Talk:Ivory Coast/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Move review

A move review has been started there: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2012_July_10 Laurent (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Since a move review was started, the template {{mrv}} should be added at the top of the article page Ivory Coast, per WP:MRV step 4. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 05:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Although that message tells people the page can be edited yet it is in fact fully protected so may confuse people a bit. BritishWatcher (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"Officially"

What does "officially" mean in this context? If two possibilities are both said to be "official", what's the real official? The English-language version of the constitution gives the name of the country as, "Republic of Côte d’Ivoire",[1] i.e. neither of them. This is a WP:PEACOCK word that means nothing except, "Pay attention! The next word is important." Kauffner (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support the intro saying, Ivory Coast officially the Republic of Côte d’Ivoire. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me; the wording is tricky, b/c the government has stated that the official name is Cote d'Ivoire, but the official full name is Republic of Cote d'Ivoire. But if it really irks editors to have two names in the title, then British Watcher's solution seems fine. I do note that many many articles (such as United Kingdom) have multiple bolded names in the first sentence. And officially is an incredibly common adjective in the first line of the sentence. I don't know why Kauffner is up in arms over it. Look at Sweden, Germany, China, I could go on and on... --KarlB (talk) 12:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like he's "up in arms" over it. He has stated guidelines that it should be limited to two names or it gets messy. "Policy" actually says that if there are multiple alternate names, even if it's a simple spelling difference, they Must be present, but more than two should have a separate section to talk about it. As for officially, just pick one that everyone agrees is the most official by sourcing, and then handle all others (and the original two) in the name section below. That's the way it's supposed to be regardless of how other country articles do it. I would have it Ivory Coast and Cote d'Ivoire in the lead, where our readers get hit with the two most used choices right off the bat, but the official name up there at the top is ok too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For other country articles, the "officially" name is typically the one in the English-language version of the constitution. I don't care for this convention myself, and it isn't supported by any guideline. But if we can't stop the "officially" infestation, at least the word should be used same way here as it is in other similar articles. It should not be used in the sense of, "the name I wish was the title." Kauffner (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

cote d'ivoire is the official, short-form version (see CIA world factbook for examplem or [2]). A country can have two "official" names. Also I don't know why you refer to the use of the word "officially" in probably 150 country articles as an infestation.--KarlB (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

By that logic, the Germany article should open, "Germany, officially Germany".[3] OK, everyone knows that Germany is "Germany". But there is a lot of confusion about which names are official for Greece and Ireland. This could be clarified with openings such as, "Greece, officially Greece,"[4] or "Republic of Ireland, officially Ireland".[5] As these examples show, even when opening in this format conveys useful information, it still looks unprofessional. Here it is just repetitious. If 150 articles do it a particular way, isn't that a reason to follow the same format here? Kauffner (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, on Ireland, I would support exactly that phrasing (given the location of the page), and even proposed it recently. However, the Irish editors are also very particular, and will not tolerate the article starting with anything but Ireland. The rest of your examples don't' really move the discussion forward.--KarlB (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Folks, what cannot be omitted from the discussion is the term Ivoirité. In short, the Cote d'Ivoire is a multiethnic country, and to get on top of the ethnic divisions, back then President Bédié tried to unite the nations of his country under the banner of the shared French colonial heritage. With the civil war and the conflict between the poor Muslim Nort, including migrants from Mali and Burkina Faso anbd the better off Christian South this term has now take on a different slant, meaning "true" Ivoriens united against economic refugees. But Ivoirité remains, hence the insistence that the country be called by its French name. Note that Foreign Offices all over the world follow this usage. Now Wikipedia doesn't, and it's reasonable to assume that that is because it's out of ignorance. 128.226.130.21 (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have an opinion; it's a dynamic that ends in a reflection of the current consensus of a set of editors. The name was proposed to be changed 6 or 7 times in the history of this article, each time leading to no consensus. At last, it was overturned, but even that decision is likely to be questioned at a move review. So the story is not over.--KarlB (talk) 23:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If someone has given a reason not to follow WP:LEAD#Separate_section_usage, I missed it: "Once such a section [Names] or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead." By my count, that means one English-language name in the opening (Ivory Coast), plus the local language official name (République de Côte d'Ivoire). Putting "Côte d'Ivoire" twice in same sentence is also poor style. Kauffner (talk) 05:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Since "Côte d'Ivoire" is the diplomatic name, République de Côte d'Ivoire is the local language constitutional name, and "Republic of Côte d'Ivoire" the English-language constitutional name, any of these can be considered "the official name". The word is a empty vessel and tells the reader nothing. Kauffner (talk) 03:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Cote d'Ivoire is the official english short-form version of the name, period. I don't know what diplomatic name means - did you just make that up? --KarlB (talk) 03:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What happened to using the Germany article as a model? That article opens, "Germany (/ˈdʒɜːrməni/ ^ⓘ), officially the Federal Republic of Germany". Kauffner (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Name section

To the people letting this spill over into the "Name" section of the article: You need to read the encyclopaedia, not write it. That section really is talking about the name Côte d'Ivoire as used by French-speaking merchants in the 15th and later centuries. Your back and forth over the article title and lead is one thing. Making the explanation of the names and how they developed incorrect is quite another. The French-speaking merchants spoke French. Uncle G (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. The section (added recently by Uncle G btw) does a great job of explaining where the name came from, but as he notes, the initial name given by europeans was a french one.--KarlB (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, but the section talks equally about French and Portuguese explorers - it doesn't say which came first. And English writers used "Ivory Coast" at least as early as 1691 - see here. It is an excellently written section - I just think it is appropriate for it to match the article title - whatever that title is. Dohn joe (talk) 22:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a foolish idea. It doesn't talk about English explorers, and what it's talking about is specifically the name Côte d'Ivoire, as well as the other names. Don't sacrifice correctness for some idiosyncratic idea of style. Uncle G (talk) 22:45, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I removed the offending phrase. See what you think of the rewording. Dohn joe (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That was a bad idea too. You've made things worse, since now the encyclopaedia doesn't explain that that's the origin. There's no actual "offending phrase" here, at all, only some foolish editors who think that a title/lead dispute should spill over into prose that is actually about a specific French name, several French names indeed, rendering that prose either incorrect or incomplete. Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think if you re-read the first two sentences, they make perfect sense given that they come directly under the heading "Names". I'd love to hear what other editors think, though. Dohn joe (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I for one agree with Uncle G on this. The whole thing was driven by a desire to change all Cote d'ivoire to ivory coast w/o thinking much about the implications. Your subsequent redrafting has not improved things; the sentence was perfectly fine as it was.--KarlB (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

And I agree with Dohn. The original motivation for the change is irrelevant. What matters is the result. The fact is that the area was called "ivory coast" in whatever language was being used to refer to it at the time because of the ivory trade there. It doesn't matter that it was mostly French and so mostly/usually literally Côte d'Ivoire. Portuguese references were Costa do Marfim and English references, when they were made, were Ivory Coast. This section is about how and why that area got that name.

Like I said in my edit summary comments, we use the modern English "Moscow" (rather than "Moskva" or "Москва") in the history section about that city. Similarly, we should use the modern English spelling of this topic in this section, as reflected in the title.

As a point of comparison, I note no similar references to Côte d'Ivoire on the Portuguese Wikipedia page about this topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:40, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Moscow is an exonym but Côte d'Ivoire is an endonym. See Exonym and endonym Agathoclea (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

• I,would like to suggest that everyone calm down and take a few days to discuss things before the page name dispute morphs into a full-blown content dispute/edit war. To male it easier for you all to do that I have protected the page for two days. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course the name used in the running text should correspond to the title. I am astonished that anyone would dispute this. Does the name issue really need to be re-argued for each and every section of the article? Even with economic statistics, you could play this same game: "That's a UN stat for Côte d'Ivoire! It is OR for Wiki to claim that the GDP figure for Ivory Coast is the same." Kauffner (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The proper name of place or people is not supposed to be translated

Who says it's fine to translate Côte d'Ivoir into Ivory Coast? The proper name helps the people easily recognize who or where that object is. So why would you guy translate the proper name into a definitely different pronunciation? Would you want your own name to be changed when you arrived to a foreign country?Wilson20072000 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What about Germany and Deutschland? Perhaps China should be moved to Zhongguo or even 中国. Kauffner (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah it's crazy! translating names like that. (see US in other wikis! : | Deutsch -goes to disambig page, | in Español, | French version -a translation! | Italian. Why are these wikis translating and redirecting? R. Baley (talk) 07:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

You can write the proper name of any foreign object in your native language but you are not supposed to make change to its own pronunciation. Ex: Côte D'Ivoir can be written in english as : Cote de Voir; Chinese : 古德涡。 Vietnamese :Cốt Đi Voa. I am a trilingual of those languages and I know how to write the name in those language without altering its own pronunciation. How would you legally change the other people or place's name? If your name was John, (also means restroom), would you want the Chinese to call you 洗手间( xi shou jian) when you arrived to China? It's very absurd to translate proper name into another language! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilson20072000 (talk • contribs) 08:56, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The specific person or place should have the uni-calling sound to their name, If each country had their own way of calling a specific person or place, then the world would have countless name and people would get crazy with this. Wilson20072000 (talk) 09:12, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is not if Côte d'Ivoir gets translated into English but if it gets used in the English language, which it does. There are many cases of non-English places having an English exonym (Munich or Moscow) which trumps the official name as that one is rarely used in English language literature. In relativly unkown places on the other hand we don't make up translations or use rarely used ones. In fact many exonyms are only used in historic context. The issue here is different as CdI gets used in English high quality sources the argument is which English usage shall take preverence. If the MR does not fix the current situation we most likely have to move to Ivory Coast (country) as the area traditionally called Ivory Coast is larger than the country. Agathoclea (talk) 09:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ivory Coast is the commonname of this country in the English language, however apparently that sort of thing nolonger matters on this place and we must worry about being seen as colonialists and be sensitive to government opinions among other things so the article name may be changed back. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

And yes i suggest people go and look at the foreign language wikipedias.. and see what names they use to title articles such as the United States of America, United Kingdom etc. They put those names in their own language, rather than our English language. its also strange that if you look at the foreign langguage wikis for ivory coast, many do not put the French language name, they put it in their own. The country's government can dictate what the official country name is, but it has no right to impose a french word on the english language. Im sorry but Côte d'Ivoire (which i cant even type on my keyboard) is NOT an English language word, no matter what appeasers say it is. BritishWatcher (talk)

I recommend reading Exonym and endonym. And as far as the English language is concerned there isn't really an English language, everything in it has been stolen from other languages. Agathoclea (talk) 09:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Ivory Coast is the english language name of this country, it is not the official name, it is the commonname which is what wikipedia is meant to go by. Most articles are not at their official names on wikipedia and many are at completely different ones, such as North Korea and Burma. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We are not obliged to use the "Official" name here just because it's official, same thing goes for the Derry article. --Τασουλα (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

@ BritishWatcher, In many cases many foreign languages are anglicized for easy spelling and calling because sometimes their alphabets are so uniquely uncommon that we are unable to read such as Chinese, Tibet, Cambodian, Korean...That's why they must be anglicized. I wouldn't force you to type French characters or any foreign characters like Cambodian, Bangladesh,...to indicate their names, but the issue here is that we are supposed to anglicize them but not translate them. Why wouldn't the flower "Dent De lion" be called "teeth of Lion" in English but Dendelion? In english there are no symbols like Frence, so we can type Cote De Ivoir, what on earth would matter? Wilson20072000 (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

We should not have to type cote d'ivoir and we certainly should not have to try and type something that is not even possible on our keyboard,, it highlights why this is not the right name to be using for the English language wiki. it is not the just the case that ivory coast is the translation of the french name, its the english language name for the country, known for decades and remaining the common name for the country. Go and look at some foreign language wikipedias, you will see many dont put the french spelling of this country, intead they translate it to their own language. And that applies to most country. we wont find "United Kingdom" or "United States" on many foreign language wikipedias because they use their own language translations. Thats the whole point of these different wikis existing. I fail to see why the English speaking world should have to deal with a french language name we cant even type correctly. and for many people they re surprised to see the french name on here, it has to be one of the few exceptions and the change that has taken place was a good one. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you want to read an article about a foreign subject but your keyboard doesn't have the right letters, that's exactly what we have redirects for. Redirects are cheap. bobrayner (talk) 09:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

@Kauffner,

This has to be re-examined to see which etymological name was invented first. I don't think the cognomen Germany has anything to do with Deutchsland in respect of meaning, neither is it a translation nor does germany have any certain definition. In this case I strongly believe that the people called it Germany because of the impression of something memorable such as a name of a King, historic event at the age when the name of this nation hadn't been stably united. Maybe the name germany derived from another ancient language. Then later after the stable settlement the germans gained stability from everythings and the new founder or their population renamed it Deutchsland since then. However the world had already been accustomed with the name germany so they just kept calling this nation Germany so far. Wilson20072000 (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• FFS people: the ENGLISH name of the country is Cote d'Ivoire. Period. The article title discussion only convinced the closing admin of the most used name in order to have the article at that name. You cannot translate a name into English then say that's the English name. For example, when someone named John goes to Russia, they should not call him Ivan. Do not make the error in logic that the country name in English is something other than Cote d'Ivoire. As such, all maps of Africa, etc, may continue to use its English name: Cote d'Ivoire. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming Ivory Coast is the official name of the country, but it is the common name of the country in the English language, not that french name most of us cannot even type on our keyboards. Go and look at foreign wikipedias and see where they put country articles, you will see most dont use the english names of our countries, they use their ow language version. I fail to see why we cannot do the same. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The keyboard argument is quite silly. Do you have difficulty spelling resumé or naïve or fiancė? No one really cares that you havent figured out how to type accents, and with redirects it doesnt matter anyways. Agree with revert by bwilkins - the official name in english is Côte d'Ivoire, and that has nothing to do with keyboards or cherrypicked newspaper figures. --KarlB (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason it should be ivory coast is because its the commonname, that is down to the sources. The keyboard thing is an annoying side issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In some cases the generally accepted English name of a location is a translation of how it is known to most of its inhabitants e.g. Saint Petersburg/Sankt-Peterburg, Cape Town/Kaapstad, East Timor/Timor-Leste, Mexico City/Ciudad de México, Ho Chi Minh City. PatGallacher (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Also it is relevant that most people, English speakers at least, are not familiar with how to enter accents on a keyboard. If a word of foreign origin, including a place name, is assimilated into English it tends to lose any accents, which is why most people would write fiance, and naïve and México would definitely be seen as affectations. What about resumé? Maybe that's one reason a lot of people would say c.v.. It has been pointed out that we are not just writing for English native speakers on the English Wikipedia. I would argue that this is an argument for Ivory Coast, because French is widely taught in British schools a lot of British people know at least a smattering of French, and can translate Côte d'Ivoire, but this does not apply in e.g. India. If Côte d'Ivoire ever does become clearly assimilated into English it will probably lose the circumflex along the way, and this version of the name is already used in some contexts in Wikipedia e.g. category "Cote d'Ivoire articles by quality". PatGallacher (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We're writing an encyclopedia, not a populist chronicle of poor spellings. I'm sorry but I have zero patience with people who complain about not being able to type accents on their keyboard - no-one asked you to! And if you think typing accents is difficult, try learning latex! Shall we dumb down all the mathematics articles like Integral_calculus because many people don't know latex? If you can't write accents, then just leave those article titles to people who can. Any modern operating system makes this extremely easy - google character map if you use windows. On an ipad or blackberry it's even easier to do accents. And in spite of any claims to the contrary, english has lots of words that are properly spelled with diacritics; besides resumé even words like cooperate can be spelled coöperate; and in older books you will sometimes see rôle. There are probably 100M english speakers in Nigeria - how many of them do you think would recognize Côte d'Ivoire, which is close by? You may find these articles useful: [6] or [7]. I hate to rain on your parade but it *is* already clearly assimilated into english. Try searching "Cote d'Ivoire" at AllAfrica.com, major news aggregator for Africa, and compare that to Ivory Coast. The world is not just BBC and NY Times.--KarlB (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"The world is not just BBC and NY Times." No, but actual usage in the English speaking world, which is what users of the English WP are likely to find recognizable and natural, is much better reflected by the BBC and NY Times than by AllAfrica. It's not our job to decide what's "correct" usage. To determine how to name our articles to best serve our readers, we follow the lead of the leading English newspapers, like the BBC and NY Times. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:48, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The chauvinism demonstrated by that comment (and others) really just stuns and saddens me. You do realize there are more english-speakers in India and China than the US and the UK? And while I realize you really *wish* what you said above was true, it's not - we have no guidance that says we prefer NY times over OED or Encyclopedia Brittanica, and no policy that says BBC News trumps the Economist. I'm sorry, but you're continued wishing and hoping for a world where we decide everything based on a few big western news sources (and that trumps books and journals and encyclopedias and dictionaries) is not policy and likely won't ever be. I suggest reading WP:IRS and trying to understand what it means.--KarlB (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Karl.brown, native speakers of English have priority of place in determining common English usage. We do not go to the German Wikipedia and insist that people in the US who speak some German as a second language have more standing than the native speakers in Germany. Of course not. You claim that we're being chauvinist, but you simply don't think through the ramifications of what you have written in your passion to reinstate the French name of Ivory Coast. It's silly to claim that because the population of China has a little knowledge of English that their usage supersedes that of American and British native speakers. There simply is no substitute for native speakers in determining common English usage. To think that ESL speakers in Beijing count more than native speakers in Detroit or Glasgow is simply ludicrous. --Taivo (talk) 03:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Taivo, I'm worried about you - that was the single most dumb thing I have ever seen you write - even considering your edit to remove stuff. I honestly thought much higher of you. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 03:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(1) I never said ESL in Beijing count *more*; I'm only making the claim that they count! note to self: If hiring a linguistics expert to help compile an english-language dictionary, don't hire Taivo. Wow. I agree with Bwilkins. Have you ever *been* to Kenya, or Jamaica, or India, or Pakistan, or Singapore, or any number of other places where lots of people speak English that is different than what you're used to or read in your linguistics journals? Please, I'd love to hear more about this "common English usage" you speak of. Is it mostly determined by you? Or is there a secret cabal which decides? Me, I prefer to trust the professionals: you know, those guys who do things like, make dictionaries of the English language (but I guess you don't trust them, because they put words like Cote d'Ivoire in their dictionaries - the horror!). But in your system, which countries are deemed worthy to join the common english council? Is there a committee a country can join? Can we nominate countries from below the equator, or of a different color than us, or is it only USA and the UK and a few other close friends that get to decide? I've seen some Mike Leigh movies, and if you call what they speak in northern England common english, well I guess I'm not as fluent as I thought I was! Also, we need to make sure to notify the 250 million ESL speakers in China and the ~120 million english speakers across Africa and the untold number of Indian and Pakistani and Sri Lankan english speakers that they, and the things they might do and say in the future, don't *count* as much as what guys in Detroit do and say when it comes to English. They should be put on notice, because they may be sneaky and try to change the language anyway (some of these sneaky fellows end up becoming writers and journalists and even linguists! - but we mustn't let them, because they're not native. English is now an international language, used for business, commerce, entertainment, and so on, all over the world, and there are speakers of English in probably every country. I don't think many other languages can claim that. en.Wikipedia is for english speakers, not native english speakers. If you have policy-based evidence to the contrary, it would be most welcome.--KarlB (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing dumb at all about my comment, gentlemen. Native speakers have priority on the usage in the language over second language users. That is true of every language. If you want to write a grammar and dictionary of X language, you don't go to the next community over and talk to people who only know the language as a second language. No, it's basic linguistic honesty to go to the community where the language is spoken by native speakers and work with native speakers. All other speakers are ignored in terms of what they have to offer a linguist who is describing a language. If I were to go to one of my neighbors, who went to a Latin American country on an LDS mission, and tried to write a grammar of Spanish based on his second-language usage, I'd be laughed out of the field. This is so axiomatic, I can't even imagine how the two of you can justify making the comments you have made about it, other than trying your best to downplay the use of native speaker sources for determining most common English usage for the purpose of pushing the French name of this country. ESL African, Chinese, Indian, Singaporean, Kazakhstani, etc. sources are all of far less value in determining common English usage than sources from native speech communities. That is simply axiomatic in linguistics and your attempts to belittle that simple fact only illustrates the effort you are willing to put forth to get your French name reinstated as the title of this article. Sorry gents, but your comments really are POV pushing at its finest. --Taivo (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, now I think you are perhaps actually trolling us, right? "All other speakers are ignored in terms of what they have to offer a linguist who is describing a language." What?? Try reading this [8]. Or this [9]:

The legacy of colonial englishes has resulted in the existence of several transplanted varieties of English having distinct linguistic ecologies - their own contexts of function and usage. These non-native varieties have, in turn, brought about changes in the native varieties of english and have also resulted in numerous sociolinguistic, linguistic, and literary questions being posed which have rarely been asked about English before. In recent years such questions have been discussed in several conferences and colloquia, in various types of publications, and in specialized journals devoted to English in the world context.

and in any case, we're building an encyclopedia for the world of english speakers, not writing a grammar of "correct" english usage, however defined; wikipedia is not a linguistic exercise, and we don't have to maintain some sort of queens-english purity. Your comparison to someone taking a trip to Latin America to use of english in a place like India would be laughable if it wasn't so sad given it comes from someone who presumably has a PhD in this subject. --KarlB (talk) 05:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, Karl.brown, your characterization of the influence of second language speakers on English is very well copied, but you don't understand the difference between describing the past influence of second language speakers and the description of the contemporary language. No one is talking about "queen's-english purity", we are talking about common usage being determined by what native speakers use and not non-native speakers whose proficiency in the language varies from "me love you long time" to near-native fluency. Your personal attacks are simply that, unfounded personal attacks from someone whose knowledge of linguistics is probably minimal. There is a difference between "X word in English is borrowed from Y language" (generally through the medium of second language speakers in either direction) and "X word is the commonly used term for Y" (which is a native speaker issue). I'm not going to continue this line simply because you are doing nothing more than pushing your French name POV for Ivory Coast and not for the purpose of an honest discussion here. It's clear that no argument will sway you from your outrage over the move of this article from its French title to an English title, so I could say the sky is blue and you would contradict that if you thought it forwarded your agenda. --Taivo (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I have checked Phillip's World Atlas, both the 1999 and 2000 editions, it does use Ivory Coast. Whitaker's Almanack does use Cote d'Ivoire (can't remember if it has the circumflex) but it also uses e.g. Timor-Leste, Republic of Korea and Democratic People's Republic of Korea which we have all rejected. I raised this with one person I know who I think is fairly educated, he thought that Ivory Coast was the normal name in English and in Britain. Though I think this confirms the points some of us were making, that Cote d'Ivoire is by no means universal among atlases and similar reference works, it does have a certain currency among some reference works and official bodies, but these are the sort of bodies who tend to use official names like Republic of Korea which everybody knows are not the common name in English. (You can also get the problem that some people will write Cote D'Ivoire or Cote D'ivoire, there are more variant spellings than I care to think about.) PatGallacher (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So very true. If wikipedia used official names for countries i would 100% accept that this article should be at the french language name as its the only one with official status. But almost all wikipedia articles are not. In particular the ones you mention, along with Burma being probably the closest case to this one. But even things like the French Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States of America, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. None of these are at their full official names. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can I just ask, in my capacity as an uninvolved admin, what the point of this conversation is? You've had six move requests and a move review which is still underway. There is, as far as I can see, no reason to be having another argument about the name here now , espescially considering that the move review has essentially been turned into requested move number seven as well as a review of my close. If you enjoy endless circular debate by all means keep sniping at one another as you have been until all hope of having any sort of productive discssion has gone by the wayside.

I would suggest that a much more constructive use of everyone's time would be to draft an RFC on the broader issue of what to do with the whole family of articles on this nation would be abetter idea? It needs to be done regardless of the result of the move review and it would be a chance to involve new voices in this debacle instead of the same few users endlessly debating the same points.

There is also a third option should that not appeal to all of you: STFU. Not optimal but better than what is going on here now. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

"Uninvolved admin"? Beebz, it was your most gigantic fuckup on Wikipedia ever that created not only the move review, but this conversation. You screwed up, badly, and this is what happens when such a horrid, non-policy-based supervote occurs. You've backed this article up for years to come. As someone who has been an uninvolved admin (I came in during a previous move request), you've left me to continually clean up and monitor the mess you created. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Screwed up so badly the founder of wikipedia agreed with Beeblebrox close? Also note the joke of a review which started out more like a lynchmob is now far more split, with most of the recent contributors agreeing with the close.. and several of those who said overturn doing so on a false premise which has been proven inaccurate. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

B, I know you don't like my close but it was an administrative decision. I couldn't care less what this article is called. However it is obvious my point on the futility of this conversation has not had the desired effect so I will leave all of you to continue debating how many Ivorians can dance on the head of a pin.Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Yawn. The country is mostly known as the Ivory coast in English. This is the English-Language Wikipedia. Put two and two together, I know it's hard but it might help. --85.210.105.18 (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what's weird about this conversation? Did anyone mention what the people in China that speak English say when they ask about this country in English? Darryl from Mars (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence

The absurdity of this page's current title notwithstanding, in keeping in line with similar articles, the first sentence should read, "Côte d'Ivoire, officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire, and commonly known as Ivory Coast...". As it stands now it is incorrect. "Officially Côte d'Ivoire" is wrong. It is officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire. (And no, it is not "République de Côte d'Ivoire", as that is it's official name in French.) I realize that at this point it may be a tough sell to move "Ivory Coast" from its newfound place, but can we at least get the official name of the nation correct? Joefromrandb (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

actually, Cote d'Ivoire is also the official name; it is just the shorter version of the official name. However, earlier attempts to put Cote d'Ivoire into the opening sentence more than twice were reverted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There's also not an official way to start country articles on WP. Sometimes we start with an official name: East Timor, North Korea. More often we start with a short or unofficial name: South Africa, Germany, Tonga, Venezuela, India.... In fact, the more I look at it, it seems that WP starts with a short or unofficial name upwards of 80-90% of the time, matching the article title. So maybe here we do: "Ivory Coast, officially Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (French: République de Côte d'Ivoire)"? Does that work? Dohn joe (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Joefromrandb (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be only one English-language name in the opening, plus the local language official name, per WP:LEAD#Separate_section_usage. So the article should open something like "Ivory Coast (French: République de Côte d'Ivoire)...." Various names can be considered "official", so I think the word is unhelpful. In the other country articles, the "officially" name is generally the country's English-language long-form constitutional name. In this case, that would be "Republic of Côte d'Ivoire". Kauffner (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

How about along the format of "Ivory Coast (French: Côte d'Ivoire) officially Republic of Côte d'Ivoire.... BritishWatcher (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we replace the word "officially" with "formally"? The shortform Côte d'Ivoire has explicit endorsement from the government, which makes formal more accurate (less ambiguous) for the long name in this situation, despite the fact that usually they can be used interchangeably. CMD (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Formally would work yes. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I still disagree with removing Côte d'Ivoire from the lead; as shown in the move review, there are thousands upon thousands of news sources and books and dictionaries that use Cote d'Ivoire (not the long form) to describe the country, and this is the official short-form name of the country, in all languages, so to try to remove it now from the lead is the height of silliness. Republic of Cote d'Ivoire can be in the info box, or later on in the article, but for now I think the lead is quite reasonable. I would prefer the lead start with Cote d'Ivoire, mentioning Ivory Coast as a common name - Joe's change above seems reasonable, formally being a fine replacement as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this starting Cote D'Ivoire, it should start Ivory Coast and then say cote d'ivoire. How about.. "Ivory Coast officially Côte D'Ivoire and formally Republic of Côte D'Ivoire (French: République de Côte d'Ivoire) is a..." Or simply do not mention Republic name in the intro and leave it in the infobox. But it should be Ivory Coast first, then saying officially/formally etc. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why do we need "officially" or "formally"? They are both just peacock words in the sentence above. It reads fine without them: "Ivory Coast, also Côte D'Ivoire or Republic of Côte D'Ivoire (French: République de Côte d'Ivoire), is a..." The bigger problem is that there are five names for the same thing in this sentence. It's supposed be an article, not a list. Let's keep it simple: "Ivory Coast (French: Côte d'Ivoire) is a..." Kauffner (talk) 13:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Currently, there are 3, not 5, names in the lead - the informal/colloquial usage, the formal short-form name, and the formal long form name in the language of the country. Again, you've made this accusation before that officially is a peacock word; it is not, at least not by any definition of peacock I'm familiar with. The official short-form name of the country is clear, as attested by numerous sources. The fact that English WP has chosen to retitle this article does not change that fact. The problem, which people can't seem to get their heads around, is that there are two common names for this country in the English language, and one of them happens to be the official name. One. Two. Get it? This is different than most other countries in the world, which don't have this odd situation. I repeat, Côte d'Ivoire is an English Name. It has now entered the English Language, in the same way that Costa Rica or Sierra Leone or Los Angeles has entered the English language as a place name. It's as English as apple pie, no matter what some editors believe or wish to be true. And, since Côte d'Ivoire is used by thousands of sources, it should be mentioned, prominently, in the lead, not hidden or downplayed as some sort of foreign-language term. It's not.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not see the problem with saying officially. part of the reason why i support it starting Ivory Coast first inline with the title is so that it can then go on to say officially Cote d'ivoire. Alternatively to using formally would simply be to say.. officially Cote d'ivoire and (or maybe or) republic of Cote D'ivoire. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

If "Côte d'Ivoire" is considered an English-language name, the guideline stipulates one English-language name in the opening, as I have pointed out multiple times already. I did not remove "Côte d'Ivoire" from the opening, but only "officially". The usage in this article is quite different from the way the word officially is used in the leads of our other country articles. IMO, it is being put in as RM jockeying. It's a sly way of saying, "This is what the title should really be." An article should not argue with itself, or with its title. Kauffner (talk) 23:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems like it would be nicer, more compact and simple to use "Ivory Coast (or Côte d'Ivoire)" without the officially stuff. Per policy if there are two significant names they should be mentioned in the lead per alternate names. But if there are three or more, while they still need to be mentioned, it should be done in the separate "name" section so they can be handled more thoroughly. Three or more versions in the lead starts to look a bit messy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

From my perspective, this is probably a case where you might be better served by IAR and finding a readable and agreeable opening sentence rather than focusing on guidelines and other articles. And it's perfectly acceptable if the 'officially' name isn't the name of the article, there's nothing official about Wikipedia. Darryl from Mars (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

What's is the benefit of "officially" as opposed to "also"? Kauffner (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

At a glance? It appears to be accurate information. 'also' is, of course, similarly true, but less precise. Unless you would argue the two names are entirely equivalent; then informing the readers of the salient difference isn't too costly. Darryl from Mars (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Adds a tad more information, but potentially confusing considering the usual use of official. I say we go with also and leave the name section to explain everything. I note that South Korea doesn't note the shortform is officially "Korea" at all in its lead. CMD (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have never edited this article or commented on this talk page before, but I have read the above discussion and I would like to suggest the following for the opening sentence:

Ivory Coast (/ˌaɪvəri ˈkoʊst/ ^ⓘ) or Côte d'Ivoire (/ˌkoʊt dɪˈvwɑːr/ ^ⓘ; French: [kot d‿ivwaʁ]), officially the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire (French: République de Côte d'Ivoire), is a country...

This suggestion is coming from a fresh and attempted impartial perspective. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem supporting that although it would be easier to avoid including the listen parts, BritishWatcher (talk) 09:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this not just an issue of the use of an exonym and endonym? Since the term is French and this isn't the French Wikipedia, then if this changes I respectfully request that all references to German be changed to Deutschland, Spain to España (accent included) and several other English exonyms to their native endonyms. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles

BTW, the only RD's from the short French name with articles are now Côte d'Ivoire (3,500 articles), Côte d’Ivoire (100), and Cote d'Ivoire (200). All other formats have been RD'd. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

...who knew that one fuckup in one move decision would lead to an encyclopedia-wide purge. Ridiculous. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Art

Although this article includes an external link to Commons media, for some reason one cannot navigate to images of Ivory Coast art from there. Please include the following link→

— It would also be great if there were a gallery with a few select items from that page - see also→

.  ~Regards, ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

The horse has been beaten to death with an ivory stick, let's let it be.

The move review was closed as no consensus. I would strongly suggest that everyone involved up to now in thos naming dispute give it a good long rest and not initiate any requested moves or other such discussions for a while. Doing so now is extremely unlikely to be a productive use of anyone's time. When a few months have passed I strongly reccomend a more comprehensive discussion of what to do with the whole family of articles on this subject rather than another discussion of what to name one single article. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is to create a separate page where people can go to discuss the name (and which those who are not interested can ignore) as was done at Kiev with Talk:Kiev/naming? It has helped focus the talk page on more productive endeavors. --Taivo (talk) 08:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I would support some form of Ivory Coast collaboration group being setup where we discuss about fixing the MoS and replacing all use of the french language name to the English common name Ivory Coast across the English language wikipedia.We need that fundamental discussion, the right outcome has now been reached on this articles name, and so further corrections are needed in the future. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Now this article title has been confirmed, at the very least the whole of the article should be gone through to replace Cote d'ivoire with Ivory Coast (except where it is referencing official name etc). BritishWatcher (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, The name should be changed as Cote Divoir in English. Would you translate Phnom Penh into English as Penh's Hill? The proper name is not supposed to mean of anything, but it's supposed to locate a place, to specify a person. Would you call ShenZhen Deep Ditch? Do you guy know what the world is talking about Wiki? They say that Wiki is NEVER a trustworthy source, it just states what their wikipedians think. Please let things be the way they are. People never expect to understand what any name means but they expect to understand what and where it is. Don't rename another father's son. I demand to Anglicize as Cote Divoir.Wilson20072000 (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should indeed create a separate talk page, but not just to discuss the name of this particular article, but all the Côte d'Ivoire-related articles. Some of them cannot possibly be renamed to ivry coat because that's simply not the correct name. That includes the name of the national football team, the name of the country at the UN, the name of the Olympics team and certainly more. All these name changes need to be discussed. Laurent (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, let's remember: the only argument that "won" is for the title of the article on the English Wikipedia to be "Ivory Coast". There was no formal renaming of the country to "Ivory Coast", and as such, replacing the country name anywhere else is not appropriate (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:26, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This articles text should reflect the title. It makes no sense to have the french language name throughout. Clearly the official name of the country is still cote d'ivoire.. and should state that, but the rest of the article should reflect the title surely? BritishWatcher (talk) 11:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)7

The names section of the article for example clearly needs to use the french language name, where it is specifically talking about its naming in French. But why would that be needed in many other parts of the article? BritishWatcher (talk)

Perhaps BritishWatcher is unaware that key sources continue to use the name "Côte d'Ivoire"; renaming this page does not change that. For instance, this absurd, ignorant, mass search-and-replace created a new title "Establishment of Ivory Coast" even though the source calls it "Establishment of Côte d'Ivoire". I tried reverting to what the source actually says, but BritishWatcher just hit thr revert button. Forget what the sources say; all mentions of Côte d'Ivoire must be removed except a grudging nod to the official name at the start! (We've also invented a new official name, "Republic of Côte d'Ivoire"; you won't find that spelling on www.gouv.ci... ). bobrayner (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I left many mentions of Cote D Ivoire in the article, such as the whole naming section. If we are going to strictly go by what sources say, then everytime there is a news story it will usually be the Ivory Coast name used as its from sources such as the BBC. I didnt touch the republic of Cote d Ivoire bit either, that was already there. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Im fine with that starting officially Ivory Coast, and i think i supported that when this was discussed over a week ago. But with the article title at Ivory Coast, most of the mentions of the country in this article should reflect that title. I doubt the North Korea or Burma articles on dozens of occasions suddenly start using the official name when it is not needed, we are meant to go by common name. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The CIA World Factbook puts - conventional long form: Republic of Cote d'Ivoire conventional short form: Cote d'Ivoire whilst local long form: Republique de Cote d'Ivoire. Also looking at that i see they do not even use the "ô" thing, simply saying cote. BritishWatcher (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The CIA never uses diacritics, I believe they have a policy of only using the basic latin characters found in English. Usability over pointless accuracy I assume, given that it's meant to be a tool for US diplomats and the like. CMD (talk) 08:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

So what's next? Is El Salvador going to be moved to "The Savior"? Las Vegas to "The Meadows"? Wawa, Pennsylvania to "Goose, Pennsylvania"? Actually I guess it would have to be "Goose, Penn's woodlands" under this new convention. Things like these make Wikipedia a laughingstock. Joefromrandb (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

If the NY Times and London Times referred to El Salavore as "The Savior", then, yes, we would probably move it to that name. Same for your other examples. The standard is always the same: common usage in reliable English sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

French does seem to have impacted naming in the fact that there is no "the" before Ivory Coast in most sources. It seems like one of the country names where one would be expected. CMD (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

El Salvador, Las Vegas, Wawa, and Pennsylvania have never been called by any other names in English. Just like on the subject of African countries, Burkina Faso has been known as Burkina Faso in English ever since the country adopted that name; hence we don't call it "Land of Upright Men." Ivory Coast has been know as Ivory Coast in English for centuries, long before it was a French colony and before anyone there ever spoke a word of French. If their government wants to call themselves Côte d'Ivoire, fine. But the rest of the world isn't going to comply with something like that from any country. If the United States government tried to tell the entire world they were no longer allowed to translate the country's name into their own language, they'd be ignored just like the Ivorian government is.71.23.117.168 (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree; better examples are France, Germany, and Italy. Those are the names they are known by among English speakers. Speakers of French, Italian, and German don't name their respective language pages for the United States or Great Britain in English; they use language-specific forms of those names. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

To Exonym or not to exonym that is the question. I think that consistently translating the names of all countries is not the right answer. I mean, if you look at cities, you will notice that some cities have an exonym and some don't. For instance, here in Germany, we got Cologne (Köln), Nuremberg (Nürnberg) and Munich (München). Kiel, however doen't have exonym, it is always Kiel. In fact, I don't know of any German city which has an English exonym that is uncommon to use. I do however, know of cities in Eastern Europe which do have a German exonym: Preßburg (Bratislava), Königsberg (Kaliningrad), Reval (Talinn), Prag (Praha), Warschau (Warszawa). Prag and Warschau are still known by these names in Germany. However, nobody uses to speak of Reval, Königsberg or Preßburg today. Bottomline: You can't say "If there is an exonym, use it".

Then you are saying that the official opinion of a country's government didn't matter at all. I disagree with that. You are ignoring that the names "Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika", "Frankreich" and "Italien" (which are translations) are actually used by officials of the countries in question. For instance, if you look at the license plate of a car which belongs to a member of the US forces in Germany, then you will notice that it carries a seal reading "Streitkräfte der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika in Deutschland". It is true that Germans use to translate the names of France, Italy, the UK and the US to German (as long as they aren't abbreviated). But this is not happening in disregard of any governmental policy. In fact, it is rather consistent with official use. Apparantly most governments want to see the names of their countries translated. Now if Côte d'Ivoire doesn't want to be translated, I don't see a problem with respecting that. I can call China China, refer to Germany as Germany and Côte d'Ivoire is Côte d'Ivoire, where's the problem? Bottom line: We should take the opinion of the goverment of Côte d'Ivoire into account. (This doesn't mean that we always have to do what any random government wants us to do. If Egypt chose to change its name to Macedonia, then I'd suggest that the article about Egypt should stick to calling the country Egypt.)

I think that in this particular case, the article should be moved to "Côte d'Ivoire". If it doesn't get moved, "Netherlands" should be moved to "Holland" for consistency because everybody calls the country Holland and the goverment's opinion doesn't matter. -- 2001:A60:21E6:1E01:F4F7:10B3:829D:3E0 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

"Apparantly most governments want to see the names of their countries translated." Or maybe most governments don't feel that they have the right to try to control what their countries are called in other languages? And as for your "Holland" statement, I haven't heard anyone call the modern country "Holland" in decades.--Khajidha (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

On Dec. 13, 2012, a letter to Pres. Obama from US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice calls it Cote D'Ivoire. Yopienso (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal

Although I was ostensibly hopeless at first, the resolving of the never-ending style debate at Jesus leads me to believe in the possibility of sanity being restored here at some point. This page is currently at "Ivory Coast" because an administrator supervoted based on his decree that "no consensus" was somehow "unacceptable". As it may be a complete waste of time, I figured I'd ask here if there is currently any interest in moving this page back to its correct title (i.e. the country's name) before starting a move proposal. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah... I hadn't checked my watch lately but it must be getting close to our yearly RM. I would say no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:20, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm always interested in correcting one of the biggest cock-ups I've ever seen on Wikipedia. "Ivory Coast" as the title of this article is an embarrassment ES&L 09:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Leave as is. This is what the country is usually called. --Khajidha (talk) 11:21, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking the same as Fyunck when I saw this on my watchlist. This is not "one of the biggest cock-ups" on Wikipedia. Ever worked on articles in the Balkans? Or what to call Ukraine's capital city? This is small potatoes. But nonetheless, it should not be stirred annually and I would say let it lie. A request for move would still end with no consensus at this time. --Taivo (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. Although maybe the closing admin would follow the precedent set by Beeblebrox and supervote it back to its correct title. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That assumes that this ISN'T its correct title. --Khajidha (talk) 13:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Not an assumption; simple truth as proven hundreds of times on this very page ES&L 13:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Really, because I have looked at the archives and saw no proof of this. I saw proof that that is what the government of Ivory Coast says, but I saw no proof that that was in any way beholden on the English language community in general or Wikipedia in particular. --Khajidha (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, so you're starting with your own assumptions, while accusing others of having theirs. Congrats ES&L 14:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly how does this apply to me? Or what proof do you feel that I have missed? I'm not the one who is making flat statements about what is the right or wrong name for this article, I gave my opinion (do not change) and the reason for said opinion (my experience that people actually say Ivory Coast). --Khajidha (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that this brief exchange between Khajidha and EatsShootsAndLeaves is a perfect illustration that there is still no consensus as to what the "Wikipedia-correct" name of this article should be. Without consensus, status quo stands. Do we need to replay this exchange 100 times before we come to the same conclusion in two weeks, or can we clearly see the future in this brief sample and spend our time more productively? --Taivo (talk) 15:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and based on what you say, the article title should never have been changed away from what it was :-) ES&L 16:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

The article belongs where it is under Wikipedia policy. "Ivory Coast" is the common English name of the country. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect. It's the English translation of the formal name of the country. Big difference. ES&L 16:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Common name, as in "what people usually say when they talk about it". Official or unofficial is totally irrelevant to that. --Khajidha (talk) 16:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

EatsShootsAndLeaves, if you have a complaint about the way the last RM was concluded by the admin, then the correct forum for that isn't here, but at ANI. You're getting nowhere here with your sniping. --Taivo (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

"Without consensus the status quo stands." Perhaps you could explain that to Beeblebrox. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That was over a year ago and the time to complain at ANI was then. (I don't know if anyone did nor not.) The current status quo is Ivory Coast and it's been stable for over a year now. --Taivo (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe there was a move review following the move, and Beeblebrox's move was upheld. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. There was a move review because of a challenge, and it was upheld. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

So that's the end of that. Status quo = "Ivory Coast". No consensus for move = status quo. Therefore, we either move on with other things or endure another RM which will still end in no consensus = status quo = "Ivory Coast". --Taivo (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, there hasn't been a single admin-closed WP:RM overturned since WP:MR was created, so that doesn't really mean anything. MR is just another layer of wiki-bureaucracy which has proven useless due to the unwillingness to overturn bad decisions by fellow admins. I do find it amusing how all the supporters of "Ivory Coast" are whining and moaning about another RM more than a year after the last one, when none of the same characters raised any concerns about 4 RM's in the span of 2 years attempting to move the article to Ivory Coast. I guess once you find an admin willing to make a supervote close in the absence of consensus, the only strategy is to silence discussion lest the article be restored to the "title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub" (Côte d'Ivoire) which is what policy actually requires in the absence of consensus. TDL (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Whatever. But as long as this evidence still shows common English usage to favor "Ivory Coast", there aren't any strong arguments in favor of a move at this time. --Taivo (talk) 21:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course, anyone can cherry pick a few sources which happen to align with one's word view that Ivory Coast is more "common" and list them at the top of a RM. It's equally easy to make a table that shows the exact opposite. Hell, I made one here. However, the inconvenient truth is that in addition to the media organizations listed in my table, Google Ngram and nearly all major English-language encyclopedias and dictionaries (Encyclopedia Britannica, Columbia Encyclopedia, The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Oxford dictionary, Cambridge dictionary, Collins dictionary, Google Maps) use "Cote d'Ivoire". Evidently, it seems all the RS are using the wrong "common English" name.... TDL (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

At wiki it's about consensus, not what's right or wrong. Often compromise is reached on a subject where a difference can be split down the middle...in this case it's pretty much an either/or. Look at tennis player Ilie Năstase. ngram, Enc Britannica, the two major tennis organizations, the grand slam events and English press spell it Ilie Nastase. But where does it sit here at wikipedia?... at Ilie Năstase. In fact it is banned on wikipedia to ever use the spelling Ilie Nastase. So this particular naming issue is simply the wikipedia way. Hey at least using Cote d'Ivoire hasn't been censored. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Trust me, I'm well aware of your role in Wikipedia's "Great Diacritic War" (I'm not sure how anyone could not be), so there's no need to repeat your grievances in yet another forum. Of course, decisions are consensus based. But WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE. Given that this was a quite controversial close more than a year ago, I see no reason why a fresh RM shouldn't be held to gauge the current consensus. And obviously the fact that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is irrelevant to the present discussion. TDL (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you now? You'll have to let me know on my talk page what my exact stances are on diacritics. But that's another discussion. You were pointing out that things weren't kosher on this per many sources. I pointed out this isn't the first time that's happened... and I assume it won't be the last time. Wiki is pockmarked with these things. That seemed relevant to me for others viewing this thread. Now this WAS controversial last time, you are certainly correct there. And rm's have been opened in shorter times for lesser controversy to be sure; it's not like it was only two months later. I would oppose a re-opening because I feel it would lead to the same stew. My original comment was to say I don't want to go through it again, but also merely an observation that it looks like we go through this every year or two. I don't think anything will stop that... this article is probably destined to have an rm every so often. The question is, "is this the time?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy dictates that the article be located at its common name in English. See WP:COMMONNAME. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, so then you agree it should be "Côte D'Ivoire"? Joefromrandb (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

No, because the common English name of this country is "Ivory Coast". Rreagan007 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Joefromrandb, it is time for the annual RM, last one was RM, Côte d'Ivoire → Ivory Coast, Moved, 8 July 2012, discussion. The two names are evidently about equal in relation to the modern state. 64 results, 69 results, so what's going on here is something else than simply "which name is more common in relation today to the modern state?" I didn't participate in the previous RM (I would have opposed) but now it is at the old British name which is something of a victory for those who are not committed Francophiles. I doubt you will be able to shift it back. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe not. Maybe next year. Or the year after that. It took many years to get the page moved from its correct title to its current title. It may take years to get it moved back. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Joefromrandb (talk) 03:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

BBC News report on the creation of several new cardinals, something like "most of them come from poorer countries like Ivory Coast and Haiti". QED PatGallacher (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Name

It should be Côte d'Ivoire. If Wikipedia accepted the requests of the Indians for Bombay to be called Mumbai, this one should be adopted as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.1.82.160 (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Naming the page "Ivory Coast" means that "Costa Rica" should actually be called "Rich Coast." 128.122.100.21 (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but please don't go about reversing nomenclature without consensus; a lot of arguing has gone on and right here on the talk page is where it should go. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Costa Rica has never been commonly called "Rich Coast" in the English language. Ivory Coast, on the other hand, was called "Ivory Coast" by English-speakers long before it became a French colony, and long before anyone there ever spoke a word of French. Calling Ivory Coast "Côte d'Ivoire" on the English Wikipedia is the same thing as calling Germany "Deutschland." And the last I checked, the article was still located at Germany. 71.52.135.55 (talk) 19:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Surely it is not a question of being a common name, but a legal name, and one expressly requested by the Ivorian government in 1986. The government of Cote d'Ivoire does not recognise Ivory Coast, and therefore, to them, this article does not exist! {technicalhitch48}

Even the USA State Department website now uses exclusively Cote d'Ivoire (except where there are imported pieces of IT software, such as drop down country lists) and whilst we could argue that the USA does not respect the English language, Wikipedia should take its lead from the USA Government, and not from some small group of francophobes, and revert to the use of Cote d'Ivoire, the legal denomination of this magnificent, but troubled, country? {technicalhitch48}

From Wikipedia Policy: An Article Title is the large heading displayed above the article's content.[1] The title indicates what the article is about, and distinguishes it from, other articles.

Surely it can therefore be argued that the two articles published under Cote d'Ivoire and Ivory Coast are in fact one and the same article (or subject) and therefore need not, nor should not, be "distinguished" from each other, merely because they are written in two different languages? {technicalhitch48} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technicalhitch48 (talk • contribs) 13:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The government of Ivory Coast can make the legal name of their country anything they want in their own language and within their own borders. However, they have no power to legislate what other countries call them in other languages. I find this constant harping on changing the English name to show a lack of respect from those arguing for the change. --Khajidha (talk) 02:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Evidently the only thing of any importance in this country is which language its name should be in, because we don't talk about anything else. The Ivorian people, culture, history, economy, languages, and religions are insignificant in comparison to this issue. — kwami (talk) 08:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Common name is currently Ivory Coast, which is the main reason it's at this article name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

NO, it isn't. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I notice that they use French names for other countries on their government website, I sure hope someone gets fired for that gaffe.

2011-2014

So what has happened since 2011? There doesn't seem to be anything in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.93.136.121 (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• In 2011 the administrative structure changed. I will make an edit. --Bejnar (talk) 17:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft content, as per the next section

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle G (talk • contribs) 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Missing Capitals

Bingerville and Abidjan are not mentioned on this page as former capitals. There's also some serious mismatches between Grand-Bassam, Bingerville, and Abidjan on Bingerville's dates as capital -- did it start in 1896, 1900, or 1909?! And did it end in 1933 or 1934?! - Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)