This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 13 September 2012. The result of the move review was Decision endorsed.
This is difficult: the head count slightly favors the supporters of a renaming, but, and there is a but here, it appears that not all "support" votes are equal. That of a now-indef blocked editor should be discredited, and some of the IP votes appear out of a digital nowhere. A recount, then, is pretty much a draw. Moreover, while both sides present decent individual sources to bolster their argument, not all arguments weigh the same. The preference discovered for Tenedos using Google Books and Google Scholar, while taken by themselves not necessarily conclusive, strongly support the suggestion that Tenedos is preferred in English. Combine that with the lack of an official name and status, and it is my opinion that this RfC does not present sufficient consensus to overthrow a decision/confirmation reached only recently. Drmies (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended content
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note from former closing admin: this RfC was closed on 12 September as "no consensus to rename", but one editor reverted that decision. Drmies (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Tenedos → Bozcaada – There is clear evidence that Bozcaada is the preferred English language name. To ease the discussion, I made a usage table of key source in Google here: Naming Chart. As is seen, Bozcaada or the equivalent is the preferred usage in: Encyclopedia Britanica, Oxford and National Geographic Atlas of the World, Google Maps, Library of Congress Subject Heading, Major English Language Newspapers, and is the translated use in BBC wire services. Tenedos is the preferred use in Webster's Dictionary(although online version uses Bozcaada) and in Google Scholar/Books Searches (inflated because of use of the word in the Iliad and the Aenead). Newspaper references to the island clearly show the preference for Bozcaada over Tenedos (see Google table here). All contemporary references to the island use Bozcaada, including the New York Times, Reuters, AP, The Guardian, BBC, Sunday Telegram, and others. Tenedos is used to refer to the island almost exclusively in the contest of the Iliad or Gallipoli campaign, which does not satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for modern use.
The Wikipedia Naming Conventions are clear about the best practices for this decision: 1. the widely accepted English Name. 2. If no widely accepted English name exists, "the modern official name...should be used." Tenedos is neither the widely accepted English name, nor is it the modern official name. Bozcaada is much preferred and the modern official name.
I am not a partisan in this fight, let's just get it right. Please look at my evidence before opposing, and tell us why Tenedos should be considered the "widely accepted English name" when a lot of smart people aren't using it? AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - all voters must pay attention to the empirical evidence assembled by AbstractIllusions. Thanks to the latter for compiling this data, which clearly demonstrates that Bozcaada is the preferred modern English term. The Independent (UK, national) is yet another newspaper that uses Bozcaada, see here. Leading guidebooks also refer to the island as Bozcaada, see Fodor's and Lonely Planet. Mlepori (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose, for the 100th time. What's this another move request by a new redlinked account? Didn't we just have another one less than a month ago? There have been innumerable move requests in the past, and they have all failed. There is a good reason for that: "Tenedos" is much more widely used in reliable English-language sources than "Bozcaada", as reflected both on Google Books (272,000 vs. 16,000 hits) or Google Scholar (8900 vs. 1400 hits). It means nothing that one reason may be due to the wealth of literature on the Iliad, it matters that these are reliable sources, and that they use Tenedos. There are several reasons for this. First, "Tenedos" has been the island's name from antiquity. Second, the name "Bozcaada" is part of a process of Turkification and has never really caught on in the English world. Third, Tenedos is a small, relatively insignificant island by any standard. It's main claim to fame is its association with the Iliad. Any source dealing with Tenedos in an archeological and/or mythological context, regardless of publication date, will obviously refer to it as "Tenedos". Since Tenedos' only other claim to fame is tourism, that pretty much leaves tourist guidebooks as the main English-language sources referring to it as "Bozcaada" (and also official government publications). But there is no question that among reliable English-language sources, Tenedos is by far the more widely used name. Selective searches such as the one above mean nothing, nor the fact that tourist guidebooks use "Bozcaada" (they are not really considered reliable sources). Another important point is that while many sources mention "Bozcaada" in passing because it's the official name, they use Tenedos throughout: [1][2]. Athenean (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Athenean, you make some excellent points. But I have some problems.
Why should we prefer Google Books and Google Scholar over all other sources? I can't think of a reason why we should. Let me give you some examples, Smyrna is used more in Google books than Izmir, Wikipedia uses Izmir. Thebes is used more than Luxor in Google books, and Wikipedia correctly uses Luxor. In both cases, Wikipedia editors have selected to prioritize the less Google Bookable antiquity name because either: 1. most contemporary sources use the modern name (like Bozcaada) or 2. it isn't clear, and so they use the official name, as per the Wikipedia Naming Conventions (like Bozcaada). This is precisely why Wikipedia suggests we look at the Google books results and not just count them to decide this issue. At the very least, looking at the evidence, you have to concede that Tenedos does not meet the level of "widely accepted English name." You can say it is more prominent, but there are lots of counter sources to that prominence. And according to the Wikipedia naming conventions, that means we should use the official name, which is Bozcaada.
On your sources, the first is from 1964, certainly you don't want the Wikipedia page about African-Americans to use the term 'Negros' for the title (1964 this was used a lot)? I'd like a reason we should prefer a 1964 book about Cyprus over a 2012 article from the New York Times about the island we are trying to name. Your second source actually uses Bozcaada much more. Bozcaada is used on 16 pages and Tenedos is used 10. Look at page 336, you can't possibly say that it uses Bozcaada only in passing.
The evidence shows this: Google Books and Google scholar have more hits for Tenedos. Most contemporary reputable sources use Bozcaada. Our question, I think is this, how do we decide this discrepancy in order to name the page. To claim we answer this empirical evidence with Tenedos requires us to ignore lots of (coherent and edited) reputable sources and Wikipedia naming guidelines. So there really are two questions for anyone opposing to answer: 1. Why should we ignore all of the reputable, contemporary sources (see my original proposal and the list is significant) and instead defer to Google Scholar/Books number of results? 2. Why should we ignore the Wikipedia naming guidelines, which direct us to defer to the official name when it isn't clear that there is a widely accepted English name, and instead use the archaic name in this instance? Cheers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
On another issue, please remember that it is best to assume the best intentions of other editors. Claims like "What's this another move request by a new redlinked account?" do not do this. I'll be respectful even if you aren't, but focusing on the evidence might be more helpful for all of us in making this decision. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Athenean, your evidence does not stack up against AbstractIllusion's. That Google Scholar has more hits is vastly less relevant than the fact that the majority of English publications today use Bozcaada. Secondly, I'm not surprised a user named Athenean brings up "Turkification" as a reason to keep the name Greek. The issue should be decided by empirical facts and the Wikipedia naming policy, not your national convictions. The facts point to Bozcaada. Mlepori (talk) 01:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
To augment your first point. Wikipedia explicitly asserts that counting Google hits IS NOT the proper way to decide this issue. From Wikipedia:Search engine test: "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability....Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive." AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, since you are a new account, let me give you some advice. Google Books and Google Scholars searches are an excellent way to ascertain common English usage among reliable sources. It's what we've always been using around here, and I have participated in more move requests than you have contribs. The "raw hit counts" you mention above refers to raw google searches, which contain all kinds of crap (mostly hotel and other commercial websites). The reason we use Google Book searches, of course, is because they give us a global view of English usage, as opposed to carefully selected source that happen to suit one's POV, as seems the case here. As long as the Google Books search is conducted in a correct fashion, it is an extremely useful tool. Here, it shows that "Tenedos" is roughly ten times more common than Bozcaada among reliable English language publications. By the way, if you are as "neutral" in this matter as you claim to be, why did you selectively contact people that only voted "Support" in previous requests, and not the people who voted "Oppose"? Anyway, I strongly expect you to abide by the results of this move request and not immediately post another if the result of this one is not to your liking (which it probably won't) Athenean (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Google Books and Scholar gives more entries for Tenedos purely based on its classical application in Homer. In today's discussion of today's island, Bozcaada is dominant. The data compiled by AbstractIllusions verifies this. That discussions of Homer make use of Tenedos is important, and I suspect a Tenedos page is appropriate based on its classical usage. However, today's island is named Bozcaada and the majority of the English media uses Bozcaada. Therefore this page should be named Bozcaada. (Personal attack removed)71.192.24.73 (talk) 20:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Are you the same user as AbstractIllusions or Mlepori? It doesn't matter that many of the references to Tenedos are due to its mention in Homer. After all, that is the island's main claim to fame. And no, we are not going to split the page because some people find the classical references inconvenient. Athenean (talk) 20:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
No I am not them, and let's not make this personal. Please stick to the facts of the matter, for the best of the Wikipedia community. Now to those matters, the reason for the "fame" of an island does not determine its name here on Wikipedia. The naming policy clearly states that it is the common English name that decrees the page's name. Thanks :-) 21:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.24.73 (talk)
Here's why Google Results are Bad. Here is the search for "Tenedos -Aeneid" at Google Books. The third source is a book about the Aeneid with Tenedos in it. You insinuate that I Cherry Pick sources. Show one? I included EVERY news article to use either word in my evidence. Every one. Even about HMS Tenedos or the Tenedos spider or anything. I see you are trying to bait everyone and then fall back on an elitist attitude. But yet, my questions lack answers of any kind. I concede to you that Google Books/Scholar has more hits for Tenedos (a point argued in earlier discussions), but you have not once looked at my evidence showing a significant use of Bozcaada in contemporary sources. The question is what should we do in that case? This question has not been discussed in any of the other move requests (look over them, you won't find this). You say we should go with Tenedos in this example, that's great. The question is 'Why'? Why should we ignore all news articles about the present day island? Why should we ignore Wikipedia Naming Guidelines to do so? I am really, very interested in these. If you give me a good abstract logical reason why we should do this, I'll write an 'Oppose' entry myself. Alright, keeping this succinct: all I've asked is that everyone look at my evidence and tell me why to ignore it (that is in the initial change request). I'm still waiting. I think talking about the answer to that question would be more fruitful than accusing other editors. AbstractIllusions (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - It's been shown many times that Bozcaada is the preferred English name for this island. This is a fact. Takabeg provided the most detailed analysis on why this is a fact and AbstractIllusions further builds on that. All that is left is people's vote and we move this article to it's correct name. Athenean's flawed arguments are debunked by Takabeg is the utmost detail on this page above from August 2011. It could be convenient for editors to check on those posts for those arguments. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose We cannot have a new move proposal every month. The rejected proposal of July 2012 is hardly a month old. This is getting ridiculous. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 02:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Dr. K, please oppose or support based on the evidence, not based on irrelevant factors like how often the topic is raised. 50.138.134.200 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
The lengthy discussions just above and the valid arguments put forward opposing this move in the multiple move requests are still valid and need not be repeated. The latest move request was closed as "no consensus" just two weeks ago. Noone should have to repeat the same arguments every two weeks just as to entertain those who do not agree with them. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 17:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Incorrect: this new discussion is relevant because of the large amount of new data compiled by AbstractIllusions. Those who wish to keep the name Tenedos need to acknowledge this data (like Athenean did) and give an argument to oppose this new data's relevance.71.192.24.73 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that naming wars are unproductive. But as more nonpartisan folks like me learn about the island from the increased tourist promotions, the number of people proposing to change the name of the island is going to increase if there is a difference in how most sources are using it from how Wikipedia is using it. If you want the Name Change requests to change, you can: 1. Call up the NY Times, BBC, The Times, National Geographic, Encyclopedia Britanica, and Library of Congress and tell them to change their name for the island, or 2. Accept that the standard name used by all those sources might be the name that Wikipedia should use. As long as there is a discrepancy, you should expect regular name change requests. (And, that is a good thing! It would be a bad thing if there was a large (and it is quite large, honestly) discrepancy between regular English usage and a page on Wikipedia and there weren't repeated name change requests.) AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
As Nominator, I am flummoxed by some unwillingness to even engage with the evidence and naming conventions. But, our job as Editors should be to seek compromise. What would everyone think of the Smyrna/Izmir solution? It requires give from all sides, but I think is the most neutral & precise possible way of compromise. Basically:
Tenedos page remains but becomes about the antiquity site primarily and says in the introduction that it is the ancient name for Bozcaada. The page wraps up primarily at about 1923, although legacy issues with the post-1923 situation should be a part of the entry. The Smyrna page is almost exclusively the history of the place called 'Smyrna' and does not include climate, or other discussions. So these would be moved to the Bozcaada page.
Bozcaada gets a page for itself which can include historical discussion, but should defer to the use Tenedos to discuss that time period before 1923. Although, if there are reliable sources, it can discuss that the island was called Bozcaada prior to 1923, but the reference for the island in the history up until 1923 should be to use Tenedos.
Both will have appropriate cross-references. So, Tenedos will have a link up top saying: "This article is about the ancient Greek island. For the modern city, see Bozcaada". And Bozcaada history section must start with a part that says, Main Article: Tenedos. These are both the conventions from Smyrna/Izmir and other pages.
I know 1923 as a cutoff date is not going to make any partisans happy. Yes Bozcaada is older use than 1923, Yes the majority of residents continued to call the island Tenedos after 1923 for a while. But, those should be discussed in the page's content and not decide titling.
What say everyone? This will at least change the naming requests, improve the neutrality of the entire discussion, and requires each to give in a little bit. Compromise? AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
AbstractIllusions, Smyrna is an actual archaeological site, Bozcaada is an island and town. There is no distinction as there is between Izmir (city) and Smyrna (site). Though, if I were to argue your case, I would say that Tenedos deserves its own page based on its relevance to classical literature (Homer) and Bozcaada deserves its own based on its prevalence in today's English language media. But that would make the "split" in the history much earlier than 1923 -- the Tenedos page would be related to solely to its presence in classical literature.50.138.134.200 (talk) 16:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the input, there are lots of other situations where the same location changed names and Wikipedia retains an 'old name page' and 'new name page' like Constantinople/Istanbul, Thebes/Luxor, Liubice/Lubeck, Aeminium/Coimbra, etc. So I don't think it is unprecedented or even rare. I used Smyrna/Izmir because the pages have been done really well, in my opinion. I would be fine with a 'Tenedos (Classical literature)' and 'Bozcaada' division if others are. So, we have two issues for consensus for this compromise: 1. should we have 'old name page' and 'new name page'. And 2. if 1, where to split it. Does anyone think the Wikipedia Naming Conventions should prevent consensus on number 1? AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:56, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and Quick close On the basis that the number of requests for the same name change is absolutely excessive. One literally closed 10 days ago.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
New data has been collected and put forward by the original poster. This data is relevant and needs consideration by the Wikipedia community.71.192.24.73 (talk) 20:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Can you please provide a reason for your opposition referring either to the evidence presented (i.e. something like "I think the New York Times is a bad source") or regarding Wikipedia naming conventions. That would help us get this right. I went through a lot of work to collect good reputable evidence for the name change and to clarify the issue. No discussion has answered why we should prefer the number of google Books hits over the usage in the NYTimes, BBC, and others. I'd appreciate the respect of responding to the evidence presented. Thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This discussion has been ongoing almost non-stop since April 2011, during that time 3 separate name request have been put forward and closed without a consensus reached, this being the forth... in a year an a half. Community conclusion not 10 days ago was that there was no consensus, that discussion having been open for 20 days. This article would be better served by its editors improving its content rather than focusing entirely on its name. This requested move does not respect the spirit or intent of the requested move process, continually hammering in the same requested move request is disrespectful. Efforts would be far better concentrated on the article content than its title or seeking a community solution for all articles affected by the same issue (e.g. Imbros/Gokceada).--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Labatt, it is not a question of "spirit" or "respect" but of policy -- Wikipedia naming policy prefers the common-usage English term. Data show that this is Bozcaada, which is precisely why the issue arises. The dispute recurs not because editors are "disrespectful" but because Tenedos is anachronistic. Those who favor Tenedos keep avoiding the issue of the data.71.192.30.158 (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - I agree with Mlepori (high above). We should have one standard for names: The actual one, i.e. the actual name. If not we should go to many articles about Greece and several other countries and make changes of name thereat, instead. If we do not have special rules for Greek language here in WP it is a meaningless discussion. Bozcaada is Bozcaada and should be named so in WP; somewhere in the Bozcaada article we may refer to its ancient name, of course, not in the lead though... --E4024 (talk) 17:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - it's a Turkish island with a majority Turkish population. It makes no sense to retain the Greek toponym as the article name. Similarly, the article İskenderun is not named Alexandretta, Istanbul is not named Constantinople, Izmir is not named Smyrna etc. etc. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose: per arguments in July move request, since nothing new is presented this month. It starts to get boring with this request almost every month.Alexikoua (talk) 19:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Lots of new information is provided. Library of Congress subject heading has never been discussed before. The total past 15 years of Newspaper usage has never been collected or discussed before. At the same time, there has never been a discussion very clearly on the issue: Why should we prioritize the number of Google Books hits over the usage in edited, reputable English sources? If you can show me where that issue was discussed or where consensus was reached on that question, I'll be very interested in it. Please do not discount my evidence as 'nothing new'. There is new stuff, this is not just a repetition. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 19:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, there is no need to personally reply to every "Oppose" vote. It only makes you seem even less neutral than you claim to be. Athenean (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an open forum for dialogue and s/he has every right to fully participate. The anti-Bozcaada side consistently attempts to quell discussion because it knows that it is on the wrong side of the data.71.192.24.73 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Most of the opposing votes attack the act of move request rather than defending their opposition. So, AbstractIllusions has the right and reason to respond to each such accusation. It doesn't say anything about his neutrality nor it is right to attack him in such a manner. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Support - the desire to maintain Hellenic culture (Homer, etc) should not take precedence over everyday English language. If English media use Bozcaada then so too should Wikipedia. Wikipedia is for all English speakers21:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)71.192.24.73 (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and quick close: The Google Books search proves beyond doubt that Tenedos is the standard word still used for the island (272,000 for Tenedos vs. 16,000 for Bozcaada). Can't see a single argument which disproves this clear count. The last vote took place in July, so the August vote looks a pretty protracted case of WP:IDHT or monthly voting until the 'right' result is reached. Given the sensitive nature of the matter and the dubious circumstances of this vote, I would advise to ignore the votes of all IPs and single-purpose accounts, even if this vote is not quickly closed which I believe should be. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You use a "hits count" argument which Wikipedia guidelines explicitly reject. Second, you ignore the greater data that points to Bozcaada. The English speaking world and its media uses Bozcaada in daily discussions, which is of greater weight to contemporary English language discussion. That classics scholars refer to the island as Tenedos is of less relevance to the English language community. Third, this continuous demand for a "quick close" demonstrates a desire to censor Wikipedia and silence voices and their evidence. This evidence is new and overwhelming.71.192.30.158 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Comment This is a mess. Country-Specific Guidance on WP:PLACE for Turkey should be a priority to avoid this. SLawsonIII (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
You have registered only three days ago. Sorry to say this, but the whole vote smacks big time of foul play. It's so obvious that it is even involuntarily funny. :-D Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Gun Powder Ma, you used one personal attack and here are verging on another. Please obey the decorum rules of Wikipedia and keep the conversation on topic (not on the other posters).71.192.30.158 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I knew I shouldn't jump into this one. And I thought the 'Train station' vote was intense. No foul play on my part, you'll see me on these name request lists for the foreseeable future, but I don't like the allegation. So, my 'support' is now a 'comment'. Been on lots of other national place change requests and the BEST practice is country-specific guidelines. That's all I want to say. SLawsonIII (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
SLawsonIII because of his allegation you remove your support? Base your support or opposition on the facts of the matter, not allegations made by other users. 71.192.30.158 (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
With your repeated allegations that I had personally attacked you are yourself close to a personal attack, and definitely you have started yourself to comment on the other users and their choices. Stop this. With voting taking place every month, the patience of other users for this mockery of WP guidelines is understandably running thin. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
As Nominator, I am sincerely working towards some consensus on the naming issue. Default to the current name neither reflects consensus of the community nor is sustainable and is liable to annoy everyone. Since it looks unlikely that we will reach consensus on the name of the island, I suggest we work out some consensus on guidelines for when we think an evidence-based reassessment of naming would be appropriate. Here's the idea, community consensus on what change in evidence should either 1. trigger a change of name or (the weaker version) 2. trigger a discussion of change of name. Although we have different opinions about the current evidence, we should be able to reach consensus about what evidence would convince us to reach a clear understanding of the name. I think a set of evidential triggers that we think as well-intentioned editors should lead to a discussion of the name of the island could be productive in moving on rather than just defaulting to the status quo. Something along the lines of Guidelines for reassessment of name of Tenedos/Bozcaada, the name should be reassessed with the following evidence:. I also think it would be helpful if we put ourselves in each others shoes and thought about what evidence might come up in the next 3 years that would prove convincing. In that spirit, my proposal for one evidential boundary would be If a top-10 English Language Geology Journal article (not book reviews) were to prioritize use of either Tenedos or Bozcaada, the community should reassess naming. I looked and none of the top-10 journals have in recent history. If a future article used Tenedos, I would honestly consider consensus on Tenedos as the name. I hope others will join me in trying to reach community consensus on the times we think name discussions would be appropriate, so that we can all move this discussion forward. AbstractIllusions (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Data
Some people who support the move claim to have "data" and keep clamoring for "data". But they overlook the most important piece of data, that "Tenedos" is far more widely used in English usage compared to "Bozcaada". This graph makes the point very compellingly [3]. While the use of "Bozcaada" has been increasing, and that of "Tenedos" decreasing, we are still very, very far off from the time when Bozcaada will be more common, if ever. Athenean (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
@Gun Powder Ma: Does it change the official name of the island? (For the others:) The article says the island is part of the Bozcaada district! Bozcaada district is only this island. Who invented this? Some people who wanted to separate the island from its administrative unit? It is really difficult to discuss here... --E4024 (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't understand what do you mean 'official' name in this case, since situation isn't clear on that. It may sound boring to repeat myself but the official name of the island according to international peacy treaties is Tenedos, still under a de-jure semi-autonomous status.Alexikoua (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
As I see mainstream Turkish authors tend to use Tenedos too [[4]] as the first name of the island.Alexikoua (talk) 22:59, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Place names in the Treaty of Lausanne: "Serbo-Croat-Slovene State", "Castellorizzo", "Soudan", "Sea of Marmora", "Roumania", "Persia", etc. The treaty does not establish naming obviously and shouldn't because it is not updatable (unless you really think we should go back to Rhodesia because the Lancaster agreement uses that name?). That source you use is actually great evidence, when talking about the island in the Treaty of Lausanne, the author uses Tenedos. When talking about the current island, the author uses Bozcaada. Regardless, the official name is Bozcaada according to the government that controls the island, a fact reflected in contemporary usage by the Council of Europe, The United Nations, and NATO (all organizations that ). AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record: The "official" name means absolutely nothing as far as wikipedia naming conventions are concerned. It's "Florence" not "Firenze", "Troy", not "Hissarlik". Athenean (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
For the record: the Wikipedia Naming Conventions emphasize the "official" name very clearly. They read "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it...If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present." Florence and Troy care cases where a widely accepted English name exists. I'm not sure the same can be said for Tenedos/Bozcaada. It is not correct to say that the official name means nothing, it is the default for the Naming Conventions if a widely accepted English name doesn't exist. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Athenean. But I want to focus the discussion. What evidence would occur that would make you think "Gee, I think we should give this thought" For one example, you certainly cannot think that English preference for Tenedos in the 1940s matters in determining the name today? And Wikipedia naming conventions assert as much. So, if I held your position, I think I would be really interested if a Google Scholar search for a contemporary year had a 2-1 preference for Bozcaada (For 2012, it is 78 Tenedos, 89 Bozcaada, and 2011 was 165 Tenedos, 153 Bozcaada). Now, this is far from meeting the 2-1 level and one year might be an aberration, so we should certainly be careful. But if contemporary usage significantly switched in Google Scholar, don't you think we as editors should look at the situation again and not outright oppose. I think it would be really helpful if we discussed what data we think should trigger a renaming request so that 1. We can have some consensus on future requests if they fail to meet community standards that we have agreed to and be on the same side and 2. more importantly so that we can get this right. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@E4024. The official Turkish name is irrelevant here. This is not the Turkish, but the English Wikipedia and as such it is only concerned with name usage in English. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) is clear about this: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This is still Tenedos by an entire order of magnitude as the Google Books query above amply demonstrates. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@AbstractIllusions. Your Google Scholar search is meaningless because, unlike Google Books, Google Scholar has no feature which allow searches in English texts only. Consequently, your query also listed many hits in other languages like in Italian and Turkish and what not, making it completely pointless because we need to determine English usage only. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Athenian uses Google Scholar as a references point. If the community decides that Google Scholar searches are not good enough, you may want to see the impact from cannibalizing half of Athenian's evidence. Please refer to my original post for the evidence I think is quality including: Encyclopedia Britanica, the Library of Congress, NY Times, The Independent The Times of London, National Geographic, etc. (all of which is specifically mentioned by Wikipedia Naming Conventions to answer this question). All of these are sources with informed editors updating resources to reflect common, modern English usage. And I would say are all vastly superior to Google Books search results. You disagree? Great, give me a reason why Google Book Searches are preferable to edited, reputable English sources? I can't think of a good reason why and no one is answering this discussion. AbstractIllusions (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to be taken seriously around here, I suggest you drop your "Google Books is invalid" nonsense. No one is going to listen to a new account that makes new naming rules to suit its POV. You just don't like the results from Google Books, which clearly show that "Tenedos" is the commonly used name in English sources". Google Books shows the overall picture among English-language sources, as opposed to your handful of carefully cherry-picked sources. Now you can go on with your "my cherry-picked sources are vastly superior to Google Books [sic!]" type of nonsense all you want, I don't really care. I posted the Google Books results for the benefit of future participants to this discussion, not yours, as it doesn't seem like any arguments are going to change your mind. Athenean (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I refer to Wikipedia Naming Conventions: Wikipedia:Google searches and numbers and Wikipedia:Search engine test and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. These Wikipedia Guidelines are clear: Google Books searches can establish some notability but their results run the ground in terms of Neutrality, Avoid Duplication, or Guarantee the results are reliable. You don't have to like that these are the Wikipedia Conventions, but that's what they are. As for my "Cherry-picked sources" they are literally those provided on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) where Google Books sources are one amongst many types of evidence including: Encyclopedia Britannica, Library of Congress Subject headings, Major News Sources in a Lexis search, and Translating of sources. So, for the 10th time, here is where we are: Google Books (1 reliable source amongst many) has more hits for Tenedos, the other reliable sources listed as to be used by Wikipedia Naming Conventions for places, use Bozcaada. What should we do? Repeating Google Books results again and again doesn't change that other recommended sources to consult differ from it and this is where the debate should focus. I think this is like the Constantinople/Istanbul difference where Constantinople dominates Google Books searches and will for the next 100 years, but because the current primary English sources refer to the modern place as Istanbul, Wikipedia editors have selected that. Give me some reason why in this instance we should choose Google Books search results over other English reliable sources (unlike other cases) and I can be convinced...otherwise, I won't (and I've said this for four days now and all you respond with is Google Books good and "you cherry pick sources" with no example of where I cherry picked). It isn't that I dislike Google Books sources, but it is one amongst many with certain limitations, and I think we need to take a look that uses all of the sources suggested in the Wikipedia: Naming Conventions and not just one of them again and again. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@Gunpowder: "In a modern context". Hmmmm... --E4024 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
@AbstractIllusions. Only Google Books counts. The result of Google Scholar happens to be convergent with the hit count of Google Books, but ultimately only Google Books counts for the above reason. You are new here, so please allow me to tell you that no admin who knows his trade will change a page to another place name which is 17 times less frequent in English. Because the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) are most clear: English usage governs the choice of the article title. In case of the most unlikely event that an admin will move the page nonetheless for whatever reason, another discussion to move the article back to Tenedos would be immediately opened to enforce the WP:Naming conventions of which most long-time users are aware (and these will participate in such a discussion). Just telling you from my own experience so that you can concentrate on contents work instead. Tenedos is a sure thing. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I read something interesting on the Wikipedia:Search engine test page about Google searches: "a Google search for "the green goldfish", with quotes, currently initially reports around 18,000 results, yet on paging through the actual number of hits turns out to be 161" And the advice is to actually look at the last page to tell the more real Google Book results. When i do this I find the real number of use for Tenedos in English books is 201. And Bozcaada in English books leads to a result of 196. That's somewhat interesting, no? Either 1. Google Book results are actually much less than the initial estimate is for Tenedos. Or 2. Google Book searches produce wildly different numbers and not the greatest tool to decide usage. I hope no admin who knows his/her trade will take raw Google Books results without looking at the actual numbers. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
In the interest of full disclosure, I performed this test again and got wildly different outcomes. Regardless, the highest number of books actually visible on English Google Book Searches is 682 for Tenedos, for Bozcaada it is 215. The ratio is 3-1 at best. Also, you'll note lots of non-English books if you actually parse through the results, despite the filter. And great books like this included in the search results for Tenedos even though the word doesn't appear in the test at all. Or for more fun: another book included but that doesn't actually use the word Tenedos, or another,or another, etc. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
That's really strange, because even when I do a really restrictive search (I use "island" in addition to "Tenedos" to weed out any false positives, restrict it to English language sources only, and exclude 19th century material), I still get about 2240 hits for Tenedos (all of them high quality sources, and no false positive) and only 313 for "Bozcaada" (mostly tourist guidebooks). Still approximately 10-1 in favor of Tenedos, end of the debate as far as I'm concerned. Athenean (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Here's some of the "high quality sources and no false positives" in your exact search: The Seer King, The Long Falling (which has no mention of Tenedos), Not Even my Name, etc. I could go on. Seriously man, from Wikipedia:Search engine test: "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything." If the debate is ended for you on one source (especially one with so many problems), that's great, but Wikipedia suggests we look at multiple sources. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
As both Google and Wikipedia make clear, the "results" given by Google in there searches are "Estimates" not actual results. The way to test that is then to see how many you can actually see. Which significantly lowers the estimates for Tenedos. No filers will make the estimate correct, and the estimate gets farther from the "real" number as it is over 1000. Just tell me the title for 800th book in Google Book searches is for Tenedos. Should be easy if there are 2,000+ hits. But, this is all distracting: the question is Google Books prioritizes Tenedos, all contemporary sources prioritize Bozcaada, what should we decide in that case? I think we should compare the different references per the Wikipedia Naming Conventions or default to the official names. As the Wikipedia Naming Conventions is clear on the point: "If [the widely accepted English name in a modern context does not] exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used." Result=Bozcaada. Unless you can give me some reason why the Google Books priority for Tenedos should outweigh sources listed in the Wikipedia Naming Guidelines as equally reliable sources (such as all English language Enclycopedias, all atlases, Library of Congress Subject heading, news articles covering the present-day island, etc), then I think the default for the modern official name is the best option for reasons of neutrality. If either Wikipedia conventions decide tomorrow that Google Books is the golden calf we should all worship or if major English sources change their use, we should reconsider that. AbstractIllusions (talk) 21:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
You're not getting it: Google Books="All sources". Sarcasm about "golden calves" is not going to help, and no one is going to take you seriously. Google Books is what we use around here. Just because you don't like the results it gives, doesn't mean we're not going to use it. You can keep repeating we should use your cherry-picked all you want. I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, as that is clearly impossible. You are deep in WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT at this point. Athenean (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
I hear you man, you like Google Books raw numbers. Cool. I am hearing you, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) lists 6 different reliable sources to establish English names. Google Books is #2 on that list. I will accept whatever results you want to say Google Books spits out, my question is why does the #2 set of reliable sources trump #1 (which goes to Bozcaada), #3 (which goes to Bozcaada), #4 (which goes to Bozcaada), #6 (which goes to Bozcaada). When I made my original table, I resorted to this Wikipedia made list of sources. I've asked this question many times and would just like some clarification about why Google Books (which does not include all books and has errors) trumps other sources? You say it is more exhaustive (if you think it is "All Sources", you are wrong), cool. I think it lacks precision, neutrality, and ability to identify 'modern' names. I think those three mean we need to look at sources listed equally by wikipedia (right along Google Books) as reliable. Tell me why I shouldn't do that? AbstractIllusions (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Google Books is one metric among many. You avoid the other (preponderant) evidence. Why? Because it supports Bozcaada.71.192.30.158 (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Does the fact that so many major English media sources use Bozcaada not matter? Why are we supposed to ignore this? Why is this supposed to have no effect upon our decision? 71.192.30.158 (talk) 14:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Support moving Bozcaada is a Turkish island and it is named Bozacaada in almost all international maps. Tenedos on the other hand is a historical name (just like New Amsterdam for New York). It can be used in historical articles and in Homer but not in this article. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and quick close. Wasn't that case closed just a couple of weeks ago?? Macedonian (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Support as this is a Turkish island, so the Turkish name should be used and it is sufficently commonly used as such to warrant a COMMONNAME rationale. Additionally, since this is English WP editors will be interested to know that [5] is the official name of the island per the National-Geospacial Intelligence Agency, Geographic Names Database, where-as Tenedos is merely a variant.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Support, as most of the Google Scholar results are connected to Homer's Iliad, while geography books refer the island as "Bozcaada". Bozcaada name is in common use in present day English, while Tenedos name refers to the ancient age settlements on the island. Naming the "Bozcaada" island "Tenedos" is just like naming "İstanbul" as "Constantinople"; correct for depicting past events but erroneous for the present.--Khutuck (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose and quick close per arguments that have been excessively discussed in the previous move requests. (Within a few days from the previous request nothing has really change.)Seleukosa (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Support I read the New York Times article on Bozcaada and then came here, and was quite surprised to find that Wikipedia is using Tenedos, the Homeric name! Homer is great and all, but that is insufficient reason for having the US Wikipedia use Tenedos. It by rule uses the common English media word or phrasing.64.134.223.42 (talk) 01:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Note:Heh, yet another IP editor with virtually no contributions to wikipedia. What's that, like the 3rd or 4th?
NoteFocus on the dispute, not the editors. Thanks! Cinque stelle (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Support I understand why you call it Florence and not Firenze, because English media calls it Florence. I have never seen it referred to as Tenedos in the contemporary media! I traveled there and did a lot of research prior to going and all articles referred to it as Bozcaada ... Tenedos was used only when referencing its past. Cinque stelle (talk) 17:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
And yet another brand new account with no previous contribs. This one even had the nerve to remove a previous comment of mine [6]. Athenean (talk) 17:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Yet again the pro-Tenedos side chooses to focus on editors rather than the naming debate. Please stay on topic, rather than debate the editors.Cinque stelle (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
This new account knows how to file a WP:AN3 and RFC within the first day of editing. This is too obvious. And, I have figured out who the sockmaster is. SPI has been filed. Athenean (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Athenean's "SPI" filing has failed. I suppose now we can stop the whining about sockpuppets.Cinque stelle (talk) 01:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Note: Above user has now been blocked indef. Athenean (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
5 stelle, I think the debate is already over... --E4024 (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it? I'm new to these discussions so I'm not sure when they are considered resolved Cinque stelle (talk) 23:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
'Strong Oppose' I visit the island every summer the locals and the diaspora spell it TENEDOS. Bazca what? thia name is just used by Turkish authorities for turkification reasons from the60's. never thought that a wikipedia adopts thia policies.79.129.111.236 (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
This name has been used for more than half a millenium and I will be complaining about the IP above for disruption and will also get it sock-checked.
--E4024 (talk) 09:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Bold text
Oppose: I am opposed to the proposal of this repeated renaming request because I believe that the existing name is widely accepted English Name. That is proven by GBS results which are in favor of Tenedos. The ratio is between 7 and 17 to 1. Although GBS results sometimes could be delusive in this case I think that only if the ratio was much lower there would be a point to go into details about specific types of sources. Right now 272,000 vs. 16,000 hits or 2,240 vs 313 is to huge difference to be ignored. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Mr. Antidiskrimiator, please hear me out in good faith; I aim to convince:
You say you believe that "the existing name is (the) widely accepted English name", citing "GBS" results, which I assume is Google Book Search. Please understand that for, I donno, thousands of years, this was a Greek island called Tenedos that played an important part in certain historical events. Please understand that since it has belonged to Turkey, it's just been one more small island of little note. Don't you think this could be the reason for so many references to it in books use the old historical name? Also, please understand that we are supposed to use the modern name, not the historical name. Please agree with this policy, because otherwise, it'd be New Amsterdam instead of New York, Constantinople instead of Istambul, and so on. Please do go check modern English language maps published by the usual well known cartographical organizations, referring to the modern place, and see what they say. It is my hope that I have convinced you to reconsider your opposition. Chrisrus (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Again new one. How many times will those two island be nominated. Current one is most common English name, and that is already explained above by several editors. Oppose this proposition. --WhiteWriterspeaks 09:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
This opposition says that Tenedos is the "most common English name". This is false. Please check modern English language maps and reconsider, or give some other reason. Chrisrus (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Support Looking up and down this discussion page I'm amazed such time and effort has been expended in such denialism and specious argument. I can't actually accept that people even believe half of what they're saying. The idea that Tenedos is the common name in English in 2012 for this island is one of the more ridiculous claims I've seen recently in any RM. And simply asserting it, as ever, does not make it any truer. Virtually every news source, map, reference work and guide book cited has this place as Bozcaada and this has been demonstrated above. When it comes to Google returns, regardless of the numbers - which are usually misleading, as they are in this case, for a variety of reasons - looking at the opening hits, in books, news and general search, clears up any confusion about the context in which the terms are used, and which is more commonly used for the island today, in seconds. As for trying to wangle out of the obvious and decisive rebuttal that Tenedos is only so common in Google Books because of archaic and historical references by arguing that such usage still somehow counts for the purposes of this sort of discussion, the less said about that the better. Maybe this has come up once too often too recently in the past, but that's because we've got this so badly wrong and for some reason one or two people manage to veto any correction each time. N-HHtalk/edits 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Oppose per Gun Powder Ma and Athenian's comments on the matter. Also, on my own accord, I think that the support votes are unconvincing simply because of the fact that the supporters almost never link or show their proof for their arguments and that they misread and misquote WP:NCGN on all of their comments. If one would compare, he/she would find out that they didn't read the entire NCGN fully at all. For example, when the supporters would quote the NCGN, they would quote an entire paragraph of it incompletely, thus confusing people. I've followed this discussion and it is the same crap over and over. Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 01:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
There's plenty of links to evidence that Bozcaada is the common name of the island in 2012 according to a plethora of reliable and authoritative reference sources, including books and the media - not least in the proposer's initial submission, right at the top of this section. I don't quite know why you're saying that there's not. Or in what sense you're saying people are selectively quoting NCGN. As it is, point 1 of the General guidelines and at Use modern names couldn't be clearer in their application to this case. All we seem to have on the opposite side is a couple of random one-off cites and a raw count of Google books hit numbers, which of course include every reference to the island in classical antiquity and much of the middle ages and early modern period, and some totally unsubstantiated assertions that "Tenedos is the common name". N-HHtalk/edits 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Alternative Just plain fork this page. "Tenedos" should talk about the past of the island, while "Bozcaada" should talk about the island in the present.Hill Crest's WikiLaser (Boom.) (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Forking is surely discouraged other than for reasons of space? Most small islands that have had name changes over the years do not have a separate article for their existence under their different names - it's just part of the history of the place. As noted elsewhere, this solution smacks a little of the Judgment of Solomon and possibly is the worst option of all. N-HHtalk/edits 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Tenedos receives slightly more results than Bozcaada in google [[7]] vs [[8]], 534k vs 532k (considering that Bozcaada search includes some non-English (Turkish), although the search is done with the english language filter enabled, we should considered that Tenedos is clearly the favorable name). On the other hand gbooks tends to prefer Tenedos in a ration of 15vs1.Alexikoua (talk) 12:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you please explain why we should ignore all the other evidence for the use of Bozcaada, such as encyclopedias, maps, guide books, etc., and solely depend on flawed Google results? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The initially question about this sequence of move requests is why we should ignore all the evidence for the use of Tenedοs. And in fact there are plenty of encyclopedias, maps, guide books etc, (more in quantity & quality in comparison to the use Bozcaada). As I see even Turkish media, organizations and tourist facilities prefer the use of Tenedos in their English texts like todayszaman, egehotel and the Turkish Journal of Zoology.Alexikoua (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
That question was answered a couple of times. The fact is most reliable encyclopedias, maps, guide books etc. do favor "Bozcaada". Today's Zaman doesn't use the name "Tenedos" in a modern context. The question still remains. Why should we favor your flawed Google search and a few articles you've found? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
{{uninvolved|close|Need admins willing to adjudicate the dispute between the two proposed article names}}Cinque stelle (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Support -- Since the island is part of Turkey, the article ought to be at its Turkish name. We have had this sitation before with Greek cities in Asia Minor. In one case we split the article between one on an Ancient GReek and Roman city and another on a modern village. The present title (which is the island's Greek name) MUST be kept as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
"Oppose": If this island is now in Turkey its not the case. For examble in every touristic guide about the aegean this island is named tenedos in English. Bzcaqhat? how this is spelled in english?193.92.67.98 (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Somebody (probably a user unlogged for anonymity) is trying to play game. But this is not a playground, this is an encyclopaedia. The name of the district and the island is Bozcaada, not Bzcaqhat. For English speakers it is simpler than the names of most foreign places. Anyway, since Wikipedia uses valid names rather than the historical names (as I have shown before) it has to be named Bozcaada. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Until now one user was permabanned. Nevertheless multiple votes from both sites have show up for this request. I'm sorry but if the name should be Bozccada that's your personal pov, that everyone respects.Alexikoua (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Everybody has right to state his/her opinion. But nobody has right to make fun of names. What is Bzcaqhat ? As for my POV, actually this is not solely my POV . It is in a way, WP's POV. I have shown many examples where valid names are used instead of former names (which have more written English sources). It is normal. Check modern maps. No map uses source-rich historical names anymore. Keeping the former name of Bozacaada would only prove a double standart which I wouldn't ascribe to Wikipedia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Every reliable source that I've ever seen relating to this island uses "Tenedos". I didn't know that any other names even existed until a couple of minutes ago, when I saw a link to this RFC; I was quite surprised that anyone would propose moving it anywhere. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Could you name and link a few of those reliable sources? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
And could you confirm that you have actually looked at the evidence presented, which clearly indicates that in pretty much every atlas/map, media source and guide book, as well as myriad other sources (more examples across this page), the island is indeed named Bozcaada in this day and age? The fact that you might not have been aware of that - I wasn't either until I actually looked into this question - isn't a good reason for opposing a move. N-HHtalk/edits 08:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note on closure
Extended content
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I regret to have to do this but feel I have to. Here is the link of a talk between me and the "former closing admin" dating 23 August 2012. On that date I made a random call to several users -most of whom I did not know before- and asked them to join the discussion in this page. Some of them, like Mike Cline, an admin, accepted my invitation and came to the talk page to opine. Others declined or ignored the invitation. (Another reminded me this activity could be taken as canvassing, so I stopped inviting people.) Drmies did not come to the discussion page but -I think- made a hint of his choice between the two discussed names as can be seen at the link. Now I wish he had instead come to the discussion page then, like his colleague Cline, and write down his opinion there. That way he could be now in a better position to come forward to close the discussion. I am not sure about the extent of the word "uninvolved" in this context, as he has not directly taken part in the discussion, but is it correct for an admin to use authority on such a move after discussing it even in some other place? I have no aspirations for any status that brings together certain limitations and responsibilities so I think I can allow myself to say this: If I was in the aforementioned admin's shoes I would withdraw my controversial act without any more efforts of justification. Independendently from the foregoing, I would consider getting rid of extra responsibilities to be able to edit WP more freely.
I have just returned from a block, admin Drmies, please do not block me for this audacity...--E4024 (talk) 23:52, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Why would I block you? I didn't block Chrisrus. Despite claims to the contrary, I am very well aware of what does and does not constitute impartiality: my blocking you for your reverting my closing would be wrong. I have some faith in the community: your revert was reverted. Note that I never suggested anyone should be blocked here, nor did I ask anyone to block anyone. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, everyone's allowed an opinion and Drmies did not technically contribute to the move itself. However, it's clear he had a view before coming to the discussion. We also know he did not read the debate or do any wider investigation before then closing it, given that he said that Bozcaada "lacks[s] an official name and status" and that no one presented any maps. Now, in a follow-up he's admitting that some maps were presented but that they did not all agree (really?) and is claiming that if there is an official name, it's the one mentioned in a 1923 treaty (based on his willingness to accept wholly made-up legal theorising about "de jure status" based on the say-so of a random WP editor). He still appears not to have noticed that from the proposal onwards there were references by move proponents to Bozcaada as the modern official name and the uncontested fact that the island does indeed have the status of being part of Turkey in 2012. Sure, that's not decisive, but it weighs in the balance and if he didn't spot that, he didn't read the debate properly. Not only can't he hold his line, but he can't even move on to a better or more plausible one when he shifts it. Also, if he is going to suggest, as he did on the thread you have highlighted, that this NYT archive search is evidence in favour of Tenedos for the island in 2012, he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near any naming discussions or closes ever again. Jesus, all the entries there are ancient and half of the them are about ships, horses or African reefs. It seems we had an admin closing who was always in favour of one name over the other and was always willing to take at face value and prefer the arguments of one side, even though they were mostly preposterous.
This case is Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, not a 50-50 call like Burma/Myanmar. See the Taiwan RM close for how admins can sensibly look into and deal with a protracted and contentious RM, and explain their decision carefully and in some detail, against often quite vitriolic, last-ditch opposition desperate to maintain a page at its favoured but flawed title, relying on all sorts of arcane and specious argument, as well as against opposition from those simply inured to the name that happens to be there - and how once the issue is finally settled in favour of standard, modern usage, all that opposition and debate fizzles away and we finally have accuracy AND stability. Sometimes someone has to step up, ditch the tired-but-still-preferred-by-a-few status quo and make the move before people will ever accept or admit that the result is the right thing or that they were fighting a rearguard action for a flawed cause. N-HHtalk/edits 08:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, N-HH, you're entitled to your opinion, even though your conclusions indicate a. a lack of good faith and b. a possibly willful misreading of the evidence, and I'll leave it at that. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
As noted already, it's probably better for you to stop castigating people for misreading evidence. And, of course, all I have done is contrasted your statements about the evidence, and what evidence you say you could have been expected to be aware of, with the actual evidence presented in the discussion. It's open to others to offer their opinions on that now. Plus I noted that, for example, a news report that a horse called Tenedos ran in a 1950s race, or even a report using the name Tenedos in 1913, does not count for much when it comes to what we wish to call this island in 2012. N-HHtalk/edits 18:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
@Drmies - Your decision was criticized but never insulted while you started the discussion with saying "none of y'all's comments here are very smart" which is really not welcomed at all. I find it rather unfair of you to blame others of assuming bad faith for that and the fact that you're accusing others of willfully misreading evidence when it's so clear that you're the one doing that. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
If I fault Drmies for anything is that he had the courage to step into this hornet's nest and tried to give this dispute a resolution, Also please WP:AAGF. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις 21:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
There is a "Move Closure Review" tag on top of the article page but when I enter there I cannot find the discussion. Was this discussion closed so quickly? Why? --E4024 (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I have not participated in the last couple of days anymore, because the discussion has been moving ever more in circles. Much ink has been spillt over little and the general tone of the discussion was unusually shrill for a matter of comparatively low importance. My best advice to all participants is now to leave the matter as it is and try to move on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Have you seen this Photo Album, Ma? --E4024 (talk) 11:42, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Letting it rest is a radical proposal if one wants the name to stay at this rather odd one. Anyway, indeed the discussion has been moving in circles, largely because things have to be said over and over again in the face of random, repetitive assertion and stone-walling. I never fail to be astonished by the filibustering that goes on in this kind of case and the effort and time that has to be wasted to get us on to the blindingly obvious about the simplest things (and the fact that obstructionists used this as some kind of circular argument to justify their obstructionism). Maybe we should shift to Didymoteicho, where a Google Books search reveals a preference for the Turkish name Dimetoka of 20:1 in raw hits. Perhaps we would then get some idea of whether people involved here claiming such things are some kind of trump card really wish to apply basic principles about title naming and Google searching consistently; and also some idea of what a proper, reasoned move close looks like. Any such bid would of course be laughed out of the talk page. N-HHtalk/edits 11:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
ps: I like the photo album. I should quit the lengthy rebuttals and just link to that over and over (along with the NYT, WSJ and every modern guide book). I fear we'd still hear "But Google Books ...." though. N-HHtalk/edits 13:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, as if he would have included any Atlas that did use Tenedos as the primary. Though personally I doubt he is the author of the photo album. Athenean (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yep, I did include the Atlas that uses Tenedos. It is about the Greek and Roman world. But aside from that I included every atlas. If you got evidence of where I cherry-picked, put it up here! I did take the pictures, do you want a Youtube video next time? Maybe with today's newspaper? Keep accusations against me, like doubting that I am the author of the photo album or that I cherry picked sources with out some evidence of an Atlas I missed, out of your mouth and out of your head. I'm keeping it cool and just correcting gross misrepresentations of evidence right now so if you all will stop with the baseless allegations we can keep it at that. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Chill, dude, I was under the impression that it was E4024 that had made the album, not you. Athenean (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Oh so you were accusing him of cherry-picking without any evidence for your claim? Sorry for the misunderstanding, that is fine now. AbstractIllusions (talk) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Evidence record in Naming Dispute 2012
Thought it might be helpful with the August 2012 name dispute to collect the evidence analyzed. Because a lot was said and a good record can help future editors and in any future naming requests. The list was done alphabetically (last name of source if it was a book) to avoid any bias in presentation. It need not be reminded, but not all evidence is equal, the weight of evidence is not the discussion here. Any evidence that was claimed is put in with the claimed use of the island in 2012. If you think that evidence that was discussed is missing (I'm sincerely sorry) please include it. If you think that evidence was not claimed correctly regarding its use, please discuss in the Comments before changing its Use Designation. If you have new or additional evidence, this is not the space for it. This is just an easier to read collection of all the evidence used. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
List of Evidence
Can be edited by any editor, but please do not post evidence which was not discussed in the August 2012 Move request or change the use designation without discussion in the Comments section.
2. Abstract talks about "Tenedos (Bozcaada) island" I think that is pretty good evidence of the claim that it uses Bozcaada as a passing secondary name. Should I stop there?
3. But then the introduction to the article uses only Bozcaada. Hmmmmmm....
4. Then when they are talking about the geography of the island they go to "Tenedos-Bozcaada"
5. Brief history uses "Tenedos-Bozcaada" OK maybe we should say that this source privileges the hyphenated name (what an enlightened feminist island)
6. Then we get to the "Physical Structure of Bozcaada" and the discussion about recent conservation activities and the modern context on the island. And the name Tenedos virtually disappears. Page 333-end of the article (not the references) usage count: Tenedos 1, Bozcaada 27, Tenedos-Bozcaada 1.
7. References, what is used in the titles: Tenedos 0, Bozcaada 6 (all Turkish), Tenedos/Bozcaada 2, Bozcaada (Tenedos) 1. But these certainly shouldn't be our concern for the current discussion.
It appears that the evidence is that the source prefers Bozcaada (quite heavily) for the contemporary island or possibly that it prefers the hyphenated Tenedos-Bozcaada to talk about the island. It does not appear from reading the piece that it prefers Tenedos. Regardless, I think the continual references to what the source shows was misconstrued unintentionally, but that we can now clarify so that we don't have to see this source again claiming something it doesn't in any future discussions. Without objection I will change its Use-Designation in the list above. Thanks. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:26, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid that this list isn't a representaive one for wikipedia according to wp:NC,, it's overcrawded by newspapers, but academic & scientific journals are absent. After all wp isn't a newspaper but encyclopedia.Alexikoua (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is not a representative list. It is the list of what we discussed in August 2012. The interpretation of this list is what our discussion was about, and is where we can talk about appropriate or representative evidence. I'm not discussing what evidence is of common name, I'm listing for future use what evidence was used in our discussion of common name. It is the list of evidence that was specifically referred to in the August 2012 discussion. If a source wasn't referred to it isn't on the list. Since few specific academic journals were referred to, they were not put in the list. This is just a summary of what we talked about, it is not representative. I am not claiming any weight or truth in any of the evidence, I am just saying, this is what was mentioned in the discussion. Hope that clarifies. AbstractIllusions (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Also in fact, policy on article titles instructs editors very specifically to look at usage in "major English-language media outlets", as well as "major international organizations ... quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals". That was done in the move discussion, with the results as noted. And when it comes to basic titling matters, newspapers and other sources are not only equal to but are often preferred and in many ways better than scientific journals, because they reflect common, mainstream usage in a contemporary context - otherwise we'd have pages titled "Canis Lupus Familiaris", or "Hound", rather than "Dog". Re Google Books btw, policy also says: "Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations" (and I think the table above needs some explanation of the flaws in this specific case - I'll add some below in a sub-section). WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says nothing about titles - it is actually about not creating articles and content based simply on news events and reports; the preference for academic sources is again about detailed content, especially in respect of technical issues, since these are more authoritative than journalism in that respect. Anyway, if there was copious evidence of the use of Tenedos in a modern context in multiple academic journals, I'm sure you guys could have dug some up for the discussion? You could even present them yet, although not perhaps in this section. N-HHtalk/edits 10:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Note/Analysis re Google Books
This was the key evidence cited in favour of Tenedos. The raw hits claimed by User:Athenean, via Google.com, set Tenedos at 272,000 vs 16,000 for Bozcaada, as noted in the above table. The more focused search (specifying “island” in a bid to avoid mis-hits on ships, horses, other geographic locations etc, excluding books published in the 19th century etc) claimed stats of 2240 vs 313.
Now, WP rules are explicit all over the place about not simply taking Google hit numbers, for books or any other sub-set of its search facilities. And here’s the reason why in this case. Taking the second set of returns for Tenedos, here are the 20 first books that come up, most of which do indeed use Tenedos to refer to the island:
An encyclopedia seemingly originally published in the first half of the 19th century, discussing the island in the medieval period.
A book on planning and cultural history that refers to the island in a variety of ways, including as “Tenedos-Bozcaada”. In fact, if you search within it for each separate word, you get 16 hits for Bozcaada and 10 for Tenedos.
A 1992 report by Helsinki Watch (as was) focused on Greek cultural rights on the island. Does use Tenedos primarily
"The Papacy and the Levant: 1204-1571"
A book published in 1927
"Warfare on the Mediterranean .. 1571-1866"
The same book as no1
"History of the Byzantine Empire"
A book published in 1960
"The Last Centuries of Byzantium 1261-1453"
Unclear, but seems relatively recent and to use Tenedos
"A Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships" – mentions that the ship called Tenedos is named after the island, which in turn “now belong[s] to Turkey and [is] called Bozcaada”
"The Late Medieval Balkans"
Appears to be a reprint of a historical personal diary or journal
"Ancient Greek Beliefs"
"A history of the Byzantine state and society"
"FOF Companion to Classical Drama"
"Venice, a maritime republic"
"The Odyessy"
Aeschylus
Even being generous, that makes only three out of the 20 carry any weight as evidence for the modern, common name. We should also bear in mind that Danzig beats Gdansk by about 5:1 and Dimetoka beats Didymoteicho by about 20:1. The weight of historical references should not overturn the predominance of the modern form in the modern context. N-HHtalk/edits 10:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"Even being generous, that makes only three out of the 20 carry any weight"...I'm sorry, but this is "analysis" is wikilawyering pure and simple. With "analyses" like these you can justify anything, it's like shifting the other side's goal posts in a game in which you are participating. At first it was that all the sources that use Tenedos are outdated. Then that they were all false positive because of ships and African forts named Tenedos. Now it's an "analysis" where suddenly only "3 out of 20" "count", just because. However, all of the above are reliable, modern sources, and they use "Tenedos" for the name of the island. Similarly, I note the lack of a similar "analysis" for the results for "Bozcaada", many of whom are also false positives in that they appear in the search for "Bozcaada" because they mention "Bozcaada" once but use "Tenedos" throughout e.g. [9][10]. On it goes. Athenean (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Every time you link to that sustainable development source (your second one), you will find this put right after it from now on. "The second source does not support the claims Athenean is making about it. It prefers Bozcaada heavily over Tenedos. He has been made aware of this on multiple occasions, but continues to repost the link claiming it says something it does not." Please stop unintentionally distorting the evidential record, thank you. AbstractIllusions (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Sorry? It is "wikilawyering" to argue that a book, for example, about the Byzantine Empire that uses the name apparently current during the Byzantine period for the island might not possibly be a reasonable reference for what the island is called today? Do you seriously contest that point? It appears you and others do, given your extraordinary persistence on this point. And your claim about moving goalposts is also bullshit. From the outset the point has not been simply about books published historically, or books about horses and ships, but those that discussed the island in a historical context. From my first intervention in the RM onwards, I have consistently said as much. Nearly everyone favouring the move has consistently said as much. Every other page move discussion I have ever been involved in mostly gets this point. Now, either you did not read or understand what people have been saying throughout this debate or it is you who are "wikilawyering" or filibustering or whatever you wish to call it. Seriously, you need to take some time to think about your reasoning here. N-HHtalk/edits 08:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
What's "bullshit" is you saying "this book counts, that one doesn't", even though they are all modern, reliable sources per Wikipedia's definitions. You don't get to make up the rules. Many of the sources for "Bozcaada" also refer to it in an Ottoman context, so by your argument they should be removed as well. But for me it is sufficient that a source be modern, and in spite of all your efforts, the wikipedia community seems to be in agreement with me. Not to mention your complete failure to acknowledge the many false positives returned for "Bozcaada" [11][12] (they mention "Bozcaada" in parentheses but use "Tenedos" as the primary). And as far as "extraordinary persistence" and "filibuster", if we go by the sheer volume and frequency of posts, those guilty of that would be you and the others of the "Support" camp. Or is your definition of "extraordinary persistence" and "filibuster" that of someone disagreeing with you? Would you like everyone who voted "Oppose" to simply melt away and leave the stage only to you? You have the nerve to talk filibuster, well the entire move closure review is one big giant filibuster. Even now, previously uninvolved people are coming to the move review page and voting "endorse", and 2-3 people from the "Support" camp leap at them "Why did you vote endorse? Reconsider your vote!". Fortunately, I note that such tactics are starting to backfire. I will let you have the last word now, lest I be accused of "extraordinary persistence" and "filibuster" and god knows what else. Athenean (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Filibustering refers to attempts to prevent something by debating at great length, not to attempts to make something happen. Responding to specious argument, sometime frequently and at length, in a bid to finally explain both to the proponent and any readers why the argument is specious is not filibustering or wikilawyering either. I'd much rather not have to do it and have also expressed my amazement that it is necessary, and how stupid it makes WP look when you consider how easy and obvious a decision this must have been for any serious publication. And in fact the Wikipedia community in every other space agrees and understands you don't count historical references in the same way when there's been a shift in control and/or name - eg Gdansk v Danzig, Kolkata v Calcutta. Here for some reason - possibly due to the persistence of the claim - it seems to have acquired a modicum of purchase. Of course there are false positives and historical references in the Google Books results for Bozcaada too - but of course I'm not trying to claim Bozcaada trumps Tenedos in published books, let alone those available by Google Books. I'm just saying the 10:1 ratio in favour of Tenedos means nothing given how full it is of references to Greek myth, classical antiquity and the medieval period. It does mean nothing. I'm looking at atlases, maps, guide books, major international newspapers and books. They are nearly unanimous in declaring this place to be called Bozcaada. And yes, I very much wish you would melt away - not to leave the stage to me or anyone else, but to leave this page to its proper, common, internationally accepted English-language name in 2012. N-HHtalk/edits 09:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Right, when you do it it's legit, when those you disagree with do it, it's "filibustering". The 10:1 margin in favor of Tenedos does mean something, in fact it means a lot, namely that the Turkish name hasn't fully caught on in the English world. And this is also the reason that much of the wikipedia community are against the move, and are not convinced by your arguments, in spite of the incredible amount of effort and energy you have put into making this move happen. It seems that plenty of reliable publications, several thousands in fact, have made the "easy" and "obvious" decision to use "Tenedos". Athenean (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Um, no, it's about the fundamental meaning of the word filibuster. Even if you don't know that already, I explained it in my very first sentence above, but you've just stared past the point. As you are still staring past the point that in the vast majority of cases, modern publications that use Tenedos are using it when referring to a historical context - which you are correct is, as I have observed before myself, a very easy decision; whereas by contrast those talking about the island in a contemporary context do very much use Bozcaada? Just like sources talk about Danzig when discussing the history of the then German town, such that it still beats Gdansk in Google Books, even though the latter is the commonly accepted and used modern, Polish name. With debate like this, is it any wonder I talk about filibustering and I and others have to spend ages making the same, simple points over and over? The WP community as a whole accepts the principle of using the common contemporary terms, and avoiding anachronism, but you are correct that a few people have put their foot down against the application of that principle in this case and claimed the right of exceptionalism and veto. N-HHtalk/edits 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Sources that comment on the name
OK, we've got a schedule above of maps, atlases, modern guide-books etc that all prefer Bozcaada. We've also got some evidence there that Tenedos is also sometimes still used in modern contexts, although most commonly in a historical context. Below I've tried to pull together a sample of sources based not on use but on direct assertions and statements about use. The sources all use or prefer Bozcaada, but then explicitly note that Tenedos is an old or Greek name - not only does this offer further supporting evidence for the proposition that Bozcaada is the proper modern name, but it clarifies the prevalence of Tenedos in older published sources and sources focused on history. Unlike the above schedule not all were cited in the move request itself. Some were, but not necessarily with the quote highlighted. Major international news sources and dictionaries etc are all specifically recommended by WP:NCGN as being good sources for naming decisions. Even if we acknowledge that some would not be suitable as references for substantive or complex content, they all undoubtedly work well as evidence for the simple question: what do people commonly call, or not call, this place in 2012?
Media
New York Times - "Bozcaada was often contested land. The island, known to the Greeks as Tenedos"
Wall Street Journal - "Known for millennia by its Greek name, Tenedos, the island is mentioned in both the Illiad and the Aeneid"
The UK Independent - "Under its Greek name of Tenedos, Bozcaada sneaked into the history books during the Trojan"
UK Guardian - "The island was known for nearly 4,000 years as Tenedos"
They don't on their own necessarily prove everything - but they show a widespread acknowledgement and explicit assertion by modern English-language sources that the modern Turkish name is the one in standard use today, with Tenedos as a largely historical or Greek alternate. And I can be pretty certain there aren't going to be many sources that make the opposite claim - explicitly, by asserting as much - that Tenedos is the common modern name, but I would happily see them. N-HHtalk/edits 11:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Professional and social commitments do not permit me to invest as much time into this kind of research, but there are of courses that do make the opposite claim [13]. As I have also pointed out above, there are also plenty of source that mention the name "Bozcaada" but use "Tenedos"[14][15][16]. Athenean (talk) 16:10, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate you may not have time, but what we are looking for are explicit statements about comparative use, and in particular statements that suggest or assert that Tenedos is the common, current name used in English across other publications as well. Your latter cites, and previous ones you refer back to, are different things and merely examples of use in the publication in question. The first is the only one that comes close or is comparable to any of the examples I've cited - but a fuller reading suggests the author is merely being generous in switching between references to the "Greek" and "Turkish" names for both Bozcaada and Gokceada. He uses Bozcaada on its own to drive sentences - he does not consistently use Tenedos and merely note Bozcaada as the Turkish version; and talks about Gokceada as being "known to the Greeks as Imbros". N-HHtalk/edits 17:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I did look at this with an open mind and try to find things saying the opposite, but failed. The absence of any authoritative source saying something like "The official name of the island is now Bozcaada, but it's never really caught on in the wider world and most English-speakers still refer to it as Tenedos" does not clich the debate - since it may just be that no one has got round to saying this yet - but with all the examples above explicitly making the opposite assertion, and none contradicting them, it's hard to avoid the obvious conclusion, one would have thought. N-HHtalk/edits 08:31, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Could it be that both names are essentially equally common?
I have become aware of this title dispute due to a question at WP:Article Titles. Having read the above discussions (starting with the page move request in early August, and continuing through the RFC and other threads)... I see a lot of evidence and arguments centered on demonstrating that either Tenedos or Bozcaada is the WP:COMMONNAME. The problem is that both sides believe the evidence supports their sides of the debate. What is becoming clear is that in determining the WP:COMMONNAME, a lot depends on how you search and what tools you use to search. Those who support Tenedos point to one set of statistics and say "according to X search, Tenedos is more common", those who support Bozcaada point to a different set of statistics and say "no, according to Y search, Bozcaada is more common". What we end up with is a stalemate, with each group pointing to their search results, and trying to discredit the other group's search results.
I would like to propose a way out (as a neutral third party who does not care which name is used)... could we reach a consensus that neither name is really significantly more common than the other? If we accept this idea, and can agree that both names are essentially equally common, then we must look to policy and guideline provisions other than WP:COMMONNAME to resolve the dispute. I think it is at least worth exploring. What do other policy and guideline provisions tell us, and which name do they indicate should be used as a title? Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
The solution is simple and was reflected in the article text until a ... (put here the word you like: Nationalist, objective, biassed, enthusiast, apasionado etc) user changed it a short while ago: Bozcaada is given the preference and the first place (including one and only article title) then old Greek name referred to, after "Bozcaada". IMO, within the article there may be sections like "Tenedos in Homer" or "Tenedos in mythology", of course if the other users also agree to this, and, additionally, if the name was Tenedos during the time referred to. No more Tenedos referral after Ottoman conquest is acceptible though. This is the simple solution from a simple user like me. --E4024 (talk) 20:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
What policy or guideline provision are you referring to? Blueboar (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
None. --E4024 (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Ah... then would it be accurate to say that you are not responding to my suggestion (which is that we look at what policy and guideline provisions other than WP:COMMONNAME say, and try to resolve the dispute using those)? Blueboar (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
@Blueboar - The only factor that supports the name "Tenedos" over "Bozcaada" is the Google Books results which give the most results for an other name of the island "Phoenice". Unfortunately, that's where the (partially )supporting evidence ends. A detailed look at Google Books results will show that a lot of them are not about the modern island. I went for 20 pages and saw that majority of them were history books or the like while the results for "Bozcaada" returned more modern context. In this page there is extensive amount of work provided by other editors how many reliable sources (news agencies, maps, official government bodies, international organizations, encyclopedias, travel guides etc.) commonly use "Bozcaada". "Tenedos" is still used but mainly when referring to island's old name or if the author is Greek. Exceptions are rare but exists. That said, what does the policies and guidelines tell us? I'll tell what I've told in the place you camefrom: "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals." The policy continues to tell us: "Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, see Wikipedia:Search engine test." This leads us to WP:GOOGLETEST. The entirety of the article cautions you against Google search results and tries to better them. When we move on the policy page we also see this: "For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see "Multiple local names" and "Use modern names" in the geographical naming guideline." Now we reach this guidline: WP:MODERNPLACENAME. This guidelines puts the last nail: "For an article about a place whose name has changed over time, context is important. For articles discussing the present, use the modern English name (or local name, if there is no established English name), rather than an older one." So, we look at reliable English sources first. Google results can be helpful but they can't be used to ignore the rest of the evidence. Hence, I don't think there is two equally common names for this island. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 22:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Seth... but that is still focused on WP:COMMONNAME and is not the kind of analysis of other policy and guideline provisions that I was talking about. Can someone come up with other policy and guideline provisions that support using Bozcaada? Can anyone come up with other policy and guideline provisions that support using Tenedos? Blueboar (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by focused on WP:COMMONNAME. You started with the assumption that this policy creates a stalemate. I tried to explain in detail on how that was not true. Are you asking for policies outside of WP:TITLE? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
(Stalking E....). Ridiculous. The official name (Bozcaada) should be the name to use. I.e. USA is not a redirect to "America". E is spot-on re. the reasons for this silly dispute.TMCk (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
Can anyone point to anything inconsistant with the conclusion that the name of this place has changed? It's very simple. The name of this place has changed! The name of this place has changed. It's a simple knowable fact. It's no more a person's personal point of view to say that the name of this island has changed than it would be to say "In my opinion, Istanbul was called Constantinople, but the Turks changed the name." That's not your opinion, it's a knowable fact. It reminds me of the time Peggy Hill wrote in her "musings" that "In my opinion, kindling is the small pieces of wood that you use to get a fire going." That's not an opinion, it's a known fact! "In my opinion, the flag of South Africa has changed." "In my opinion, New York was once called New Amsterdam." Don't take it from me, get an Atlas and check! They changed the name after they did a treaty with the like ninety years ago, going on a century ago, almost. The treaty gave the island to the Turks. Once it was in their possession, they changed the name. Map makers and such, ever vigilent, changed the name on the maps. Journalists and such followed suit. It's not called Tenedos anymore.
Here's a version I'm sure you'll all enjoy.Chrisrus (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
While bids at compromise or imaginative solutions are always a good idea in principle, the premise here, as already noted, is simply wrong. The two names are, simply, not equally common in a modern context. Bozcaada wins by a country mile in modern sources referring to the modern island. We also have sources explicitly asserting as much. What's needed to resolve this is for people still maintaining otherwise to finally acknowledge that counts of books about the Trojan War and Byzantine Empire, even if published in 2007, do not factor as evidence for modern usage, and/or for someone closing the debate - after reading it through in a bit more detail this time - to make a bold move decision and actually enforce WP rules rather than fall in behind an effective veto. N-HHtalk/edits 08:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
@Blueboar If I accept that such an impasse exists in the evidence, the appropriate naming conventions are quite clear actually. According to WP:NCGN, if a "widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it." If such a clear accepted name does not exist (which is what you are suggesting), "the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used." I said this in the original move request and emphasized it countless times. Tenedos is neither the widely accepted English name in a modern context, nor the modern official name. Bozcaada, I think, is the widely accepted English name. Others disagree. If an impasse in usage in evidence actually exists, the Wikipedia policy is clear, modern official name should be used, which is Bozcaada. That is where the weight of the official name is important, not because it has any weight in the initial decision of "widely accepted English name" but because it is the default position if such a name doesn't exist. The guideline crafters have already thought about such a situation and prescribed a solution. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am not discounting WP:MODERNNAME... but it is essentially an offshoot (or a clarification) of WP:COMMONNAME, and I am trying to get people to examine the debate from a different angle. Essentially the arguments on both sides have so far centered on applying the WP:AT principle of Recognizability (ie which title would be more recognizable to English speaking readers)... that is a very important policy principle, but not the only one we should examine. What I was asking people to do is to look at the other provisions of WP:AT. Now both names are Concise and Unambiguous, so we can discount those principles... but have we examined the principles of Naturalness and Consistency?... has anyone looked to see how the island is referred to in other Wikipedia articles (and what name these other articles use when linking to this article)? Blueboar (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Since it is an official Turkish district, that wikilink is really weird. You go to the page Districts of Turkey and click on Bozcaada and get directed to Tenedos. I said earlier, that would be like clicking on U.S. state for Texas and being directed to Nueva Espana or something. That would be weird. I'm not sure the findings from consistency would change much relevant. Battle of Tenedos in BC of course links to Tenedos. Wind Farms in Turkey about today of course links to Bozcaada. I appreciate the creativity, but we're hemmed in by the weird situation of this island. I'm not sure why we would expect Consistency to solve the problem. Also consistency in other pages may follow the use on this page, so it seems a problematic assessment. Just my 2 cents. AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking about the name change for Taiwan, as an example. There is a Keystone page there Taiwan. And as a result of name change for that main page, other pages usage is being changed for consistency reasons (i.e. Talk:Township (Taiwan)). However, it doesn't seem there is such a Keystone page in this instance that would require the island name to reflect it for consistency purposes. Is there? AbstractIllusions (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
@Blueboar - Let's take a look at those policies:
Recognizability - Both names are somewhat recognizable but "Bozcaada" is used more commonly in reliable sources in modern context.
Naturalness - Given that reliable news agencies, maps, travel guides, encyclopedias, etc. use "Bozcaada" people coming from a modern context will likely to search for that name. People looking for the context of the ancient era would search for "Tenedos" however. Google Books results show that too. The number of results is higher for "Tenedos" but a page by page decipher shows that it's overwhelmingly about ancient history of the island. The Wiki policies however favors the context of the island which is the modern island in this case.
Precision - "Bozcaada" is more precise as the article is more about the modern context.
Conciseness - Both are ok in this regard.
Consistency - Similar to Constantinople. I've also looked at other languages and found that 15 of them use "Bozcaada", 7 of them use "Tenedos". There are few like Arabic that I can't decipher (6 in total). Interestingly, the Simple English article is Bozcaada.
Were these the policies you were asking for? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Let me make a clear point here (even so it was made before with more mildly words): There is no reason what-so-ever to not use the contemporary name (Bozcaada) as the title and primary name for this article. The old name of course needs to be mentioned from a historical perspective maybe in the lead and/or for sure in the historical section. There is no consensus that can override that fact.TMCk (talk) 23:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, if this is not resolved in a timely matter I'll instigate an RFC which I'm sure would place the official name at first as there is no reason not to do so.TMCk (talk) 23:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
