Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 5 April 2011

	List of battles of the Mexican–American War is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 15, 2005 Featured list candidate Promoted January 17, 2009 Featured list removal candidate Demoted
Current status: Former featured list

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mexico High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. North America This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Potential FL review

Hi there, is anybody watching this page. As part of a prospective sweeps of older Featured lists, this page has been flagged up as needing some attention. As a start the WP:LEAD does not summarise the article adequately. It might also need some tightening up of the references, with specific citations for some of the contentious statements. If I can help, or if there are any questions, leave them on my talk page. (I have watchlisted this page as well.) Woody (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Move?

It has been proposed in this section that List of battles of the Mexican–American War be renamed and moved to Battles of the Mexican-American War. A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• Oppose—Agree entirely with Kwami. Tony (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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 Misplaced Pages determine, just as any other publisher would. Especially for titles. There is no Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 12:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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

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.–_⊥Noetica!– 23:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages process? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)
  • AMEN! –CWenger (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
  • A reasonable principle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support it should be consistent with the main article; 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• Comment The RM in the "main" article Mexican-American War has been closed as "no consensus to revert the move" . 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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 12:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 23:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 03:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages looks professional and consistent to them. –CWenger (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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?)

–_⊥Noetica!– 06:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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?–_⊥Noetica!– 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 21:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

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.–_⊥Noetica!– 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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.–_⊥Noetica!– 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• 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.–_⊥Noetica!– 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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

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.–_⊥Noetica!– 00:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages'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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 21:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

`===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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Please retract both falsehoods. I do not believe in "Mexican–American 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 7.90 = 7.85. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Hey, maybe you're right on the prefix point: Wawro (2003) The Franco–Prussian War: the German conquest of France in 1870–1871 uses en dashes on the front and back cover. Ollivier (1914) THE FRANCO–PRUSSIAN WAR AND ITS HIDDEN CAUSES 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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, 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)

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 (throughout the text) and Edmunds & Marthinsen (2003) Wealth by association (in a footnote). — kwami (talk) 02:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

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 dashes Franco–Prussian War, Russo–Japanese War, Russo–Turkish War. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

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 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Atlantic Monthly uses always hyphen for "Russo-Japanese" (I checked all results). The Economist also uses always hyphen (checked all 15 results, no dash in any of them). Both also use hyphens for "Sino-Japanese". 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)

• 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)

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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

–_⊥Noetica!– 23:14, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

• Misplaced Pages former featured lists
• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class military history articles
• Start-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• Start-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• List-Class Mexico articles
• High-importance Mexico articles
• WikiProject Mexico articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Unknown-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed North America articles
• Unknown-importance North America articles
• WikiProject North America articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Requested moves