History of Yogurt spelling

Key to the history of the debate about this title is WP:RETAIN, a sub-paragraph of WP:ENGVAR, which states:

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.

What follows are certain key events that occurred during the 7 year long debate about this article's title.

2002

December 10, 2002 Article created using U.S. English and "yogurt"

This article was created on December 10, 2002, written in the U.S. variety of English, by Editor01. The spelling of all words in the article, including "theorized" (not "theorised"), "re-pasteurized" (not "re-pasteurised") as well as "yogurt", are all in accordance with the U.S. English variety of English. The initial version of the article has enough content to not be a stub [1].

2003

March 18, 2003 lead sentence updated to mention "yoghurt"

The original U.S. variety of English was established and remained so even when the lead sentence was changed to express a supposed difference in traditional/modern spellings on March 18, 2003 [2]. The article remained written in the original U.S. variety of English for almost two years.

November 17, 2003: suggestion to change spelling of "yogurt" to "yoghurt" because of pronunciation issues

On November 17, 2003, the following comment was posted on the talk page by Editor02 [3]:

Many people mispronounce Bach as if it should be spelled Bac and likewise many people mispronounce yoghurt as if it should be spelled yogurt. However in neither case does this seem to be a good reason for changing from the traditional spelling despite the fact that, in both cases, many English speakers have difficulty in forming the correct consonantal sounds. Some of us can, particularly those of us from Wales, Scotland and Ireland. I think it would be more phonetically accurate to use the yoghurt spelling in the article since it more closely suggests the proper pronunciation.

This comment was later (Sep 18 2004, May 18 2005) claimed to be a proposal to change the spelling of "yogurt" to "yoghurt" in the article, on the grounds that "yoghurt" is more "phonetically accurate" than "yogurt", and to change the title too. However, only the last sentence in the paragraph comes close to proposing anything, and really it's just a relatively hidden statement of opinion that is not soliciting input from others. No one commented, in support or opposition.

December 25, 2003: "yogurt" changed to "yoghurt" first time

So, about a month later, on December 25, 2003, the spelling of "yogurt" in this article was changed to "yoghurt", wholesale, by Editor02 [4]. The edit summary states, "Standardised spelling of yoghurt within the article)", but as can be clearly seen, this edit is not a standardization, but a change from one standard (or variety, if you will) to another.

It should be noted that when "yogurt" was first changed to "yoghurt" the MOS already had language reflecting the WP practice of settling such disputes by going back to the variety used by the original contributor. This is from the December 23, 2003 version of WP:MOS: [5]

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (i.e., not a stub) to the article who used a word with variant spellings in the article or the title.

Since this change occurred on Christmas Day of 2003, it's not surprising that it went unnoticed for a while.

It should also be noted that, other than the "yogurt" → "yoghurt" spelling change, the variety of English in this article remained as U.S. English. This can be seen in the Dec 25 2003 version by the spelling of such words as, "pasteurized" (not "pasteurised") and "popularize" (not "popularise"). (NB: not necessarily true, see Oxford spelling)

2004

June 1, 2004: "yoghurt" spelling questioned on talk page

The first challenge of the "yoghurt" spelling is seen in the talk pages on June 1, 2004, six months after the change was made[6]. No formal move proposal is made, but it appears that WP:RM was not created until October of 2004, so that's not surprising.

August 26, 2004 "yoghurt" spelling change reverted (original "yogurt" restored)

The second time the "yoghurt" spelling was challenged appears to be eight months later, on August 26, 2004, when the spelling was changed back to the original English variety (yogurt) by Neutrality (talk · contribs), but without an edit summary [7].

September 18, 2004 restoration of "yogurt" is reverted (back to "yoghurt")

A few weeks after the restoration of "yogurt", on September 18, 2004, that change was reverted by Editor02, with edit summary "reverted spelling of yoghurt to match the article title as discussed in previous talk" [8]. It should be noted here that "as discussed in previous talk" refers to the November 17 2003 comment quoted above made by Editor02, and a couple of related comments from anon IPs solely about pronunciation in February 2004 [9]. Also, no reference to the title was made in that "previous talk".

October 4, 2004 first mention of effort to retain Yoghurt on UK notice board

In a discussion that ironically refers to the WP policy to retain the original spelling ("I believe that goes against WP policy, which is to keep the original article's spelling (whether British or US English)[10]", Yoghurt is first mentioned (by Editor02) as an example of a challenging title to defend on the UK Wikipedians's notice board [11]. See: Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board/Archive_1#Erosion_of_British_English_usage_and_spellings.

October 29, 2004: article content change from U.S. variety of English to U.K variety

The first change in the article to the spelling of "yogurt" (and, presumably, the title, which was not retained in page history at that time) as "yoghurt" did not change the spelling of any of the other words in the article. In other words, the variety of English in the article was still the original U.S. English even after "yogurt" was first changed to "yoghurt". The variety of English was not changed in the article from U.S. English to British English until this edit on October 29, 2004, almost two years after the article was first created using U.S. English. For example, "pasteurized" was changed to "pasteurised", "theorized" to "theorised", etc. (all contrary to the guidance of WP:MOS, WP:ENGVAR, and WP:RETAIN). Prior to that, all the spellings used U.S. English.

November 21, 2004 Page move to "common term" ("yogurt") proposed on talk page; UK reinforcements enlisted

Neutrality (talk · contribs) proposes a move to Yogurt on 01:25, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)[12], citing WP:COMMONNAME, "barring objection". Within a few hours, at 03:46, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC), Editor02 objects, and reveals an anti-US-usage bias, arguably explaining the true motivations behind the original move on Christmas Day, 2003: "If the Google test is used as the justification to force the American spelling in this case then it could be used to force the American spelling in all cases and non-American spelling would be removed from the Wikipedia.". 20 minutes later, at 04:08, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC), Mr. Ross also enlists reinforcements on the UK notifications board, claiming "Yoghurt is under attack again for not using the American spelling"[13]. A few more "objections" are logged thereafter.

2005

May 7-12 2005 moving back and forth between yogurt and yoghurt; skirmishes

The article seems to have remained at the British spelling without interruption for a few months, until there was a move back to Yogurt on May 7, 2005[14]. The history indicates skirmishes over the title and spelling of yogurt/yoghurt in the article in May of 2005, including this edit, by Neutrality (talk · contribs), on May 12, 2005, with edit summary, "Restore orginal spelling", and a revert of all the spellings by jguk (talk · contribs) marked as a "minor" edit with edit summary, "tweaks" [15].

May 12-17 2005 - RM #1

The first official Requested move was proposed at 01:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC) by Chris Ducat (talk · contribs) primarily on the grounds that "the original location of this page was at Yogurt. This is a request to move it back." [16]. Thirty people participated, mostly after Editor02 announced the RM on the UK Wikipedians' notice board[17]

Unfortunately they haven't given up. The latest ploy is a listing on Wikipedia:Requested moves... -- Editor02 | Editor02 04:13, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Twelve of the 30 !votes were not substantive:

Oppose. Keep where it is. Kiand 01:22, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose the only argument seems to be a Google results count. Lame. —Michael Z. 2005-05-12 04:23 Z
Oppose. Proteus (Talk) 12:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - SoM 00:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - Clawed 12:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. violet/riga (t) 20:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose - arguments against seem very weak. --Neo 00:07, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. James F. (talk) 17:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Support. Flyers13 01:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose for all of the usual reasons. Jooler 19:14, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Support moving it to yogurt. Decided to decide. Sorry, Anglophiles! -ℬastique▼talk 21:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. MPF 14:15, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Four more had a more substantive appearance, but did not refer to policy, guidelines or conventions:

Oppose: Google and Yahoo are estimations of the popularity of a spelling and not meant to be directive. For purely linguistic reasons (which I shall outline below), yoghurt is the more appropriate spelling. --Gareth Hughes 10:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- This linguistic argument was expanded on here, but there was no basis in policy, guideline or conventions underlying it, and no one else supported it.
Oppose. The argument that it should conform to American rather than British spelling is not a valid argument to move it in my opinion. -- Joolz 13:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- No one argued that "it should conform to American rather than British spelling", so this was a straw man argument.
Oppose. P.S. the original title is completely irrelevant to this discussion. ed g2s • talk 14:57, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
- The only reason for opposing was given as a P.S. asserting the original title is "completely irrelevant", without explanation.
Oppose. Yoghurt is the spelling commonly used in Commonwealth countries. Yogurt spelling is only used in American English (I think Canadian English has a different spelling). – AxSkov (T) 11:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
- It is not true that "Yogurt spelling is only used in American English", and this was pointed out within a few hours after AxSkov made this assertion, in a new section entitled: "Yogurt" is not just an American spelling!.

The remaining 14 !votes were more substantive, including these two which cited popularity in search engines (implicit references to common name):

Editor02, who had changed the title from Yogurt to Yoghurt in 2003, opposed, arguing that "Yoghurt" is "extremely popular on Google and Yahoo!". Tony Jin supported, countering that "Yogurt" is "much more popular ...". Nobody contested Jin's claim that "Yogurt" is much more popular.

Oppose "Yoghurt" is extremely popular on Google and Yahoo! Editor02 | Talk 01:53, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Support "Yogurt" is much more popular on Google and Yahoo! Tony Jin | (talk) 20:33, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Philip Baird Shearer supported, citing that the primary author used "Yogurt", and supplemented this argument in a separate section where he cited MOS:ENGVAR and argued:

In this case the Primary Author [18] used Yogurt so the article should have remain with the American English spelling of "Yogurt" not the Commonwealth English spelling of "Yoghurt".

Editor02 claimed there was discussion and agreement to the original change, and in the 5/18 "Result" discussion commented that he announced his intent to move the article on the talk page, apparently referring to his Nov 17 2003 comment in which he stated his opinion that the spelling should change, and that there was no response until 1-2 months after the move, so it was a valid move. But Bastique noted that "Nobody was watching the article the first time. But clearly someone was watching it this time, because it was posted instantly on the Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board, and there is an unusually high number of people opposed to moving it back."

In that same section, while the RM discussion was open, berlin2000 cited WP:COMMONNAME: "I've noticed nobody's cited another important source for title conventions: naming conventions, specifically section 1.6, which states "Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." "

The primary author/original use argument, and/or the COMMON NAME argument was cited or referenced by elevent participants, including the nom:

Support. The primary author used Yogurt See Disccussion below -- Philip Baird Shearer 01:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Support: primary author (as per PBS) and more common name rubric (per MoS) seem to point in the same direction in this case. This article was Jonathunder 02:22, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Support There doesn't seem to have been a valid reason to move it from the original title, so support putting it back. Demi T/C 07:23, 2005 May 12 (UTC)
Support It is the most common, and it was the original. SchmuckyTheCat 17:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Support It was the orginal spelling and by far the most common. Neutrality 20:10, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Comment. The main objective of any article is to be written in common English, not American English or British English; there's no need to start a fight over that. The simple fact is that "yogurt" is more common than "yoghurt". You should only oppose if you believe that "yoghurt" is the more common term used around the world, not in any particular English speaking country. bernlin2000 ∞ 20:16, May 13, 2005 (UTC) [Note: this argument was from the nom and so tagged Comment rather than Support]
Support. Yogurt is the most common spelling according to both Google and, more importantly in my opinion, the Oxford English Dictionary. As much as "Yoghurt" appears more natural to me, I must support this proposal. Rje 01:55, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Support, preference for original spelling should govern. "Yoghurt" looks odd to me (of course, because I use AE), but it's common enough that I would favor putting the article there if the original author had done so. I recognize that the move to Yoghurt was done in good faith, not as a sneak attack, but the listing here has obviously attracted more attention. The move should go through if supported by a majority. There's no reason to require a supermajority for reversion of a change that didn't have much support or opposition. JamesMLane 07:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Support moving it back to yogurt which is closest to the original Turkish spelling and the most common on google. NoAccount
Support moving it to the more common spelling according to google. CDThieme 01:12, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
Support moving it back to its original name. Wikipedia policy is not to switch from one acceptable spelling variant to another, so Yogurt should never have been moved to Yoghurt in the first place, and that move needs to be undone. --Angr/comhrá 10:25, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The only other substantive policy based argument was offered by jguk:

Oppose. Article is in British English and should use the most common spelling in Britain. It's also the original spelling (as the article notes at the bottom), jguk 22:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

But this ignored the original author/original use argument, though nobody explicitly pointed this out.

Ultimately, thirty people participated and the !votes were evenly split between support and opposition. Whether either side was better supported in policy is a matter of opinion.

The RM discussion never seemed to be formally closed (perhaps there were no formal closes then yet?), but a participant (jguk) did start a new section called Result with this comment:

There are 14 "Support" votes (plus 1 for the proposer) which is equal with 15 "Oppose" votes. No one side has at any stage been more than two votes ahead. It's a tie - and it looks like remaining a tie as well. I therefore suggest closing the vote, I doubt much will change.

July 26, 2005: "Retain usage of original contributor" argument dismissed with "not important" argument

In what then already was an old section entitled "Name of article" on the talk page, Evice (talk · contribs) argues that "Yogurt was the original name of this article. Articles should stay at the original in cases like these" [19] and that "yogurt isn't an American spelling. It can also be used in Commonwealth English, according to Fowler's Modern English Usage." [20].

This argument is dismissed for the first time by UK user Jguk (talk · contribs) (who starts articles using the British English variant, such as this one) with the "it's not important" argument: "Yawn, yawn, yawn - this old chestnut again. Just leave the article where it is - there's a redirect from "yogurt" anyway, so no-one's going to not find the article or get confused," [21]

2006

February 8 2006

The article was moved from Yoghurt to Yogurt [22], but then reverted[23], again moved to Yogurt, and again reverted [24].

October 12, 2006: 2003 justification/move first questioned

The basis for the Nov 2003 justification and Dec 2003 move/change of "Yogurt" to "Yoghurt" (based on the "pronunciation" argument) is first directly questioned on the talk page on October 12, 2006 [25]. Editor02 replies admitting to the potential lack of agreement:

I was aware that others might not agree with my suggestion. That was why I waited a month for people to object or to point out holes in the "absurd argument" before making the move. People (with or without commonsense) had plenty of time to say "That's just your opinion" but no one has until now, two and half years after the move.

An IP responds, "better late than never".

October 10-26 2006: RM #2 results in "move to Yogurt"

A second Requested move was proposed on October 10th on the grounds that "yogurt" is the more common spelling and that the article was improperly moved from "Yogurt" to "Yoghurt". The closing admin Mets501 (talk · contribs) closed in favor of the move... "There is clearly a majority who support the move with proper reasoning, so the article will be moved." [26].

October 26-November 1, 2006: RM #3 results in "no consensus/keep at Yoghurt"

The counting of the previous RM discussion was questioned and another discussion was held for few days, this time resulting in "keep at Yoghurt".[27]

December 30, 2006: the original title was "yogurt"

Joeyramoney (talk · contribs) adds a section to the talk page noting that since consensus cannot be reached, and the original was "yogurt", "the original spelling must be used." [28]

2007

15 April 2007: first comparison of arguments

Random832 (talk · contribs) adds first comparison of arguments [29]:

Arguments for "yoghurt"	Arguments for "yogurt"
Article has had this spelling longer	Article had this spelling first Most commonly used spelling even in reference works that would otherwise be expected to use british spellings (Britannica, etc) Oxford English and Merriam-Webster dictionaries both use this spelling Google returns 13 Million hits for Yogurt, 5 Million hits for Yoghurt

16 April 2007: First time B2C points out renaming to Yogurt is the only way to resolve the conflict over the title

As the arguments for both sides are listed, Born2cycle adds this one to the "Arguments for 'yogurt'": Once the title is "yogurt", there will be no clear reason to change back to "yoghurt", and the article name will stabilize. [30]

May 14-21, 2007: RM #4... "No consensus"

A Naming poll was held May 14-21, 2007 started by Antonrojo (talk · contribs) [31]. After the initial proposal, it was almost immediately reverted by Mets501 (talk · contribs) with edit summary "sorry, but we don't need a poll. See the archives"[32].

But Antonrojo persevered[33], restoring the poll with edit summary, "repost poll. If you disagree, please add comments rather than deleting comments you disagree with". JackLumber (talk · contribs) added a summary of arguments to the poll[34] which eventually reached this version on the conclusion of the poll.

Arguments for "yoghurt"	Arguments for "yogurt"
Article has had this spelling longer, ~~thus the manual of style says the spelling should be kept the same~~ ~~(I call BS! The MoS says, "[If] there is no clear reason to change it")~~ - oh, my bad, I forgot that an extra h can occasionally blind people. hmmm... There is no clear reason - poppularity has never been used - otherwise there would be a lot less American/British English controversies. The article has been stable until you guys insisted on bringing it up	Article had this spelling first I know that there was speculation among some, but this is definitely, undoubtedly true. —METS501 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Most commonly used spelling even in reference works that would otherwise be expected to use british spellings (Britannica, etc) Errm, Britannica is an American publication--why would it be expected to use British spellings? Um, probably because Britannica uses colour instead of color, I guess. They also use aluminum instead of aluminium, carburetor instead of carburettor--they appear to have some style in use that is not simply a matter of preferring British or American usage -- we can't really draw any conclusions about their decision to use yogurt. Oxford English and Merriam-Webster dictionaries both use this spelling Google returns 13 Million hits for Yogurt, 5 Million hits for Yoghurt Wider distribution: dominant in the U.S., widely used in Canada, current in the U.K. too and lemmatized by British dictionaries (cf. Pam Peters, The Cambridge Guide (2004), pp. 587 f.) Once the title is "yogurt", there will be no clear reason to change back to "yoghurt", and the article name will stabilize.

With a 17 to 14 majority in favor of moving to Yogurt, the poll was judged to result in a "no consensus" decision [35] according to Husond (talk · contribs) who describes himself to be a "proud European" on his user page.

May 17, 2007: Compromise proposed: Yog(h)urt

A compromise title, Yog(h)urt was proposed on 17 May 2007, and rejected [36].

May 16-26 2007: Long discussion resulting in mediation request

A long discussion over these 10 days resulted in little but a request for mediation [37]. It's unclear what the result of that mediation was.

June 23 2007

An anon IP, 70.59.47.75 (talk · contribs), expresses discontent with the "Yoghurt" title spelling [38] but is told to "take a scroll through the archives" [39]. A discussion follows [40].

December 25, 2007

On the 4th anniversary of the day the spelling of "yoghurt" was changed to "yogurt", Piercetheorganist (talk · contribs) initiates a new discussion about the spelling [41].

2008

A relatively quiet year with respect to the spelling issue, except for comments adding to the discussion started at the end of 2007[42] on the talk page.

2009

January 29, 2009: Another time B2C points out renaming to Yogurt is the only way to resolve the conflict over the title

In a discussion about why the discussion about the title has been so contentious and whether renaming makes any sense, Born2cycle (talk · contribs) points out that if the article is retitled, no one will have any grounds to argue the h should be restored, and thus the title will become stable (which is exactly what happened, years later, once the article was renamed):

Consider this (assuming stability is what you truly seek): if consensus is achieved to move the article back to its original name yogurt, what grounds would anyone have a year or two or five later to argue that the article should be at yoghurt? None.

[43]

June 20, 2009: bold move of Yoghurt to Yogurt, and revert

As comments continued to be added to the discussion started at the end of 2007 [[44]], Xeno (talk · contribs) boldly moves Yoghurt to Yogurt [45]. However, Guettarda (talk · contribs) objects [46], and quickly reverts[47]. This sparks a discussion which results in the following RM discussion.

June 21 2009 - July 5, 2009: RM #5

xeno (talk · contribs) proposes[48] moving Yoghurt to Yogurt "To restore the status quo that existed before it was moved to the less common spelling.".

harej (talk · contribs) (American - user page says he lives in Washington D.C.) closing the discussion on July 5 as not moved but suggesting it be revisited "a while from now", with the following comment:

The result of the move request was page not moved. There is not enough consensus over the idea of Google tests overriding the regional variant ceasefire. I think this idea should be discussed at a larger scale. Of course, the page name debate for this article can be revisited a while from now, when there may be more consensus over whether or not this article title should have an 'h' in it. —harej (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

July 8, 2009: RM #6

A few days after that close anon IP 68.196.104.31 (talk · contribs) starts another discussion, which, despite receiving considerable support, and sparking the discussion below, is closed within two days, purportedly because it would be "(a) a waste of everyone's time, and (b) borderline disruptive", by Black Kite (talk · contribs) [49], who coincidentally (?) writes in the British English variant (see User:Black_Kite/Articles).

July 9, 2009: Crusty old-timer weighs in

Manning Bartlett (talk · contribs) starts a discussion[50] with the following entry:

I claim "crusty old-timer" status by virtue of having fooled around here for nearly 8 years. And for the record, I personally spell it "yogHurt".

Now, these regional variant spelling disputes are among the oldest and most blood-spattered on Wikipedia. Trying to establish which is "more used" or "more correct" is only asking for pain. Appeals to Google are irrelevant, as are appeals to consensus and any other mechanism you might wish to employ. We have a case where there are two equally valid spellings. Declaring one as "approved" will automatically arouse the ire of those on the other side of the fence. And unlike the aluminium debate, there is no IUPAC-type higher authority to which Wikipedia can defer on the spelling.

Hence there is only ONE rule which applies here - Section 16.10.3 of Wikipedia:ENGVAR#National_varieties_of_English. I shall quote it in full:

“

If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. In the early stages of writing an article, the variety chosen by the first major contributor to the article should be used. Where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor.

”

The profound wisdom of this rule must be venerated, because it circumvents all discussions of national pride, etymology, cultural imperialism and the inalienable fact that, for the most part, Americans are annoying. (And also have no sense of humour, as will be proved by the people who will take this quip seriously).

Here is the original version of the article as created by Editor01 on Dec 11, 2002. Editor01 is indisputably the "first major contributor". A scan of the actual content of the first article indicates that Editor01 used "yogurt" (no-H) exclusively. The article persisted with this "no-H' spelling for one year and 14 days.

On Dec 25, 2003 Editor02 changed the title and revised the spelling. Now I know Editor02, and he is a FINE editor who has been here since the very, very beginning. However, he clearly broke the policy about titles on this occasion.

Side question - Did the policy or the article name change happen first?. One could possibly argue that Ross's actions in changing the name precede the existence of the policy about "first major contributor". I refute that. The article name was changed Dec 25, 2003. I joined Wikipedia in Sept of 2001 and the policy about "first spelling is the official spelling" was already in operation back then. (I haven't found direct evidence of it yet, but I know it's in Nostalgia somewhere. Please take my word for now. If I am specifically challenged on this point I shall go and research more thoroughly.)

National ties clause - I assert that there is no reason to argue that yoghurt/yogurt is inherently British/American/Australian/Turkish/Timorese. Hence this clause does not apply.

So again, all discussion about "which version is more used/is more correct" is completely irrelevant. The first variant is the correct variant. And although I personally prefer "yoghurt", the "h-free" variant is the one we should use here. Hence "yogurt".

Manning (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing seems to be resolved by this discussion.

2010

September 23, 2010: Spelling discussion started

Anon IP 81.174.47.74 (talk · contribs) posts in a new section entitled Spelling: "The most common spelling, as per Google, is "yogurt". Why does "Yogurt" redirect to "Yoghurt" ?", to which xeno (talk · contribs) replies, see WP:LAME#Yogurt [51].

November 24, 2010: more commentary

A few more comments supporting moving the article are added to the section started in September later in the year, including from Kai445 (talk · contribs) [52].

2011

April 19, 2011: Spelling is changed to "yogurt", and reverted

Anon IP 46.147.176.250 (talk · contribs) changes spelling of "yoghurt" to "yogurt" in article body [53] and justifies it per common name: "... the most common spelling is yogurt, not yoghurt..." [54]. This change is reverted in about 3 hours by Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) [55] citing the "no reason to change it" argument on the talk page. [56].

April 21, 2011: Yngvadottir accused of anti-American sentiment

A couple of days later Laplacian54 (talk · contribs) comments on Yngvadottir's revert and comment, suggesting, among other things, that Yngvadottir's revert and comment "reeks of anti-US sentiment". Laplacian54 also suggests that it's the anti-American agenda that is why Yngvadottir watches the page so closely and reverts so quickly. [57] Yngvadottir counters by pointing out that a change in variety of English should apply to the whole article and title, and needs to have RM discussion consensus[58].

May 26, 2011: More accusations of anti-American sentiment

About a month later DTXBrian (talk · contribs) cites support for "yogurt" in British and International dictionaries, and adds, "The insistence of "yoghurt" over "yogurt" smacks of elitism and absolute ignorance. Either there is, as has been pointed out, a considerable anti-American sentiment amongst the editors of this site, or there is a fierce effort by culinary elitists in an attempt to alienate regular people.". [59]

May 27, 2011: B2C argues conflict would be resolved with move to Yogurt

The next day Born2cycle (talk · contribs) suggests that the problem of the regular challenging to the title per the good argument of WP:COMMONNAME would be immediately resolved if the article were moved to the common name, Yogurt, which could not be objected with any good argument. [60].

June 27, 2011: debate about common name and anti-Americanism continues

Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) responds to DTXBrian's 5/26 comment by saying that dictionaries are descriptive, and cites a 1993 prescriptive source that recommends "yoghurt", adding that "it is still only in America that the g spelling is the preferred one. " [61].

Kai445 (talk · contribs) counters by citing international yogurt manufacturers that all use "yogurt" and notes, "saying "only in America" is blatantly false, and smacks of simply anti-Americanism as previously alluded to." [62]

Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) discounts Webster's, WP:GOOGLE and marketing labels as not being "valid basis". He also claims WP:ENGVAR support "yoghurt" because "yoghurt" "is a good compromise solution". [63]

Born2cycle (talk · contribs) notes that the continuing debate indicates there is "no consensus" for "Yoghurt", that there may or may not be consensus for "Yogurt", but the only way to find out is to move the article to Yogurt. [64]

September 15, 2011-October 27 2011: RM #7

Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs) proposes moving the article to Yogurt [65], though without actually listing at WP:RM. Discussion proceeds for a month, includes the development of a table of arguments in favor of each alternative which shows that the pro-Yogurt arguments clearly dominate, the proposal is RM listed on October 17, and closed on October 27 as no consensus to move by Fish and karate (talk · contribs), who is from the UK, on the grounds that "there are strong arguments in favour of both" [66]. See Talk:Yoghurt/Archive_5#Move_page_to_Yogurt.

September-November 2011

Long discussion about whether the previous close was proper or not on several different grounds.
This history page developed. Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory
New argument section developed based on the one created during the previous RM discussion. Talk:Yogurt/Archive 6#Arguments_regarding_article_title.

November 29, 2011

An IP makes a comment questioning the title[67], the comment is removed by Roux (talk · contribs) with edit summary, "rm garbage" [68], and the removal is reverted by Born2cycle (talk · contribs) with edit summary "Restore comment that typifies reaction of many editors to title since it was changed in 2003 - for every one that comments here there are surely countless readers who react similarly w/o commenting)" [69]. This leads to a discussion and an AN/I, which leads to more discussion there.

December 2-10, 2011 : RM #8 - finally moved to Yogurt, but not without wheel-warring

A new move proposal started by SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) and formally filed as RM #8 at Move page to yogurt by Berean Hunter (talk · contribs). Both users were previously uninvolved with this issue.

After the proposal was several days old and a dozen or two editors had participated, Philip Baird Shearer (talk · contribs) (now PBS (talk · contribs)) closed the discussion on the grounds that it was too soon after the last one. This led to an edit war (reverting and reclosing the discussion), and even a lock on the talk page by PBS, which led to him being blocked by another admin. All this was discussed in an AN/I which brought more attention, editors, and support to the proposal. Soon the discussion clearly achieved a strong consensus in favor of moving the article to Yogurt, and it was so moved, finally, on December 10, 2011, nine years to the day since the article was created, as Yogurt.

2012-2024 (and counting)

No contoversy.

The End.

(hopefully)