Jump to content

Talk:Menorca

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled]

[edit]

People writing about Minorca and Majorca should be aware of the fact that writing Majorca but Menorca is etymologically inconsistent, as the major and minor in them is not a coincidence. :-) (Just for those who don't like to appear ignorant.) --Maladroit


Images added. Francisco Valverde 15:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More correct English please

[edit]

These comments were potentially offensive to the many British readers of this page. Even more offensive was the failure to use the English language correctly. I have deleted the comments for these reasons.

Phoenicians

[edit]

I have just cut It was called Nura by the Phoenicians in honoring their god Baal, meaning the "island of fire". off the lead section for I believe it doesn't really belong in there. Besides, the relationship between Baal->island of fire->Nura should be explained, as it is not self evident.

Generally speaking the article is particularly weak precisely in paleolithic and phoenician times, which, historically speaking, are probably the most relevant of the island after all. It would be necessary some development of these in the History section. Mountolive 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Menorca or Minorca

[edit]

I read the following in the article.

"(Menorca both in Catalan and Spanish; from Latin Balearis Minor, later Minorica "minor island")"

Does anyone have documented evidence of the islands name in English? If you check an English atlas, generally it will be called Menorca. If you look for references on Google there are 16 million for Menorca and only 2.7 million results for Minorca.

This is an English language page. So, should the name of the Island not be the name it is known by in the English Language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.250.36 (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be careful when doing Google searches because it will give all instances of the term in all languages. I checked 3 different dictionaries (Random House [1], American Heritage [2], and Webster’s [3]), and they all have the spelling of the main entry as Minorca. MSN Encarta [4], the Columbia Encyclopedia [5], and Britannica [6] all have it under Minorca. I don't have it with me right now, but the Atlas I have at home gives both the native and English names for each place, and Minorca is given as the English name. You will see people using the native spellings even in English, but according to the official sources I checked, the English spelling is Minorca. Kman543210 (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I go on holiday there A LOT and have to say that it is the most beautiful place in the entire world!!! User 08burgelaura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.249.94 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on this discussion, I have undone an undiscussed move of the article to Menorca. I suggest getting consensus here before moving it again. --John (talk) 23:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is English-speaking Wikipedia. The name in English is Minorca. Jacob Newton (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islands of the Balearic Islands vs. Category:Menorca

[edit]

Category:Menorca is itself a category within Category:Islands of the Balearic Islands. — Robert Greer (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer of sovereignty

[edit]

What about something on the transfer from the United Kingdom to Spain? Flosssock1 (talk) 12:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Population

[edit]

The article lists the population at 94383, but the figure I most often see is 67,000. Can someone provide a reference for that, as I cannot find it? —Zujine|talk 18:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The figure is correct. It can be checked here: INE. Jotamar (talk) 16:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British century

[edit]

Err, it was France, not Spain, who gained the island during the Seven Years' War... 86.26.14.250 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:UE seems that English printed sources tipped from use of the old Latin-derived colonial name Minorca, to use of the modern EU Spanish/Catalan spelling Menorca around 1990. Using "is" to hit only in-sentence usage and current context, "Menorca is" since 2000 = 620x vs. "Minorca is" -Wikipedia = 410x. (for comparison sources 1980-1990 produced a more equal 117 vs 90, results from 1950s and 1960s clearly favour current title). The search "Minorca was" vs "Menorca was" since 2010 still favours the 18thC spelling when discussing the Napoleonic Wars etc. But this article is about the modern island. Articles dealing with the British colonial period 1708-1802 such as List of Governors of Minorca, Invasion of Minorca (1781), etc. should remain where they are. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC) "As featured on the covers of all dedicated guidebooks to Menorca on Amazon: Menorca Marco Polo Guide (2014), The Rough Guide to Mallorca & Menorca (2013), Time Out Mallorca and Menorca (2013), Berlitz Menorca (2012), DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Mallorca, Menorca & Ibiza (2012), Thomas Cook Guide Menorca (2011), Frommer's Mallorca and Menorca (2010), AA Essential Menorca (Automobile Association 2009), Frommer's The Balearics With Your Family: The Best of Mallorca, Menorca, Ibiza and Formentera (2007), Insight Guide Menorca Compact Guide (2005), Globetrotter Mallorca and Menorca (2004), and excluding references to chickens and Lord Nelson." In ictu oculi (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Addition of tourist guides to proposal on relisting as requested below In ictu oculi (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yerevanci, why does your ngram include so many sources about the 18th Century? We are in 2013. the same ngram with "Minorca is" vs "Menorca is" shows, not surprisingly, the same results as Google Books searches, that the name for the modern island in English sources is the modern name. The British colonial era is over, the island was relinquished in 1802. Minorca still is more common in English language sources concerning the 18th Century, yes but I ask you the question; is Minorca still more common in English language sources concerning the modern island? What does the revised ngram show? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first of all 1800s is 19th century as long as I know. Secondly, why are you looking at 1800s? As you can see on your own graph, Minorca is still more common, isn't it? Was it a rhetorical question? --Երևանցի talk 01:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yerevanci, thanks for coming back, perhaps look at page 7, or indeed 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10 of those Advanced Book Search results. What they show is not just that "Menorca is" is more common than "Minorca is" overall, but when excluding 1708-1802 traffic within "Minorca is" then "Menorca is" is more common, much more common. Menorca is the WP:COMMONNAME for the modern island in sources since 2000, or indeed since 1990. Please exclude content related to the British colonial period. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about Google Ngram Viewer. If you are arguing that "Minorca" is an archaic term, then set the range from 1990 to 2008. Minorca still surpasses Menorca. Additionally, Google Maps uses calls it "Minorca Island". [7] --Երևանցի talk 04:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yerevantsi, how does your search subtract books 1990 to 2008 talking about the British colonial period 1708-1802? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Maps uses the 18th century form too? --Երևանցի talk 04:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yerevantsi, my question is how does your search subtract books 1990 to 2008 talking about the British colonial period 1708-1802? You've included a lot of 1990-2008 content on the napoleonic wars in your ngram. Compare this search:
Menorca + today (from 2005) = __ ?
Minorca + today (from 2005) = __ ?
Which is the more common spelling concerning the island today in books since 2005? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And You left my question unanswered. "Minorca" has historically been used in English language sources. Just because "Menorca" hits more in the past 5 years or so doesn't make it more common or more correct. --Երևանցի talk 04:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I don't know anything about Google Maps or whether it is counted as WP:RS. Yes "Minorca" has historically been used in English language sources, "Minorca" still is used in English language sources to describe the British colonial period. I don't understand how if "Menorca" hits more in the past 5 years it doesn't make it more common. I would have thought 940x to 584x is more common by definition. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't count as RS then what does? Your research? How about Encyclopædia Britannica? Columbia Encyclopedia? Encyclopedia of World Geography? --Երևանցի talk 05:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said "I don't know anything about Google Maps or whether it is counted as WP:RS" so sorry I cannot help on that one. But I don't understand your point about "Your research" - do you mean "Your research" of the Google Book results above? Yes, per WP:RS "reliable for the statement being made" then Google Books since 2005 would more reliable for usage in books since 2005 than searching books before 2005, of course. Columbia is 1963, Haggett is 1993. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you feel like calling it. So what they are from 1963 and 1993? And what are your reliable sources? I yet have to see a source that is more authoritative than your research. --Երևանցի talk 18:31, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1963 and 1993 are the publication dates. It is not "whatever [I] feel like calling it" we don't call a GB wikt:search "wikt:research," these are two different terms. You are welcome to run the numbers through Google Books yourself, but see below, you will get the same results, such as 1970-1980 "Minorca is" was 2.38x more common, but 2010-2013 "Menorca is" was 2.34x more common. Same question as to Dohn joe, this is a trend, so is there any doubt which way the trend has moved? In ictu oculi (talk)
You perhaps didn't read my entire comment. I clearly stated that we need reliable sources. I don't care what the trend is. I'd much rather use the old form which is more acceptable than follow the trends. --Երևանցի talk 01:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it. Regarding trends/changed usage, out of interest are there any examples of Armenian place names which were known in English by the Russian/Soviet name until recently but are now known by the Armenian name? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Place name change is different. We're talking about spelling here. --Երևանցի talk 03:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yerevanci Can you give an example please. Akdamar Island we use the Turkish spelling rather than Armenian Akhtamar. Are there not any examples of where the change in English has gone the other way from e.g. a Russian spelling to the original Armenian spelling? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact I have found List of renamed cities in Armenia. Are there any of these renamed towns which had notable historical events happen at them which are more common in English sources than references to the modern town? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're taking this conversation to somewhere else. All you do is repeat yourself. There is a reason why 3 other users have also voted oppose. Maybe you should just sit back and read my and their arguments. Have a nice day. --Երևանցի talk 03:42, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Yerevanci yes but you haven't yet opposed, that's why I'm talking to you. I cannot explain why the other 3 editors have opposed - given that is clearly evident that modern sources like Lonely Planet generally do not use the British colonial spelling when discussing the modern period. even Frommers has abandoned the British colonial spelling (see also Amazon.com). I am taking this conversation somewhere else, to a general practice across all Wikipedia to use the names as in the most recent English sources. We do this for Armenia, Turkey, etc., the only area we don't do it for is Kosovo, which I believe is a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problem rather than abiding by best en.wp practice. But why should we doing it for Menorca? The British are long gone. Why should Wikipedia have a different name than Lonely Planet? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]


User:Dohn joe, in what way exactly are "Menorca is" since 2000 = 620x vs. "Minorca is" -Wikipedia = 410x not clear? Your searches show exactly what the nom search shows; that the sources tipped from "Minorca is" to "Menorca is" around 1990. I do not understand the purpose of you running an alternative search of books published in 1756 1741 etc?
If you wish to argue that historical names be used for modern geo articles then should Jonesboro, Georgia be moved to agree with Battle of Jonesborough 1864? Sources in Google Books mentioning Jonesboro overwhelming use the old name Jonesborough, since a big battle happened in a little place. Going further back sources mentioning Greek Smyrna and Nicea overwhelming outnumber modern İzmir and İznik. There's no rule of consistency of names in Wikipedia between place names of history articles and modern geo articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is, Google Books = "Menorca", ngram = "Minorca". Please see this new ngram, limited to post-2000 results. "Menorca" ≠ "Minorca", therefore lack of clarity. Dohn joe (talk) 19:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I'm saying it's best to use Advanced Book Search. The ngram was only presented as contrast to Yerevanci's ngram including napoleonic history, etc. The Advanced Book Search was done taking out Wikipedia's own shadow from Google Books by using "-Wikipedia -LLC". If you know how to do "-Wikipedia -LLC" on a ngram search then please link it, but an ngram including Wikipedia and LLC should not be advanced as evidence over Advanced Book Search which can take out "-Wikipedia -LLC". Also the ngram only runs up to 2008 visually, wheras Advanced Book Search transparently presents 5 years more data, up to 2013.
And no "Menorca" ≠ "Minorca", just as Livorno ≠ Leghorn be moved to agree with Battle of Leghorn, Pylos (≠ formerly Navarino) be moved to agree with Battle of Navarino, or Korčula ≠ Curzola be moved to agree with the Battle of Curzola? So I repeat again, in what way exactly are "Menorca is" since 2000 = 620x vs. "Minorca is" -Wikipedia = 410x not clear? In ictu oculi (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a concern. Books LLC didn't show up until 2009. So Google's ngram viewer (which does stop at 2008, as you mention) does not include Books LLC. And in any event, Wikipedia mirrors and Books LLC are a tiny fraction of the results. Repeating your searches without excluding "Wikipedia" and "LLC" only adds about 9 new results, out of 1,029 total. That's less than 1%. Dohn joe (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well the more accurate tool gives "Menorca is" since 2000 = 620x vs. "Minorca is" -Wikipedia = 410x so time spent discussing the less accurate tool and how its logs work, its smoothing, its inclusion of Wikipedia, its omission of last 5 years or not etc. etc. etc. is adding zero to the RM except fog. The Advanced Book Search is more accurate, and 620x is more than 410x. Another reason needs to be found to oppose use of the usual name for the modern island in modern English sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The more accurate tool"? None of these tools are "accurate"; they're all approximations to give us some glimpse into reality. Google Ngram Viewer is accurate enough for the Royal Society.

But let's take a look at the "more accurate" search. Everyone knows that you have to actually click all the way to the end of a Google Books search to get true results. Doing so here gets us 114 results for "Minorca is" -wikipedia -llc; and only 90 for "Menorca is" -wikipedia -llc. 114x is greater than 90x, correct? Dohn joe (talk) 00:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to provide reliable sources for that statement, I have seen discussion but not conclusion.
What I did just notice in that search - page 7, was that my rule "Menorca/Minorca is" is not actually excluding all the references to 18th Century British Minorca. Even searching "Minorca is" on page 7 of the search the results include "One broadside lamented that 'Minorca is lost; and America too ", (i.e. 1775 not 2013) "Malham's Naval Gazetteer gives the following description of this place:— The bay or port of Mahon, in the island of Minorca, is situated at the eastern end" (i.e. 1814 not 2013) "The Minorca is gone with a convoy of Cotton-ships of Barcelona, for the Maltese cannot exist without this trade to Spain." (18th C, and about a ship) "Flesh meat at Minorca is neither very plentiful nor very good" (18th C naval record), "the Minorca is of Spanish origin" (about a chicken), in fact only 2 or 10 results on page 7 of the "Minorca is" search were talking about the modern island. So reduce "Minorca is" results down to 20% of the result number. By contrast page 7 of the "Menorca is" search, all 10, 100% were about the modern island. I challenge anyone to flick through the "Minorca is" and "Menorca is" results from 2000 and say the result isn't evident. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge accepted! I went through your searches (well, I did "Menorca is" -wikipedia -llc just to match the Minorca search), and clicked all the way through, looking at each entry, subtracting duplicates and false positives for both names, and subtracting chickens and contemporary 18th-century quotes from the "Minorca" results. I tried to be objective, but feel free to try it yourself. I'd be happy to reconstruct my findings on a more granular level if you like. Here's what I found.

Tally
"Menorca" - 90 total hits, 19 subtractions = 71 unique results
"Minorca" - 114 total hits, 46 subtractions = 68 unique results

I'd say the result is quite evident - an almost even split, certainly a statistical tie. These results confirm to me that both spellings are current in reliable English-language sources. With the meta-searches also split, I don't see a compelling reason to change the title. Dohn joe (talk) 04:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which way is the trend? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; seems to me to be about in stasis. Looking only at 2012 results for "Minorca/Menorca is", there are 5 unique, usable results for "Minorca", and 6 unique, usable results for "Menorca". A small sample, but again, nearly even. Dohn joe (talk) 18:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dohn joe,
A "trend" requires a timeline comparison, as above here is an example taking out Wikipedia LLC chicken and Nelson:
"Menorca is" since 2010 = 347x
"Minorca is" since 2010 = 148x
"Menorca is" 1970-1980 = 90x
"Minorca is" 1970-1980 = 215x
1970-1980 "Minorca is" was 2.38x more common, but 2010-2013 "Menorca is" was 2.34x more common. This is a trend, isn't it? Is there any doubt which way the trend has moved? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi In ictu - once again, I need to point out the faulty use of raw Google Books returns. Please click through each page of your search and let me know how many returns are truly there (not the first page estimate, which is often wildly inaccurate and unreliable).

As for a trend, since 1980, yes, there has been a noticeable shift towards "Menorca". However, if you look at any of the ngrams, or examine the Google Books searches, you'll find that after about 2000, that trend stops, and the two spellings are thereafter found relatively equally. I already showed above that in 2012, there were 6 relevant examples of "Menorca is" and 5 of "Minorca is". If you look at 2000, you find similar results: 6 relevant results for "Menorca is" and 6 for "Minorca is". Almost no change over the past decade and a half. Thus, no current discernable trend. Dohn joe (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well, we'll let other users click those same book searches and see if they see a difference between 1970-1980 and 2010-2013. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Quantitavely, while "Menorca" is becoming more common, "Minorca" is still dominating, as shown by ngrams and search results above. Qualitatevely, Minorca has been the accepted English name; in my opinion "Menorca" is not so much an alternative English name as an hispanism (or is it a catalanism?) walk victor falk talk 05:35, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Even if I were to accept that Menorca is slightly more common now (Which is not clear at all, per Dohn Joe), there's enough uncertainty - plus the inarguable truth that Minorca was more popular for such a long time - that we should stick with the current title. Maybe things will be different in 10 years. SnowFire (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry User:SnowFire, but I doubt things will be different in 10 years since things were already different 20 years ago. The Google Books clearly show sources about the modern have already switched from the British colonial name to the Spanish name around 1990. Can anyone explain why "Menorca is" since 2010 = 347x uses rather than "Minorca is" since 2010 = 148x shouldn't be followed? I find this inexplicable. We follow name changes with other geo names, why shouldn't Google Books usage 347x vs 148x be followed? Why should this one article be stuck in time following 1980s sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your google book search is not conclusive. If you use "the" instead of "is" you get "Menorca the" since 2010 = 251x vs "Minorca the" since 2010 = 451x. If you want to resolve the issue purely quantitatively, you need at least one order of magnitude in favour of an option. walk victor falk talk 02:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
user:victor falk, same problem again; how does using "the" instead of "is" exclude results about the 18th Century and British Minorca? The whole point of the RM is to identify the name used in modern sources of the modern island, we are in 2013. How does a "the" search work comparing "Jonesboro the" to "Jonesborough the"? Should Jonesboro, Georgia be moved to agree with Battle of Jonesborough? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:57, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, sorry? The period is set through google search parameters, in this case 2010-13. (Incidentally, I think that "contemporary" should be within "living memory", we are not all teenagers with no memories of 911, periods like 2000-2013 or 1990-2013 are more suitable. Not to mention that such a short period as a couple of years introduces sampling problems.) The point of using "the", "is" and other Most common words in English is to evaluate actual usage in real English sentences and reduce bias compared to just searching for word X/Y. I made a few searches with different common words and periods stretching back to the 1950s. What you can see is that while there is a clear trend for "Menorca" becoming more and more common, it is still not dominating. walk victor falk talk 03:31, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Victor, thank you - your comment "a clear trend for "Menorca" becoming more and more common, it is still not dominating" is the first recognition of the trend. I think we agree also that no one today writes of "Minorca's beaches" (sic) "Minorca + seafood" (sic) and so on. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps they do: see Jeff Bennett, ed. The International Handbook on Non-Market Environmental Evaluation. Edward Elgar Publishing. 2011. p.63: "In summer 2008 we surveyed users of Minorca beaches. Minorca is a Balearic island in the western part of the Mediterranean Sea, belonging to Spain." Dohn joe (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:In ictu oculi: In general, I don't think there's a problem with using names heavily used in old sources - in fact, this argues as a reason to use the "old" name. I am only grudgingly okay with Cordova being at "Córdoba" for example, and I believe that modern usage has turned much more decisively toward just using the Castillian form. Basically, for my own personal preferences, I'd either want to see a huge preference shift in recent times (say an 80/20 split or better since 1990), or else a consistent trend toward one name being more common (a 60/40 split since 1900, perhaps). I'm still not convinced (per other links offered here) that the modern usage has turned so significantly as to merit moving the article. SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support of all. We may disagree from time to time, In octu oculi... but I've got your back on this one. Menorca is clearly the modern-day common name in English for the island. I would also support a move request for the larger island, for what it's worth. Red Slash 03:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Red Slash - good to see you. May I ask how you find that "Menorca" is clearly the modern-day common name, given the reams of searches and sources presented in the RM showing that "Minorca" is still used by all sorts of sources in all sorts of contexts? Dohn joe (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alongside the Google books results In ictu oculi gave, it's more based on my own personal experience. I know of very few English speakers who write about or care about the Baleares (what are they called in English? Balearic Islands?) who refer to it currently as anything else. My experience has always been that in English, the endonym was ubiquitous and the exonym unknown. I never would have known such a name existed as "Minorca" were it not for Wikipedia. What is the island's main English name? For me, "muhhNOURcuh", which shares the Catalán/Spanish spelling. I do not think this argument is extraordinarily convincing and do not expect it to be. I do have a better one though.
  • Take note of that big city in Turkey. I don't know how you could weed out RS's that refer to "Minorca" in historical terms--see this ngram showing Constantinople is STILL more commonly used than Istanbul, and I've never seen any serious request to move it back to Constantinople (a request that you and I both know wouldn't have a snowball's chance of passing). Again, "reliable sources" FAR more commonly write about Constantinople than Istanbul. That means very, very little about what the name is. I think it's Menorca. Red Slash 01:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's an excellent point. However, it is possible to go through actual search results and weed them out "by hand" as it were, which I did at some point in this discussion....here, in fact. I found that if you exclude references to chickens and 18th century journal entries, the current usage by sources is pretty well split. Give it a try yourself and see what you come up with. Dohn joe (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:UE as illustrated by users above. Usage has not yet tipped in favour of the foreign-language name. If it does, the issue can be revisited in the future. As far as the travel guides &c. mentioned in the sections below go, travel guides generally tend to use native names more frequently than other sources. Wikipedia, however, should determine usage on a larger base of sources. —  AjaxSmack  00:54, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ajax - could you link to a specific search above which excludes references to Nelson and chickens which shows Usage has not yet tipped in favour of the tourist name. This request is made in good faith of you as an editor I highly respect.
menorca "european union" -minorca -isla since 2005 = ?
minorca "european union" -menorca -chicken since 2005 = ?
"European Union" has been selected to weed out tourist books (although Lonely Planet got through the filter due to its history section which most tourist books wouldn't have). Even with the tourist books weeded out, has usage tipped? What is the more common name in sources discussing the European Union since 2005. At the most I would think these results call for neutral, since it is obvious we're going to move all the articles to Menorca anyway sooner or later. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your searches seem to prove my point. Almost all of the links on the first page for Menorca are for travel guides while those for "Minorca" represent a much wider range of sources. —  AjaxSmack  03:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes that is undeniable, even after attempting to exclude travel books with "European Union" travel books still dominate. If the word "travel" had been used it would have been 9,700 to 1,900. I don't know what we can do about this. Menorca is mainly known for tourism, excluding travel from searches is like searching Liechtenstein without "banking." The other problem is print runs. It's evident from Amazon.com that all the Menorca books are printed in runs of 10-20,000s. There are still around 400,000 British visitors to Menorca every year which means 40,000 Amazon.com guidebooks sold. Wheras I doubt Institutions of Modern Spain: A Political and Economic Guide was printed in a run of more than 2,000. A hit for Menorca is 10,000 copies. But even counting 1 copy for 1 hit, Menorca is still in the majority (when Nelson and chickens are removed). In ictu oculi (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

www.easyjet.com Relist request

[edit]

Hi, to the next passing admin, I request a relist when this comes up to the 7 days RM backlog to give a broader number of editors chance to comment. Although 3:1 indicates running this RM for a second week is not going to effect a move to the name this time, having a broader range of comment has to beneficial given that 10 articles are affected. In support of the relist I would also like to add [Easyjet flights to Menorca, [Flights from Manchester (MAN) to Menorca (Menorca)] and Amazon.com "Menorca" tourist guides to the RM template to give better visibility to the fact, I now realise an omission on the part of the proposer, to clearly state that "Menorca" is the name used by holidaymakers, travel agents, and Amazon.com's Tourist Guides. This RM has been bogged down in counting books about the Napoleonic wars rather than the simple name known to anyone getting on a plane. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to selectively use only sources that use one's preferred spelling. A brief glance at any of the searches provided above (including those provided by the nom) show that all manner of sources use both spellings - "Minorca" is not relegated to the 18th century. Even in tourism. Frommer's 2011, Fodor's 2013, Tripadvisor.com - all current sources that use "Minorca". Dohn joe (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn joe, the evidence you have been presenting in this RM strains the limits of good faith. The title page of the Frommers guide on Amazon is clearly visible. That is an "e" not an "i" on the cover. Same for Fodor's - use Amazon.com to Look Inside 2012, 2013, that is an "e" not an "i":
Try putting in "Minorca Guide" to Amazon.com and it produces nothing (other than redirecting to guides to Menorca). No WP:RS tourist book calls Menorca "Minorca" any more - if you've found a website you've found a typo or a site that is inconsistent. If you're throwing up this in attempt to prevent a relisting with Lonely Planet, Frommer's, Rough Guide, DK Eyewitness, Marco Polo, Fodor's, Insight Guide in the template, the misleading example you just gave shows exactly why a relisting is necessary. I should have simply given Amazon.com as the rationale in the first place. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that the amazon search engine is there not to help you find things, it's there to make you buy things. walk victor falk talk 04:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comment, although I think that's rather an unfair comment, I happen to know people who work for Amazon.com. The fact that Amazon.com helpfully allow readers who search for the old British colonial name to still find all the guidebooks to "Menorca" isn't "making people buy things", it is helping. If someone insists on buying a "Guidebook to Minorca" they need to go to a specialist second hand book store because the last time this name was used was the 1990 Frommers, and Amazon Marketplace doesn't have a copy. The spelling "and Minorca" also featured on the cover of the 1997 Frommers Spain. I believe that's the last time before Frommers caught up with the other guides. That is 16 years ago. In any case I don't see any objection to a relist, so thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu. Would you please click on the following links and tell me what you see: 1) Fodor's 2013 from Google Books; 2) Fodor's 2013 from Amazon. Search for "Minorca" and tell me what you see. Please. Dohn joe (talk) 05:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the in-text of Fodor's you're right, they are inconsistent, I've struck. I see since 1990 they've used "Minorca" and "Menorca" all over the place. I've done paid editing work for 2 of the other guides on the list (not Spain admittedly) and would have assumed that Fodor's had the same quality control in place. Obviously it doesn't. But anyway this is a bit of a red herring I think. Out of 10 guides with "Menorca" on the cover, all have Menorca. 10/10. I understand that you mean well but I consider that zooming in on inconsistency in 1 book is more related to your own view on European names (to which you are fully entitled) such as in the argument you gave in your proposal to remove the "ç" from François Mitterrand → Francois Mitterrand — The clear majority of English-language sources use "Francois" over "François".. The arguments you're presenting here are basically the same logic, simply counting the gross number of sources without considering WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. When references to colonial Minorca are excluded what is left is modern Menorca. The fact that Fodor's are inconsistent isn't a justification for keeping the British colonial name, it simply means throwing Fodor's out for lack of proofreading. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...and re the below you cannot take "means throwing Fodor's out for lack of proofreading" to change the fact that "No WP:RS tourist book calls Menorca "Minorca" - just look at the covers on Amazon. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very good. I'm glad you acknowledge that your previous statement - "No WP:RS tourist book calls Menorca "Minorca" any more" - was not true. I needed to start with one book to show that . Now that it's been established, let's continue. Try these links:
Which of these sources, published since 2000, are about "colonial Minorca", and which are about the modern-day island? Do you still stand by your statement that "When references to colonial Minorca are excluded what is left is modern Menorca" ? Dohn joe (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victor
Why are you listing books from 1927? The Balearics and Their Peoples 1927 - John Lane, you said yourself above there's a trend to Menorca. Can you please repeat your search using books mentioning "beaches" and "seafood" and "hotels" since 2000. Thanks
As to the question. Modern guidebooks to Menorca are better context to modern Menorca than books for example on Nelson because they're written for modern people getting on modern planes to modern Menorca. :)
Try putting "Minorca" into Amazon.co.uk and see what the 3 bestselling results are:
1. Nelson: The Sword of Albion by Dr John Sugden (27 Sep 2012)
2. Mini Encyclopedia of Chicken Breeds and Care by Frances Bassom (1 Mar 2009)
3. Beautiful Chickens: Portraits of Champion Breeds by Christie Aschwanden and Andrew Perris (3 Mar 2011)
In ictu oculi (talk) 08:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Gscholarhits for 2000-2013: geography minorca 5200, geography menorca 1060, economy minorca 2070 , economy menorca 1230 , geology minorca 1900 , geology menorca 829. Note that tourism minorca 1610, tourism menorca 1210, confirming that tourism litterature is more biased towards "menorca". walk victor falk talk 09:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Victor
Your results mix up both spellings. When searching in Google Scholar the drop down Advanced Search menu has to be accessed manually by clicking [ ▽] (this triangle).
Then you can search minorca seafood OR hotel OR restaurant OR airport OR travel OR tourist -menorca
On that search Menorca : Minorca is 3:1 2000-2013. Menorca is WP:COMMONNAME.
Not that this matters since the playing with Google is just creating WP:SMOKE. Covers on Amazon are far simpler. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revised RM rationale for relist

[edit]

As mentioned above I realize now I made an error unfair to the articles in not simply stating the obvious main reason. On relisting I would like to edit my proposed rationale to add:

"As featured on the covers of all dedicated guidebooks to Menorca on Amazon: Menorca Marco Polo Guide (2014), The Rough Guide to Mallorca & Menorca (2013), Time Out Mallorca and Menorca (2013), Berlitz Menorca (2012), DK Eyewitness Travel Guide: Mallorca, Menorca & Ibiza (2012), Thomas Cook Guide Menorca (2011), Frommer's Mallorca and Menorca (2010), AA Essential Menorca (Automobile Association 2009), Frommer's The Balearics With Your Family: The Best of Mallorca, Menorca, Ibiza and Formentera (2007), Insight Guide Menorca Compact Guide (2005), Globetrotter Mallorca and Menorca (2004), and excluding references to chickens and Lord Nelson."

In ictu oculi (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is not "Menorcatravelguidepedia". We need to look at all reliable sources covering all subjects. You simply cannot continue to selectively cite sources that use your preferred spelling, and claim that the other spelling does not exist in modern contexts (or that every time it gets used it's a "proofreading error"). Victor and I have both shown specific post-2000 reliable sources that use "Minorca" in a variety of modern contexts (travel, economy, geology, etc.), and others have likewise shown searches that contain similar results. Lots use "Menorca", of course, too - and everyone on this page has acknowledged that. Why is it so difficult to acknowledge the reverse - that lots of non-chicken modern reliable sources continue to use "Minorca"? Dohn joe (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have requested the RM be relisted and that I wish to amend my RM rationale. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Sources since 2010

[edit]

Use of the Napoleonic War era spelling continues to decrease: In ictu oculi (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 May 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. SSTflyer 02:19, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Minorca → Menorca – per WP:MODERNPLACENAME and majority of WP:RS sources referring to the modern island. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The evidence was provided in the "Minorca is" vs "Menorca is" 21st Century searches above the Template. User Calidum's 2008 ngram without "is" of simply Minorca includes all the "Minorca was" uses describing the Roman and Napoleonic eras. The "Minorca is" vs "Menorca is" test showed real modern use about the modern island. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Map dot

[edit]

The map dot covers the entire island, making the map almost useless. Any suggestions on fixing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by El cid, el campeador (talk • contribs) 09:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could include a second map for the Balearic Islands or Menorca, but you should create a template for the map first. --Jotamar (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it myself. --Jotamar (talk) 17:55, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minorca. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 July 2017

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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.

Moved as proposed following relisting. Although the !vote ratio is on the narrow side, the trend is clear, and there is no point in belaboring the inevitable. bd2412 T 14:41, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Minorca → Menorca – Move from name used in Napoleonic wars history books to name used by Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times, The Times, BBC News, BBC Weather, The Sun, The Star, The Independent, Metro newspaper London, The Express, The Mirror, Irish Times, New York Times, CNN, Forbes, Condé Nast Traveller, South China Morning Post HK, The Straits Times Singapore. And almost all Googlebooks since 2000 not dealing with the Napoleonic war period (see book links above from 2013 and 2016). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. GoldenRing (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-opened this for further input per consensus at WP:Move review/Log/2017 August#Menorca. GoldenRing (talk) 10:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move. I understand I'm in the minority and that there is probably not going to be a consensus, but if the page was located at Menorca, there would be no reason to move it to Minorca. This is the same principle used in the yoghurt/yogurt discussions.  ONR  (talk)  19:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks ONR, but unlike yoghurt this isn't a UK/US-English distinction this is a 18th Century/21st Century distinction. The US sources also spell "Menorca" :) In ictu oculi (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ngram cited is of data 2000-2008, editor has been pinged in section below but not responded In ictu oculi (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AjaxSmack: the article is primarily about modern Menorca, not the history of Menorca. So (a) have you excluded results related to the Roman period and Napoleonic Wars from that ngram? Also (b) how do you explain Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times, The Times, BBC News, BBC Weather, The Sun, The Star, The Independent, Metro newspaper London, The Express, The Mirror, Irish Times, New York Times, CNN, Forbes, Condé Nast Traveller, South China Morning Post HK, The Straits Times Singapore all using "Menorca" and all being wrong? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I wouldn't have thought this, but "Menorca" is about twice as common in Google Books results from the 21st century ([8] vs. [9]). It is also far more common on Google News in the same period ([10] vs. [11]). It appears the trend in English sources is to follow the Spanish and Catalan use.--Cúchullain t/c 14:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As this has been reopened, I'll add some of my later responses to my comments here. I believe the situation has changed since the 2013 RM. It's true that Google Ngram shows Minorca in the lead, but Ngram only includes hits up to 2008. As much of the trend toward "Menorca" has happened in 21st-century sources, Ngram is out of date. I see no other evidence that "Minorca" is more common; my perusal of 21st century Google News and Google Books sources reflects what In ictu oculi notes above that Menorca is more common. Even tailored searches like Menorca island vs. Minorca island, and Menorca Spain vs. Minorca Spain, return more English sources for "Menorca".--Cúchullain t/c 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Google Ngram Viewer shows that "Minorca", at least until Ngram's last update in 2008, still surpassed "Menorca" by far, so the proponent's argument that this is a "Napoleonic War"-only term does not sustain itself. There were several previous RMs in 2013 and 2016 which were turned down, and based on the search items for which the 2013 request was turned down, not much has changed ever since. Based on search since 2000: geography minorca -menorca 1350 to geography menorca -minorca 1540, economy minorca -menorca 2020 to economy menorca -minorca 1930, geology minorca -menorca 858 to geology menorca -minorca 1300, tourism minorca -menorca 552 to tourism menorca -minorca 1940, politics minorca -menorca 2130 to politics menorca -minorca 1220. "Menorca" seems to be gaining traction over time, but as of now there seems to be a tie (Minorca/Menorca edging out each other by small margins in "geography" and "economy", respectively, with wider margins for each one in "tourism" and "politics". For instance, "Menorca" is widely used in tourism-related themes, but then "Minorca" is much more commonly used when it comes to talk on politics. And surely we could find many more sources showing one term or the other being preferred, but that would just point to the obvious: that they may (and indeed are, in many cases) used interchangeably in English reliable sources. As quoted from the 2013 RM, this is not "Menorcatravelguidepedia", and all reliable sources covering all subjects should be looked on instead of selective citations of sources using one's preferred spelling and intended just for the sake of making a point for the move. As per WP:UCN/WP:UE, "Minorca" should be retained as title. The WP:DIVIDEDUSE convention also advises for the article name to be left at the latest stable version in the event of divided use in English RS, which in this case is the English-language term of "Minorca".
As a bonus, the page's temporary move to "Menorca" has unveiled interesting data on what the most searched-for term is for Wikipedia dwellers. Based on this, it can be easily figured out that "Minorca" was still the preferred term by far for viewers searching for this article's subject in Wikipedia before the move, and even after the move "Menorca" wasn't close to matching it (it also could be figured that many views to "Menorca" after the move came as a result of redirects from "Minorca" itself, and also that "Minorca" is much more stable across Wikipedia). Impru20 (talk) 15:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting, defunct 2008 ngram data : Question, for @AjaxSmack:. Sorry, but have to ask but how many years should en.wp lag behind changes in usage? You're arguing from a defunct software tool which collected data till 2008, when it's been demonstrated that US GNews media (NY Times, etc.) and US Gbooks (Fodors, etc.) moved to follow modern UK and Irish usage during the period 2011-2014, just as US Fodors moved to follow Lonely Planet. While GNews and new GBooks published 2016-2017 are overwhelmingly using the spelling that UK holidaymakers know, we have to stick with usage pre-2008 because the ngram software tool is defunct? The same searches can be done manually usuing GNews and GBook Advanced Search to get 2016-2017 results. Why shouldn't we look at them?
Also assuming we do use 2008 data rather than 2017 data, how do we explain this? Something's wrong with the data here. Has anyone an explanation for that sudden freak data? Adam Hammond Literature in the Digital Age: A Critical Introduction "Google Ngram viewer". See Google_Ngram_Viewer#OCR_issues for part of the problem. The alternative explanation about from OCR errors (which explains some of the gap between the sudden return of the dying spelling "Minorca" 2004-2008 Ngram, is the dump into the Google OCR hopper of large amounts of historical material technically 2004-2008 but reprints and collections of older material. We've seen these blips by data dump in other Ngrams at the tail end of word changes where the very very clear trend suddenly gets a rogue reading. And then 2009-2017 we have zero ngram to correct the blip. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The main reasoning for the move was, in your own words, that "Minorca" was a name used in Napoleonic wars history books. Another reasoning was that "Menorca" was the name used by almost all Googlebooks since 2000 not dealing with the Napoleonic war period. Obviously 2008 is more recent than 2000, and thus NGram is, just by itself and even if we did not consider other sources, more than enough to disclaim such a reasoning, as it's a well into the 21st century-source. Besides, back in 2013 you already claimed the very exact same as you claim now (quoting you): On that search Menorca : Minorca is 3:1 2000-2013. Menorca is WP:COMMONNAME. It was untrue then. Now you come selectively choosing sources and dates (as you did back then) but I'd also like to point that this was not your initial reasoning for the move. The truth is than "Minorca" is still far more common considering all sources from 2000 to nowadays. Impru20 (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not responding to this. This misrepresents what I said, as anyone scrolling up can see for themselves. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your different reasonings depending on when and on who you answer to are pretty clear, indeed. I just note that this already happened in previous RMs started by yourself with your own quotes. People will be also able to see how other users complained on your selective choosing of sources back then if they scroll up to check the 2013 RM. This is not new, actually. Impru20 (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not responding to that either. No need. Fact; GNews 2014-2017 "Menorca is" x112 is more than "Minorca" x13. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fact 1: You already said that (and tried) in 2013. Fact 2: You said the same in 2016, when you allegedly claimed that Menorca overcame Minorca already in 2010 (which was untrue as was proven in the 2013 RM). Fact 3: You tried (and failed) again in 2016. Now in the current RM you present us with the same evidence and reasonings as then. Back in 2013 you were already accused of selectively choosing sources to back up the move and you ended up being dismissed, and now again you use selective citations of sources using your preferred spelling instead of looking at all reliable sources covering all subjects on the topic. I've presented proof that shows that "Menorca" does not outnumber "Minorca", based on the same search results that were decisive for the closing of the 2013 RM (indeed, "Minorca" is still the favored term in a number of topics). "Minorca" is also the most stable term in Wikipedia, as it has been proven both by a sourcing of page views as well as a simple search of the page's history showing it having been stable since 2002. Move claim has already being refuted. No need to say anything else, indeed. Impru20 (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
112 > 13. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose once again (EDIT: Never mind. Call it neutral / abstain. See below.). I made a point of ignoring all links above and doing research myself, since it's very easy to sway results to look the way you want with so many possible sources. Conclusions:
  • Variants of Google News searches, although slightly thrown by false hits (something in Minnesota called Minorca Mine, a politician called Lowell Menorca, etc.), seems to show that IIO is correct that very recent Google News hits seem to prefer "Menorca". This seems especially true for the UK travel press. Checking the NYTimes, and searching for both terms, they had long, in-depth articles using "Minorca" in 2001 and 2012 ( [12] , [13] ), and a travel-guideish article in 2015 that used "Menorca" ( [14] ). Not sure what to make of that, since it is more recent, but it is only one article.
  • Google Books ngrams shows that "Minorca" still wins by a convincing margin as of 2008. Even if we charitably assume that 2/3 of these references are "historical", that implies that Minorca - Menorca are largely even on usage, and in such a case, Minorca would easily win the tiebreaker as once being far more prominent in usage.
Final thoughts: Gonna stand by what I said in 2013. If the news results are still so heavily slanted in 2023, sure, let's move it then; until then, it's not clear that the usage has changed outside travel / vacation hype and in scholarly works as well. Shame that judge shut down Google Books so we don't have more up-to-date Ngrams... SnowFire (talk) 00:03, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SnowFire: that's a rather unusual oppose argument. You've recognized that newspapers 2015 2016 2017 overwhelming (my "Mxnorca is" GNews test was 112:13 I don't see you disagreeing) use the UK name Menorca, even American newspapers now mainly use the UK spelling. So why should we wait till 2023. If it was Kosovo or South Sudan or Madras/Chennai we change the name immediately that Guardian, Independent, NY Times, Washington Post do. We don't wait 13-14 years. This is misleading people. Please try searching "Minorca" on Amazon.com and see the years of the books. The only current one I got was the Italian edition of Lonely Planet Minorca 2017, because Minorca is the Italian name for the island, not English. This is not the Italian wikipedia. Please look again at Amazon.com, and look at publication dates. Look at 2017 newspapers. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such as Mumbai rather than Bombay? Is that obnoxious? That doesn't to me sound as though you clicked 112 > 13 but just a !vote based on "This whole push to replace centuries-old, well-established English names with their native equivalents is misguided and obnoxious". Would that be a fair conclusion? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to point it out: Bombay was officially re-named Mumbai in 1995. So you're comparing a name change taking place very recently with a name which has remained unchanged over centuries, and so has its translation. This would be more akin to Navarre (instead of Navarra), Biscay (instead of Vizcaya/Bizkaia), Seville (instead of Sevilla) or even Majorca (instead of Mallorca). Impru20 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Bombay to Mumbai is one example. It's ridiculous - the replacement of an English word with centuries of history with a foreign equivalent for reasons of misguided nationalism. However, trying to change this one is even more inexcusable, since there was no official name change (unlike in India). Genealogizer (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:TPO requires for a short explanation to be added next to the stricken text when other editors have replied to the comments, something which seemingly hasn't even been cared for here. Anyway, Genealogizer made a valid point so I'll rescue his argument, given that the fact that the Oxford English Dictionary prefers Minorca over Menorca seems pretty convincing. Impru20 (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm content with the evidence provided both by Cuchullain and In ictu oculi, which amply demonstrates that usage has shifted. "How many years should en.wp lag behind changes in usage?" is a well-put question. I'm not particularly swayed by the argument that the shift has happened mostly in travel-related literature and news and not in academic studies and history books – COMMONNAME only requires "prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources". And English usage in general has been slowly shifting towards endonyms rather than exonyms; I wouldn't call that "misguided and obnoxious". No such user (talk) 14:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that closer will comment on (a) the whether GNews 2014-2017 "Menorca is" x112 vs "Minorca" x13 supports the claim in the opening move proposal, and also (b) on the suitability of the 2008 ngram being cited as a reason not to move. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:05, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The closer should consider all arguments, obviously. Also the opening reasoning of this being a "Napolenic War"-term (which has been already disclaimed), and the fact that bombing the move request with the same selected links once and once again doesn't account for a stronger argument for a move. Even in the outdated 2008 Ngram, "Minorca" far surpasses "Menorca" as preferred term (and even the trends doesn't show an increase of preferences for Menorca (which remain pretty low) over Minorca either). ;) Impru20 (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
112 > 13 In ictu oculi (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can also do it, of course: geography minorca -menorca 1350 to geography menorca -minorca 1540, economy minorca -menorca 2020 to economy menorca -minorca 1930, geology minorca -menorca 858 to geology menorca -minorca 1300, tourism minorca -menorca 552 to tourism menorca -minorca 1940, politics minorca -menorca 2130 to politics menorca -minorca 1220, plus Oxford English Dictionary [15], plus ngram. We could of course flood the whole RM with links, but given that we've already made ourselves clear, I doubt on the meaning of keeping posting the same links over and over again. You were already warned on 2013 to look on all reliable sources covering all subjects should be looked on instead of selective citations using your preferred spelling (and you've done so here again), something which you refuse to do. I suggest we leave it up to the closer to review the arguments on each side and take a decision based on that, instead of us keeping on a discussion with no new argument. Impru20 (talk) 09:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"I can also do it of course" yes you can, and if you start from 2000 as you are doing [ylo=2000&as_yhi=2017] then you will get data from 2000. Which is fine if we are the 2000 Wikipedia.... No one is denying that a decade ago Minorca was more common, so presenting data from 2000, or 2008 doesn't help. Redo those same searches you did with 2014-2017, which is after American newspapers switched to follow UK newspapers, and you'll get 2014-2017 results, not 2000 results, all of which show the opposite of your 2000 results above. The case you need to make here same as others refusing to go by current sources is why en.wp should lag 10 years behind BBC, CNN, newspapers? In ictu oculi (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, it is you defending the move, so it's you the one needing to make a case here for the move, not others. Then you say "and if you start from 2000 as you are doing [ylo=2000&as_yhi=2017] then you will get data from 2000". And? What's wrong with it? Those defending the move (you yourself included) have frequently used links with data from 2000 and have priorized "21st century" results over older results. Your own move proposal itself used since 2000 as part of the rationale for moving the article, and in your first reply to one of those supporting the move, you argued that this is a 18th Century/21st Century distinction. So, you can do it... but others can't? You even argued that this should be moved because Minorca is a name used in Napoleonic wars history books, which has already been proven false. You are now, seemingly, changing your mind and selectively determining which dates should others use to oppose the move (you change 2013 to 2014 to 2016 whenever you feel like it) and also selectively choosing which sources should be considered (only those that suit you best), for no arguable reason, even if doing so contradicts your previous rationale for moving the article. But there are precedents on this, and those are the 2013 and 2016 RMs. Those opposing the move have also provided valid links and reasonings against it in this RM (including media and newspapers). Get with it; let others participate on this (if they wish) and the closer to decide on this either way based on what already has been posted. It has been made abundantly clear that you (or I myself, btw) have nothing else to say here other than repeating what has already been said over and over again.
Btw, this sentence of you effectively destroys your own case for moving the article --> No one is denying that a decade ago Minorca was more common. Well, yeah, you denied it in your rationale for the RM when saying: Move from name used in Napoleonic wars history books to name used by [some selectively picked sources]. And almost all Googlebooks since 2000 not dealing with the Napoleonic war period. You specifically denied it and used it for trying to move this article. Impru20 (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
112 > 13 In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And again, the spam. Impru20 (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As per No such user: It would seem that something has changed. Trying to find modern (21st century) books that include Minorca is possible but they are in the minority. Many of the modern books using Menorca are travel guides, but that is not unsurprising as it is a popular destination for tourists, but they are still valid indications that Menorca is now the name used for the island. In addition Google Maps shows it as Menorca...Jokulhlaup (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose as before. Usage is mixed across a variety of sources, and close enough that it is not possible to tell which spelling is more prevalent. It's just not compelling enough of a case to justify the move. Dohn joe (talk) 19:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This just isn't true. It's perfectly possible to tell which spelling is more prevalent - you just have to look in newspapers and books from this year. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The results were split in 2013, and I don't see the clear evidence that it has appreciably changed in four years. Take 2017 results from Scholar for "Minorca is" (19 hits) versus "Menorca is" (23 hits). It's close. Dohn joe (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The results of what were split in 2013? Yes they were, US newspapers were still catching up with UK usage. But why would anyone take Google Scholar over The Guardian and BBC? It is close in Google Scholar, and not surprising with quotes like "In 1751, Cleghorn, a British army surgeon serving in Minorca" (this is the nature of Google Scholar, it includes history and older sources) but why would anyone go to Google Scholar when the 2017 news media are so clear? I ask the same question as of the others who are opposing despite news media. How many years should Wikipedia lag behind the English language? This is the most recent article on GNews: dailymail.co.uk Family return home from two-week Menorca holiday to find their car missing from airport 'meet and greet' parking and their home completely ransacked, does it says "Minorca" or "Menorca"? So how many years should Wikipedia lag behind newspapers? UK media changed to Menorca a decade ago. US media caught up 3-4 years ago. How many years does Wikipedia have to wait? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Don't think this is proof of anything other than what cited sources throughtout the discussion may already provide, aside from proving that, indeed, "Menorca" wins over in tourism-related searches as has been already explained (many of the top 25 searches are related to travel, weather and holidays in both the US and UK). However, if you thought this relevant enough to influence the outcome of the vote I'm curious as to why you didn't bother to specifically ping me to comment on this despite me also having opposed the move and having actively participated in the discussion with you (indeed, I seem to be the only "oppose" voter you skipped over despite me being, arguably, the most active). Impru20 (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(a) Because the Google Trend data 2010-2017 shows searches by native English speakers in the United States. (b) because those three opposes have not made their final position clear, wheras you have, repeatedly. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Still I can't see what new data does it provide that we haven't seen already through the already cited links and sources. If anything, it shows that Google Trend is not reliable for this, as it allegedly shows data from 2010 showing "Menorca" ahead (because of tourism-related searches) but it was not even considered in your previous RMs in 2013 and 2016, meaning other sources proved it would have been wrong back then.
On the (b) issue, those three opposes did make their final positions clear as well, their reasonings being no more conditional than mine, even if I had been far more active than them. That you think they may change their views is legitimate, but then, it doesn't just seem right that you think I may not. If you thought this was so relevant so as to influence the RM's outcome and to merit pinging all other "oppose" participants, I can't understand why I was the only one left out. If it was so obvious, I of course could've changed my mind. Consensus is meant to be achieved through discussion and policy-based arguments, not through a vote.
Connected to the issue, while I wrote here I happened to find this in SnowFire's talk page. Seemingly a discussion from over a month ago and directly related to this RM (covering my previous RM and the relist), you have just re-activated it a couple hours ago to post two links from the CNN that, from what I can see, use your intended "Menorca" form. SnowFire happens to be one of those opposers you have pinged here. I don't know what to think, but this, coupled with your notification of all "opposes" but, precisely, the one you acknowledge "has made its position clear repeteadly", looks as if you were seeking to influence the RM by unduly trying to sway some opposes into changing their views. Impru20 (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! And no apologies for it. I understand that it's different for you because as a Spanish speaker you perhaps believe that English speakers should use the "British name" (if so then fair enough), but for our three American opposes it should simply be a question of looking at 2017 sources, so absolutely yes, I am trying to influence them to look, and Snowfire did look and changed view. This is the whole point of having GNews 2017 data. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As a "back to basics" comment. In general, books and scholarly sources are preferred over news sources on Wikipedia. For naming, this means that GBooks ngrams is among the most potent sources available, which is why I put a lot of stock in it. Google Trends is also not really a great source normally, as it can be influenced by a lot of things - e.g. US users for whom Spanish is their first language. And the CNN links don't show much we didn't already know. This is why I marked a weak oppose above.
That said, fine, I'll strike my vote and go to neutral. It's clear that IIO really really cares about this, and while I still think the move is borderline at best now, it does indeed seem like the "trend" (not the Google Trend") is that this move will eventually pass, so getting it over with now might be the easiest thing to do. (TripAdvisor moving over is actually relevant as well.) It does appear that in the UK at least, the news split is pretty overwhelming for Menorca, so. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, sincerely, it's rare to see a !vote against a modern name change in a discussion. Yes I do care because "Minorca" is simply wrong in the UK which has more ties to Menorca than the US. But I don't think all those people in the US searching "Menorca" not "Minorca" are hispanics, because the same is true for Canada where "Minorca" completely drops off the scale - presumably because of no condos in Florida. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I recently went on holiday to the island and beforehand and when I began doing a bit of research, I was mildly surprised to see almost every source I used referred to the island as "Menorca" rather than the "Minorca" I was brought up with. Usage has definitely changed. Number 57 21:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Requested move 3 August 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Close as disruptive. Starting a new RM less than five hours after the previous one has closed isn't helpful. If the previous close is disputed it should be taken to WP:MOVEREVIEW. Timrollpickering 09:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Menorca → Minorca – There has been several move requests from the same user in November 2013, in May 2016 and the most recent one in July 2017 that resulted in the article finally being moved. Previous reasonings strongly opposed such a move, and no new circumstances have arisen since these discussions took place. However, the last move request went largely unnoticed, and previous (more extensively discussed) failed move requests have not even been considered despite the same arguments having being brought down in the past. In this case, and as per WP:ENGLISH, Minorca is the most common version of the island's name as found in English reliable sources (such as travel agencies or even a non-British English outlet such as the New York Times. More info can be found in previous turned down-move requests. Just to point out that this goes beyond a mere "colonial" use in the past, as has been argued). This is the same as happens with Spanish places such as Majorca, Seville or Biscay, whose names use the English version of the term as it's the most recognizable in English RS, instead of the original-language term. This would also meet WP:CONSISTENCY with regards to Majorca, because it never was a British colony and still uses its English variation, thus leaving as rather weird to not have "Menorca" in English too. Impru20 (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per modern English sources. We have only just had a RM above where it was demonstrated that Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, Financial Times, The Times, BBC News, BBC Weather, The Sun, The Star, The Independent, Metro newspaper London, The Express, The Mirror, Irish Times, New York Times, CNN, Forbes, Condé Nast Traveller, South China Morning Post HK, The Straits Times Singapore are all using "Menorca". Yes I see a five-year old 2012 NY Times article in the move request. But 2015 Menorca, the Ibiza Antidote shows the NY times has caught up with UK usage. Berlitz Amazon - Berlitz Menorca and Fodors Fodors Menorca have also caught up with UK usage. What those 2012 vs 2015 American sources show is that US newspapers and guidebooks lagged behind UK ones is letting go of English exonym for Menorca. ....It happens, sorry; British Bombay is now Mumbai. British Cordova is now Córdoba. British Grand Canary is now Gran Canaria. British Corunna or The Groyne is now A Coruña. Specifically as this relates to places like Menorca with British colonial history, as Britain has given up its colonial possessions, and those connections fade out of living memory, the use of English exonyms has naturally reduced. Most UK travellers to Menorca probably have no clue it was once British Minorca, and the New York Times and CNN are now following BBC and UK newspapers in reflecting this. The last time we had this discussion the change in US sources was still in process. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under WP:ENGLISH, "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources", which in this case would be "Minorca". "Minorca" is not a Napoleonic War-term, but rather, an active English term widely user by modern day reliable sources, as you can see in a wide range of different-themed sources at Google News (to name a few, National Geographic, The Times, travel agencies, the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Vanity Fair, Vogue... etc. And those are 2017 sources). "Menorca" is also widely used, because it is the native language term, but it doesn't comply with WP:ENGLISH and it doesn't mean that "Minorca" is out of use, which it absolutely isn't.
Of course, you mention Mumbai, Corunna, Grand Canary or Cordova as examples of English exonyms, but you fail to consider that these do not comply with WP:ENGLISH as these are hardly used in nowadays English reliable sources (this is, they are out of use). However, "Minorca" is indeed a term which is used nowadays and not just reminiscent of any colonial past or whatever. In fact, Minorca (just as Menorca) comes directly from the latin Minorica. "Minorca" is the most widely English-term for the island, but it is not of English origin, so it is not an "English exonym". Because of this, and as per WP:CONSISTENCY (just as Majorca is refered to in its English variation despite it not having been a British or English colony; and its original name also comes from latin), "Minorca" should be the term used here instead. Impru20 (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20, then please prove it :). Please show by a comparison of "Minorca is" to "Menorca is" in GBooks and GNews since 2012 (which gives us 5 years data) that Minorca is still more common than "Menorca". If you can prove it, preferably using "Minorca is" to target modern 21st Century Menorca not 18th-19th Century Minorca, then that data will support a move. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I already have, pointing some of the sources you yourself claimed to use "Menorca" to indeed also use "Minorca" (I'm obviously not restricting myself to your own purpotedly selected timespan, but I've already provided several sources from this very same year while you try to focuse on the 2012-2016 timespan for some reason. I think that's not relevant). In fact, should you've read WP:ENGLISH in full, you would have spotted this:
First, WP:ESTABLISHED. This requires that "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." It doesn't establishes a specific quantity whatsover, just that it's "widely" used.
Then, you have WP:DIVIDEDUSE next to it, which I think would be the case here. It states that "Sometimes, English usage is divided. [Example]. In this case we cannot determine which is "most common". Use what would be the least surprising to a user finding the article. Whichever is chosen, one should place a redirect at the other title and mention both forms in the lead. This is indeed done here, as both Minorca and Menorca are in the lead of the article, but then we've the issue of the title.
It then says:

Search-engine hits are generally considered unreliable for testing whether one term is more common than another, but can suggest that no single term is predominant in English. If there are fewer than 700 hits, the actual count (gotten by paging to the final page of hits) may be accurate for the engine's particular corpus of English, but whether this represents all English usage is less certain. If there are more than 700 estimated hits, the number gotten by going to the last page will be wrong; a search engine loads only a limited number of hits, no matter how many there are. Counts over 1,000 are usually estimates, and may be seriously wrong. If several competing versions of a name have roughly equal numbers (say 603 for one variant and 430 for another), there may well be divided usage. When in doubt, search results should also be evaluated with more weighting given to verifiable reliable sources than to less reliable sources (such as comments in forums, mailing lists and the like). Do consult reliable works of general reference in English.

Thus, you can't rely on Search-engine hits for testing which term is more reliable in English (and it's not me saying this, but a Wikipedia policy). I could point you to Google Ngram showing "Minorca" being much more widely used than "Menorca" in English sources, but even this wouldn't be final. One of the reasons that hurts any attempt of using Search-engine hits as realiable indicators is that, in this case, when looking for "Menorca" you'd also get a lot of Catalan and Spanish sources which, otherwise, you won't find when looking for "Minorca". But since we're talking about English reliable sources all the time, Catalan and Spanish sources can't be counted to attempt to gross the search-engine hit results for "Menorca" and then say it's most widely used than the other one in English sources. If we look in Google, we obtain millions of results for both words (Minorca and Menorca), so this is not accurate for such a determination, yet we may determine that, at least, both of them are widely used indeed.
WP:DIVIDEDUSE also states that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It is not our business to predict what term will be in use, but rather to observe what is and has been in use, and will therefore be familiar to our readers. Under this, it's for sure that "Menorca" has not ousted "Minorca" as the most widely used term. We've sources using both of them interchangeably, so we can't say.
But WP:DIVIDEDUSE provides for a final clause that I'm sure you did not notice in all of your previous attempts at moving this to "Menorca". That says:

When there is evenly divided usage and other guidelines do not apply, leave the article name at the latest stable version.

We can say without any doubt that Minorca is not only a widely used term in English reliable sources, but also the article name at the latest stable version. So far, and aside from myself's attempt today (which would be just a revert back to such a latest stable version) you've been the only user repeteadly trying to move this from "Minorca" to "Menorca". "Minorca" has been the stable title for years since the article was created in 2002, with only a move attempt made in April 2013 which was reverted shortly afterwards, based on "lack of consensus and sources". This is, "Minorca" has been the stable title for 15 years. Indeed, even under WP:CONSISTENCY, "Minorca" should have prevailed because before today's move, most articles relating to the island used "Minorca" instead of "Menorca". In fact, today's move to "Menorca" should not have taken place under Wikipedia's guidelines, but the truth is that this was already attempted in the past several times and all of these were brought down. The current move is based in a very low participation from users (unlike previous attempts), and at the insistence of a single user (you) who have been keeping attempting to move the page for years and that, once you've done it, have gone on a spree throughout Wikipedia to rename/re-write all articles using "Minorca". Impru20 (talk) 15:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked to please prove it ( for example using a beach related GNews comparison from 2013-2017 Minorca gets 5 results while Modern Menorca gets 102 results). The invitation is still open : Please provide evidence that in 2017 "Minorca" is the most common name for Menorca in UK and US sources. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@In ictu oculi: You only show results that favor your reasonings, and as I see, you try to search for very intrincate search queries so that you get much more hits for "Menorca" than for "Minorca" (also, you tweak with the timespans. You first showed results from 2000, then from 2013, then from 2017. Well guy, I already posted some results from widely-recognized). But, as I already stated to you, under a Wikipedia policy, search-engine hits are not reliable. For example, by searching for "Menorca" you get not only English sources, but also Spanish and Catalan, but you may also get English sources referring to things other than the island (if you check for "menorca" in Google News from 1 Jan 2013, your latest timespan, it gives you news of Lowell Menorca's arrest (and he is not the island). Searching for "minorca" for the same timespan gives you a lot of very recent news articles relating to the island). As such, search-engine hits are not reliable, because you can't control what Internet shows to you, or if all search hits refer to the island, or to English sources, or whatever. May you now please provide a reasoning so as to why Wikipedia policies should be overriden for this case? Impru20 (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20, you are using a lot of bytes. But you were asked to please prove it. Please prove from 2013-2017 in English sources that Menorca is now the WP:COMMONNAME in English. Everything else is just wasting bytes. Please prove it from a 2013-2017 English GNews search. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In ictu oculi, please provide a reasoning so as to why Wikipedia policies should be overriden for this case. And be more respectful, I don't think the "waste bytes" expression is needed in an adult discussion. Impru20 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said you are using a lot of bytes because WP:COMMONNAME is policy. The reason you are being asked to provide proof is exactly because WP:COMMONNAME is policy. There is nothing else that you can do in this situation other than provide search evidence indicating that Minorca is more common than Menorca in 2017 WP:RS. That's all there is. Sorry. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then seemingly you are not aware of what WP:COMMONNAME says, because one of its rules is to use English. And there's also WP:MODERNPLACENAME. Those only require for the English version of the title to be dropped off if the native version is much more predominantly used, yet you've been unable to prove so in the first place other than using rather intrincate search terms. And without considering how many of those hits may refer to actual people having "Menorca" as a surname (one of the links provide by those supporting the move had a person, and not the island, in its first results for "Menorca") or actual Spanish and Catalan news/texts that may be there. Minorca could be dropped if it wasn't in use or its use was very scarce, but I already pointed out sources proving that it's actively in use by both US and UK sources. When this situation exists, WP:DIVIDEDUSE is applied, which is a policity within WP:ENGLISH (and thus, within WP:COMMONNAME). As per WP:RS. Impru20 (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Impru20 (1) when the BBC says "Menorca" that is English. (2) On en.wp Policy takes precedence over Naming Conventions. WP:COMMONNAME is Policy, WP:DIVIDEDUSE is a naming convention. However since American English (Fodor's Berlitz NYT CNN) had now followed British-Irish-Indian-Australian English to "Menorca", and since Menorca has no verifiable ties to the USA, I cannot see how WP:DIVIDEDUSE would apply. But again WP:COMMONNAME is Policy. All you can do is prove that "Minorca" is still common name in English as it undeniably was before 2000. That's all there is. Sorry. (NB your next post should attempt evidence of common name in 2017) 16:53, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
So, when the NYT and National Geographic use "Minorca", isn't that English? Of course "Menorca" is not English, it's the word form in the native Spanish/Catalan language (that an English source uses a word in another language means just that, not that such a word has turned into English somehow). You've based your entire argument for years in the Napoleonic Wars and British colonies. You keep still bringing the same evidences than then, so there has not been any substantial change ever since. I've provided you 2017 sources, but these are seemingly invisible because you didn't even care to reply to them. Google Maps also uses Minorca instead of Menorca for the island's title description, and then uses both intercheangibly in the text. But surely, a Search-engine hit-based argument, specifically regarded as unreliable under WP:DIVIDEDUSE and proven as wrong due to conflicting unwanted and/or dubious searches, is obviously more important than everything else which has been posted here, right? Impru20 (talk) 17:13, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. Another RM on the back of the last one is not the best way to handle this situation. Should have tried discussing with the last closer and potentially move review first. In the last RM, evidence was presented that suggested "Menorca" is more common in 21st century English sources and the only evidence countering that was Google Ngram, which hasn't been updated since 2008. I'd argue that the newly presented evidence shows that the trend in English use is different than in previous RMs.--Cúchullain t/c 15:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cuchullain In my response to In ictu oculi just above this I've already pointed evidence that this is not true. I chose to openly request for a move because we've already have several past move requests from the same user on the same basis in the past which were rejected. Google Ngram is not the only evidence; in fact, a quick Google search on "Minorca" gives you lots of recent results using such a term. The issue is that this falls under WP:ENGLISH and, specifically, under WP:DIVIDEDUSE within it. The move shouldn't have even succeeded given past consensus in the article against it made by the same user and under the same reasonings. We can't just discard past consensus just because the move request is made at a different time, unless arguments or circumstances pressing for such a move do indeed change ("newly presented evidence" is actually not new. Past RMs were in 2013 and 2016, and "newly presented evidence" dates back from 2000 in some cases. That's not new). I've already proveed that the vision that "Minorca" is not used is not correct, and indeed, it has been the stable article title name for 15 years (barring some 30 minutes in April 2013 that another user attempted to move it). Search-engine hits, such as those provided by In ictu oculi, can't be regarded as reliable under WP:DIVIDEDUSE, and despite this the move went forward based on this. Of course, given that Catalan and Spanish sources use "Menorca", you'd surely get more search hits for "Menorca", but that doesn't solve the issue of what's the most widely used term in English sources.
Now we've the issue that In ictu oculi is trying to move/rewrite all articles in Wikipedia using "Minorca" to "Menorca" based solely on this page being moved (yet I think that users using Minorca instead of Menorca for other articles for decades is already proof enough that "Minorca" is the most recognizable term in English sources, but still). Impru20 (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Ngram was the only evidence presented in the last discussion in favor of "Minorca", and it was countered by other evidence. "Minorca" is of course in long established use in English and there's nothing wrong with it as a title, however, there is solid evidence that it is no longer as common as "Menorca" in current sources. Google Books and Google News results are widely accepted in RM discussions per WP:COMMONNAME.
It's also necessary to look at why the past RMs failed. In 2013 the evidence appeared far more mixed than it does now and seemed to show Minorca as more common. In 2016, no evidence was provided that things had changed, so understandably it failed. This year, the evidence appears to show that things have in fact changed and that Menorca is now the more common form in English sources.
It is unlikely that opening another RM right after the last one closed is going to achieve the result you want. Again, you should have talked to the closer about reopening the last one if you felt you could have contributed, and potentially gone through move review.--Cúchullain t/c 16:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But past discussions revolved on the very same evidence that the opener of the request posted in the past (I mean, sources from 2000, 2013, 2016... there were already RMs in those times). Those were rejected. Evidence has not changed, but the issue is that this dicussion in the middle of summer has got nearly no attention, specially when compared to previous RMs, surely because it went largely unnoticed. There was very little discussion compared to previous established consensus, and I don't think I've to point out how consensus works in Wikipedia. Even if the move request could be legit (despite the requester having been already turned down on previous such attempts in the past under the same evidences and with strong consensus against moves), the evolving discussion was done just as if this was the first time that such a move proposal was done and as if previous consensus did not matter.
One of the sources you pointed in the previous RM was that "Menorca" is far more common than "Minorca" in Google News, yet even you failed to acknowledge that the first results you obtain in the link you yourself provided as a basis relate to a person having "Menorca" as a surname, not the island (in contrast with a search for "Minorca"). Well, of course you may have more search results for Menorca, but then, "Menorca" may give you results to other things (such as people, in this case) other than the island (as well as the issue of it being the name in Spanish and Catalan, and thus the name that would be used in Spanish and Catalan texts (even if those are depicted in English sources)). Previous consensus was extensive, and the name was stable for nearly two decades. And the change was done without even paying the slightlest attention to such obvious issues or considerations, and is now used as a basis for changing everything in Wikipedia related to it (which, I don't know what you'd think, but I find it clearly wrong).
If the best proceeding for this is to talk to the closer to reopen the previous RM and post my thoughts there, I don't have any issue on doing so. Impru20 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is apparent that evidence has changed. And responding with these walls of text are also unlikely to end in the result you want. Yes, you can go ahead and discuss with the last closer, but it's up to them if they want to bother with it now that you've opened up this next RM.--Cúchullain t/c 16:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your own linked sources give results for people named Menorca, which obviously don't refer to the island.
Well, wall of texts may sometimes be needed to adress issues. It may be more boring to read, but more effective at actually spotting and discussing such things as unwanted results in search queries fakely grossing the number of hits a specific word may return. Impru20 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to respond to any further walls of text. It appears results for anything but the island are negligible for either "Menorca" or "Minorca"; the island is far and away the most common use of both terms.--Cúchullain t/c 19:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrect closure

[edit]

Just noticed this, and this closure seems like a clear mistake to me. I would add arguments to support this, but as you've already closed it that doesn't seem appropriate now. However, I would encourage a challenge to this closure, and at that point, I would bring my arguments to bear, if notified. Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with either close. The second RM was indeed disruptive and made a confusing mess out of something that should have been cleared up by just talking to the closer or going through. The nominator did not respond to several requests that they do that, which just compounded the confusion.--Cúchullain t/c 17:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a point of order, completely ignoring the merits of the above move, a quick follow-up RM after a low-turnout original RM is perfectly common and in no way "disruptive." It happens all the time, especially when a contentious move is only noticed after links start getting updated. SnowFire (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how this has attracted much attention in part due to the follow-up RM, and just as per SnowFire's reasoning, the second RM was by no means disruptive. Indeed, the second RM spanned a much longer and detailed discussion than the one resulting in the page's move. You may like it or not, but by no means is this any more "disruptive" than having just 2 editors deciding on the article's fate and completely ignoring previous RMs and established consensus. Impru20 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire: yes, it is widely considered disruptive to start a new RM immediately after the last one closed, not only because it can look like gaming the system, but because it causes all manner of confusion in the processes. Just look at where it's gotten us: another RM, which rehashed the same things and was closed, and then finally a move review, where we'll be tied up for days if not weeks before the original move discussion is reopened and relisted. This is exactly the sort of situation move review was created to avoid. If the initiator of the second RM had just followed the procedure and asked the closer to simply reopen the discussion, they would have done it; they're clearly amenable to it. I informed Impru20 of this repeatedly, but they failed to act on it until other editors did what they should have done and pursued a move review.--Cúchullain t/c 16:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree re-opening and relisting the original discussion would have been the easiest thing to do. I don't see how opening a new RM is THAT different, though, so if you'd have been okay with re-open and re-list, I'm not sure why a new MR is so bad in your view. If you want to invoke precedent and history, the far larger turnout in earlier failed RMs surely bears some weight too.
As has been said before, the "gaming the system" argument is something that goes against the original move request, as it'd failed many times in the past. But whatever! Totally within IIO's rights to re-litigate the issue. Just as his MR was legit, so was Ipru's MR, and such stringent opposition on procedural grounds ignores the many other RMs that had failed in the past. Again, follow-up MRs after well-attended MRs can *sometimes* be disruption (but sometimes also a sign that a move turned out really strangely, so even that is not always bad). Follow-up MRs after sparely attended MRs are harmless. You seem to be acting like it's terrible, and it's not. (Maybe the MERITS of the case are terrible, who knows, people can disagree, but again, from a strict standpoint of procedure, it was nothing odd.) SnowFire (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SnowFire: Not to keep this going around and around, but speaking as someone with a lot of experience with RM, it is in fact widely considered disruptive to start another RM right after the last one closed. That feeling is obviously widespread, or else an admin wouldn't have closed it. It's not entirely fair, but it invites opposition based on frustration or the feeling that the nominator is trying to re-litigate a decision that just closed. As you say subsequent RMs are totally fine when an amount of time has passed, or something has changed, neither of which was the case here. There's not a set period of wait time, but 5 hours doesn't cut it. Just look at what the result has been here: instead of just asking the closer to re-open the discussion and let people get back to it immediately, it led to a day of the same people having to rehash the same things in a new RM, a close, then several days later a move review that still hasn't closed 5 days in (and that could be open for days or weeks). Now, is it "terrible"? No. Is it frustrating? Yes.--Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is now moot, pursuant to the relisting and subsequent close of the relisted discussion. bd2412 T 16:25, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever opens the next one, please include a sidebar or something that lists all the previous discussions (if any are not present above). We don't need yet another closing then being contested on the grounds that it ignored previous consensus discussions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  07:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Largest city internal contradiction

[edit]

The introduction states Mahon is the largest city, but the table below has it at second place. 46.140.3.59 (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maó and Ciutadella switched places recently.--Jotamar (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical naming

[edit]

Catalan speaker here. When I speak Catalan I say «Gaŀles», not Cymru, but I'll say Llanymddyfri and not any English version of the name. Why? Because we have a traditional name for Wales in Catalan, due to cultural relations thru the ages, but we do not have with the town of Llanymddyfri, so we do not have a name for it. England has, so in English they call it something like Llandovery, but of course we will use their own name, not a foreign one.

Here I do not understand why you do not recognise the historical relations English speakers have had with Minorca for ages and treat it as if it was a modern place with an invented name or a place no English speaker had visited before the 20th century. And, on the other hand, the city of Maó, instead of calling it with its name, Maó, it's called «Maón», which has no sense, as it is not the local name of the city. I really cannot fathom the logic used in this case in the English Wikipedia, if there is any.

--77.75.179.1 (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Menorca&oldid=1200326544"