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.

No consensus. That's the bottom line at this point.  Tivedshambo  who is not involved gave up trying to sort this out. I have been working through this and I can't see where we have a consensus. Leaving this without moving, leaves us with an unacceptable match between this article and the main article. So maybe the answer is to open that discussion and clearly state that if that article is not moved (i.e. a Keep or No consensus close) by that discussion all of the remaining articles, like this one, and all of the categories will be moved to match. That could well be the only way out of this quagmire. In the end, we should not need to bring up this issue for everyone of these articles. Vegaswikian ( talk) 06:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Battles of the Mexican–American War → Battles of the Mexican-American War —

• 1. Most reliable sources use a hyphen instead of an en dash
  2. Adherence to the WP:Manual of Style
  3. Consistency with Mexican-American War
  • I hope this will be an uncontroversial request; I know the first two reasons are debatable but the last certainly is not. – CWenger ( talk) 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The first is irrelevant, as we do not depend on RSs for stylistic choices. The second is false. As for the third, a bad title at another article is not reason to imitate it. — kwami ( talk) 09:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose – I agree with all the above points. A Mexican-American war would be a war of the Mexican-American variety, whereas Mexican–American war suggests a war between Mexicans and Americans. McLerristarr |  Mclay1 11:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose—Agree entirely with Kwami. Tony (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• See Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move, the immense majority of reliable sources in paper use hyphen. That includes military history publishers, divulgative book publishers, textbook publishers and university presses. Such sources use dashes for other purposes like page ranges, to separate sentences and in other compound words; so, let's not raise the strawman of lazy publishers. Per WP:COMMONNAME, which is policy, we should follow the common usage in English language RS. People have been supporting dash over hyphen in this name because it's more "correct" or something. I don't know enough English to know if their position is defensible, but I do know that wikipedia is not based in the editor's personal opinion of what is correct or wrong.

This is not a trench war where unliked changes are resisted page by page ( WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and stuff). So, someone close the RM in Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move and then implement the necessary changes in the necessary articles and categories. Without having to start a new RM for every single friggin' page. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 12:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Different publications have different conventions for hyphens and dashes. What you're saying is that we cannot have an in-house style, but must copy whichever sources are relevant for a topic. No other encyclopedia works that way. — kwami ( talk) 12:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The immense majority of publications use hyphen for the name of the war. Wikipedia does have an in-house style: following the common usage in English. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

That's simply false. We follow common usage for naming, not for formatting and style. We do not follow the style guidelines of whichever sources happen to apply to a particular article: that's why we have an MOS in the first place. — kwami ( talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You know, we are just repeating the arguments from the on-going RM in Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move_.28March_2011.29. I suggest that this RM simply follows the closure of the RM in the main article. As others have pointed out below, it's ridiculous to change the title of the main page of the war and not change it in its related articles and categories. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support. This should have been done as part of the tidying up after the move - see Talk:Mexican-American_War.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 12:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Yes, Kwami is right. As the proposer knows very well, the move to Mexican-American War was hugely controversial, and bungled by the admin who allowed it to go through apparently without comprehending the arguments. The forum itself was wrong, as the issue involves innumerable other articles. It is entirely improper to initiate a closely related request when Mexican-American War is currently under consideration to revert to Mexican–American War. And the matter is also being discussed at the proper location: WT:MOS.

Due process demands that you withdraw and wait, CWenger. But for the record, on your three points:

1. Most reliable sources use a hyphen instead of an en dash?

Comment: Sources are inconsistent (as demonstrated before); and punctuation is something we at Wikipedia determine, just as any other publisher would. Especially for titles. There is no Wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Nor should there be.

2. Adherence to the WP:Manual of Style?

It is the form with an en dash that conforms more to WP:ENDASH, part of WP:MOS – which also requires adjustment of punctuation to fit our prevailing styles. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles that name wars adhere to those guidelines. Indeed, they partly inspired that guideline, which enshrines established practice throughout the Project.

3. Consistency with Mexican-American War?

That case is deeply dubious, and contested even as I write. It will be subject to vigorous appeal if the current request to revert, at Talk:Mexican-American War, somehow fails.

I therefore open a new section to request speedy denial of the current request here, on weighty procedural grounds. The Project cannot afford such time-wasting diversions from our proper work.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 12:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

In the other RM I bothered to make a search of google books, and I found that the immense majority of RS use hyphen. I haven't seen you challenging the accuracy of my statement, or providing counterproof. There are, maybe, a couple dozen RS using hyphen for every RS that uses a dash? You call that inconsistent? Please stop saying that sources are inconsistent as if there was a 50/50 spread of usage. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, a section of the governing policy, WP:TITLE. Our titles should be in English, not in something three editors have made up at WP:MOS. This is no publisher's convention; the only possible exception would be the Oxford University Press, and this article should be in American, not Oxford English (and OUP uses Mexican-American War anyway). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You know full well this isn't an ENGVAR issue. Please make factual arguments. — kwami ( talk) 20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Please retract this personal attack. The only support for the dashed form, outside the personal opinions of a handful of Wikipedians, is the style guide of the Oxford University Press –against OUP's own practice. There is no American support for this usage at all. That means that Kwami's preference is a subvariety of Commonwealth English be imposed on this article, strongly tied to the United States (a combatant in (almost?) all of the battles on this list.)

PMAnderson, you write: "The only support for the dashed form, [...] is the style guide of the Oxford University Press [...]". This is an error of fact. It is, to speak plainly, a lie. The matter can be properly addressed in an orderly way at the talkpage for WP:MOS, which is encumbered by protection due in large part to your actions. You were given a one-week block. When the disorder you bring about is properly countered, we might address this rationally – with respect for demonstrable fact.– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 23:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This is an error of fact. Really? Have you any other sources? It is, to speak quite plainly, a lie. Really? What evidence do you have for this personal attack? The matter can be properly addressed in an orderly way at the talkpage for WP:MOS... Now that is a falsehood; moving pages is properly addressed, as CWenger has done, at the talk page, with notification to WP:RM. The rest of this is more personal attacks, the usual tactic when a handful of editors have firm beliefs and no reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply

In response:

• "Really? Have you any other sources?" Yes. To be discussed at WT:MOS, since the matter is global. Not here, where the issues ought to be local.
• "Really? What evidence do you have for this personal attack?" (1) Yes, really. It is a lie. Either a deliberate lie (as I fear) or a reckless lie (careless of what might be true; as I hope). (2) Not meant as a personal attack. I respond directly to a direct statement of a falsehood.
• "Now that is a falsehood ..." Wrong. This accusation is based on a misrepresentation. The matter here is general, not specific to the present article. Of course merely local RMs are appropriate, to remedy merely local issues. But the real issue here is general: how existing guidelines and policies are to be applied in the general case. But this article is only one instance.
• "The rest of this is more personal attacks, the usual tactic when a handful of editors have firm beliefs and no reliable sources." Not meant as personal attacks: just attacks on continued improper process that subverts the smooth running of Wikipedia. We have all the precedents needed to support established guidelines at WP:MOS. They can be revealed and reviewed at WT:MOS, when recalcitrant editors show good will and when orderly process is restored.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I will believe in Noetica's alleged sources when I see them; they haven't been presented at MOS either. Will they appear before WP:DEADLINE? Do they exist, or are they are spurious as Noetica's clsims on Wikipedia process? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Follow whatever form is used in the main article. I don't know whether a hyphen or endash is correct here, but I do know that it is silly to have this subarticle use a different form than the main article, and it is equally silly to refight the battles of that article here with the same arguments. Ucucha 00:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • AMEN! – CWenger ( talk) 03:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply
  • A reasonable principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support it should be consistent with the main article; 65.93.12.101 ( talk) 03:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Strong Oppose - As Wareh said on the main article discussion, "It's a Mexican-American person, and likewise a Mexican-American war." Since it's not actually a war about Mexican Americans, that's a good statement of the problem that would be caused by moving the article to the hyphen form. Just because there was a failure to obtain consensus to repair the improper move to hyphen at the main article doesn't mean we should mess this one up to match. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Do you have any RS to support that this is a reason for using a dash? because, if you don't, then you are supporting your opinion only in your original research. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment The RM in the "main" article Mexican-American War has been closed as "no consensus to revert the move" [1]. So, the war article remains in the hyphen. Now, please, move also this article to the hyphen so it uses the same punctuation as its "main" article. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That would be a serious breach of both WP:TITLE ("Editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial title to another is strongly discouraged.") and the Manual of Style. Graeme Bartlett's corrupt action in moving the other article's title thus breached these rules and WP:INVOLVED policy. Let us not breach any policy or guideline again, please. Tony (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

When you rename an article, it's perfectly normal practice to rename all WP:SPINOUTs of that article. All arguments that apply to Mexican-American War also apply to its spinouts. (and you were told here that you have to bring your complaints about the first RM to the proper forum instead of repeating them all the time in talk pages) -- Enric Naval ( talk) 10:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I will repeat that Graham Bartlett behaved corruptly wherever I like—particularly on talk pages where the issue began, and I won't be dictated to by people like you, for your own political reasons, as to where I will say this. Tony (talk) 13:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Tony, all you are doing is providing data for future administrative procedings against yourself. Have you any evidence of pay-offs? If not, this could get you into serious trouble, which I would prefer you not be in. Since the move of Mexican-American War has been closed again, by a different admin, this is above all, moot, even passé; have you any substantive reason this should differ from its parent article? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support. In my experience with orthographic practice out in the real world and with style guides I know, I believe that the use of en-dashes for these disjunctively used compound adjective constructions is not current practice. Good English writing generally appears to be using hyphens in these cases. The distinction that has been constructed by some people here on Wikipedia, between "true" compound adjectives that should be hyphenized ("Xan-Yan" meaning "someone who is both X and Y"), and disjunctive constructions that should be en-dashed ("Xan–Yan" meaning "between X and Y") is not based in any actual syntactic difference that I'm aware of, and is not typically reflected in spelling. If the MOS appears to be prescribing something different here, the MOS is quite simply wrong. (But in fact, my impression is that this whole alleged rule is merely a misunderstanding based on an over-extension of a rule that was originally created to cover something quite different, namely disjunct compounds of nouns, which are syntactically a different kettle of fish). So, move this page to the simpler hyphen version, both because it's better orthography and in order to bring it in line with the main article. (And, obviously, reject any proposed move of that article in the reverse direction.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

FP, the main issue here is surely not how hyphens and en dashes are used in the "real world" (of which Wikipedia now constitutes quite a slice in its own right, by the way). That is an issue for which we have a talkpage: WT:MOS. Myself, I have therefore preferred not to adduce evidence concerning what style guides recommend, here in discussion of an RM. Nor have I wanted to do any more original analysis of the punctuational choices here. That too is for the development of punctuation guidelines: at WT:MOS, for incorporation in WP:MOS. No, the main issue is consistency. Most articles named "X~Y War" do follow the current MOS guideline. We have been given no evidence for the present isolated article needing any different treatment. It is irrelevant if many so-called "reliable sources" punctuate with a hyphen (as they do indeed tend to in America). Every publisher imposes its own house style for punctuation; Wikipedia is a huge publisher, and is entitled to do the same. For the record, many of the finest publishers have essentially the same way with en dashes as Wikipedia does. I can show you that; but this is not the place.

For what it's worth, I challenge your assertion that the relevant guideline "has been constructed by some people here on Wikipedia". If you make that case case coherently at WT:MOS, as a MOS specialist I will show how it is mistaken. But I cannot waste time doing that wherever the matter pops up. Life's too short. Noetica ^Tea? 12:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Given the cess-pit that is WT:MOS with its 121 talk page archives, I reserve the option to not go there but argue for what I consider best on a case-by-case basis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey, I understand. That's one reason I left Wikipedia entirely for twelve months till recently. I only came back to counter abuses such as we see in these RMs, by committed anti-MOS guerrillas. Someone has to do the dirty work of wresting and maintaining workable guidelines out of the turmoil. It's done by collaboration; but a lot of the talk is blind prejudice and wilful, unswayable ignorance. Kinda makes it hard.

If you prefer a more civilised conversation – as I certainly do – come to my talkpage for tea and we can muse over the evolutionary history behind CMOS16, or the nuances that differentiate New Hart's Rules and the Oxford Guide to Style. Noetica ^Tea? 13:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - Our style guide appears to support the use of ndash here. I agree fully with the calls for consistency - Mexican-American War should be moved back or we should settle this explicitly once and for all at WT:MOS, then rename Spanish–American War and all the rest too. I do not like this method for changing guidelines/MOS; the debate should be had in a forum where all those who care about the outcome will see it; that is, at WT:MOS. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 17:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support - For consistency with main article, and to avoid having hard to type dashes in URL's. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

You're obviously new to this quagmire, as both of your points are completely wrong, as pointed out in previous discussions. Most of the related articles use the en dash, and the only way to get consistency is to fix the one article that was improperly moved. There is never any need to type en dashes in URLs, since redirects from the hyphen form also exist, as specified by the WP:MOS. Please change your "vote" if you don't have any valid reasons. Dicklyon ( talk) 07:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I didn't know redirects was always created, so that argument then is indeed invalid. I stand by the consistency argument, this should follow the main article. This is likely a quagmire because comments and attitudes like yours. Aggressive comments will in general not help you convince anyone. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 07:53, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Support. Since my closing was reverted because I'm not an admin, I will contribute in the normal fashion. First, in regard to the OpenFuture/Dicklyon comment above, I reject in the strongest possible terms any naming convention which essentially requires users to go through redirects to get to the article they seek. To the best of our ability, the article title is supposed to reflect what users are most likely to enter when searching for that article, period. Redirects were never supposed to be the primary mechanism for getting to an article; they are backups, in case the user searched with a typo or a less common variant of a reference to the topic which the article is about. This also means any time an editor wants to link to the article, she must either link to the redirect as well, or figure out how to enter a ndash in the text of the article. I see this as a tremendous disadvantage to using the form with the ndash which would require an equally tremendous advantage to using that form to at least balance it out. But I see no such advantage whatsoever. As to the point about other similar articles using the dash convention, I'd like to see a list of examples, but even so, unless someone could explain what the advantage is that supercedes the obvious disadvantage, I would just see that list as a list of articles whose titles needs to be fixed. It would be one thing if reliable sources consistently used the ndash, but apparently that is not the case, as no one has even tried to argue that, much less provide evidence for it. Finally, as I said in my now-reverted closing comment, I find the argument that hyphen does not imply juxtaposition the way the ndash does to be hokum. It's simply an assertion that has been made without any basis whatsoever. Where are the reliable sources that support that view? No where. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 16:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  B2C, that is an extraordinary argument. You are essentially saying that correct typography should not be used in titles if it is harder to type. I mean, aside from the question of what is correct in this particular case, you're saying never use dashes in titles. Can you clarify this? Do you feel that we should eschew m/n dashes altogether, or just in titles? Do you want different typography rules for titles vs. prose? ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  It is somewhat overstated; B2C's arguments often are. But it is no more extraordinary than the unjustified assumptions in the response: that a dash is "correct typography", even though most style guides do not recommend it; and that a hyphen is "incorrect", although the overwhelming majority of reliable sources do use one. I see two distinct threads in B2C's long reply:

  • Article titles should be what common usage would call the subject, unless there is some equally strong countervailing reason; that's policy. B2C tends to deny that there are any countervailing reasons ever; but that is another discussion for another place. His reasons for this are chiefly ease of access, which applies to titles rather than text; so most of these questions are unjustified extrapolation.
  • That there is no evidence that en dashes are commonly used here, and no other advantage to the reader has been offered to overcome the advantages of common name and consistency with Mexican-American War. As far as I can see, these are simple statements of fact. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

    No, my response had no such assumptions. I tried to pre-emptively clarify that with "aside from the question of what is correct in this particular case". But it looks like I failed. I was just trying to ask what I asked; I do not write between the lines. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  Although I agree with B2C that dashes in a URL is a Bad Thing, I think this should be fixed at the software level, so that the URL to a page is the same no matter if it has a dash or a hyphen, in the same way that spaces are replaced with underscores in the URL. A redirect is negative, but not negative enough to override any other concerns. In this case, consistency with the main article is really the only relevant concern as there can be no good reason to have hyphen in "Mexican-American War" but a dash in "Battles of the Mexican-American War", or the other way around. When it comes to the same discussion in the main article, that's another issue. But for this article it is completely obvious that it should be named as Mexican-American War is named, and that article currently uses a hyphen. The End. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 17:44, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

ErikHaugen, PMA is correct in saying that my comments should be interpreted to apply only to article titles, though, now that the question has been raised, my inclination would be for article content to follow usage in titles, but none of that is relevant here.

I am NOT saying that "correct typography should not be used in titles if it is harder to type". I see no application for the concept of "correct" in the context of naming, including typography. I am saying more likely to be typed typography should be favored over less likely to be typed typography (or, some might prefer, more likely to be found in reliable sources typography should be favored over less likely to be be found in reliable sources typography). This is the essential principle that underlies WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and is threaded throughout WP:TITLE. I have not encountered any argument or reason for this principle to not apply to typography as well.- Born2cycle ( talk) 20:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

It certainly is relevant here, since presumably carrying out the move request will involve updating the text in the article. I suppose it could be closed as "move but do not switch to hyphens in the text" but I don't see that happening. But generally, it is more clear here that really what is at stake is a more fundamental question of MOS vs. what-do-reliable-sources-do-for-this-particular-subject. One argument for this principle not to apply is that credibility comes with adherence to conventions and the consistency that comes with a style guide; to borrow from WP:CAPS, "Because credibility is a primary objective in the creation of any reference work, and because Wikipedia strives to become a leading (if not the leading) reference work in its genre, formality and an adherence to conventions ... are critically important to credibility." (Again, calm down PMA, I'm not making any case for dashes here.) I understand if you find this argument unconvincing, but at least now you have encountered one. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 21:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, if we have to consider the impact to text in the article too to make this narrow decision about the title, then I agree consistency and conventions are important for credibility, and so we should consistently use hyphens for everything everywhere, period. No dashes of any kind for anything. Consistent. Clean. Simple. Credible. No downsides.

And anticipating the argument that we should then first agree on that (hyphens only) before applying it here, my response is that that is backwards from how change occurs in Wikipedia - which is typically bottom-up, one article at a time, until a clear consensus is developed. Often when "conventions" are applied top-down, it backfires, as what appears to be the case here. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, there are downsides posited in these discussions regarding clarity and precision. Your plan is not without its benefits, but it probably isn't helpful to dismiss its detractors by saying it has "no downsides" without addressing them. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I've read the discussion. I honestly don't see the downsides. Simply asserting that Mexican–American War is more clear or precise than Mexican-American War does not make it so. I suggest that asserting that either is more clear or precise than the other to any significant degree is so ludicrous as to be amusing. Do you believe otherwise? Seriously? Really?? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll say this. I understand the stylistic advantage of the dash over the hyphen in some cases, and, if I was the editor of an encyclopedia, I would be likely to dictate it's use accordingly. But this is not an encyclopedia with an editor who has that kind of control and influence. There are dozens if not hundreds of people right now creating articles and article content using hyphens and dashes as they feel like using. Now, there should be no debate about use of the hyphen being simpler, and more likely, in most cases, so, if that was our written established standard in the MOS, it's likely we could establish consistency with that. But I can virtually guarantee that consistent use of the ndash in titles, much less text, is impossible, given the free manner in which Wikipedia works. I suppose bots could be written to catch some of that, but so much would be subjective and not really bot-able (if that's a word). I just don't see how anything but consistent use of hyphens has even a chance of not being an inconsistent mess. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 23:02, 3 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Oppose There is a nice distinction between Mexican-American and Mexican–American, and it is good to have that reflected in the typography, even if many reliable sources don't bother. Here is a book by Cambridge University Press that makes precisely that typographical distinction on the linked page ("Mexican-American writers" with a hyphen vs. "Mexican–American War" with an n-dash). Other uses of Mexican–American War (with n-dash) in university press publications: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press, Princeton University Press. Note that Encyclopedia Britannica writes Spanish–American War (with n-dash, as we do) in its print edition. Its entry on the Mexican–American War is titled "Mexican War", but it lists Mexican–American War in its Index, with n-dash. We are in excellent company keeping the n-dash. -- JN 466 00:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

But you're comparing to publications that have editorial control that WP cannot even come close to matching. We're just not equipped to manage such subtle differences with any kind of reliable consistency. Even if we did manage to somehow get all the obvious cases consistent with each other (and I can't imagine how that might be accomplished), each gray area is a potential debate-fest. It's not like we have a single typographical editor or even editorial board that can make a quick decision and we can move on.

On the other hand, if we simply said, let's just use hyphens, we could easily implement a bot that converted all dashes to hyphens, and we're done. Clean. Simple. Consistent. Professional. I honestly see nothing but an inconsistent and unprofessional quagmire if we favor dashes "in certain special cases, sometimes" (or however you want to characterize it). -- Born2cycle ( talk) 00:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) We have an MOS, and that can provide a degree of control; editors can (and do) learn the rules as to when to use a hyphen, and when to use a dash, over time. The problem with eliminating all dashes in favour of hyphens is that to many people it looks sloppy rather than professional. -- JN 466 00:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

And here are three books by Cambridge University Press which use a hyphen: this and this and this. If they don't follow their own style guide, why should we? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I have verified the first two of these, but get an error when I try to verify the third. In any case, professional publications regularly use a hyphen when a dash might technically be preferable, yet this does not seem to affect their credibility. WHY is it so important in Wikipedia? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment: All of this "new" argument has been gone through minutely before. This will come as no surprise to the seasoned editor. If you have not read the saga up till now, you are merely contributing variations on points long since blunted to ineffectiveness. And you have probably missed the counterpoints that dispatch them, equally indecisively. Myself, I do not and will not present argument on punctuation and style here. This is not the forum for deciding general guidelines for style or naming; it is the forum for deciding how the Project's guidelines apply for one article. If there is some special difficulty in the present case, let that difficulty be discussed. But in fact there is no special difficulty. If there are general difficulties in interpreting guidelines or policy to which we are alerted here, they ought to be referred for general treatment at WT:MOS (and perhaps also WT:TITLE). A couple of editors militantly disagree with such sound procedure. If you want to feed their appetite for chaos, by all means continue with decentralised, ever-churning discussion here (and at the next hundred articles at which the very same questions will proliferate, when those militants plant them there). Some of us have better uses for our time, and more respect for the Project's established mechanisms and protocols. Noetica ^Tea? 00:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Let us analyse this posting, a mass of unsupported statements:

• All of this "new" argument has been gone through minutely before. No link is supplied; it is, however, true that Noetica has made these unsupported statements before. This private definition of "going through minutely" is noted and logged.
• Myself, I do not and will not present argument on punctuation and style here "I could, if only I would." Tell it to the Marines.
• "All this must be centrally discussed at WT:MOS". This statement is unsupported by MOS - or by WT:TITLE , the governing policy. But this is also suggestio falsi: This has been discussed aat WT:MOS and gotten nowhere because of similar delaying tactics; a discussion now in Archive 119 thrashed this out at some length, using this very example, and shows widespread agreement on this spelling, before the first move request was ever made; there's been one ever since.
• But I agree there is no general problem here; there are a handful of editors who have been consistently warring against consensus for their favorite spelling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Let us analyse that travesty of an analysis – a predictable rehashing of worn-out protestations from the instigator of this whole mess:

• No link is supplied? Read the whole saga, including archives RM discussions at Talk:Mexican-American War. Stop when you tire of the repetition.
• "Tell it to the Marines"? Go play with a nut. I am perfectly justified in not presenting evidence and arguments to suit the whims of PMAnderson, in whatever irrelevant forums he continues to raise central questions concerning guidelines. Yes, of course I could if I would! If PMAnderson doubts it, let him for once open a civil and open-minded discussion on a clearly focused issue, without political motivation, at WT:MOS.
• "This has been discussed at WT:MOS and gotten nowhere because of similar delaying tactics ..."? Wrong. It has got nowhere because of poor focus, and PMAnderson's relentless ill will and sabotage.
• "... there are a handful of editors who have been consistently warring against consensus for their favorite spelling"? Simply wrong. First, it is not strictly spelling, but punctuation that is at issue. There is an important difference. WP:MOS has a lot to say about punctuation; WP:TITLE has nothing to say about punctuation. It touches on "non-language" characters like "♣", but that's not punctuation. Second, many editors support the use of best-practice punctuation; only a few of us have devoted the energy and time to tracking down and countering PMAnderson's subversions of the WP:MOS guidelines that encourage such best practice. Those guidelines at WP:MOS are well-founded, and several major guidelines make essentially the same recommendations. Ours does the job better than most. Show us how this is not so, at WT:MOS, and you will be answered.

Noetica ^Tea? 02:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll believe in Noetica's answers when I see them. There's been a discussion of this at WT:MOS continuously, since well before the move discussion started; here's another link to the earliest one I saw; these wonderful answers have never turned up. There's an old story of the man who went around Athens boasting of the wonderful broad-jump he made in Rhodes, until a philosopher drew a line in the ground and said "This is Rhodes; jump here."

The assertion that WP:TITLE doesn't apply to punctuation is Noetica's unsupported invention. It is at least equally true that WP:TITLE doesn't say anything about left-handed fettucini cutters; does this mean they have any special rule some Wikipedian invents out of the whole cloth?

Now Noetica and friends can get back to fighting "subversion"; you know, I thought Wikipedia was not an experiment in government. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

PMAnderson: This is not Rhodes, and I do not jump at your command. If that injures you, go lick your wounds in private. When you have recovered your composure, go to WT:MOS. There outline systematically for us which current or recent style guides you have consulted, and show how they disagree with WP:MOS on dashes and hyphens. Then, when we have some substance from you rather than empty abuse, I will answer. I will correct any errors or omissions in what you present, and put other guides on the table for examination. As for WT:TITLE, it does not mention fictitious varieties of pasta because it is a guide to naming articles on Wikipedia. It does not mention punctuation, on the other hand, because that has always been the province of WP:MOS. WP:TITLE might be expected to show distinctions in punctuation if they were its concern; but it does so in none of its examples. Spelling? Yes. Abbreviation versus full form? Yes. Choice of variant wording? Yes. Punctuation? Not at all. Noetica ^Tea? 04:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Huh. I admit I'm new to this particular debate and am not familiar with whatever has been discussed before, but I'm certainly not new to debates in WP in general, and I must say I don't think I've ever seen so much energy and so many words used to avoid addressing points and answering questions as has been demonstrated here by Noetica.

I also suggest that PMA would agree that our history could be fairly characterized as being dominated by disagreement, but I must say I've never seen him lie, and tend to believe him when he says that discussions at WT:MOS have gotten no where due to delay tactics similar to the ones being used here.

I'm saying all this just to let you know how it appears to a newcomer. I'm fully aware that Noetica is almost certainly acting in good faith (and I assume he is) and does not realize how much his approach is effectively delaying tactics.

The bottom line is that this issue cannot be so complicated that it's worth going on and on about how it's already been gone over, instead of just explaining, succinctly, anew. If you can't easily explain your position succinctly, then I suggest that might be a big part of the problem. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

B2C, thank you for sharing with us your impressions concerning the "bottom line", and of what is important in an encyclopedia of millions of articles. As one who has spent a great deal of time working collaboratively on excellent style guidelines for the Project, I have a different take. If you think there is anywhere a better set of guidelines for joint web writing, please share that with us. I for one will be delighted, and will want to learn from it. Meanwhile, I will continue to think that there is nothing approaching WP:MOS for appropriate, well-adapted recommendations, despite the campaign PMAnderson leads against our work on it. You are not as experienced with PMAnderson's ways as some of us are. Now, I have explained again and again why I do not leap into a long treatment of English style and punctuation whenever and wherever PMAnderson calls for that. If the matter still eludes you, come to my talkpage and I will explain patiently once more. Noetica ^Tea? 04:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

B2C; have you read what Noetica wrote above when !voting? I'm not sure what else you're looking for. ErikHaugen ( talk | contribs) 06:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I've read it all. I'm looking for something more than an assertion that essentially amounts to saying we should use dashes because MOS says so (and MOS is good), and vague references to further explanations having been provided elsewhere.

I am not disputing the argument that IF MOS clearly prescribed when dashes and hyphens should be used, AND we were able to get all of WP to do this consistently, and to get enough editors to follow this that it would be maintained as well as grammar, spelling, WP:ENGVAR are maintained, then that would be a good thing.

My objection is based on the observation that what MOS says is vague and even if it were more clear we still could not reliably implement this usage reliably and consistently through WP, not nearly as well as we do with grammar, etc. I'm looking for this point to be addressed; it hasn't even been acknowledged by those who favor continued use of the dashes. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposal for speedy closure of the request

I ask for speedy closure, and denial of the requested move. Its proposer knows it to be deeply flawed. A related matter is still under consideration at Talk:Mexican-American War, and more generally at WT:MOS (where the matter belongs). Some other reasons are given above (in the "oppose" statements); and I can provide more reasons if they are wanted.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 12:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The move under consideration at Talk:Mexican-American War is pretty clearly going to fail, so at least for the time being, it will stay at the hyphenated name. What is the point of keeping this article at the en dashed title? It makes Wikipedia look inconsistent and like an unprofessional encyclopedia. This request should have been linked to the move request of Mexican-American War; it was merely an oversight that it wasn't and I am trying to rectify that after the fact. – CWenger ( talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

It would be more accurate to describe the change to the hyphen as making WP look unprofessional and inconsistent. Just because one admin breached the WP:INVOLVED policy, leaping in against vocal opposition when himself a partisan, doesn't mean that the whole box and dice has to be changed to be in breach of WP's site-wide and well-established style guide. I have not yet seen a good case for this, and Kwami's and Noetica's points make much better sense. Are you suggesting that all similar articles should be renamed? There are an awful lot of them. Why is this being discussed here, and not centrally? Tony (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Regardless of any potential breach of policy, the original vote was 8–2 for moving to the hyphenated form. The vote for moving back to the en dashed form is similarly one-sided against. So consensus is definitely for the hyphenated form. I think everybody would agree that ideally, this page would have been part of a multi-move request, and it would not have affected the vote. So had everything proceeded ideally, this page would currently be at the hyphenated name. Why oppose moving it now? – CWenger ( talk) 14:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

No, it should have been part of a request at the MoS, centrally, where a broader part of the community might have participated; the discussion would have been advertised properly; and the big picture would have counted for something, not Mr Anderson's war of attrition against the MoS and his desire to see people do as they please at article level. The move had no legitimacy, IMO, and still doesn't. I don't acknowledge it. Aside from this, the breach of WP:INVOLVED demands that User:Graeme Bartlett revert his move, which was subject to a serious conflict of interest: that is the only proper course of action. Tony (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Do you have a citation for either of these procedural claims yet? (The claim about centralized procedure is the less flimsy, and the only one significant here; it is supported by these three users - although not by WP:POLICY nor WP:MOS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

CWenger, you write above:

Regardless of any potential breach of policy, the original vote was 8–2 for moving to the hyphenated form. The vote for moving back to the en dashed form is similarly one-sided against. So consensus is definitely for the hyphenated form.

You ignore breaches of policy, and run away with the spoils? Why would you do that, I ask? What minuscule, temporary reward does anyone get from the disorderly naming of a page, against established practice in thousands of others, and against guidelines? What about the procedural point that I made emphatically, in the original discussion? It should be obvious: the real issue was not the naming of one page. But to make sure, I spelled it out. The closing admin ignored the point, and refused to answer my questions about his actions ( at his talkpage). So what if the ill-informed vote was 8–2? The move to Mexican-American war should only have been done after weighing the arguments of both sides. This was not done, though policy demands it.

As for the more recent discussion ( Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move), and the trend of opinion in it, both have swayed violently all over the place. Most disturbingly (for anyone concerned about consistent naming and use of guidelines), people are moved by incompetent and facile linguistic points. Let those points be raised in an orderly way at WT:MOS, and they will get the refutation they deserve. The same for unsupported claims about what style guides recommend, or what publishers other than Wikipedia do.

PMAnderson, your remarks and questions about policy are as spurious and malicious as your grasp of style guides younger than 100 years is tenuous. But this is not the proper forum, so I do not waste my time responding to those. At how many more miscellaneous talkpages will you disrupt the orderly naming of articles? At how many more will you wage your ruinous war to undo the work of our Manual of Style? Take it to WT:MOS, where if you present your case in comprehensible form (for a change) you might get answers.

CWenger, PMAnderson, admins, and everyone else, please read Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, especially noting these points:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it.

Now that is policy; and it refers to guidelines, which plainly and centrally include WP:MOS, the interpretation and maintenance of which is conducted at WT:MOS, not at thousands of talkpages around the Project.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 23:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Noetica, please show me a move discussion where the closing admin decided in favor of the side with 2 votes against 8. Then I will grant that you may have a point about Graeme Bartlett. Even then I don't think anybody has shown he did anything wrong. Also in the unlikely event that Mexican-American War gets moved back to the en dashed title, I can guarantee I will withdraw this move request instead of fighting for every inch over punctuation. This isn't Stalingrad. – CWenger ( talk) 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Grant or fail to grant what you see fit, CWenger: but you deserve to be ignored if you do not support your suggestions with argument. The reasons for contesting the move to Mexican-American War are laid out in fine-grain detail, at the talkpage. Now, you show me a requested move so patently motivated by a political agenda as that one was, and that was so ineptly handled by an admin. I am interested in sound procedure to encourage high quality in our articles. That calls for consistent implementation of policy and guidelines. I am also interested, and active, in consultatively developing and refining those guidelines for the benefit of the community. I have seen no evidence that you share such an interest. Think about it. Finally, your comment in the preceding section:

"AMEN! – CWenger ( talk)"

If that, along with the comment to which I have just responded, marks the extent of your grasp of the issues, I would counsel you to withdraw – and yes, think even longer.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 03:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This is all irrelevant to the discussion at hand. My point is simply this: ideally, when the move request to Mexican-American War was proposed, it would have been of the multi-move variety including this article, among others. When the move was closed—whether or not you agree or even think it was legitimate—the second-best option would have been for the closing admin to recognize the related articles to which the same arguments apply and move them as well. This is a lot to ask and neither was done in this case. This is merely an administrative request to rectify that after the fact. I have absolutely no problem with non-stop discussions about move requests on talk pages, which 90% of readers are unaware exist, as long as Wikipedia looks professional and consistent to them. – CWenger ( talk) 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Specious, and easily dispatched. You are merely showing another way in which the original move was mishandled. A further mishandling as a follow-up would do nothing to remedy that. The only available way to proceed (using just the mechanism of WP:RM), if a whole range of articles need moving, would be this:

1. Undo the initial move, which we agree was mishandled.

2. Identify all articles with names similar to Mexican–American War. (There are thousands of them.)

3. Request a joint move for all of those.

But of course, we don't do that. Instead, we have policies and guidelines to settle such issues centrally. We manage the few apparent exceptions as apparent exceptions, not as opportunities to disrupt the Project. And if those guidelines or policies need improvement or replacement, we discuss that at their talkpages.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't believe the original move was mishandled, just not done as thoroughly as it could have been. That is no reason to undo what was a pretty strong consensus to move. It just means we should go back and do what the admin missed, which is what I was trying to do here. However, I have to say, I would support moving Mexican-American War back to Mexican–American War as a temporary measure so we could have a full move discussion concerning all the articles involved. – CWenger ( talk) 05:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• The original move was a breach of both WP:INVOLVED and WP:TITLE. It is not legitimate. Tony (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Tony, you've never shown that. Unless you have evidence, it's just slander. I don't agree with the move either, but can we stick to facts rather than opinion? — kwami ( talk) 06:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

We are just going around in circles. Two days after his admin action, he declared partisanship in an attempt to reverse it. That is the evidence, plain as day. Tony (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Tony! We can agree that the move was egregiously bungled without going into all of the reasons, every time. Their detailed enumeration is disputed.

CWenger, at Talk:Mexican-American_War I am raising your suggestion to start afresh with the whole suite of related articles. And I am seconding it. (The present request would be withdrawn for now also, yes?)

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 06:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Kwami, here's the evidence in chronological sequence:

• First, the closing of the debate, actually citing one of the two policies his subsequent move was in breach of (WP:TITLE); and the move of the talk page (the article page was moved within minutes).
• Second, his disclosure of a partisan set of views that were contested by many people on that page and other pages—particularly, "If there are many other articles with ndash, that is not a reason to make this article also match, but a reason to rename those articles to match the common name, rather than trying to make the title look the best". Tony (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't see anything wrong with either. I disagree with his interpretation of TITLE (AFAIK it's intended to cover names, not formatting or style: as many have noted, we don't follow sources for caps), but that's the kind of thing you raise there for discussion and elaboration. And given his understanding of TITLE, he's right: you wouldn't not-implement the policy just because some other article doesn't implement it. So no foul, just IMO a misunderstanding of policy. But if you really think he's in violation, you should raise it at ANI. Making repeated accusations without doing anything about it just makes you seem cranky, and it doesn't help. — kwami ( talk) 07:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposal to deal with all Mexican~American articles jointly

There is a new proposal here (at Talk:Mexican-American_War). Both sides would agree to start again, with a new consideration of all titles that include "Mexican~American War". This is an efficient compromise. Either both sides can pursue the issue at enormous length, page by page; or both can agree to do it all in one discussion.

See preceding subsection: The proposal arises from the goodwill of CWenger (who wants hyphens), and is taken further by me (I want en dashes). Let's try for a genuine solution. Please join in support of the new proposal, and let's withdraw the lesser request for this present page. It will all be covered under the new request.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes. Let's try a genuine solution: Compel Kwamikagami, Noetica, and Tony1 to supply evidence for their assertions on the English language and on Wikipedia policy and practice or retract them. So far they have presented adverb adjective all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Boring, inflammatory, futile, and effectively addressed at WT:MOS (see the exchange in the blue box). Briefly, I have had to say again and again that all the evidence PMAnderson requests, at talkpages dotted around the Project, can be provided. But only when he and other editors have stopped any opportunistic disruption, clearing the way for orderly discourse at WT:MOS. In how many more irrelevant forums will this same stupid challenge be issued, requiring me to repeat the same obvious answer? Can we stop this, please?– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, Noetica has made claims until xe is blue in the sig. Xe has provided evidence for none of them, here or at WT:MOS; least of all that "orderly" discourse must be (or is indeed possible) at WT:MOS. Bare assertion proves nothing; it suggests that the "evidence" claimed does not exist. "What at mead man vows, let him at morning with deeds answer." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Weave the wind here, PMAnderson, and your vacant shuttles waste time's fleeting bounties. The place to discuss the content, articulation, and associations of WP:MOS guidelines for punctuation is at WT:MOS. The place to apply them, or to argue that present cases are exceptions to those guidelines, is at talkpages like this. There is no argument here (or at Talk:Mexican-American War) that anything about the war in question justifies punctuation against the Project's guidelines, when the vast majority of parallel cases conform. Stop being a nuisance.

If you cannot accept or even perceive proposals aimed at compromise, and an end to all this, I will have to begin ignoring you completely. Quite soon.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 21:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

This contains no more evidence than any of your other posts. It also contains several falsehoods:

• WP:MOS, insofar as it addresses this case at all, supports the hyphen; it's a compound adjective, per WP:HYPHEN 3. That's one of the reasons Mexican-American War was moved.

Wrong. You ignore the detail, as always. WP:HYPHEN refers us to WP:ENDASH. And that guideline calls for the en dash in cases like this one. If you disagree, you disagree generally and should take it up at WT:MOS.– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• I am not, at the moment, proposing to change the wording of MOS, although it could use clarification to avoid this confusion.

We cannot, at the moment, work reasonably on changing the wording of MOS. You were a key player in making that a protected page, five weeks ago. It is still protected. Your own recent week-long ban for disruption apparently has not had the desired effect. The protection remains. Work on a solution to that, rather than sowing more disorder wherever your whim takes you.– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

• If it needed to be changed, this is as good a place to discuss that as any. If the wording or interpretation of MOS is not supported by a wider consensus, that is the best reason to change it.

This is not a reasonable place to discuss a general guideline – only the specific application of it to this specific page. Even when confined to WT:MOS such discussions risk becoming interminable and chaotic. Now you want us to reproduce the whole thing, wherever you wage your disorderly campaign against due application of the Project's style guidelines? No thanks.– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

You are welcome to ignore me; the more of Wikipedia you spare your artificial syntax and invented policies, the better off we shall be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC) reply

The time is drawing near when I must ignore you. I have been far more indulgent than you deserve. If you claim that the guidelines developed collaboratively in WP:MOS are faulty or mere inventions, undo the chaos you have already wrought, and we can discuss it all, in one place. The waste of time otherwise would be monumental. It already is. No more dispersed and ruinously futile debate. You may have endless hours to throw away; but no one else has.– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I observe that

• This is an article title; MOS is a guideline, and does not override WP:TITLE, the governing policy.
• WP:MOS does not require the unnatural form in this title, which is contrary to both WP:HYPHEN and MOS:FOLLOW.
• The claim that MOS has been worked out collaboratively is a lie. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

My articulated observations, for those three sniping points:

• No one says that the guidelines at WP:MOS override the policies at WP:TITLE. You know that is not the claim, yet you wantonly persist in saying that it is. Read the detail on this page and at Talk:Mexican-American War, and report it accurately. A crucial element of sound procedure on the Project (indeed, of common civility) is not to misrepresent claims. Another important element: not imposing on editors the burden of countering such repeated misrepresentations.
• It's futile, your cheap attempt to normalise the view that en dash is unnatural in this use. Beyond that, punctuation for any complex work must be a matter of conventions and deliberate choices. The form with en dash is supported by WP:HYPHEN and WP:ENDASH (two beautifully harmonised sections of WP:MOS, in need of minor adjustment to prevent biased misreading). Since those guidelines affect many thousands of articles generally, the place to debate about them is at WT:MOS. When you are ready, and when orderly procedure is restored.
• The core of Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) is WP:MOS. It has been worked out collaboratively. Its provisions are settled by long, arduous, open discussion at the talkpage, WT:MOS. This has always been the case. How could it be otherwise, on Wikpedia? Such open, public, collaborative process is universal here, and secured through policy and the good will of participants. You have worked tirelessly against that process, and against the notion of style guidelines for the Project, because of your ideological commitment to the primacy of localised decision-making. Your efforts at WT:MOS are routinely thwarted; so you take it to the provinces, and wage guerrilla war instead of accepting the community's plain wish that there be guidelines, and that they be respected.

I have explained at the other Mex~Am dispute that I have run out of time for this. But others can now clearly see what you are up to, PMAnderson. Stop it, please. You have failed to gain insight into your own disruptions from the blocks (some short, some very long) imposed on you by the community; so a more permanent solution should be sought.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Shorter Noetica: "I claim forever that I have sources; this leaves me no time to present sources." Yeah, right. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

The "It's a compound adjective" theory

Compound nouns used as adjectives need to be hyphenated. So by the theory stated above that a hyphen is correct in "Mexican-American War", the implication is that it's based on the adjective form of the compound noun Mexican American. This is certainly an incorrect approach, as the war was not about Americans of Mexican descent. This is exactly the wrong interpretation that the en dash disambiguates against. So why not use it, for people who are literate enough to be helped by it? Dicklyon ( talk) 00:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Here's an example in a book that does typography right. It's one of the few books that uses en dashes at all (for anything besides date ranges); search for "Texas-Mexican border" or such to get an idea how few books employ a style guide that respect the role of the en dash; as far as I know, there is no place Texas Mexico. Now if we had examples of books that do use en dash properly, and don't use it in Mexican–American War, that would argue that there is evidence for the hyphen being a choice of knowledgeable editors; I find no such evidence, just the opposite. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

No, it's a compound adjective, not a noun used attributively; it's the War which is both Mexican and American, as a blue-green tint is one which is both blue and green; a hyphen is customary in both cases. One piece of evidence for this is the the most common name, which we should really be using, is Mexican War.

The assertion that a vanishingly rare eccentricity is "correct" is vacuous. There is no real standard in these matters but usage; English has no Academy. If we look for reliable sources, the vast majority of English style guides do not recommend the use of a dash for compounds at all. Of those which do, another majority recommends it only for the rare case in which compounds are themselves compounded, like Lloyd-George–Winston-Churchill Government, which is not the case here.

All of that small minority of a minority are from the Commonwealth. Since this article is strongly linked to the United States, the subform of Commonwealth English involved is irrelevant here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I learned it in the US, from style guides of US editors and publishers. I don't know this rule you say about hyphens in compound adjectives; I learned that it's for compound nouns when used as adjectives, to prevent a garden-path parse. Blue-green is a compound noun for a color already, so much an example of anything. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Which is why we follow sources when such issues arise; not memories of what we were taught. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Sep, you know full well that many grammars and style guides call attributive nouns "adjectives". Even the OED does this. This has been pointed out over and over. You have yet to provide a single ref that attributive adjectives are punctuated differently than attributive nouns. — kwami ( talk) 20:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I know. That verbal point is not at issue. Like Spanish-American War, this is a compound adjective, made of two adjectives in the narrow sense; it is not derived from Mexican-American, the ethnic identity - a word which did not exist at the time of the war, and which would have had (if employed as an anachronism) hardly any members. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not required to prove a distinction; the distinction that Kwami has invented between Franco-Prussian War and Mexican-American War is equally undocumented - and remains unevidenced in American writing. 20:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You posited a distinction between Mexican–American as an adjective and Mexican-American as a noun. Of course it's up to you to demonstrate it. (I agree that in Mexican–American War it's a noun. The point is that this has no demonstrated relevance.) — kwami ( talk) 20:48, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Please retract both falsehoods. I do not believe in "Mexican–American [dash] as an adjective," outside that eccentric dialect called Oxford English, which this article should not be using. I am not convinced it is normal usage in Oxford English, since the OUP does not appear to use it and the OED has an entry only for Mexican-American with a hyphen. I deny that Mexican-American in the name of the war is a noun; I see no evidence for such a proposition at all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

As usual, you contradict with people when they agree with you (whether because you do not actually read what anyone else says, or due to habitual gainsaying I don't know), and misrepresent what they say when they don't. Why do any of us bother even considering your opinion any more?

The OED only has "Mexican-American" to mean Mexican American, so how are they relevant? And of course it's a noun. So what? — kwami ( talk) 22:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC) reply

Kwami agrees with two things I never said, and regard as absurd. I have a little quiz, which may clarify this issue of a noun.

Kwami, which of the following italicized words are nouns, according to you:

• (American) Civil War?
• Polish-Swedish War?
• Franco-Prussian War?
• French and Indian War?
• Mexican War?
• Mexican-American War?

if some are, and some are not, have you a citation or a rationale for the distinction? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 12:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You're right, Prussian, French, Mexican, and American are presumably all intended as adjectives here. You've said so many things that I lost track: first that it's an adjective, then that I should retract the falsehood that you think it's an adjective. As for Franco-, I've never seen such things with an en dash, but if you have references they should be used there, pls provide. You're still maintaining this is British English, which is of course nonsense, as Garner's states it as a matter of course and CMOS uses it. And you have never provided evidence for your other argument, which is that nouns and adjectives are treated differently. — kwami ( talk) 19:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

No, I have said one thing: the dashéd folly Mexican–American does not exist in American; guides to the English of Oz are irrelevant to American. As for CMOS, where? §6.78 endorses WP:ENDASH 1 (numeric ranges); §6.80 permits, but advises against WP:ENDASH 5 (compounded compounds); §6.81 recommends against all other uses of the dash in compounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Garner is American usage, not Australian. CMOS §7.86 repeated “either–or” suggestions. There are probably other instances, since I came across that one by chance.

The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage? It does not appear to support this usage; and until OUP follows it in the United States (at a minimum), is it a reliable source? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You should upgrade to the sixteenth edition, which omits the comment (and renumbers to 7.81); that's probably a typo, since it is contradicted by the section of which it is part and by [15] 7.90 = [16] 7.85. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Merriam-Webster's manual for writers and editors is also English. They say the en dash is used for "boundaries, treaties, and oppositions", gives male–female differences as an example, and makes no mention of part of speech. — kwami ( talk) 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Hey, maybe you're right on the prefix point: Wawro (2003) The Franco–Prussian War: the German conquest of France in 1870–1871 [2] uses en dashes on the front and back cover. Ollivier (1914) THE FRANCO–PRUSSIAN WAR AND ITS HIDDEN CAUSES [3] uses en dashes in its headers, but I suspect that is merely the convention of using en dashes for hyphens in all-cap text, not a disjunctive dash. Either way, I withdraw any claim that prefixes should be treated differently than independent words in this regard. — kwami ( talk) 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• Look again. Wawro uses Franco-Prussian in text and cover alike; the dash in 1870–1871 is the same length as the hyphen in Franco-Prussian because the font is smaller.
• As for Ollivier, you may be right. But the translation of 1914 is likely to be a rush job anyway; there was a sudden surge of interest in the Franco-Prussian War around, say, August, and it was out by December. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Look again: they are both en dashes. They are not the same length, but they are proportional. And on the back cover, they're the same size font as well, so it's even clearer. Anyway, I concede that you may be right: there's no need to avoid en dashes just because we're dealing with a prefix. — kwami ( talk) 22:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

You may be right on the back cover; I still see the front cover as a hyphen. But neither would be the first absurdity produced by a cover artist - and the text clearly hyphenates. On the whole, not the strongest evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Agreed. But enough that I won't repeat the distinction that you objected to. (And it would appear to be a distinction in the one of the reviews, not the cover artist. I have found several more books that dash all-cap headings and hyphenate in the text, [4] [5] [6] all between the turn of the century and WWI, supporting that as the reason for the dash in Ollivier.) — kwami ( talk) 01:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Ah, here's two more, from the turn of this century, and they dash the text, not just the cover: White (2003) The prince and the Yankee [7] (throughout the text) and Edmunds & Marthinsen (2003) Wealth by association [8] (in a footnote). — kwami ( talk) 02:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I've never heard of either publisher, and both are inconsistent; Greenwood here and I. B. Tauris here; at least one of them is British. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

What does being British have to do with it? The question is whether prefixes behave the same as independent words, even if I hadn't demonstrated that disjunctive dashes aren't an ENGVAR thing.

Evangelista (2005) Peace Studies [9] dashes Franco–Prussian War, Russo–Japanese War, Russo–Turkish War. — kwami ( talk) 06:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Look, it's nice that you cite one Routledge book that uses dashes, but see Routledge books in google books, there are far more Routledge books using hyphens than dashes:

• hyphen Routledge handbook of public diplomacy Russo-Japanese war Russo-German peace negotiations Sino-Japanese war Sino-Russian influence. The Routledge companion to fascism and the far right Russo-Japanese war Russian military intelligence in the war with Japan, 1904-05 The Routledge companion to world history since 1914 Times past in Korea: an illustrated collection of encounters, events The development of the Japanese nursing profession The Routledge dictionary of historical slang by Eric Partridge. The great powers, imperialism, and the German problem, 1865-1925 . Economic Development of Russia, 1905-1914. The tide at sunrise: a history of the Russo-Japanese War, 1904-1905 uses in the title both a hyphen for the compound and a dash for the page range. The Japanese and Europe: images and perceptions

• dash The Routledge companion to European history since 1763 Russo–swedish conflict Russo–Persian war

I stopped at book #13. You can try the same with publisher of military history Osprey publishing: the first two results [10] [11] [12] use in the title both a hyphen for the compound and a dash for a page range. All first 10 books use hyphen.

Given this and MOS:FOLLOW, I think it's obvious that war compounds like "Russo-Japanese war" are written with hyphen, and the MOS should be updated to reflect it. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 07:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That's not the point. I had made the claim that prefixes like these did not take en dashes, and Anderson objected. It turns out he was correct: they do, at least in (some) texts which use disjunctive dashes. I suspect that this may not be as common as en dashes with independent words, but that would be OR. Since you have no RS for saying they don't, we shouldn't change the MOS to say they don't. — kwami ( talk) 07:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Kwami, MOS:FOLLOW says to follow "the style adopted by high-quality sources" and " the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources". Is there anything in the MOS that encourages using the rules of off-wiki manuals of style over the usage in RS? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 08:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree. Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for editors who want to publish new English grammar manuals. Wikipedia should follow existing English grammar.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

That is weird: who said anything about publishing "new English grammar manuals"? And what exactly do you mean by that? Tony (talk) 09:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Let's not start arguing about who-said-what. Please explain why wikipedia should refuse to follow certain stylistic conventions when a overwhelming percentage of high-quality RS use them. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:25, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Simple: precision and disambiguation, just as we do with punctuation for quotations, where we don't follow sources either. (Oh, and by "the style adopted by high-quality sources" they don't mean the sources used for the article, but respected publications in general, say the Economist or the Atlantic Monthly.) — kwami ( talk) 11:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Atlantic Monthly uses always hyphen for "Russo-Japanese" [13] (I checked all results). The Economist also uses always hyphen [14] (checked all 15 results, no dash in any of them). Both also use hyphens for "Sino-Japanese" [15] [16]. So, as far as RS go, I think that we have established that this type of compound is overwhelmingly written with a hyphen.

Anyways, what imprecision or ambiguity is causing a problem here? If "Mexican-American war" is ambiguous because it uses a hyphen, then what is this ambiguous meaning that gives problems? What porblem is being solved here by using a dash instead of a hyphen? Most importantly, can you point us to any RS where the meaning is ambiguous because of using a hyphen instead of a dash? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 13:36, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• So most sources use title case, not sentence case, for section headings. Or most sources on a particular scientific topic use AmEng. Does that mean editors should be able to march in and change WP's global choices? That way lies chaos. Tony (talk) 14:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It seems that we agreed no to use it, because it's fugly. But, why are we using dash instead of hyphen? What is the problem that is solved by using dash instead of hyphen? Can you point to RS showing this problem in the name of this war? Somewhere where using a dash instead of a hyphen changes the meaning in a crucial way? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It seems to me that the hyphen is ugly when it makes the reading ambiguous and when in the context of a style guide that says to use the en dash for this kind of thing, which is consistent with style guides that I've used in many places for 35 years. The problem is that Septentrionalis PMAnderson doesn't like the style guide, and is trying to subvert it anywhere he can. Dicklyon ( talk) 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

(no context here, remember that MOS:CONSISTENCY allows exceptions in specific articles) How is the reading ambiguous? Is there a significant problem anywhere of people misunderstanding the meaning of "Mexican-American war" because someone used a hyphen, yes or not? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It's unlikely to be ambiguous for most people. However, we are an encyclopedia, and value precise language and punctuation. (After all, if we give page numbers as 3-24 with a hyphen, few people are going to find that ambiguous for 'chapter 3, p 24' (which would be written the same way), but we use the more precise punctuation regardless.) If we're going to use an en dash, then we should use it, because otherwise the reader can't know whether a hyphen is just a hyphen. — kwami ( talk) 19:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

And if we're goint to use a hyphen, as the sources do, we should use it. So?

As for me, I value writing in English; we are here to communicate, not to salve Dicklyon's sense of aesthetics; after all, this pompous invention offends my eyes, perhaps just as much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

So we're back to your primary arguments, WP:IDONTLIKEIT and therefore "it isn't English", which you've said before and then denied saying. — kwami ( talk) 22:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC) reply

This goes too far. My primary argument is and remains that the form Kwamikagami prefers is vanishingly rare; if I mention that I don't like it, it is only to counter Dicklyon's claim that he likes it.

That is what I mean by saying that this form is not English; I have denied saying Kwamikagami's other distortions of my posts. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

And is it so awful that my sensibilities are aligned with those of the people who wrote the wikipedia manual of style? What's offensive to me is that Pmanderson insists on his own provincial interpretation of what's "English", based on an apparently neglected education of the fine points. Dicklyon ( talk) 00:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

My education neglected those points too, but now that I see their utility, I like 'em. (Still not so sure about spaced en dashes for disjunction between compound elements though.) — kwami ( talk) 01:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

So, for page ranges there is a good reason for dashes: a hyphen could be confused with a different construct. See? it's easy. Now you present a good reason to distinguish "Mexican-American war", with an explanation of when the problem happens, just like you did with the page ranges. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 09:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

It's the same basic distinction: 3-24 would be page 24 of chapter 3 (a single entity), whereas 3–24 would be page 3 to page 24 (two distinct entities). Mexican-American X would be X of Americans who are (also) Mexican (a single entity); Mexican–American X would be X of Americans vs./and Mexicans (two distinct entities). Or X of America vs./and Mexico, since those -an words can be used for either meaning. — kwami ( talk) 16:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Has this problem ever happened for this war? Has anyone ever gotten confused and thought that is was a battle of persons who were both American and Mexican? Any example of this actually happening? -- Enric Naval ( talk) 17:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

I have no idea, but generally if it's possible to get confused, someone will. Anyway, we do not use precise language because we can demonstrate that someone has gotten confused, but because we're an encyclopedia, and as an encyclopedia we try to be precise. There's also the matter of consistency: If we normally use en dashes for disjunctive compounds, and don't here, the natural question would be why not: what's different about this case that we make it an exception to our formatting conventions? Sources which use disjunctive en dashes will use them when they are appropriate, not just in select cases. — kwami ( talk) 18:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

We, the actual speakers and readers of English, do not normally use en dashes for disjunctive compounds; some readers use them sometimes, but not for this (save for the usual eccentric). That is a relatively recent innovation, suggested by Oxford, which has not caught on even at Oxford University Press. In particular, it is not accurate of this war; deviating from the established spelling in the interest of a theory of language-reform will merely confuse our readers.

This proposal, and Kwami's move request, are active efforts to harm the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, Sep, I'm a saboteur, out to ruin WP, and after WP, the world!

You are completely correct: Actual speakers and readers of English do not use en dashes. This is trivially true, since speaking and reading do not involve writing dashes. However, writers of English do use en dashes. Disjunctive en dashes are given in Garner's Modern American Usage, which has had good reviews. And a dash is, of course, accurate for this war, as has been already demonstrated. You have repeatedly failed to give any reason to think otherwise. — kwami ( talk) 20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Which does not reflect actual usage as much as Oxford's reform agenda. It might be a better lanugage if Oxford had its way; but it would not be ours - or, more importantly, our readers'. Pray for their success if you like; but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; when they change English, we shall change too. Meanwhile, we write for the twenty-first century, not the twenty-second. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:24, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply

• No, what you mean is that you want your personal version to be forced on WP:TITLE and the style guides. You seem to have created your own castle in WP:TITLE, along with Blueboar et al., from which to play this policy vs guideline game, without admitting that WP:TITLE contains lots of non-consensual text, and lots of rules that are not followed by many sources in English. Then you seek to beat the style guides over the head. Tony (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Another instance of faulty telepathy.
  • No, Tony, what I want is to follow usage, as the usual best means of communicating with anglophones in general; this is modified at WP:TITLE by other considerations, chiefly that Wikipedia's system cannot use the same title on distinct articles. Three or four editors don't want anything so vulgar as usage, as Noetica put it.
  • Usage is an objective test, on which there is evidence in corpora and dictionaries. The present state of MOS is that there is no objective test for what it means - as is demonstrated here by Tony, Kwami, and Noetica disagreeing with the rest of us. There is no objective test for what it should mean; there is no hope of uniformity and no acknowledgement of consensus. This has resulted in the present situation, in which Tony wails because his subjective preferences have not obtained consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Count me among the wailing. I still think we have the MOS for a reason, and ought to try to respect it. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Oh, I agree that there is a reason to have a Manual of Style; I simply deny that phrasings which it doesn't support are such a reason. It would be nice to have a MOS which deserved respect; respecting the contemptible is idolatry. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Got it. You don't respect the MOS because it is contemptible. Put that on your user page and let's move on. Dicklyon ( talk) 03:55, 7 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Naming wars: the only way out

This new subsection at Talk:Mexican-American War presents ten summary points. Recommended reading: for editors taking part here, and for admins who might be considering closing either RM. For myself, I've finished with all this: at least until the deadlock is broken.

– _⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica! ^T– 23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC) reply

Why do you have to keep restating your POV? It is not the only POV worth listening to.-- Toddy1 ( talk) 08:18, 2 April 2011 (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.