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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Imia/Kardak → Imia

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move - The move !voters lead numerically and also their arguments are more firmly based in Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Whilst appeals to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SLASH may strike some as lazy/blasé/trite there is nothing wrong with straight-forward, easy-to-follow reasoning. Indeed rules on Wiki necessarily should be simple and straight-forward so that editors can apply them themselves whilst editing and disputes like this one can be avoided.WP:COMMONNAME is a particularly important part of maintaining a neutral point of view on Wikipedia, since it relies on objective criteria. Consistency is also a key aspect of WP:CRITERIA that the move !voters successfully invoked, and is also linked ultimately to a need for Wikipedia to maintain a neutral point of view. Finally the move !voters produced objective numerical evidence to back up this position, and whilst doubts were cast on this data by the oppose !voters no alternative statistics were produced to convincingly rebut them.
Editors are reminded that issues around disputed territories such as this one can be heated and they should strive to assume good faith.(non-admin closure)FOARP (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Imia/Kardak → Imia – The article currently is using a double name formula, Imia/Kardak, by pairing the more WP:COMMONNAME Greek name "Imia" which used by the majority of the WP:RS (5.000 results in Google Books: [1]), along with the less used alternative Turkish name "Kardak" (900 results [2]). The pairing of the two names together (Imia/Kardak) provides 3.200 results [3]. The majority of the historical/geographical maps (even Turkish ones) that were published prior to the crisis, used the name "Imia" (see: Cartographic evidence for more info). And the International community uses the name Imia or has lend their support to Greece which calls them "Imia", while Turkey's position with the name "Kardak" didn't ever gain any notable support (see: International positions). I am completely aware that the article's topic is politically sensitive, however, that doesn't mean the project's naming rules shouldn't apply: per WP:ARTICLENAME, the title should be a single name, which is the common practice across the English Wikipedia. Usually, the WP:COMMONNAME which reflects on the majority of the WP:RS and the views of the majority. Per WP:POVNAMING policy, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy even if some may regard it to be biased. According to the same rule, double name formulas like [Name1]/[Name2] should not be used, and the alternative name should be given WP:DUE prominence within the article instead of WP:UNDUE on the title, with redirects created where appropriate. WP:POVNAMING is part of Wikipedia's core policy, the WP:NPOV. I am initiating this move request to bring the article in line with the WP:NEUTRAL rules and make it WP:CONSISTENT with how all the 200+ articles both in the Disputed Islands topic area and the Territorial Disputes topic area, are given single names. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC) — Relisted. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 17:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SR, please make the following correction to your post: the 2800 hits (actually 3070) are to "imia/kardak", not "kardak". This strengthens the case for moving the article from "Imia/Kardak" to "Imia". Khirurg (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't realize this sooner. Thank you soo much. Kardak is only 900 results, down from 2.800. But I am sorry, Imia/Kardak (or Imia-Kardak) is even less. Only 500 results. Thanks for spotting the mistake, however. This has been fixed now. The reason Imia/Kardak was showing 2.800 results instead of 500, is because the search (a habit of mine) often includes the words loose as well. Which now has been eliminated so that the editors can have the actual results. Enjoy.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:55, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your most recent variant of the search terms, "imia/kardak" islands -wikipedia -imia -kardak, is nonsensical, because it's self-contradictory. This search in fact has zero search results, because you obviously can't find a text that contains "Imia/Kardak" but doesn't also contain "Imia". The correct search is for simply "imia kardak" -wikipedia (no need for the extra "islands" qualifier either, as any text that contains both "imia" and "kardak" can't possibly be about anything other than this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added as well. Enjoy. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FuturePerfect is right that the keyword Island is unecessary here. So I did some search based on FPAS's suggestions, and the results are vastly different when the keyword "island" is removed from them: Imia: 98.900 results [4], Kardak: 6.100 results [5] and Imia/Kardak: 3.200 results: [6]. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sigh. "Imia" alone of course does need a context specifier, as there are far too many false matches (the first page of search results is filled with references to the medical organization IMIA). It also needs the quote marks around "Imia", or you get loads and loads of unrelated partial matches. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh right. That's embarassing. However we can't tell for sure how many exactly the results for Imia are, but they certainly might be more than the ones posted on the Move Request. Even if they are more, I will just leave it like that. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 17:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per the rationale of the proposer. Demetrios1993 (talk) 13:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Support as per nom. Deji Olajide1999 (talk) 13:47, 17 October 2021 (UTC) blocked sock of User:Mercurius1Reply[reply]

• Oppose. I'd be happy if there was a clear "common name" argument to be made for a single name, but I'm not seeing it. Of the arguments stated above, next to nothing is true (as usual). From what I can see, nothing relevant has changed out there in the world since the last times we went through this. Google counts are tainted by the fact that these islands are virtually never mentioned anywhere in sources except in the context of the political dispute, with the large majority of authors participating in the debate being partisan of either side. As expected, Greek authors use "Imia", Turkish authors use "Kardak", and the weighting in the Google counts simply reflects which side is more active in the debate. Among the relatively few third-party/non-partisan authors, the predominant convention is still to use double-naming patterns similar to ours (using paraphrases such as "... the islands called Imia in Greek and Kardak in Turkish..." and the like), so in this – rather exceptional – case, the double naming is in fact the best candidate for a "common name". As for international recognition, that's a red herring too. It's still as true in 2021 as it was in 2006 and in 1996: few, if any, outside political powers have taken an unequivocal stance in endorsing either the one or the other side's legal claims, and international academic observers in reliable sources typically don't do it either. And, of course, the pre-1996 cartographic evidence is randomly mixed – the claim that "Imia" was predominant in those maps is simply false. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom, mainly per WP:SLASH and on the nearly 2-1 margin of the Google Books results in favor of "Imia" over "Imia/Kardak". The double name is not only unsightly, it is the only one of its kind in wikipedia and has got to go. Of the two single names, "Imia" vs. "Kardak", "Imia" is clearly the more common. The claim by Future Perfect that Among the relatively few third-party/non-partisan authors, the predominant convention is still to use double-naming patterns similar to ours (using paraphrases such as "... the islands called Imia in Greek and Kardak in Turkish..." and the like) is not only evidence-free (a bare assertion if ever there was one), but had he bothered to even look at just the first page of the google books results [7], he would have seen third paty/non-partisan authors such as 1) The Library of Congress, b) James Pettifer, c) Charles Stewart, d) Igor V. Karaman and even e) Deniz Bölükbaşı using plain "Imia" without mentioning "Kardak" or the double naming (because the search was conducted with the parameters "-kardak" and "-imia/kardak", specifically excluding sources that use the double naming or anything similar). The fact remains that nearly twice as many sources use "Imia" over "Imia/Kardak". Khirurg (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And if you had bothered to even look at the books you mention, you would have noticed that Bölükbaşı is using "Imia" only in the context of a passage where he presents the Greek claims as such – it's in fact an extended literal quotation from a Greek government source, though not properly marked as such. Elsewhere, in his own text, he is of course using "Kardak" throughout, as one would expect. Pettifer is a book written entirely from a Greek-centered perspective. Karaman mentiones Imia only once in a single sentence (and once in the title of a Greek work listed in his bibliography). As for Stewart, I can't see any such title among the top search results; the only one that comes up in a separate search is this – was that what you meant? It doesn't actually seem to contain the word Imia anywhere, or if it does, it's not in the Google search index. Nothing of this changes the fact that among reliable third-party authors, calling the islands by both their names combined is a far more frequent pattern, as you can easily see in the other search results list you linked to. BTW, the Bölükbaşı example also demonstrates that the attempt at excluding "Kardak" from the search isn't working properly, so the claim that that search count only includes titles that use "Imia" alone is false. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, Google Books search do contain errors, but these are systemic and affect all searches equally (I estimate a false positive rate of 10-20%?). For example, there are false positives for the "Imia/Kardak" search as well [8]. There is absolutely no reason to assume that search engine errors would affect one term more than the other. If anything, since "Imia" is ambiguous (which is why I also added "island" to make it more stringent), it's possible there are more false negatives for "Imia" than for "Imia/Kardak". Google Books searches are flawed, but they're the best we've got, otherwise we enter WP:CHERRY. You assertion regarding Pettifer is an opinion and it is not appropriate to second-guess authors' motivation, otherwise I can do that as well. And so what if Karaman mentions it only once? If it's WP:RS, it counts, period. Then we also have the two Library of Congress sources and this US Embassy publication, all of which use plain "Imia" [9] (thus showing the naming used by the US government - it doesn't settle the issue, but it's important). On top of that we have Wikipedia guidelines that discourage double namings, so there's that as well. Khirurg (talk) 23:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose It is not clear whether there is a single common name. Many GoogleBooks results for both "Imia" and "Kardak" are taken out of context. For instance, a good number of the sources say things like "The island, called Imia in Greece,..." and "The Turkish side considers the islet, known by them as Kardak,...". Some sources might use only one name just because they are elaborating on the claims of only one side of the dispute. A good number of sources, on the other hand, use "Imia/Kardak" or explain what name is used by each party. As a typical silly element of Turkish-Greek nationalist battleground conflicts, this needs strong evidence to be moved to a single name, be it Imia or Kardak. Ktrimi991 (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
•  Comment: It is weird to hear two editors who in the past have never challenged Google results regarding WP:COMMONNAME (Krimi never challenged Google results before in the Albania topic area in disputes related to Serbia and FuturePerfect never did so in the North Macedonia topic area in disputes related to names), especially at a time when these Google results were having an even smaller margin than here where "Imia" comes with 5.000 uses vs "Imia/Kardak" (500 uses) or "Kardak" (900 uses), a difference which is too high and indisputable for Wikipedia to ignore. A difference that cannot even be sufficiently explained by these editors who are generalizing their claims of the kind "just because they are elaborating on the claims of only one side of the dispute" or "Google counts are tainted". Even if that was the case, I shall remind Ktrimi and FuturePerfect that per WP:ARTICLETITLE, a single name should be used even when no one is more frequently used than the other. Specifically it states: "However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly." This move to a single name should be done with consensus, be it either through this move request, or by discussing it. Wikipedia's rules however are very clear that the editors should reach a consensus and pick a single name instead of using two names even if they believe that none of them is more frequently used than the other. Thank you and good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:43, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your claim that Krimi never challenged Google results before in the Albania topic area in disputes related to Serbia is not true. First, I am "Ktrimi", not "Krimi". I have noted elsewhere that there are cases where there is no obvious common name in English sources listed by GoogleBooks. Examples include [10] and [11]. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, thanks for your corrections. I must have missed that edit! At least in your comment at Malisevo's Talk page [12], you aren't suggesting that they stick with two names for Malisevo's article title. Your statement: "It seems that editors from both sides are wrong in mentioning WP:COMMONNAME, as there seems to be none in English -obscure town after all. The closing editor should evaluate other reasons, such as how this stands against WP:NAMECHANGES and the name in the language of the local population." clearly shows that you are supporting that a single name is chosen based on certain criteria. Imo, I agree with your position at Malisevo since it is in line with WP:ARTICLENAME. However, I wonder now, why aren't you recommending the same here? Why not propose a single name for Imia based on certain criteria as well? If this isn't double standards of your part, then what it is, Ktrimi? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I noted there, Malisevo has a name used by its local population. When a common name in English is not obvious, then the logic says that the local name should be used. Imia/Kardak has no population at all, so it does not have a local name. Ktrimi991 (talk) 11:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of course. And what makes you believe that non-inhabited places shouldn't somehow get a single name for their article title? My question is rhetoric because my point here isnt on what criteria we shall follow but on why you voted-oppose moving to a single name on wp:commonname grounds without recommending any better solutions (emphasis in italics). My goal here is to work towards a solution in line with Wikipedia's rules but your vote here indicates that you only came to support a double name formula on faulty "no WP:COMMONNAME" grounds (despite Google results being too striking and despite WP:ARTICLETITLE making it clear that even in cases of no common name, a single name should be chosen). I am sure you are fully aware what I am trying to say here, just you aren't admitting the fault of your positions. To me it is clear that you followed Wikipedia's rules in Malisevo's naming case but went against the same rules in Imia/Kardak's naming case without providing any adequate explanations. I respect your vote even if I disagree with it, but I can't stand this hypocrisy when it comes to Wikipedia's rules. Expect no more replies from me. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:11, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haha "hypocrisy", after accusing me of double standards, now a new personal accusation. There is no obvious common name in English sources, no local name, the tiny rocks (that will probably disappear due to sea level rise caused by climate change) are not controlled by any of the two sides of the dispute - and you still want the name used by one of the sides of the nationalistic dispute to be used as the article's title. If Imia was so obvious as a solution, why did not you propose it before, as you have been editing on Wikipedia for more than 10 years, including a long history of editing this article? Are you concerned about the format of the title? Then change it to "Imia-Kardak dispute". Anyways, we should not clutter the discussion, other editors could have better ideas. Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: interesting how the editor Ktrimi991 just proposed that we go against WP:ARTICLETITLE and against WP:POVNAMING by changing "Imia/Kardak" to "Imia-Kardak dispute". Even though the rules discourage such practices in the project, and there is no such rationale or precedent. A careful look at the Disputed Islands topic area shows that Ktrimi's proposed double-name formula "[Name1]-[Name2] Dispute" isn't ever used. Quite the opposite. For example there is Senkaku Islands dispute, but there is no Senkaku-Diaogu Islands dispute. I don't know where that editor got their problematic ideas from, and how comes they got the impression that it is "too nationalist" to move from a double name to a single name, because even if this was truly the case, Wikipedia's WP:POVNAMING states that: "it may be used even though some may regard it as biased". To not mention that this very same rule also discourages double names: "Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used.". This instills me a little faith that this editor came here to contribute to Imia/Kardak dispute in WP:GOODFAITH.

This is a sensitive subject which served as a battleground for years before things calmed down. For this simple reason the editors are advised to be more cautious with their comments here. If someone has a problem with how the Wiki Project works, or even certain rules, they are welcome to take their complaints to the appropriate talk pages, not here. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 13:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support As per WP:COMMONNAME. I have checked the results, they are indeed as SR indicated so naturally, I agree with the proposal. Othon I (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. The double name of the article is very strange in the moment. Per WP:COMMONNAME. Jingiby (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support In line with evidence provided by the proposer. ElderZamzam (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Per expert and policy-compliant analysis by Khirurg and Silent R. Also current title is unnecessary, confusing (see WP:SLASH-specifically to be avoided as specified in the WP:MOS), inelegant, and non-compliant with naming policy. --Dr. K. 01:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per arguments by Future Perfect at Sunrise.--Excine (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Im sorry to see this is a retaliatory vote due to disagreements at Talk:Chaonians. (Diffs: Excine's vote at Imia/Kardak [13], happened immediately after their involvement in a disagreement at Chaonians [14] with the one edit being a straight follow up of the other). An editor appears to just have questioned Excine on their talk page [15] for WP:FOLLOWING us here apparently to repeatedly confront us and or inhibit the move request with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editors Excine is in disagreements with. I will appreciate if Excine familiarize themselves with the Wiki Project's naming policies: WP:ARTICLETITLE, WP:POVNAMING, to WP:MOS, and WP:SLASH and review their vote in the policy-compliant move request objectively, in line with these guidelines. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is definitely disruptive. Could be a coincidence, but more likely this is a case of contribs-stalking someone here. When I asked him about he was keen to avoid the subject [16]. So in addition to familiarizing himself with the above guidelines mentioned by SilentResident, this user should familiarize himself with WP:STALK and WP:HOUND. Khirurg (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no reason to believe that my comment is a point of conflict. Assuming that you are a neutral editor whose primary goal is to improve an article rather than to promote a specific point of view, you should encourage the expression and discussion of opposing viewpoints in order to put your own to the test. --Excine (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Per argumentation provided by Future Perfect. Both Imia and Kardak are commonly used. Imia/Kardak is also used. The "common name" policy is relevant when there is only one common name. WP:POVNAME"When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources"This is not the case here. All three versions are common. An editor, quite rightly noted that Greek users use Imia, turkish users use Kardak, but there are published papers from both greek and turkish scholars that use the term, Imia/Kardak (when not talking to home audience). Cinadon36 07:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quoting Cinadon: "All three versions are common" Not true. Imia (with 5.000 hits) is more prevailing than Imia/Kardak (with 3.200 hits, and which is not compliant with WP:POVNAMING and WP:SLASH and should be avoided), and certainly, Imia with 5.000 hits is far more prevailing than the next policy-compliant option, Kardak (with 900 hits), and is undisputably the most commonly used of all the names if not the common name.

In fact, when there are multiple names, Wikipedia guidelines encourage us to pick the most commonly used one of them all, the one which prevails in the English-language sources. Per WP:ARTICLETITLE: "However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the five criteria listed above. When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly. Also, I wouldn't go as to WP:CHERRYPICK on sources mentioning Imia/Kardak because there are dozens of more sources using plain Imia instead. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would resist calling my opinion as "true". I understand that we are having different perspectives, but you are not stating facts when you are saying that not all names are common. Would you say the same thing even if it was 51-49%? If it is 75%-25%? 99 to 1%? Also, counting hits, is not really a reliable way to measure what name is more common among RS. Imia stands for other uses as well besides the specific Aegean island. All names have been used plenty of times( meaning they are common names) so we can choose the less biased option. Cinadon36 10:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry but we are supposed to (or, borrowing the guideline's choice of wording: should) do the exact opposite here...

• Firstly, the project's naming guidelines here are quite clear that double names should not be used. For everyone's convenience, I am copy-pasting the relevant sentence here:

"Article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged. For example, "Derry/Londonderry", "Aluminium/Aluminum" or "Flat Earth (Round Earth)" should not be used."

• Secondly, the naming guidelines here and here tell us to discuss and find a solution when there is no obvious prevalence of a common name over another:

"Although multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title, in line with the article titling policy."

"When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly."

• Thirdly, the naming guidelines here tell us that a name used widely in WP:RS, may be used even though it is regarded by some as biased:

"In some cases, the choice of name used for a topic can give an appearance of bias. While neutral terms are generally preferable, this must be balanced against clarity. If a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English), and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some may regard it as biased."

• Last, I can't see how the double name Imia/Kardak is a less biased option over Imia. By pairing the two names together, is to give WP:UNDUE weight to the alternative name on the article title, even though the guidelines tell us to not do such a thing. According to the naming guidelines here, the alternative names should be given due prominence within the article, not the title, and create redirects to it where appropriate:

"Instead, alternative names should be given due prominence within the article itself, and redirects created as appropriate."

Please correct me and let me know if I missed anything but as far as I can see, there is no guideline recommending double name formulas over normal names in the event of no common name, in the event of multiple common names, or in the event of a biased name. A single name not only is in compliance with the naming guidelines, but also is WP:CONSISTENT with every other article in the same topic area: Category:Disputed islands and the List of territorial disputes. Imia/Kardak, thanks to its double name, is the only article that doesn't follow Wikipedia's guidelines. The move request aims to correct this, and, considering how politically sensitive this topic area is, we are supposed to fortify WP:NEUTRALITY and stability by following the rules, not make exceptions to them. If you don't have any better solutions to recommend than a double name, then the policy-compliant single name page move request could welcome your support. Good day.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per Future Perfect. While I dislike double-barreled naming, this one is a justified exceptino. Actually, I would much prefer Imia–Kardak dispute, as I think it would transcend this debate about "common name", which misses the point. This article is not about geography or fauna of an uninhabited islet out of thousands similar ones in the Aegean; it is all about the dispute surrounding it. No such user (talk) 07:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quoting No_such_user: "This article is not about geography or fauna of an uninhabited islet out of thousands similar ones in the Aegean; it is all about the dispute surrounding it." Sure, this all about a dispute, none disagrees, but have you seen any other disputes in the English Wikipedia using the double name formula? Me not.

A look at every other dispute in List of territorial disputes, shows that all of them are given single names:

• The Senkaku Islands dispute uses a single name from the one party even though "Diaoyu Islands dispute" is used by the other party in the dispute.
• The Senkaku Islands uses a single name for the uninhabited islands even though it is known as "Diaoyu Islands" to the other party of the dispute.
• The Kuril Islands dispute dispute uses a single name even though it is known as "Northern Territories dispute" in Japanese.
• The Kuril Islands uses a single name even though in Japanese it is known as "Chishima Islands".
• The Sakhalin/Karafuto dispute leads to the single-named article: Sakhalin.
• The Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute article uses a single name despite Argentina's "Islas Malvinas".
• The South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute also a single name despite Argentina's "Islas Georgias del Sur y Sandwich del Sur".
• The Isla Suárez/Ilha de Guajará-mirim dispute leads to the single-named article: Isla Suárez.
• The Isla Brasilera/Ilha Brasileira dispute leads to the single-named article: Brazilian Island.
• The Ankoko Island/Isla de Anacoco leads to the single-named article: Ankoko Island.
• The Kokkina/Erenköy exclave leads to the single-named article Kokkina.
• The Heixiazi/Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island leads to the single-named article Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island
• The South Talpatti/New Moore/Purbasha leads to the single-named article New Moor

and so on.

The only striking exception to the whole list of 200+ entries, is, strangely, Imia/Kardak and only. None else.

Imia/Kardak is the only Dispute (or Disputed Territory) in the whole Wikipedia to ever use a weird double-name formula. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 10:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well said, SR. The alternate proposal "Imia-Kardak dispute" is so vague that it becomes incomprehensible. There's no dispute between someone called Imia and someone called Kardak. Dr. K. 20:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your thorough and sage analysis is very much appreciated, SR. In addition, WP:SLASH states:

Generally, avoid joining two words with a slash, also called a forward slash, stroke or solidus ( / ), because it suggests that the words are related without specifying how. Replace with clearer wording.

Translation, avoid this grammatical abomination which also violates WP:MOS and is so highly visible because it is part of the title of an article. This grammatical violation is also unique to this page only, as you have established. This should be a wake-up call for any grammar-respecting Wikipedian. Dr. K. 01:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is amusing how many policies and guidelines the present title has violated. Thank you.--- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose google scholar results don't indicate Imia or Kardak as the common name. As both names refer to uninhabited islets which became known only because of the 1990s dispute, most sources seem to prefer "Imia/Kardak". All recent political science studies prefer the dual name [17][18][19] as a means to highlight their "disputed" status. Side comment: this is a petty dispute between two states which - obviously - have no interest in barren rocks but utilize the dispute to cause Rally 'round the flag effects.--Maleschreiber (talk) 02:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quoting Maleschreiber: "All recent political science studies prefer the dual name" and how do you come to such conclusions? Because the most recent studies refer to them plainly as Imia as well: [20] [21] [22] To not mention that the amount of sources using the single "Imia" is surpassing the sources using the dual name "Imia/Kardak" by a rate of 2:1, a fact which you omitted.

Quoting Maleschreiber: "prefer the dual name as a means to highlight their "disputed" status". And so? There are sources that prefer using the dual name "Senkaku/Diaogu": [23] [24] [25] but the editors respected the naming guidelines by giving it only a single name: Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute.

The Wikipedia naming guidelines are clear that titles like "Imia/Kardak", *should not be used*. Your vote is a sad reminder that double-standards can apply in the Project. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Comment: it is unfortunate that the editors have voted-oppose to the move request using faulty arguments like "sources prefer the dual name as a means to highlight their "disputed" status" when this clearly isn't the case here, because the sources do the same for Senkaku Islands and other similar disputes as well, where they are using double names such as "Senkaku/Diaoyu" , yet this didn't prevent the Wiki community from respecting what the naming guidelines say on the matter by choosing a single name nevertheless for these disputes. The dispute articles are always given a single name in the English Wikipedia regardless of their nature as disputes. Examples are Senkaku Islands dispute, Cyprus dispute, Macedonia naming dispute, Kuril Islands dispute, Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands sovereignty dispute and so on. That's because there is no naming guideline suggesting double-names for article titles, either to highlight their disputed status, or just because some sources prefer using double names to describe these disputes. Vote-opposes that go against Wikipedia's guidelines and are using faulty arguments, are extremely disheartening and reduce any little faith that has remained to the Wikipedia project. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 09:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support I think lost in the discussion is that the article definitely needs to not be Imia/Kardak. Whether or not it becomes Imia or Kardak is effectively a separate debate, although I'm inclined to side with Imia due to the larger body of sources referring to it as such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. Out of curiosity, I looked at the history of the guideline language against double names in the text of WP:NPOV. It turns out it was first inserted there in May 2007, one and a half years after the title of this page had been finalized (it's been stable since December 2005), at the initiative of User:Pmanderson [26]. This was in reaction to a POV dispute at Shatt el-Arab. There, a group of national POV warriors had been pushing for a double name in order to force their own preferred national name into the title, against the obvious fact that there was a very clearly predominant common English name (which just happened not to be the one they liked). The difference to the present case is obvious: the intention behind the guidance was to discourage the misuse of double naming schemes as a means to overrule the "common English" principle. It explicitly didn't mean to rule out the exceptional use of double names in cases where the "common English" principle genuinely fails to produce a clear result, or where common English usage itself might actually be in favor of the double name. Interestingly, in the accompanying discussion, the author of the change himself cited the case of Imia/Kardak as a positive example of a double naming that was both in line with usage and with neutrality. Accordingly, the language against double names has never been that of an absolute prohibition; it's a recommendation (the current wording says they are "discouraged"), which, like all Wikipedia guidance, allows for reasoned exceptions. In view of the exceptional stability of the double title in the present case (16 years without move wars and even without significant RM attempts), and in view of what is still a very high incidence of the double name in the non-partisan reliable sources, I'd still say "don't fix it if it ain't broken". Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If nationalist POV warriors at Shatt el-Arab tried to push for double names to give their preferred name more WP:DUE weight, and they used Imia/Kardak as a positive example for their cause (really, since when POV warriors recommending double names can be a positive thing for Wikipedia?), shows why double names should be avoided. Proves why it is a good decision to initiate a Move Request for Imia/Kardak. I see Shatt el-Arab is a single-named article nowadays, while Imia/Karak is not; thanks to its double name, it's a unique case among 200+ disputed territories across Wikipedia and that doesn't make it neutral. Contrary. It is an exception to these very WP:NEUTRAL rules we all editors are supposed to follow when neutrality is truly our concern here. The WP:NPOV policy is non-negotiable, and POVNAMING is part of it. Giving WP:UNDUE weight to alternate names on titles for disputes is an unacceptable exception from these WP:NEUTRAL rules and it should be corrected so that it can be consistent with all the other articles in the Disputed Territory topic area.

The fact that none had bothered to correct the Imia/Kardak name for years, doesn't mean it was ok. Just we missed it. Anyways, if it really was "ok" for everyone, then we wouldn't be there now. It was only recently that I realized that no other Disputed Territory is given a double name except Imia/Kardak. Looking at the WP:RS, I've noticed "Imia" had more prominence than "Kardak" (by an undeniable margin), making me realize that there is an WP:UNDUE case. Then I checked the WP:NPOV policy (of which WP:UNDUE is part), just to see if there is any mention about undue alternate names. It is there where I stumbled upon WP:POVNAMING (they are part of the same policy). Once I had all these facts and the rules at hand, I initiated a move request. There is absolutely no reason to stick with a double name in light of all this.

And no, even in cases where you may think that the names aren't more prominent than each other, still we can't go by double name formulas. The Wikipedia guidelines have made this clear: article titles that combine alternative names are discouraged and editors ought to discuss and find a solution when there is no obvious prevalence of a common name over another. In cases where multiple terms may be in common usage, a single name should be chosen as the article title. And when there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach a consensus as to which one is best based on certain criteria. Thats all. Also the name rules are clear on why Slashes (/) and Dashes (-) should be avoided: Double name formulas have a totally different meaning when slashes or dashes are used. For example Slashes (/) denote a relation between the two names. [Name1]/[Name2] implies that the one name is related to the other which isn't true in our case here. Imia has nothing in common with Kardak and no WP:RS ever confirmed that these two names relate in any way besides the one being just the alternative name to the other. Nor is a Dash (-), which some editors proposed above, a good idea to have between the two names. [Name1]-[Name2] implies that Imia is the one party in the dispute, with Kardak being the other. Wikipedia urges that *clarity* is preferred for article titles over of such unclear implications. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 18:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: RM was attempted closure by an closer who was involved in parallel disputes with several of the RM's voters, at other articles, and who, in their closure, have ignored the Wikipedia's guidelines regarding the number of votes versus weight of arguments, applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions. The problematic closure has been reverted by another voter twice: [27] [28], and now an uninvolved third party Admin closure has been requested at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 21:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Relisting comment I'm going to relist this one. A lot of good discussion has taken place, but a bit more analysis by editors (both of the points already made, and of any points not yet made) might help build a stronger consensus. I'd gently like to note that SilentResident's point about the policy on slashes in titles is taken; it would help not to repeat it further (in large amounts of prose), as that would aid in filtering through the mass of text when this discussion is reviewed again for closure (by myself or another closer). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader:, I appreciate this, and you are right that large amounts of texts don't help. I will heel to your advises. Edit: I realized that the RM text size too might been abit long and has now been trimmed: [29]. This is the best I can do without altering the original meaning of the RM message. To this, feedback by other commentators was taken in account as well. Hope that helps. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 22:03, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 00:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom. This is the only such article with a double name, it cannot be that this is the only article in wikipedia that such a situation applies. MareBG (talk) 10:17, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support per WP:SLASH and per WP:COMMONNAME.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just a note from me. While it certainly helps (for the closer) to know certain editors might've been canvassed, just so the closer is aware, it doesn't require extended discussion. From my perspective as a closer, I'd much prefer to see some deeper analysis based on policy and sources. In vote terms, I'd give a single well reasoned, policy and evidence based comment the weight of multiple votes that are just WP:VAGUEWAVES. When I reviewed the discussion earlier for closure (and ended up relisting) I found more interesting the discussion about usage in sources, as I don't think there's quite a consensus on that point yet. It's up to editors in the discussion to decide what the relevant policies are and what the relevant sources are, but I would imagine looking at the PAGs on geographic locations (e.g. WP:WIAN) would be quite relevant here. The discussion immediately above, however, is not as relevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ProcrastinatingReader: I agree that the weight of the arguments as they stand against the policies and guidelines is the important thing, not the number of "votes". However, sadly, in practice closers, or the very majority of them, give much more importance to the number of "votes" than to the value of each argument. That is the reason why the issue of canvassing on Wiki exists. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Exactly. Usage for Imia and Kardak in sources is where the focus should be more productive. If Imia is used in more, then we can go with RM proposal, or else we go Kardak. In all case, double names arent a solution and are nowhere used in the Disputed Territories Topic Area., Oh pardon me, ProcrastinatingReader, I had to strike my reply to you as I was reading the discussion in a haste from my mobile phone and misunderstood what you were talking about. Right now I was about to post a large number of sources before I re-read your comment and realize what you meant. Yes, yes, what you said is a great idea. - ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support: nominator has a very strong point on this.Alexikoua (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Comment: I gotta agree with ProcrastinatingReader [42]. If we are to build a really strong and stable concensus, just counting the votes isn't enough. Reflecting on the sources, evaluating on editor arguments and proceeding in line with the Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are very important as well. Hence why some of you (if not all!) must have already noticed already my very lengthy comments I have made (sorry for this), because I have been not only citing a policy's or guideline's abbreviation but also quoting or explaining them in detail to give the editor the necessary clues on what grounds I am nominating the MR. Everyone has my apologies for not making shorter comments in the RM discussion. However, I am all open about following ProcrastinatingReader's recommendations and discussing about these matters (or anything else related to titles but was not mentioned in the MR yet) thoroughly. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 19:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I have realised WP:NEUTRALITY wasn't as thoroughly discussed in the present discussion even if it has far-reaching consequences: So if you allow me I would like to make a final point here about it: Currently, all the articles in the Disputes Topic Area are given single titles except Imia/Kardak with its alternative name being given WP:UNDUE weight on the title, indicating how one of the most important rules of the Project, the WP:NEUTRAL, wasn't applied. Even though this isn't a whatever topic area. Nor a whatever geography. It is THE topic area where WP:NEUTRAL is supposedly one of the most pivotal rules that have to be applied without exceptions for maintaining stability due to the volatile nature of these disputes. It wasn't applied and this already had far-reaching consequences elsewhere, in unexpected ways, as we are told by one of the voters here, who found a case of POV warriors who pursued a double-name formula, citing Imia/Kardak as a precedent, just to justify their POV. This speaks volumes. I believe, not only the naming guidelines are relevant, but also neutrality is. And considering the complex nature of this topic area, the one can't be reliably applied without the other, if stability is really our concern here. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 00:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Also I feel obliged to clear a possibly major misunderstanding about WP:COMMONNAME that may have been caused among those editors who voted "oppose" to the RM. Some of them voted "oppose" probably because they had assumed that per Wikipedia's naming policies and guidelines, article titles are retitled from double to single name only based on WP:COMMONNAME or only when there is a clear WP:COMMONNAME. Nothing of all this is true. The naming rules in fact state the opposite: that the editors have to discuss and agree on a single name in the hypothetical scenarios where there are multiple WP:COMMONNAMEs or none of them. My RM didn't suggest that we should follow WP:COMMONNAME either. My RM only notes two things: Firstly, Imia is the WP:COMMONNAME (read: "[...] by pairing the more WP:COMMONNAME Greek name "Imia" [...]"). And secondly, RM explains that WP:COMMONNAME is just the usual practice, (emphasis in italics), aka, not mandatory, that would otherwise justify vote-opposes. If one reads my RM carefully, they would notice how my RM is carefully worded to reflect that it is the "usual practice" instead of i.e. "only practice": Usually, the WP:COMMONNAME which reflects on [...] (emphasis in italics). As one can understand from my responses to the oppose-voters, even if there was trully a lack of WP:COMMONNAME, still this wasn't a valid reason for the oppose voters to stick with a double name formula. None of Wikipedia's guidelines supports staying with a double name formula and there is no such rationale in the Territorial Disputes Topic Area. The guidelines are clear that if an editor doesn't agree with a particular single name, they can discuss it and find a solution and put the alternative name to the article body instead. No whatsoever guideline suggests that double names with Slashes or Dashes should be used ever in the event the editors believed there is an absense of a clear common name. I am hopeful this misunderstanding is cleared now and that the "oppose" voters re-think their positions by lending their valuable support to my RM, or, propose ways/criteria for determining which one of the two names qualifies the more -in their view- for the article's title. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 02:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, as this is literally the only article on Wikipedia which has the awkward double name title, and it should be moved to Imia, which is the more common name.Jackattack1597 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support Imia appears to be the WP:COMMONNAME here. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support WP:SLASH WP:COMMONNAME rsjaffe 🗩 🖉 09:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

•  Comment:: As probably everyone is aware already by now, I had made an early request for RM closure here at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests board (Reason I had requested RM closure a bit too soon, is due to a certain unfortunate incident where a not-so-impartial editor involved in other disputes against me, tried to close my own RM). This time, a really impartial and uninvolved Closer, ProcrastinatingReader, responded to my request and came from Closure Requests board to review the RM for closure. The closer took note of what my points about the Wikipedia's naming guidelines are, but they decided to not close the RM, since there wasn't quite a WP:CONSENSUS specifically about usage in sources, yet. For this reason, ProcrastinatingReader decided to relist the RM to give it some more time so that we reach a consensus before they (or someone else) finally closes the RM.

Since then, a very solid WP:CONSENSUS of 14 voters (of the total 20) has been reached, supporting the RM's notion that "Imia" is indeed the more common name of the two. However, it is worth to mention that even the remaining 6 voters who opposed the RM and weren't part of that consensus, didn't outright deny that "Imia" is a common name, just they didn't think it is the common name. In all case, none of the 20 voters ever suggested that "Kardak" is the common name over "Imia". Now, per WP:CONSENSUS, "Imia" has more prominent usage in the sources than "Kardak". Also, the strong support to the RM only means that the majority of the editors supports the move from "Imia/Kardak" to "Imia" in compliance with Wikipedia's naming rules and bring it in line (WP:CONSISTENT) with how all the other articles are named in the Disputes Topic Area (all of which were already given single names on their titles except Imia/Kardak).

Considering that ProcrastinatingReader's relisting has reached its goal, which is to get a WP:CONSENSUS regarding Imia's prominence in sources, there is simply no point waiting any further unless we want to turn this RM into an endless list of votes. Thank you all for your patience and support in bringing this article title finally in compliance with Wikipedia's naming guidelines by dropping this absurd double name formula which not only isn't used anywhere in this topic area, but also goes against Wikipedia's WP:NEUTRALITY rules which tell us to use a single name over double names, and which must be applied nevertheless since it is a non-negotiable policy that cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor editor consensus. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:41, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment: In light of all this and the WP:CONSENSUS, I have re-requested RM closure at: Wikipedia:Closure Requests board. Thank you all for your strong support in correcting this weird article title. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilentResident: The discussion seems to have evolved in choosing between one of the two non-slash names. Between Imia and Kardak, Imia is more common.--Maleschreiber (talk) 18:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your position on what is more common, is noted for the Closer. And I fully understand what you are trying to say but if you allow me, I could gently like to give you a feedback regarding your choice of wording: "non-slashed names" is factually correct description for these names, but may be kinda problematic as it may imply sometimes that they aren't the actual names, but non-slashed offsprings of a full name. I was aware of past misunderstandings based on this, and for this reason I myself decided to go with the term "single names" instead, just to be safe. Not big deal, just my two cents. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 20:12, 26 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose since the stats given are far from overwhelming. There are two names from two competing factions, and it would be unwise of WP to take a side here based on such flimsy evidence. Dicklyon (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, "since the stats given are far from overwhelming" is a weird conclusion considering the at least 4:1 ratio of source usage in favor of Imia over Kardak. Since when a name fivefold more prominent than another, is "flimsy evidence"? I can happily provide WP:RS, both secondary confirming the prominence of Imia over Kardak in the international scholarship, as well as secondary + primary sources confirming the prominence of that name over the other name in the international community. Also, the Project's rules say that even in cases where there is no clear (or "overwhelming" as you argue) prominence, editors still have to choose a single name over double name formulas.

Secondly, if you allow me, you have stated that "it would be unwise of WP to take a side here" which is factually wrong, since you are implying that Wikipedia was "took sides" in every single other of the 200+ articles in the Disputed Topic Area just because it picked a single name for each of them as well. An unfortunate thing to say of your part, since hundreds of editors have edited collaboratively all these articles in the Disputed Territory Topic Area. If I were you, I wouldn't be as unwise to challenge their objectivity or their WP:NEUTRALITY as editors from the moment they chose to pick single names in line with the WP's naming rules and guidelines over double name formulas, which go against them. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 11:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Originally planned to close this discussion, but having reviewed the text and sat on it I've developed more of an opinion, and I don't think the blasé "Support per WP:COMMONNAME" do the issue justice, so just going to lean in with a comment. I've no interest in this topic area, but I do have some familiarity with policies on geographic place naming. I think the nominator has made a convincing case for titles not having slashes. That argument is fine, but the question then becomes which title should be used. Well, the appropriate guidance for geographical places is at WP:WIAN (an application of COMMONNAME for geographical places). Of the sources that guideline tells us to look at, not much evidence has been provided. We have been given search results above, but WP:NCGN tells us Raw counts from Google must be considered with extreme caution, if at all. and also Some sources require individual analysis to be useful; these include books and articles, such as those found at Google Scholar or Google Books. They must be looked at individually for accuracy, possible bias, and appropriateness of period. which largely discounts the quantitative data provided above.
  In general, title disputes are better decided by looking at what authoritative sources use, rather than hits. Google Trends/Ngrams counts can be helpful, but for reasons pointed out by Future Perfect at Sunrise I'm not sure it's appropriate to rely on here. As for actual authoritative sources, this island is usually not referred to in them. I checked some gazetteers I have access to (listed at WP:WIAN) and the place was not present in them. Several I don't have access to, weirdly, but I'm not expecting them to contain anything else. It does seem Google Maps refers to the place as "Imia / Kardak" [43]. As for other sources, I think the point made by some above (that sources that only use one name often have a leaning attached to them, or that the context of usage in the source needs to be considered) seems to be accurate. WP:WIAN advises: Due caution must be given to the possibility of bias in some, such as for nationalistic, religious or political reasons. A skim for neutral scholarly analysis shows that sources often use "Imia / Kardak", or spell it out (e.g. Imia islets (in Greek) or Kardak rocks (in Turkish)). See, for example: encyclopedic entry by University of Helsinki and contemporary scholarship [44][45][46][47]
  Finally, WP:NCGN tells us it's importance to avoid supporting a particular POV (In some cases, a compromise is reached between editors to avoid giving the impression of support for a particular national point of view. For example [...]) and that slashes are perfectly acceptable in some cases (see the case of Biel/Bienne). It says This should not be done to settle a dispute between national or linguistic points of view; it should only be done when the double name is actually what English-speakers call the place. Well, all the evidence here points to the idea that "Imia/Kardak" is genuinely what English-speakers (or, at least, dispassionate scholarship) use to refer to the place. The criteria to use a WP:POVNAME is not met here, or at least appropriate evidence has been provided to suggest that criteria is met. So Wikipedia should continue using the current title. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"the appropriate guidance for geographical places is at WP:WIAN" In fact, WP:WIAN is usually about notable geographic locations. Imia isn't a notable geographical location enough by itself, and doesn't even have its own article in Encyclopedia Britannica and others. I wouldn't be surprised, since it is about two small rocks in the sea.

However, we can look at how WP:WIAN applied on othersimilar disputed islands which are more notable than Imia, such as Senkaku Islands (I am picking Senkaku because it is the closest example; both being uninhabited and disputed), one can notice how in actual authoritative sources, these islands are usually referred differently than Wikipedia does. For example Encyclopedia Britannica calls them the Diaogu Islands (instead of Wikipedia's Senkaku) and, interestingly, Britannica's article has a signle name, not a double one even though contemporary neutral sources use a double name formula Senkaku/Diaogu to refer to them. Just like Wikipedia did, but with single title "Senkaku Islands" instead. This shows that WP:WIAN wasn't applied faithfully here in similar cases, at least not in the way you suggested for Imia's case, in a geographical context.

"A skim for neutral scholarly analysis shows that sources often use "Imia / Kardak", or spell it out (e.g. Imia islets (in Greek) or Kardak rocks (in Turkish)) See, for example: by University of Helsinki and contemporary scholarship". In fact, if you gave a more careful look at expert sources focused on the analysis of international disputes, such as this International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law by the University of Virginia, will show how Imia is preferred instead. The third party neutral experts and analysts on Mediterranean affairs, also are using Imia more often than anything else: [48] [49] [50]

"It does seem Google Maps refers to the place as "Imia / Kardak" however, if you are to mention Google Maps, you should also note how Google is acknowledging the two islands as being the wildlife parks of Greece: the Little Imia and the Greater Imia: [51]

"slashes are perfectly acceptable in some cases (see the case of Biel/Bienne)" Nope. sorry. Related ≠ Alternative. Slashes may be acceptable in cases where the two names relate to each other as is in Biel and Bienne's case, with the one being the German and the other being the French versions (the town of Biel/Bienne lies on the language boundary between the French-speaking and German-speaking parts of Switzerland). In our case here, Imia and Kardak are not related to each other in any way that would otherwise justify the use of slashes to pair them together, nor are these islands situated on a language boundary. They are two alternative names for a pair of uninhabited rocks at the sea. According to a source, Kardak may however be related to the Greek term Kardakia. Had this title discussion been between the names Kardakia and Kardak, then sure, Biel/Bienne would be a good example for us to follow with Kardakia/Kardak. However, even in this hypothetical scenario, it would have been very hard to justify using Kardakia/Kardak as a title about two uninhabited islands that are situated far away from any bilingual zones, and it is not an official name (unlike Biel/Bienne which is official since 2005). Let alone justifying Imia/Kardak. It is recommended that editors consider cases and criteria from the same topic area as Imia per WP:CONSISTENT, instead of using irrelevant examples outside that topic area (such as Biel/Bienne) whose very different topic and criteria cannot apply here.

"Finally, WP:NCGN tells us it's importance to avoid supporting a particular POV" I agree here about WP:NCGN, but what can we conclude here when you are advocating in favor of giving the alternative name undue weight by pairing it with an unrelated name using slashes? To give the alternative POV name an undue prominence is exactly what Wikipedia's WP:POVNAME tells us we shouldn't be doing here. Alternative names should be given prominence in the article body instead, with the relevant redirects. Wikipedia has never given undue prominence to any alternatives in other articles in the disputes topic area, and shouldn't in Imia/Kardak's case either because this isn't a neutral approach. IMO, had the editors trying to be WP:CONSISTENT by considering how things were done in the topic area (instead of looking for offtopic cases such as Biel/Bienne), then, Imia would have been treated the same way every other article in the Disputes Topic Area was. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:40, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Respectfully, I'd encourage spending a bit more time drafting your comment and sitting on it for a while before submitting. The case of Senkaku Islands is interesting, although the basis for that title seems to be a no consensus RM, and more pertinently the presumptive determination of that name being the COMMONNAME comes from RS (media) usage. Well, we've already looked at dispassionate scholarship, but if we look in what would normally be considered HQRS by searching "imia rocks" in Google News [52] and just picking out sources that have familiar names (e.g. The Economist, The Times), we see they are using both names, or heck even prioritise the usage of Kardak depending on the perspective they're writing from. e.g. [53][54][55][56]

As for you should also note how Google is acknowledging the two islands as being the wildlife parks of Greece: the Little Imia and the Greater Imia -- whether the islands belong to Greece seems to be well outside the scope of this discussion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Respectfully, I'd encourage spending a bit more time drafting your comment and sitting on it for a while before submitting.". For everyone's information, ProcrastinatingReader is referring to my disorder where I make successive correctional edits to my posts in the event I am to absorbed and I forget exactly this advice. Im sorry this wasn't intended.

"whether the islands belong to Greece seems to be well outside the scope of this discussion." Agree, but my point wasn't whether the islands are belonging to the one or the other party, but the fact that Google maps is acknowledging the law of Greece and the EU as being applicable here. The two islands became part of the EU's Natura 2000 programme and the two parks were created with a Presidential decree and are part of the EU law,[57] which, needless to remind you, is recognized by the 26 other EU member states and reflected on Google Maps. It may not be important for you, but a fact like this, is something that the Google Maps wouldn't ignore, let alone the supposedly-neutral English Wikipedia, if it really strives to be neutral and objective by reflecting on the majority's view on the matter. (Just saying, in case it ever mattered for any other editors. Because personally, for me, it doesn't matter, hence why I omitted any mention of Google Maps from the discussion.)

"but if we look in what would normally be considered HQRS by searching "imia rocks" in Google News and just picking out sources that have familiar names (e.g. The Economist, The Times), we see they are using both names, or heck even prioritise the usage of Kardak depending on the perspective they're writing from." This is correct, it depends on the perspective they are writing from. However, if my memory doesn't fail me, none in the RM has ever disputed the fact that reputable newspapers, websites and other media may be using either names or a combination of both. However, mind you, the same is true for Imia as well, so we ought to be fair here and acknowledge this. Some quick picks ranging from US to Europe to Middle East (I pick them on purpose to make a point that it isn't exclusively to a certain region): [58] [59][60][61][62], and not only, but even articles by analysts, published in RS which are considered to be exceptional in their field on security affairs, where they use just Imia and I can provide dozens of them. As long as we are willing to acknowledge these facts, then it comes down to editors choosing, in line with the Wikipedia's naming rules and guidelines, the rationale and and the common practices, which one of the single name to use to resolve this weird double name formula. Usually, it is the name that has more prevalance than the other. But if you got better ideas than using more prevailing names over double ones (or even a less prevailing one), then I would be happy to hear it. Good day. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 03:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support While there may be generally something to be said for slashed names in the disputed islets category, it is odd that Imia should constitute the lonely exception given the relative prevalence of the Greek term. I don't see the rationale for a lex Imia/Kardak on the basis of the guidelines we have (Biel/Bienne is slashed for entirely different reasons, being the undisputed official name of a community in an internationally recognized Swiss territory). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose but not very strictly as per the statements above, but I'd also like to put my comments on it:
  First of all: neither of the countries (Greece or Turkey) has de facto control over the islands, and hence I think that it's not fair to compare it with other situations, like Senkaku Islands (on which a nation has control and other nations have a claim on it), or Shatt-al Arab (the river clearly starts from Iraq and mostly inside Iraq, and per Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming, it's how it should be called as); or invoke WP:COMMONNAME as both terms are widely used on the sources & both of them are "official" on their respective countries. Plus, citing "official" papers and "Google Maps" is usually not how the information is cited in Wikipedia, we instead use the "reliable sources" and not search engine rankings.
  However, as stated above, this situation is pretty much unique between the established rules and names; but then I'd say WP:IAR while accepting it has some merit. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 15:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Having looked around the naming rules and guidelines thorougly, I have yet to find any such guidelines or rationales in Wikipedia where the usage of a single name on the article title is conditioned to the sovereign status of a disputed area... There is no such rationale present anywhere in the Disputed Topic Area at all. All of the 200+ articles got single names regardless of their status and who controls the territory... Regarding WP:IAR, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." may I ask how a single title (and thus complying with naming guidelines) is preventing the article's improvement or maintenance in any way? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 16:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Survey break[edit]

• 2nd relist comment. No replies please. At this point in time no consensus has yet been achieved; however, more importantly, this survey continues actively and is ongoing. Here is what I see in this move request: a request that was closed and then reopened for what appears to be justifiable reasons; an avid attempt by the requestor to answer each and every opposing editor, which I might caution may be construed as badgering just a bit, might want to reread that one because there is no good reason to repeat args over and over; also see strong arguments on both sides thus far, so the final decision will not be an easy one. We should patiently wait for that final decision until editors stop chiming in. P.I. Ellsworth - ed. ^put'r there 18:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. The original search results that were posted are so non-specific that they are essentially meaningless. The first few pages of the results reveal relevant results to this particular island, but the rest of the results for Imia is basically filled with junk such as [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68]. Looking randomly at this, the 12th page of the results only shows two results that are actually about Imia/Kardak and the 18th page only shows one. We can't make definitive WP:COMMONNAME claims over such junk. Furthermore, the arguments put forward by Fut.Perf. and ProcrastingReader are quite convincing. --GGT (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]