Ed Poor wrote
If we allow people to go against policy, and then
require a majority vote
(or supermajority vote) to choose to FOLLOW policy, then Wikipedia will
quickly be over-run by abusers.
And the sky is falling ... No panic language, please. Ed, you seem to be
largely responsible for this farrago.
The article should be put at the policy-determined
place (which happens to
be "Ivory Coast") and then - IF a consensus developes that this particular
country article should be an exception to policy, THEN move it to the
French name.
No. The idea that policy here should allow a 'populist' over-ride of the
actual name of a nation is just stupid, with respect to the good name of
Wikipedia, actually.
The idea that article names should be dictated to us,
by whoever the
article happens to be about is NOT GOOD POLICY. It will only lead to
balkanization of the 'pedia. We picked "most common usage English"
specifically to head off this sort of thing.
There you go, Ed. If you can't take francophones as part of 'us', that's
your problem. I could think only of two other examples, Saint-Pierre et/and
Miquelon, which has gone with 'and', and Reunion, which has compromised as
Réunion, where the French is 'La Réunion'. There is really no precedent to
be drawn here.
Charles