This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not moved. See general agreement below to not change the endash to a hyphen in this particular article title. Of course, if a centralized discussion on the MoS talk page with an eye toward making the MoS clearer for the inconsistencies cited below garners consensus to use a hyphen in this and similar titles, then this article could and should be moved. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
ShastaâTrinity National Forest be
renamed and moved to
Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log â˘
target log |
ShastaâTrinity National Forest â Shasta-Trinity National Forest â I would have reverted this as an undiscussed move if I'd noticed this before six years had passed, and others hadn't implicitly endorsed it. The rationale for using a dash here is a misinterpretation of MOS:DASH. More specifically, per MOS:ENBETWEEN "use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." Two formerly independent national forests were merged to form one National Forest â a single entity which should use a hyphen in its compounded proper name. â wbm1058 ( talk) 15:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
en dash connects two names(but, this isn't two names, it's the compound name of one entity)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eyeâhand span (since eye does not modify hand)." My opinion is not that this case should use a hyphen as a substitute for a dash, but rather it should use a hyphen because that is appropriate. Eyeâhand span isn't a valid comparison because it doesn't refer to a single entity called an "eye-hand". Eyes and hands are separate, distinct entities; "eye-hand span" doesn't refer to an eye merged with a hand. If Shasta and Trinity are distinct names of distinct areas, and the article topic is the forests rather than a single management entity, why shouldn't the article title be ShastaâTrinity National Forests? The topic being two (plural) forests named Shasta and Trinity, which have joined themselves for the purpose of management efficiencies? wbm1058 ( talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Not moved. See general agreement below to not change the endash to a hyphen in this particular article title. Of course, if a centralized discussion on the MoS talk page with an eye toward making the MoS clearer for the inconsistencies cited below garners consensus to use a hyphen in this and similar titles, then this article could and should be moved. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! ( nac by page mover) Paine Ellsworth, ed. put'r there  03:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
It was proposed in this section that
ShastaâTrinity National Forest be
renamed and moved to
Shasta-Trinity National Forest.
The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment. Links:
current log â˘
target log |
ShastaâTrinity National Forest â Shasta-Trinity National Forest â I would have reverted this as an undiscussed move if I'd noticed this before six years had passed, and others hadn't implicitly endorsed it. The rationale for using a dash here is a misinterpretation of MOS:DASH. More specifically, per MOS:ENBETWEEN "use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." Two formerly independent national forests were merged to form one National Forest â a single entity which should use a hyphen in its compounded proper name. â wbm1058 ( talk) 15:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
en dash connects two names(but, this isn't two names, it's the compound name of one entity)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eyeâhand span (since eye does not modify hand)." My opinion is not that this case should use a hyphen as a substitute for a dash, but rather it should use a hyphen because that is appropriate. Eyeâhand span isn't a valid comparison because it doesn't refer to a single entity called an "eye-hand". Eyes and hands are separate, distinct entities; "eye-hand span" doesn't refer to an eye merged with a hand. If Shasta and Trinity are distinct names of distinct areas, and the article topic is the forests rather than a single management entity, why shouldn't the article title be ShastaâTrinity National Forests? The topic being two (plural) forests named Shasta and Trinity, which have joined themselves for the purpose of management efficiencies? wbm1058 ( talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)