure that any consensus attempt will backfire. The last attempt turned into a flame war (myself included) and anyone with sense kept out. You dont get consensus by sticking your two fingers up at people. Keep to the issue thats been discussed, not personal attacks. Simple. Djegan 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out that opposers to the move are not being objective is not a personal attack. If anyone gets upset by my pointing this out only proves my point. Their bias makes it impossible for them to address this issue objectively anyway, so any "damage" this causes to the cause of making the move is moot. Either they're going to get objective and see the light despite anything I say, or they're not. --Serge 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) <sigh> This is why I thought a neutral admin might have a chance of making a difference here. Would you rather bicker, or try to solve the problem? Because I son't think we can do both. Reopening the poll would be a very bad idea, for reasons you have just illustrated. We have all the information we need, and Wikipedia is not a democracy. Please, can we solve this rather than fight? --Guinnog 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I second the move. When I look up "cork", I want to know about the wood that goes into wine bottles and into which you push pins. When I want to know about the city in Ireland, I look up "cork, ireland"—or I type "cork" and hope that a plain-"cork" disambiguation page will lead me to the city's article. "Cork" should be a disambiguation page that directs to articles about the wood, the Irish city (either "Cork, Ireland" or "Cork (city"), &c. — President Lethe 20:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So, if you had known about the survey above that ran from Nov 1 to Nov 7 you would have voted in support? --Serge 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally would prefer that the article about the Irish city be called "Cork, Ireland" (rather than "Cork (city)")—but my main concern is just that the article about the Irish city not be called just "Cork". I think that an article called "Cork" should be about the wood or be a disambiguation page. There must be many millions of native speakers of English who know the word cork only as the name of a bottle stopper (and the associated verb), and who would expect to be able to look up the wood and the bottle stoppers by typing "cork". I don't mean anything bad towards the city at all; but it seems to me to be a logical good practice that, when quite different things have names spelled in exactly the same way and the different meanings of those homographs are quite commonly known, the Wikipedia page with just the word as its name should be a disambiguation page, and the articles about specific meanings of the word should have other, more specific names (e.g., "Cork (wood)", "Cork, Ireland", &c.).

So, yes, I would have voted for moving the city article away from just plain "Cork".

— President Lethe 21:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for facts in support of "status quo" argument

Several editors have requested "facts" to support the position that the status quo should remain. While (per previous discussions) I expect this will lead not to a discussion on the merits of any data ("facts"), but to a discussion on the merits of individual means of measuring the data, and not withstanding the "new naming" move discussion, I offer the following;

Google test

Again, I recognise there are many ways of interpretting Google results and acknowledge the limits of this test method, but have taken two approaches; quantitative and qualitative.

Quantitative (volume)

A quantitative Google test suggests online references to Cork (the geographical concept) outweigh references to cork (the material). As below:

Geographical concept

Google search:Cork +city = 3,210,000

Google search:Cork +Ireland = 4,180,000

Material

Google search:cork +bottle = 1,950,000

Google search:cork +wine = 2,630,000

Qualitative (ranking)

A qualitative Google test suggests the ranking of online references to Cork (the geographical concept) are higher than references to cork (the material), and all other meanings. As below.

Google search:cork returns 39,100,000 results. Of the initial 50 results:

• 40 are pages related to the geographical entity
• 6 are pages related to the city
• 4 are related to other topics

Other measuring methods

Given the known limitations of Search engine tests, I've been trying to consider alt means of measuring prominence. I haven't succeeded. Yet.

The exercise however has reminded me of an event which highlighted for me that context and experience impact an individuals interpretation of the meaning or significance of a word, symbol or other device. In 1999/2000, after extended travel in Cambodia, some friends (local to Siem Reap) nicknamed my brother "Shakespeare", citing a resemblance - owing to long hair and beard - to the Bard. We pointed out that Westerners were more likely to liken his appearance to that of Jesus Christ. The response was "Jesus who?".

(In the context of this discussion, this observation obviously works both ways.)

Guliolopez 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gul, most google hits for the city are tourism websites that someone worked very hard to get in the top google ranking. I think that skews the results a bit toward advertising. Advertising and promoting tourism is an inherently POV activity that makes google a non nuetral source. In fact, I'd say its hardly useful at all in this case. What we are trying to determine is if one is used a lot more in the language, not how much money has been put into tourism promotion. So far, I don't see anything that proves anything either way, making NPOV require we treat both equally. (And that means Cork should be a disambig. pschemp | talk 23:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Come on we can say the same things about pretty much anything in this world of marketing and sales. Maybe the hits on corks (the material) are websites created by people with stocks in wine and wood. Djegan 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Per Djegan, this is true. The majority of the results related to the material are for cork flooring manufacturers and fitters, notice boards, etc. Eliminating "commercial" links is not possible in this test - it simply gives a "footprint" of what might be considered the primary use of the word "cork" in an online context. As an online resource, I still maintain that Cork should similarly be the primary use on WP. (Per these simple results, general precedence, and a measure of how "encyclopedic" a topic may be). Guliolopez 13:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

No way I beleive that more money is being poured into cork advertising than tourism. But yes, I think for our purposes *all* commercial links should be eliminated (on both sides) because advertising is inherently POV. Just because you put a million dollars into making sure your website is indexed by search engines doesn't mean anything to common english usage. Advertising reflects who has money to do it, not reality. pschemp | talk 13:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL! And presumably those that want to spend their time fixing the links would be the obvious people to sift thro' those thousands of hits removing those that are commercial. And retrun the correct figures to use here so that we can make an iformed decision. Frelke 14:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Precedence

Beyond the Google Test rationale offered above for maintaining the status quo, I also question this move on the grounds of precedence. The argument that the current naming structure breaks guidelines on NPOV (because "cork" has multiple meanings) fails to address why the article on "Cork" is neccesarily any different than the 100s and 1000s of articles in a similar position, and which seek to remediate any DAB confusion through the use of a simple DAB strap/header. In essence, does this debate open up the validity of using DAB headers. Should ALL articles for whom the title has more than one meaning be moved to a complete DAB page? Is the suggestion that - once "Cork" is moved to become a more specific DAB page - that we will now move forward and do the same with Turkey (to avoid confusion with the bird), Bath (to avoid confusion with the plumbing fixture), and - as above - the 1000s of articles which employ a header DAB technique to remidiate any DAB confusion? Guliolopez 13:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Turkey is a different case, one where there is a clear reason to not have it as the disambig page. The OED (which lists words in order of commons usage) list Turkey the country as the first definition for the word. The OED doesn't list Cork the city as a meaning at all. If Cork the city were such a common meaning, it would be in there. Dictionaries are a more scholarly resource here. Also, the Random House unabridged dictionary, which does list Cork with a capital C has the county as the first, most common meaning, then the city. Add that to the fact that the material and its uses are not a non-trivial thing and agin, what you have is a stalemate. When no definition can be proved to be more common, (as I think is the case here) NPOV dictates we treat both equally. I'm sure you can find cases of mistakes for other entries, but that doesn't excuse doing the wrong thing here. (It's the old, you shouldn't go doing things that are wrong just because your friends are doing it.) Someone else's mistake is not an excuse to make one here. pschemp | talk 13:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, not everyone has internet access in the world. Your assumption that google is a good reflection of common word usage only applies to those people who have enough money to afford a computer and internet access. To then extrapolate and say that applies to all English speakers in the world and assume they are seeing those advertisements is absurd and elitist. In the US alone, about 64% of people have internet access. To assume the other 36% are seeing advertising for either of these is silly. However, the chances they've encountered a cork on their wine bottle are significantly higher. So still, we have no conclusive, neutral proof for the city. Actually the non-neutral proof isn't conclusive either. [12] pschemp | talk 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

reopen November survey?

Due to the renewed interest on this issue and the arguably premature closing (only 6 days with only 23 votes total, with votes still coming in the day it was closed - not to mention the new opinions being expressed here this week) of the November survey, what does everyone think of reopening it? --Serge 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to figure out if the move will be to Cork, Ireland or Cork (city). At present this isssue does not seem to be resolved. I have to say that at present I am leaning towards Cork, Ireland. David D. (Talk) 21:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't been resolved whether there's to be a move at all. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a hypothetical, move discussion first or name dicussion first, either is fine. i think there will be strong arguments for and against moving. If moving is dicussed I think there will be strong arguments for several names. David D. (Talk) 22:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

David, since specifying where the city article should be is part of the November survey, why does that have to be resolved separately? The fact that many of the supporters of the move, and most of the opposers, chose the default by not specifying a preference is perhaps not ideal, but nothing prevents them from updating their vote if we reopen the survey. --Serge 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the name should be part of a request move survey. But if you want to go ahead with that then fine. It adds a layer of complication to the discussion. If you want to confirm the move first we can then discuss a name change if successful. No need to rush in and change everything immediately, if successful. If you just propose the exact same vote as before chances are we'll get the same result. The one above was too complicated let's keep it simple David D. (Talk) 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object with reason to someone doing the following?

• removing the closed tags on the survey above
• adding close parameters (2/3 consensus after one week, or one month after reopening, whichever comes first)
• clarifying all 6 (+?) choices I enumerated above for a new place for the city article
• moving it to the bottom of this page
• relisting it at WP:RM and other locations
• notifying those who expressed interest here after the survey closed that the survey has been reopened.

Anything else? --Serge 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I would object, most strenuously. Voting is evil. As I have tried to explain at length above:

1. That is not how Wikipedia operates to best effect
2. Repeating the same exercise is likely to lead to the same divisive result, which will please no-one
3. We could put this to bed quite easily, and all get on with something more productive, if we could adopt my proposal above, or a variation thereof

--Guinnog 22:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal above is essentially no different from the survey we just had. What makes you think there is sufficient support for it? Let's see if we can at least make some progress in selecting a new title for this article below. --Serge 23:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

His proposal is different and it is simple. It says, make cork and disambig page and decide what the name of the city article should be. There is no voting involved. Voting failed miserable last time and disinigrated into a mud slinging fest between you and Dj. So, stop adding complication please. pschemp | talk 23:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not going to reopen the November survey. Let's see if we can get some progress on the alternative title issue below. --Serge 00:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll: choose alternate title

This is not a requested move nor a vote to move the page - just trying to find out what the preferred acceptable alternative titles are.

NOTE: However, if this poll clearly indicates there is consensus to move the page, it maybe used as a basis for a request at WP:RM Again, please keep this poll to one topic.

IF the article about Cork the city is moved, what should the new title be?

Please rate your choices from the list below as follows:

• Preferred: (up to one choice); Acceptable: (any number of choices); Unacceptable: (any number of choices) --~~~~

Examples:

• Preferred: 4; Acceptable: 2, 3; Unacceptable: 1, 5, 6
  
• Preferred: 1; Acceptable: 3; Unacceptable: 2, 4, 5, 6
  

Points will be assigned to choices as follows: Preferred (+2); Acceptable (+1); Unacceptable (-1)

If you specify more than one choice as preferred, only the first preferred choice listed will be assigned two points; any subsequent choices listed as preferred will get one point each.

The "winner" will be the choice with the most points.

Survey Closes: December 17, 2006 (one month) Feel free to revise/update your choices through that day (Wiki time).

Survey

IF the article about Cork the city is moved, what should the new title be?

NOTE: If you believe that the city Cork is so much more notable in the English language than is the material cork such that WP:DAB does not call for a disambiguation page in this case, you may record this opinion by choosing option 1. Never-the-less, you are encouraged to select one or more "acceptable" choices assuming the article is moved.

Choices:

1. Cork (Don't move this article) This option has been removed as it is not a logical answer to the question of what the name should be IF the article is moved. The poll should address that issue only, and indeed that is what the stated question is. Please actually answer the question being asked. Votes stating this is the only valid option will not be considered in determining what consensus should be if the name is changed.

2. Cork, County Cork (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" as Cork is legally separate from County Cork - see Discussion below)

3. Cork, Ireland

4. Cork (city)

5. Cork City (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" - see Discussion below)

6. Cork (County Cork) (Note: disputed as being "incorrect" as Cork is legally separate from County Cork - see Discussion below)

7. Cork (Ireland)

8. City of Cork

---

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

---

• Preferred: 1; Acceptable: 4, 3, 7; Unacceptable: 2, 5, 6, 8 --Guliolopez 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Preferred: 1; Unacceptable: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 --Frelke 14:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Preferred: 1; Unacceptable: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - Francis Tyers · 14:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Preferred: 3; Acceptable: 7, 4; unacceptable: 1, 2, 5, 6 --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Updated after reading conversation below about County Cork. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Preferred: 3; Acceptable: 4; Unacceptable: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Preferred: 1; Acceptable: 3, 4, 8, 7; Unacceptable: 2, 5, 6 - Djegan 15:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Preferred: 1; Acceptable: 4; Unacceptable: 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

---

• Preferred: 2; Acceptable: 1, 3, 8 -Will Beback · † · 22:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Before we start voting lets drop "Cork City" because its simply wrong, just as wrong as London City or Paris City would be for those cities, it has no place in a professional encyclopedia about the city because its a fundemental error. Secondly I recommend that we remove any options that incorporate "County Cork" - because as I outlined above the city and county are legally distinct from each other and the city of Cork is not contained in County Cork and an article title should not suggest such a erroronious and misleading relationship - also other people have suggested a dislike so it will be no loss cutting the list early to avoid over complexity of the situation. Djegan 23:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Also one month is too long - one week at most. Djegan 23:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I only included Cork City because it has been suggested by a number of people. Also, it does seem to be a fairly common way to refer to the city. If it's wrong, then I would hope it would get very few votes, and it's availability as a choice is moot. I rather err on the side of too many choices rather than risk claims of an invalid poll because certain choices were not made available. I can add City of Cork to the list, however. The last survey was closed far too soon - after one week. That's way too short. Let's give everyone a fair chance to weigh in this time. --Serge 23:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Whilst I appreciate that the form XXX City is used in the Americas, such as Panama City and New York City, in Europe it would be frowned on and theirfore we should simply remove something that is incorrect or make it clear opposite the entry that its incorrect form and to be discouraged. If anything Cork City should redirect to Cork City F.C.. Djegan 23:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noted your objection in the list - I still think it needs to stay there as a choice for those who may disagree and still prefer it, wrong as they may be. By the way, if Cork City is an "incorrect" or unacceptable reference to the city, why is the football club named Cork City F.C. instead of Cork F.C.? --Serge 23:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Because its a free country. Djegan 23:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. That just means they can choose any name they want. But why they want Cork City F.C. to be their name if Cork City is not a normal/accepted reference to the city? For example, the San Francisco 49ers are not the Frisco 49ers because referring to San Francisco as Frisco is considered to be unacceptable. There would be riots in the streets if the franchise tried to name themselves that. So, in that sense, Cork City does seem to be an accepted name - if only informally - of the city. But informality is not an issue, because the formal name is probably City of Cork, and not Cork, anyway. --Serge 00:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We are getting off point here, but its hardly a great streech of the imagination or potentially riotous to stick "City" in the middle of a name of a sports club name. Djegan 00:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

(deindent) cf Birmingham City, Bristol City, Brechin City, Cardiff City, ... I could go on. None of these terms are ever used for the city, only for the football team. --Guinnog 00:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

w:Special:Whatlinkshere/Cork City nearly all relate to "City as opposed to county" not F.C. There is no "Brechin County". The only analogous city/county in Great Britain is Durham, and googling "Durham City" gets a lot of results in the same vein. I'm not saying "Cork City" is the best option, but saying it's "simply wrong" is simplistic. It's something like "legally incorrect". jnestorius^(talk) 12:29, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Its purely cultural. We don't do it on this side of the Atlantic. Can I suggest that we should just respect our cultural differences. Frelke 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is one month too long? If votes are still coming in, keep the poll open. If they're not, then close it and don't just have the same few people rehashing the same points. jnestorius^(talk) 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Serge/All. I think this voting approach is worthwhile. It is more structured than the previous, and so should not suffer from the same "off topic" discussions as the last. (So long as we don't question the validity of anyone's votes - save for sockpuppets should they manifest). I also think that a month is a reasonable period. Per Serge/Jnestorius. (See "Urgency?" discussion above). Guliolopez 12:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Given that the preamble is "IF the article about Cork the city is moved...", it seems strange to include option 1, and even more strange to vote that option 1 is the only acceptable name if this article is to be moved out of the way for a disambiguation page. The people who would vote to keep the city article at Cork are the ones most likely to be able to identify the correct alternate name if it needed to be moved. --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. Looks like Francis Tyers and Frelke have spoilt their ballot papers. I don't think the trap was intended, but what to do, run it all over again? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think its pretty simple. Remove the Cork option, ask them politely to give their opinion again and then ignore any votes that continue to no address the actual question. pschemp | talk 18:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think ignoring people is not an option. We are not going to refactor the vote after it has commenced. Thats not fair play. Djegan 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

They didn't answer the question Djegan. It is not refactoring to correct an error.The reason all the other polls failed is because too many topics were trying to be decided at once. One at time is the way to go. pschemp | talk 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Voting is not the way things are done here. The complicated mechanism devised, while ingenious, seems calculated to perpetuate bickering and inconclusive argy-bargy. Pschemp's suggestion seems sensible; the more variables in a poll, the harder it is to decide. I think at least get rid of the option to keep the status quo, as no good arguments have been made made to keep it there. You could also get rid of the Cork City option for me --Guinnog 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone is unsure of the current convention, check out Berlin (disambiguation) and Oxford (disambiguation). I think that Cork (city) is the option least likely to become contentious again. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the comment "Note: Cork is legally separate from County Cork - see Discussion above" because its only appropriate to reference this fact so that people have full facts in front of them before deciding (who will read the endless comments above and below) if a move does occure which is a real possibility. If this move is to be taken serious then full facts should be on the table so people can take an informed decision.

Secondly I recommend new votes be placed at the top of the votes, just to make it simplier to vote and see the options in one screen or box. Djegan 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think you've missed the point here. What "Cork, County Cork" says is that Cork is part of the County Cork. We already have an article County Cork, as you well know, which lists Cork as the County Town, which I assume is equivalent to "capital". I've reverted your additions - put them back if I've missed anything from your argument (and please explain because if so, it wasn't clear). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

County Town, maybe before the Local Government (Ireland) Act 1898, but not not anymore; capital is similarily a meanless phrase as their are no capitals of Irish towns, where are the WP:VERIFY citations for such "facts". Neither "county town" nor "capital" are legally recognised or widely used in Ireland. Those articles are full of pointless and incorrect terminology that is vey important in the parish pump politics but patently incorrect in the real world. The law states that Cork[13] is a city[14] and formerly a county borough and as such[15] is legally distinct from the county themselve. If anyone thinks that Cork is legally part of County Cork then the onus is on them to provide citations to that effect; because mine prove the contray (its a complicated but none-the-less fundemental legal area and we should not publish things that knowningly incorrect). Its quite irrelevant that Cork was in County Cork until the 1898 Act because we are in the here and now.

An incorrect assumption could set a precident, say for instance with the cities of Limerick and Waterford, which individually have territory in what was previously part of other traditonal Irish counties. For instance Limerick has territory once in County Clare and County Limerick and Waterford has territory once in County Kilkenny and County Waterford; so which county do we pick if we want to move them. Neither, but some other disambiguation method.

In summary if we are going to move these articles then we need to do it right first time, because the incorrect proposed new names where an issue last time - all I ask is for comments opposite the proposals that they are incorrect so someone passing thru can decide if they are not willing to read all these tiring comments. And I am not going to sleep walk into an incorrect name with county in it, I have shown my good faith by voting for both acceptable and unacceptable new names other than Cork. Because Cork, County Cork is just as incorrect as London, County of London - not withdstanding that their is currently not a County of London but was until quite recent. We need to get this right first time or no move at all. Djegan 17:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

See also Counties of Ireland and Local government in the Republic of Ireland. Djegan 17:09, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

We need to get this right first time or no move at all. Because if the city of Cork ends up at Cork, County Cork or Cork (County Cork) - or any option incorporating County Cork in the new title - then their will have to be a new vote; because such a possition would be legally unsustainable so I request those who have already voted for 2, 6 as "acceptable" to move these votes to "unacceptable" not because I want to scuttle the vote but the prinicipal involved; people should vote otherwise as they see fit, mind you 5 is also incorrect for the reasons outlined in this section. I dont care where the article is finally located as long as its new location does not suggest grammatical or legal illiteracy. Djegan 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So why is Cork listed as "County Town" in County Cork? Seems you're either wrong, confused or unwilling to fix this. Which is it? For most of your post, you're just rambling, and, it seems to me, missing my point entirely AGAIN. I don't see where your second reference states that the city Cork is not part of County Cork. That is all that is implied by "Cork, County Cork". If you had read the disambig pages that I referenced, you would have come to the realisation that "Oxford Falls, New South Wales" does not imply that all New South Wales is legally equivalent to a suburb of Sydney called Oxford Falls. Jeepers. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you read my comments opposite 2 and 6 then you will see exactly what the dispute is "Cork is legally separate from County Cork"; and the citations I have above prove this as the indicate that when you take the time to read all three and understand what a county borough is. Because a county borough, for instance the city of Cork, in Ireland have always been legally separate from the county that they came from. This vote is about a city in Ireland, not a suburb in Sydney; this vote will essentially rewrite the WP:IMOS; so lets put asside our differences and put the facts on the table. Djegan 17:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

If you think I am rambling then thats your choice, have a nice day. Djegan 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The second reference I provided is their just to show the legal continuity between county borough and city in Irish law. They are one in the same thing. But cities and counties are legally distinct from each other and that has been the focus of my remarks. So why imply that the city is part of the county. Djegan 17:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite? I don't see where this case is addressed by IMOS. If it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The only situation that I can see in which "Cork, County Cork" would be an unsuitable name is if Cork was not part of County Cork. Which so far, you have brought forward no evidence to support. Neither have you made it clear whether or not you think that Cork is part of County Cork. Nor do you seem to have understood my analogy. How to talk to you? I don't know. It is probably worth realising that in most places around the world, every village, town and city, is an entity that is legally separate from its regional affiliations, be it county, state, vale, province, you get the idea. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The third reference[16] states, amongst other things,:

10.—

(2) The State continues to stand divided into local government areas to be known as counties and cities which are the areas set out in Parts 1 and 2, respectively, of Schedule 5.[17]

(4)(b) The boundaries of a city referred to in subsection (2) are the boundaries of the corresponding county borough as existing immediately before the establishment day.

Cork, as a city (or formerly referred to as a county borough), is not part of County Cork as far as the law is concerned (by virtue that it is a city) - thats my claim and I have backed it up - if you take time to read (and understand) my comments rather than than thinly vailed personal attacks. If you want to claim the contrary - about Cork - then I await your citations. Heres an example of Galways status in Irish law[18], "the Borough shall cease to be part of the County and shall, as on and from such day, be an administrative county of itself, and be called the County Borough". Djegan 18:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to the point. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Folks, I included option 1 (Cork) for a reason. I recognized that it is a logically inconsistent answer to the question, but I wanted to give those who feel very strongly that the page should not be moved an outlet to express that in this poll. My thought was that they would give their 2 points to Cork, and still hopefully choose "acceptable" for at least one other option. I now see that some chose to make all the other choices "unacceptable". Oh well, that does not spoil the poll. I think they should have the right to vote that way. I suggest the strikeout be reverted, but I'm not going to get into a revert war on a talk page by doing it myself. --Serge 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

• On second thought, I will revert the strikeout and update the instructions accordingly. --Serge 02:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Cork, County Cork option, in the U.S. the county government has legal jurisdiction over all unincorporated areas in the county, but not any jurisdiction over incorporated cities. The Cork situation does not seem special in any way. The title Cork, County Cork, or Cork (County Cork), would simply say that we're talking about the Cork that is physically in County Cork. It doesn't say or imply anything about the legal relationship between the respective governments. --Serge 01:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you expand on your reasons for finding Cork, Ireland unacceptable. I may missed your reasoning from somewhere esle so feel to point me to that section. David D. (Talk) 05:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfair

I think its a bit unfair that User:Pschemp has unilaterally removed the status-quo and refactored the vote at this time. Djegan 18:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? What status quo? Fixing an error of logic is not refactoring. The poll has one question, and states, IF the article is moved. Therefore Cork cannot logically be an answer. Aditionally, the reason past polls have failed is because they tried to decide too many things at once. This respondents in this poll should answer the actual question being asked. If they don't, their comments are not really valid for this question. Confusing set ups and the attempt to answer everything at once are the reason people on this page are still arguing. pschemp | talk 18:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Well as fair as your concerned this poll will not have "failed"; your refactoring has saw to that. Wikipedia may not be a democracy but it sure looks like a dictatorship from here. Djegan 18:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you actually understand what the word IF means? That means its conditional. IF the aritcle is moved, that's what people prefer. Whether the article is moved has no bearing on this question. This is not a poll to decide whether or not to move the page, which you seem to think it is. pschemp | talk 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So their will be an additional vote to decide IF the article will be moved at all (actually you refactored the original "NOTE: However, if this poll clearly indicates there is consensus to move the page, it maybe used as a basis for a request at WP:RM" which implied to me that this vote will be the end of it all). How many more votes and refactors. It should be made clear rather than poorly joined togetheir symantecs. Djegan 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

As pschemp, ScottDavis and Samsara have pointed out, the poll was malformed and contradicted itself. We are better just deciding what to do by talking about it than having endless polls. And a month was a ridiculous length of time to hold something like this open as well. A day or two should be fine after it has already been talked about for over two weeks. --Guinnog 18:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't think the poll was a good idea to begin with, that's why I didn't read it very carefully. If I had, I would have protested that bizzare option and statement at the outset. pschemp | talk 19:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Same here. Can we salvage the good aspect of the idea by just deciding between Cork (city), Cork (Ireland) City of Cork and Cork, Ireland, do you think? Polls are really only as good as the debate they generate. For decision-making, I think it best to decide on one issue at a time, from as few alternatives as possible. Far from being dictatorship, this seems to me to potentially offer a way out of this endless hoohah.--Guinnog 19:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So when this question is decided then their will be a WP:RM by a vote? Djegan 19:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep this here. No point having further bloat (he said in self-fulfilling prophecy mode) in other places. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Because no one is replying then I am assuming that their will be another vote. Because thats what IF implies; IF their is a move, not WHEN their is a move. Djegan 19:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I think serge started this vote since i had pointed out that I would not endorse a move, regardless of it being sensible or not, if we did not know where it was to move to. In my mind the discussion of a sensible title IF there was a move has to preceed all discussion about a move otherwise there are too many variable and people get side tracked from the main point. I think above Guinnog is sensible in reducing the debate to those names that have not being ruled out. Of the four (Cork (city), Cork (Ireland) City of Cork and Cork, Ireland) I prefer the last. I would not endorse City of Cork unless I see a strong argument for it. Despite my preference, I would not oppose the first two. David D. (Talk) 20:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of this discussion is to ensure that we know what the right name is if the article is to be moved. We can then have a simple decision on whether the city or a disambiguation page should be at cork. The "vote" above can be regarded as a summary of people's opinions in the discussion - I have just updated my choices based on the discussion down here. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll change my preference to "Cork, Ireland" if that helps move things along. Seems that would get David, Scott and me on the same page (no pun intended). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Subtotal

As a summary of where we stand, all but one person (Will Beback) find option 4 acceptable (discounting those that only find a single option acceptable at all). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

So what relevance has that got to anything? Are you suggesting that somehow the opinions of those who only voted for one option, and voted against all others, is somehow irrelevant and shouldn't count. It may not be what you are saying, but it sure sounds as it is! Frelke 09:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Give me a good argument for keeping things as they are. The case is abundantly clear to me - cork is going to be a disambiguation page to decide between an article about an industry worth several billion [19] each year that feeds much of Portugal and the South-West of Spain, and is integral to the production of the 24 million tonnes of wine produced each year (ten major producing countries only, 2005 figures) and an article about a town (okay, formally a city) of 120k souls with mild touristic interest and a small IT industry. Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Be precise when necessary

I just want to point out that having this article at Cork is a direct violation of WP:NAME#Be precise when necessary, which states:

Convention: Please, do not write or put an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings.

Putting the article about the Irish city named Cork at Cork is putting an article on a page with an ambiguously named title as though that title had no other meanings. Of course Cork has another meaning, see Cork. --Serge 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The whole point here is that Cork has only one meaning. But unfortunately due to technical limitations there is a need for some form of compromise to accomodate links to cork. It is because of technical limitations that we cannot distinguish between Cork and cork. We can distinguish between cork and corK. Its a technical issue. To see what i mean just click on cork Frelke 09:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)