Talk:Cork (material)

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

The result of the debate was No consensus. I think that a fairly strong case is made for making Cork a dab page (rather than related with material only), but I'm reluctant to proclaim that a consensus per its definition of "the solution that all sides equally disagree with". There are precedents and NCs on all sides, and it's unclear which should apply. Since incoming links (another issue to take car of) now also seem sorted out, I'll apply the "don't fix if ain't broken principle" for now. Duja^► 15:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cork (material) → Cork — The material is the the first meaning that comes to mind for most people, if they're even aware of more than one meaning. Furthermore, even in the confines of the Cork (city) talk page, people already use the disambiguation "Cork City" to distinguish this meaning from County Cork. ENeville 04:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

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

1. Support Cork City already redirects to the article about the city named Cork, and should be the article name. It is often referred to as Cork City (much like New York City). But the material certainly is the most common use of the term. --Serge 05:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Support - this is more notable than the city. --Yath 07:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Support Outside of Ireland, how many people know that Cork exists as a place? It's not fair on the rest of the world, if yanks had a city called Glass, I'd be pissed off to see it there ahead of the material. Pauric 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

   The proper title for the city is "Cork (city)". Please read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Specific_topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yath (talk • contribs) . 00:30, October 25, 2006 (UTC)

4. Support (though I would somewhat prefer the city to be at Cork (city) since "Cork City" is rather unofficial. The alternate forms can be explained within the article.) --Dystopos 14:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Support Cork → Cork (city) version of this multimove. -- nae'blis 15:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Support I think you'd find there are many more people who know about the material but not the city compared to those who know about the city but not the material. --Polaron | Talk 23:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. On a world wide basis, I don't see more people thinking of the city before the material. It seems that some of the oppose votes may have to do with the name to be used for the city article rather then the proposal itself. If Cork City or Cork (city) are not acceptable, how about Cork, Ireland? Vegaswikian 07:05, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Support per Polaron. Kirjtc2 19:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Support - it seems redundant for me to be saying so, but for the sake of the tally I do. Also, I'm not invested in Cork City over Cork (city) or Cork, Ireland. ENeville 02:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. I think of the city first. Proteus (Talk) 09:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. I think of the city first. Vote: "leave as is". (Discussion points in related section below) Guliolopez 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. as per Guliolopez Frelke 11:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. the city comes first. ww2censor 12:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose - City far more notable than the material. There's already a disambig page quoted on both anyway - Alison^✍ 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose per Guliolopez's points below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose - a term like "Cork City" is for the manifest illiterate. Djegan 18:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose- I also think of the city first. Calling it "Cork City" would lead to inaccurate usage. --Kathryn NicDhàna 18:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose the move as indicated. I might support placing a disambiguation page at "Cork", but I don't see any basis for giving the material primary topic status over the city. older ≠ wiser 12:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
10. Oppose, like BKonrad, I would be amenable to moving the article on the city to Cork (city) and having a disambiguation page at Cork, but I don't see how the material is clearly a primary topic. john k 13:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose Oppose rename. Neither the material or the tissue should be the "primary topic". THEre is possibly a case that the city should also not be the primary topic. However probably best left as it is. IsaacAsv 21:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
12. Oppose Although I would support a recommendation to have a disambiguation page instead of the city or the material Irlchrism 13:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose Neither the material for bulletin boards nor the name of a bottle-stopper is "more notable" than a city. (Some people have peculiar notions about what "notable" means. It does not mean "I heard of this but not that".) I might support a disambiguation page at "Cork" as does older≠wiser above. -- Evertype·✆ 08:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To the question "what article should be at Cork" I estimate the tally (and indexes of respective voters) so far:
  • • material 8 (1,2,9,14,15,16,17,18)
    • city 9-11 (3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12?,13?,19)
    • disambig 2-4 (12?,13?,20,21) [21 is me: see my comment below. I don't want to label my vote an "Oppose" as it's not a vote for the status quo] jnestorius^(talk) 20:33, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:

• Points to support Oppose votes above:

1. I think of the city first. (Over the material and the county as argued by proposer)
2. Existing naming is not without precedence: Limerick (links to IE city and not Limerick (poetry)), Bath (links to UK city and not the plumbing fixture or anything else), Wells (precedence for UK city and not anything else). Manta (links to city in Ecuador and not anything else), Nice (links to FR city and not others), etc, etc.
3. Even if this were to be redirected, I don't agree with argument that it should be redirected to Cork (material). Cork (tissue) (that which Cork is made from) is just as valid.

Guliolopez 10:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

• Points to support Support votes above:

1. What any one of us thinks of "first" when we hear some word is irrelevant to deciding what the name of a Wikipedia article should be; there is no precedent for using the "what I think of first" basis. --Serge 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
2. The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the use of the term cork to refer to the material used to seal wine bottles is close to 100%. The percentage of English speakers who are familiar with the city named Cork is vanishingly tiny, almost certainly less than 50%. Thus, the term belongs to the material per WP:NC(CN). --Serge 17:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Serge. Without wishing to get into a raging debate about it, I would offer a few comments on your notes above.

First off, while I voted oppositely to you, I agree with your point #1 above. It is true that "I think of meaning X first" is a weak statement and therefore a weak argument. However, that is the argument/vote/discussion topic that was put forward by the proposer: "(That) The material is the the first meaning that comes to mind for most people".

Regardless, there's no point in getting too caught up in debating etiquette, as I think that most contributors will recognise that the intent of the vote is to confirm a consensus on whether it is expected that visitors were more likely to have linked to the "Cork" page because their interpretation of the term "Cork" related to the bottle stopper, and not the city.

With regard to your point #2. I'm afraid I don't agree with your interpretation. WP:NC(CN) does not prescribe any "percentage of speakers" which must use the term to decide on the best common name use. Rather, it suggests that Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions give a different indication, use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Personally I think the first part of this is key, as another "accepted Wikipedia naming convention" (namely Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names)) suggests that "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it". Now I accept obviously that (probably because we're dealing with two meanings that fall under 2 different naming convention guidelines) these two naming convention guidelines don't mesh very well. They might even conflict. However, (and I hate to do this because I hate when people do this), in these cases it is suggested that you use a Google test to resolve. And in the case of a google test for cork, the use in relation to the city wins out.

Guliolopez 18:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Let's agree that the most common name use to refer to the city is, Cork, and the most common name used to refer to the material, is cork. In that sense, WP:NC(CN) does not help us here. I agree the google test might be helpful here, but I don't understand how you determine how many of the references are for the city rather than the material, and vice versa. --Serge 19:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I think we've established that the google test for this is inconclusive below. That leaves us with my earlier point: take any random group of 1,000 adult English speakers from around the world and virtually all will know of the material named cork, and much fewer will know of the city in Ireland. Putting aside the relevance of this point, will you agree that it is true? Related to this is the fact that anyone searching for "cork" is probably looking for the city or the material, and almost certainly knows of the material. If he's looking for the city and since he knows of the material, is he not likely to enter "cork city" for his search? --Serge 19:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The use of the word "cork" to refer to a city is far less prominent than the material. Those voters who live near the city, many of whom seem to have turned out for this vote, should consider more widespread English usage instead of making selfish choices that degrade the encyclopedia. --Yath 00:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks, Yath. It's rather much for you to assume everyone who opposes the move is "selfish" and lives near Cork (or that living near Cork would somehow disqualify someon's points in the discussion. Where someone lives is irrelevant). --Kathryn NicDhàna 01:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Since they are incorrect on the facts of the matter, the assumptions I have made are reasonable. And while "attacks" are inappropriate, the ad hominem argument is not. Like it or not, wikipedians often distort articles to suit their regional preferences, of which they are often unaware. It is wholly appropriate to remind people that that isn't good for the encyclopedia. --Yath 01:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google test

Pages that refer to cork and Ireland:

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,000,000 English pages for cork +Ireland.

Page that refer to cork but not Ireland:

Results 1 - 10 of about 27,900,000 English pages for cork -Ireland

Pages that refer to "Cork, Ireland":

Results 1 - 10 of about 2,370,000 English pages for "Cork, Ireland"

I don't see how the google test shows that there are more references to the city in Ireland than to the material. --Serge 19:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid your method is just as flawed as mine.

Taking your method first. If I read your results your expectation is that "cork -Ireland" will return results that are unrelated to the city. Unfortunately however - if you look at the first 20 results of your search, you will note that 8 return sites related to the city and environs. So, "cork -ireland" and "cork +ireland" are not valid tests for a google count.

I admit that my own test is possibly also flawed and not entirely "to form". However, because I failed (as you did) to find a means to otherwise differentiate the terms, I simply took the first 100 results of a search for "cork" (small "c") and confirmed that (excluding wikipedia entries) >80 of the results were sites/pages related to the city/county, ~10 were related to the material, and <10 were related to topics not covering either. This gave me a pretty clear indication that the most common returned use (in Google RANKING terms) was in reference to the geographical term. Guliolopez 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's odd that google returns pages with Ireland in them when the search criteria clearly excludes references to Ireland. Anyway, I think the google results are inconclusive at best. Which takes us back to my original argument, the discussion of which does not belong here. --Serge 19:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention, and this is probably obvious, that I'm not familiar with the process of contested moves such as this. I hope my handling of the proposal hasn't brought offense; and I think the merits of the move shouldn't be constrained by the ideas I offered in proposing the move. Regarding discussion thus far, specifically the anologs of other city names, I think that they happen to avoid direct language conflicts, eg "nice" is a descriptor and more likely to find its way into Wikipedia under Niceness, Kindness, or some such. Alternatively, with Limerick, I was under the impression that limerick derived from Limerick, so the logic of the city's primacy in nomenclature seems comparatively intuitive. ENeville 01:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Some examples supporting the logic of Cork being for the material, or at least a disambiguation page:

• "Tamale" is a city of 300,000; however, Tamale is an article on the food item
• "Saga" is city of 200,000; however, Saga is a dab page, first listing the story meaning
• "Man" is a city of 150,000; however, Man is an article on the human male

I also think Hue, Vietnam (pop. 350,000), is an example unless one knows how to type ế. ENeville 02:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the google rankings, I don't see how you can divorce the "Cork City" hits from the "Cork County" hits. Which is a very relevant distinction. On whatlinkshere, there are 1100 inlinks to city and 800 to county; pretty close. If there were no other convention, then Cork would already be a disambiguation page even without cork (material) to contend with. However, the overriding convention appears to be (Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles)#Disambiguation of locations in Ireland): Where a town and county have the same name, the county article should be named as County Countyname, and the town should be located at County/townname (if no further disambiguation is needed). For example, Sligo and County Sligo. It's only a talk-page suggestion, but absent anything stronger it's unexceptionable. However, throw cork (material) back into the mix and it's clear that it's not a contest between material and city; it's a contest between material, city and county. To me is a clear case where disambiguation is required, as the only reason city is preferred to county is a very obscure and largely arbiitratry Wikipedia convention. jnestorius^(talk) 02:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To prefer a city over a subnational division named for it is fairly standard practice. We do it also with Spanish and Italian provinces, for instance, with German districts, with Russian oblasts, with Brazilian and Argentine states, and in many other instances. john k 12:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Another point worth noting is just because more people are familiar with a word than a city named for that word does not make the word a more important topic for an encyclopedia article. Probably more English-speakers know someone whose name is "Kent" (Clark Kent, for instance), than know about the English county of Kent - that doesn't make the latter stop being a primary topic. It seems, at any rate, that the clear thing to do here is to make Cork a disambiguation page and move the current article on the city to Cork (city). john k 12:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

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