| Revision as of 07:55, 16 March 2011 editGraeme Bartlett (talk | contribs)Administrators250,114 edits →Revisit requested move: oppose← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 22:16, 12 July 2024 edit undoPianoDan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users6,353 edits →Vectorise image: done |
| (733 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header|search=yes}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
{{On this day|date1=2004-05-13|oldid1=6718070|date2=2005-05-08|oldid2=16335197|date3=2008-05-13|oldid3=212045338|date4=2009-05-13|oldid4=289679036|date5=2010-05-13|oldid5=361847406|date6=2012-05-13|oldid6=492389365}} |
|
{{ProjectMexico|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WPMILHIST |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Military history |
|
|class=Start |
|
|
|
|class= B |
|
<!-- B-Class checklist --> |
|
|
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |
|
|
|B-Class-1= yes |
|
|B-Class-1= yes |
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
|
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |
| Line 15: |
Line 14: |
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |
|
|B-Class-5= yes |
|
|B-Class-5= yes |
|
|US-task-force=yes |
|
|US-task-force= yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Mexico|importance=Top }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject North America|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=high|HLA=yes|HLA-importance=top|USOldwest=Yes|USOldwest-importance=Mid|MexAm=yes|MexAm-importance=top|UShistory=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject International relations |importance=Mid}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{USProject|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
{{WikiProject American Old West|class=B|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
|counter = 5 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(120d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{OnThisDay|date1=2004-05-13|oldid1=6718070|date2=2005-05-08|oldid2=16335197|date3=2008-05-13|oldid3=212045338|date4=2009-05-13|oldid4=289679036|date5=2010-05-13|oldid5=361847406}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Quibble about usage == |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: section entitled "Defense of the War" |
|
|
|
|
|
I have been asked by another contributor to solicit consensus here on a point of usage. |
|
|
|
|
|
When is it appropriate to deviate from the past tense in writing about historical events? |
|
|
|
|
|
Explaining his changes to my text, Beyond My Ken writes, "Let's please recall that we are compiling an encyclopedia for general audiences. There's no particular reason why an article about a past historical event needs to be so complex in its use of tenses - plain old past tense is just fine." |
|
|
|
|
|
I maintain that when discussing the contents of a book, an argument, a speech, etc., the present tense is employed. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example: |
|
|
|
|
|
"At the end of the ''Philosophical Investigations'' Wittgenstein '''''takes''''' note of his frequent references to the very general facts of nature and '''''fends''''' off any overeager metaphysical use of them..." (''The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein,'' ed. H. Sluga and D. Stern (Cambridge U. Press, 1996), p. 152.) |
|
|
|
|
|
This is an instance of the "ongoing truth exception" to the general rule governing sequence of tenses, and a common source of confusion. When we speak of an ongoing truth or state of affairs, the present tense is employed, regardless of when it originated. Thus ''She said she is sorry'', not ''She said she was sorry''. The act of speaking is indeed past, but not its contents. |
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that we needn't be overly fastidious about slight deviations from standard usage in a popular work of this sort, but it seems odd to bother actually introducing them into material that is already written. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:You are not doing a free-standing analysis of a speech or communication, you are recounting the events surrounding the speech in the context of an article in a general-interest encyclopedia about a historical event. The proper tense is use is obviously past tense -- this stuff isn't happening now, and the subject is not some eternally present thing. It happened in the past, it is '''''of''''' the past, and the description should indicate that. Your desire to change tenses in the middle of the article for the length of a paragraph entirely disrupts the flow of the article for the reader and is totally unnecessary. This is not an academic paper, and your wish to flip tenses is pedantic in the extreme. ] (]) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I have reverted your last three edits, since in the process you deleted my response. Please be more careful. You'll need to re-add your minor changes to your original comment. ] (]) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Sorry, but how is one supposed to know when the page is being edited by someone else at the same time? ] (]) 21:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::It '''''wasn't''''' being edited at the same time. In your first re-edit, , you deleted my comment, which I had saved 9 minutes before. If we had been editing the article at the same time, when you tried to save the system would have told you that there was an "edit conflict". ] (]) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::Please consider: |
|
|
:::::*: |
|
|
:::::**An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Misplaced Pages article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. |
|
|
:::::*: |
|
|
:::::**Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. |
|
|
:::::*: |
|
|
:::::**Having established that potentially every English-reader may also be a reader of Misplaced Pages, albeit that certain elements of a very small number of articles may include some technical details not everyone will understand, how should we cater for this audience?<p>This can be difficult. Misplaced Pages is fortunate in having many editors who are full-time academics and who know a lot about their subjects. Their edits are very welcome, but often they are too complicated for the average reader. This is not surprising, when you are accustomed to writing for one audience throughout your professional life, it is difficult to write for a completely different one. Perhaps some good advice would be to imagine you are writing for people who read serious (i.e. non-tabloid) newspapers. Don't worry, that doesn't mean write in a newspaper style, it means imagine the selection of words and how much knowledge it is fair to assume that audience will have (bearing in mind they could be anywhere in the world). Another group which might make a good theoretical audience are high school and college students. Many of them do use Misplaced Pages to read about certain topics on a reasonably advanced level for the first time. |
|
|
:::::] (]) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
While this entire discussion is certainly pedantic, following simple, established rules of good usage is not. This is the only issue here, no matter how many red herrings get thrown up. |
|
|
|
|
|
For the sake of wikipedia, I hope the next newcomer gets a less acrimonious reception. ] (]) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"Acrimonomious"? You '''''are''''' new, aren't you? Why not try to get your feet wet a bit and get the feel of the place before you start attempting to change things? I know we don't meet your exacting standards, but there might be value in the project anyway. ] (]) 01:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Be wary of confusing ignorance of particular parochial habits with general nescience. ''Experto crede!'' |
|
|
|
|
|
I know that wikipedia is used by many millions of young people and learners of English whose writing habits are not yet so incorrigible as ours seem to be, and therefore has an opportunity and a responsibility to set the best practicable example. ] (]) 09:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:''Be wary of confusing ignorance of particular parochial habits with general nescience.'' Sure, and you be sure not to confuse '''''access to information''''' with '''''wisdom'''''. ] (]) 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The speech itself is not what I was writing about, but rather its atemporal contents. I've given several examples of correct usage in such cases. You will find further discussion in the entry on tenses in ''Garner's Modern American Usage''. If you have any counter-examples or other editors who share your opinion, please produce them. ] (]) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Hey guys, I don't quite understand why you are arguing. Either grammar is correct for common readers, however the more similar to a newspapers, probably the better. If it is such a point of contention, I would suggest moving on to something else. |
|
|
:Bakesnobread, please consider exploring the standards of Misplaced Pages a little bit more and try to deal with articles that really need to be examined for grammar, not ones like this where only specialist knowledge of stylistic handbooks would be alarmed at such a use. To find other articles that need grammar work, consider checking out ] or ]. Thank you for the work, and happy editing, ] (]) 15:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I never had any interest in proofreading this article. I was concerned with its bias, and added some material which I felt might be a start towards achieving some balance. This was then revised by another editor, whose changes I disagreed with. Only then did I talk about usage and grammar. This other editor should perhaps be looking at the lists you mention. In any case, I agree that it's time to move on. ] (]) 07:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Combat Photography == |
|
|
This was the first war to ever be photographed, but nowhere in this article does the word 'photograph' even appear.--] (]) 15:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Could you find some sources for us to write a section on it? That would be really useful. ] (]) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that good sourcing would be needed for this claim. During the 1840s, the only real photographic process available was ]. This is a technology suitable for landscapes or staged portraits, but photographing any type of action was not practical. Thus while it was technically possible for some of the war's participants to have portraits made, battle field photography similar to that made during the ] would clearly qualify as an extraordinary (if not impossible) claim. --'']'' <sup>]</sup> 15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Scott's Mexico City Campaign vandalized == |
|
|
|
|
|
Has been vandalized can someone roll it back |
|
|
|
|
|
Included in the invading force were Robert E. Lee, George Meade, Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The city was defended by Mexican General Juan Morales with 3,400 men. Mortars and naval guns under Commodore Matthew C. Perry were used to reduce the city walls and harass defenders. The city replied as best as it could with its own artillery. The effect of the extended barrage destroyed the will of the Mexican side to fight against a numerically superior force, and they surrendered the city after 12 days under siege. U.S. troops suffered 80 casualties, while the Mexican side had around 180 killed and wounded, about half of whom were civilian. During the siege, the U.S. side began to fall victim to yellow fever. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 11:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
==Requested move== |
|
|
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> |
|
|
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|
|
|
|
|
The result of the move request was: '''move'''; MOS is only a guide and the ] is a policy overiding it. Consensus here is to move, but with vocal opposition. ] (]) 08:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC) ] (]) 08:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] → {{no redirect|1=Mexican-American War}} — |
|
|
Believe it or not, this is controversial; therefore this request to move to a hyphen, what English actually uses - and should use. These are which use "Mexican American War" (search phrase chosen for neutrality). I have looked some way down the list for one which does '''not''' hyphenate when one clicks through to the actual scan and not found one; for one Google has an OCR error and reports a space. Since this a compound ''adjective'', being the war which is both Mexican and American, hyphenation also complies with ]. (Unlike ], which is a compound (proper) ''noun'' used attributively, this falls under ] 3.) ] <small>]</small> 20:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' as nom; unless there is some well-printed source which actually uses the dash, this ahould be strong support; it there is merely a consensus of sources, it is ]. ] <small>]</small> 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose'''—Mr Anderson, you know very well this is just a WP:POINTY exercise because you (1) have always disagreed with the MoS on this matter, and (2) object to the role of the style guide at WP in the first place. Thank you. ] ] 00:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**'''Please discount this personal attack'''. I subjoin the entirety of what MOS says about endashes. Most of it is sound; ''none'' of it supports this bizarre formation. ] <small>]</small> 04:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' I think you're right about this, Septentrionalis. ] (]) 12:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', per Septentrionalis. ] (]) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''', ] but ]. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 14:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support lighty but status quo is fine''', in researching the proper usage of the en dash and hyphen, it is clear that a strong case can be made for using either one. To quote the Misplaced Pages article on dashes, "Prefixes normally takes hyphens, not en dashes. For example, while the France–Germany border is commonly dashed, the Franco-Prussian War is hyphenated, as Franco- is not a separate name but a prefix for France. However, when prefixing a compound word, an en dash may be used." BUT "This is generally avoided as a distraction in the case of hyphenated compounds." So even the article on dashes gives us two ways to do it. It does imply strongly that a hyphen is preferable in our case, but not required. -- ] (]) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''': I am in full support of changing the title of this and similar articles where a dash has been used in place of a hyphen. ''(see discussion for full reasoning)''--] (]) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong oppose'''. See new subsection below: '''Discuss this centrally at ]'''.–<font color="blue"><sub>''']'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>]</sup>– 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:<small>First edit by with the first oppose.] <small>]</small> 18:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:::<small>See response below: '''Discuss this centrally at ]'''.–<font color="blue"><sub>''']'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>]</sup>– 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''Support'''. If <sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup>N would like a discussion at MOS, she can (first) link to a clear discussion and (second) still keep in mind the posters here. But she does come off like a ranting petty tyrant and would be better served by discussing the merits of the policy. In any case, per Tony1 below, no, we don't have to justify ourselves against standard policy (Semp already did fine) and feel free to cut and paste our votes over there as votes against this policy towards establishing a new and less ORy format. — ] 02:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::<small>I try to keep what I have to say in one place (see below: '''Discuss this centrally at ]'''); but I am disparaged here, and will reply just once. LlywelynII says I "rant" like a "petty tyrant"; but she gives no grounds for that. I have clearly shown that the issue is general, not specific to the compound "Mexican–American". As such it should be considered generally, along with vastly many similar cases like those I mention below: ], ], ], ], and so on. You'd need to produce an ''argument'' that my voicing such a concern is "petty" or "tyrannical". Far from disrupting the project in any way, I have not even edited an article or guideline since January last year. I remain concerned for Misplaced Pages, and choose to have my say against an irrational proposal that threatens consistency in the naming of articles. It gives nothing but precedent for local wrangling throughout Misplaced Pages. As for LlywelynII's remarks "per Tony1", and about the enigmatic Semp, I have no idea what she is talking about. Neither, I suspect, does she. I have no interest in discussing anything further at this talkpage. If anyone seeks to continue such a juvenile squabble, know this: I will not be a participant.–<font color="blue"><sub>''']'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>]</sup>– 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''Support''' Apart from ], there is also the issue of ''policy'' ]. The hyphenated name has been verified in multiple books. The dashed name has not verified anywhere. Also ], the hyphenated name is the most commonly used name. |
|
|
|
|
|
:Also, in case someone raises the strawman of "lazy webmasters / lazy book editors that don't use dashes correctly because it's too much effort", those books use dashes correctly (for example, , ). --] (]) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::No, this needs to be sorted out centrally at ]. This page is entirely inappropriate for such a poll. Mr Anderson has launched the poll as a ] exercise because he cannot gain consensus at the MoS for his views. We do ''not'' want inconsistent treatment in article titles. ] ] 07:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::On the contrary, what ''this'' page should be titled is properly discussed here - that's what move requests are for; please stop making things up. When you have a policy that says so - and MOS itself does not - or an argument on the ''substance'' of this RN, do get back to us. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::And the results of discussion at MOS, principally your own cries of "sabotage", have been several comments, particularly Xession and Enric Naval, who ''support'' this move. So your undocumented procedural claims aren't consensus either. ] <small>]</small> 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
===discussion=== |
|
|
::I'm sorry, this is not legitimate. The Manual of Style ''clearly'' says that the dash is used in this case ("versus"). Mr Anderson has failed repeatedly to gain consensus that the MoS should be simply overridden by anyone who ]. He has mounted another one of his challenges at the talk page now. Those who are saying Support need to to provide cogent, clear reasons ''why'' the MoS needs to be breached on this occasion—not simply "Support" per Anderson, and "I think you're right about this" and, bizarrely, support "Mexico–America" but "Mexican-American" (why?). If you want to change the article name, you need to give specific reasons why, in this instance, "common sense" should apply to make the project better by going against the guideline, as it says at the top of the MoS. Better, you need to gain consensus to change the guideline ''at'' the MoS if you think it is inappropriate. Mr Anderson has failed to do so, as I said, and he is using editors on this page to pursue his campaign. ] ] 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Not ''legitimate''? Where does it say that? Please stop inventing policy; what policy actually says is that ]. ] <small>]</small> 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::But I grant the appropriateness of claiming a procedural rule which does not exist in order to argue a substantive issue on which MOS does not support you. ;} ] <small>]</small> 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*From the ''College Handbook of Composition'': |
|
|
::''"The dash, a dramatic mark of punctuation, indicates a sudden change in the thought or structure of a sentence."'' |
|
|
::''"A hyphen is used to indicate the division between syllables of a word at the end of a line, and to join the parts of a compound word."'' |
|
|
:This book is rather old and is is indiscriminate in regards to the various types of dashes. However, the content regarding this matter is clearly stated and is just as relevant today. In this matter, the words, "Mexican" and "American" are both adjectives, describing the noun "War", or in this case, which war. ''<small>(see ])''</small> |
|
|
::''"Words used as a single adjective before a noun are usually hyphenated."'' |
|
|
::Examples: ''bull-necked fighter, worn-out clothing, high-strung girl, right-hand man, far-reaching results'' |
|
|
:As such a description suggests, I fully support PMAnderson's position on this matter, to change the title from "Mexican–American War" to "Mexican-American War" |
|
|
:--] (]) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Again, this is not a legitimate straw-poll. Any opposition to Mr Anderson's agenda to challenge the role of the MoS is apparently labelled as a "personal attack". Registrations of "Support" that express reasons such as "I think you're right about this, Septentrionalis.", and "per Septentrionalis." and "I am in full support of changing the title of this and similar articles" provide no substantive reason, as required, that this article presents a special circumstance requiring non-compliance with the site-wide guide line. The fact the Mr Anderson has on several occasions failed to convince editors at the MoS of his line about en dashes is no reason that this article should be moved, and User:Llywelynil's comment, "we don't have to justify ourselves against standard policy", and "feel free to cut and paste our votes over there as votes against this policy towards establishing a new and less ORy format" expose a very strange perspective. So does the use of as supporting evidence a page that is tagged "This page contains material that is considered humorous." (WP:FOLLOW). So does the notion that because a few sources have been found that use a hyphen (against the strong evidence supplied by User:Noetica concerning the use of dashes, both on and off wiki), somehow this article should be moved. Unless people can come up with well-argued, substantive reasons, such a move would be pure disruption, with the clear implication that it is ] and part of a political campaign. ] ] 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:You're repeating yourself, Tony. |
|
|
*:*Your attacks on me have no evidence (and are false: what "politics" could possibly be involved in the punctuation of this war?) |
|
|
*:*You've brought this up at ], and gotten the response that your insistence is . |
|
|
*:*You still haven't presented any reason to believe that this poll, the standard mechanism of ]. is "illegitimate". |
|
|
*:*You haven't presented any reason to ignore ], which is policy on article titles. |
|
|
*:*You haven't said anything about the substance of what title we should use for this article. |
|
|
*:*You haven't found any sources which use a dash for the Mexican-American War (which would be relevant - and if I were cherry-picking, easy). I can't find any either. |
|
|
*:Noetica came in convinced, as she says; no wonder you haven't convinced anybody else. ] <small>]</small> 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Manual of Style=== |
|
|
# ''To stand for ''to'' or ''through'' in ranges ({{xt|pp. 211–19}}, {{xt|64–75%}}, {{xt|the 1939–45 war}}). Ranges expressed using prepositions ({{xt|from 450 to 500 people}} or {{xt|between 450 and 500 people}}) should not use dashes (not {{!xt|from 450–500 people}} or {{!xt|between 450–500 people}}). Number ranges must be spelled out if they involve a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction ({{xt|−10 to 10}}, not {{!xt|−10–10}}). |
|
|
#*Is this War a range from Mexican to American? |
|
|
# ''To stand for ''to'' or ''versus'' ({{xt|male–female ratio}}, {{xt|4–3 win}}, {{xt|Lincoln–Douglas debate}}, {{xt|France–Germany border}}). |
|
|
#*This is closer; but no; all of these are ''noun'' compounds. The War is both Mexican and American; we are not dealing with the nonce-phrase ''Mexico–America War''. |
|
|
# ''To stand for ''and'' between independent elements ({{xt|diode–transistor logic}}, {{xt|Michelson–Morley experiment}}). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name ({{xt|Lennard-Jones potential}}, named after {{xt|John Lennard-Jones}}), nor a hyphenated place name ({{xt|Guinea-Bissau}}), nor with an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix {{xt|Sino-}} in {{xt|Sino-Japanese trade}}). |
|
|
#*Again, no; these are noun compounds. |
|
|
# ''To separate items in a list—for example, in articles about music albums, en dashes are used between track titles and durations, and between musicians and their instruments. In this role, en dashes are always spaced. |
|
|
#*No list here. |
|
|
# In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces ({{xt|the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate}}) and when prefixing an element containing a space ({{xt|pre–World War II technologies}}, {{xt|ex–prime minister}}) – but usually not when prefixing an element containing a hyphen ({{xt|non-government-owned corporations}}, {{xt|semi-labor-intensive industries}}). However, recasting the phrase ({{xt|the conscription debate}}, {{xt|technologies prior to World War II}}) may be better style than compounding. |
|
|
#* This would imply that we were joining ''Mexico'' and ''American War''. |
|
|
# As a stylistic alternative to em dashes (]). |
|
|
#* Nope. ] with an em dash is unheard of. |
|
|
|
|
|
:], however, says: |
|
|
::3. ''To link related terms in '''''compound adjectives and adverbs''' |
|
|
:And there we have it. ''Mexican-American'' is a compound adjective. ] <small>]</small> 04:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*That's right, but so is "east–west", in "east–west runway", since there is motion to or from, or a range, or an opposition, not merely the jamming together of two words such as mostly occurs in a double adjective ("most well-known factors"). Thank you for your interest in the distinction. ] ] 04:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:Last time I checked, ''east'' and ''west'' were nouns, the adjectives being ''eastern'' and ''western'', so that's in point 2 of the list above, unlike this. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
*::East and west can be adverbs, nouns, adjectives, lots of things. I don't understand your point. It's the ''relationship'' between the two words in the context that matters. ] ] 15:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::The part of speech that a word is '''depends on usage'''. "East coast" has 'East' as an adjective modifying 'coast'. "He came from the East" has 'East' as a noun. -- ] (]) 15:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::I can't see why "east" in "east coast" would be any more of an adjective than "Dublin" in "Dublin Corporation" is. All the features distinguishing nouns from adjectives I can think of (and being an attribute of a noun isn't one, both nouns and adjectives can) would point at "east" being a noun, and "eastern" an adjective. (It is true that the part of speech that a word is depends on usage, as ''love'' is definitely a verb in ''I love you'' and a noun in ''Love is a feeling'', but I don't think this is the case here.) ] (]) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::::''East coast'' partly, and ''east part'' entirely, has one characteristic of the adjective which is not shared by attributive nouns; the adjective can be separated from the noun (''east, marshy part''). But the real difficulty here is that ''does'' normally have a hyphen, not a dash. ] <small>]</small> 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::::'''Attributive nouns or noun adjuncts:''' In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts) are not predicative; a beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". In plain English, the modifier often indicates origin ("Virginia reel"), purpose ("work clothes"), or semantic patient ("man eater"). However, it can generally indicate almost any semantic relationship. It is also common for adjectives to be derived from nouns, as in English boyish, birdlike, behavioral, famous, manly, angelic, and so on. |
|
|
|
|
|
So there is what it is.... anyway, this is a silly debate :) -- ] (]) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Certainly is. ] <small>]</small> 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
=== Discuss this centrally at ] === |
|
|
This is decidedly ''not'' the place to have such a wide-ranging debate. I hold back (here at least) from any observations on the proposer's motivation for initiating this outlying skirmish, and on the excessively localised analysis presented so far in support of the proposal. I invite editors to look at the larger picture. They will plainly see that wars are regularly named on Misplaced Pages according to MOS style – interpreted as calling for an en dash (except where the first element is a mere prefix-form, such as ''Sino-''). Look for example at the articles linked at ]. Sure, there are a few irregularities in the names of articles as they appear in that list (which need fixing, even for mere local consistency). But the linked articles themselves conform to the MOS guideline requiring an en dash (see ], ], ], ], and so on). |
|
|
|
|
|
If you genuinely think (PMAnderson, and others) that the present article differs materially from those cases, by all means make the special case here. Otherwise, present the general question to ], and propose wholesale changes to names of articles throughout the project. |
|
|
|
|
|
–<font color="blue"><sub>''']'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>]</sup>– 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:It is being discussed at MOS; indeed, most of the posts at ] for a couple months have been related to this issue, directly or indirectly. There is no consensus for the dash; there is at least strong opinion that MOS ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:But this begs the real questions: |
|
|
:*Is MOS the central authority here? |
|
|
:*:No. We have a policy on ], which says to follow reliable sources; ], if the actual pronouncements of the oracle make any impact here. |
|
|
:*Does MOS actually say anything about this case? |
|
|
:*:Yes, and it says it in ]: Hyphenate compound adjectives. |
|
|
:*What is English usage? |
|
|
:**Here it is clear; for , it is equally clear: as far as I can see, only Misplaced Pages uses the dash, and ''Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source''. |
|
|
:**This is an arbitrary comparandum in any case: Most wars are named after one side, like ], or the precipitating circumstance like ], or a general description ] - and have no internal punctuation. Those that do mostly use hyphens, like the ] mentioned abovem or the ]; this whole ] rule is an artificial separation between analogous forms. ] <small>]</small> 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Beyond that, there is the question whether MOS should respond at all to a consensus of opinion elsewhere. Two editors think not; our policy, however, is that ] Their claim is that a shadow of a penumbra of MOS ''does'' set practice, against consensus, and against the evidence. ] <small>]</small> 15:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Yes, my first edit in over two months – and one of only a half-dozen edits in the past thirteen months. That shows how seriously I view the present diversion from rational procedure. Each of my rare edits has been against subversion of stability and consistency in Misplaced Pages style. As you well know, PMAnderson, I am opposed to your widely recognised efforts to weaken the effectiveness of Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. Take the whole ''substantive'' issue (which is large, not local), to ]. If you are not happy with the treatment it gets there, just go away. (Learn from my example: it is not compulsory to make your own ]-like presence felt quite so relentlessly.) Above all, do not sow chaos in talkpages of particular articles, when it is clearly demonstrated that Misplaced Pages has a consistent and stable style – even if conservative paper-based publishers, with less universal coverage, are demonstrably inconsistent among and within themselves. I have shown Misplaced Pages's consistency in naming wars, which is derived from one respected and rational practice in traditional publishing. But you do not acknowledge such settled consistency, and you work tirelessly against every form of it that MOS has managed to bring about. |
|
|
:::The Misplaced Pages endeavour is new. Appeals to fragmentary precedent are only one part of the story. Get with it, or take your skirmishing to some sphere of lesser importance in the new economy of knowledge.–<font color="blue"><sub>''']'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>]</sup>– 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::And if I do go away, and appeal to Wikipedians in general against a misinterpretation that makes Misplaced Pages look stupid, what happens? Tony follows me and objects strongly to writing in English, and solicits your voice (contrary to ]) - not for any benefit this does the encyclopedia, neither of you having named any - but to preserve the "status of MOS"{{sic}}; and you demand that I go back there. ] <small>]</small> 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::And - albeit I revile not, but am reviled - I thank you for the comparison to the most sensible man at Troy. If I be Thersites, who is "Ajax the elephant"? Who is "dog-faced" and "deer-hearted" Agamemnon, misled by a lying dream? It's not my metaphor. ] <small>]</small> 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The expected reply (since I know you for a Hellenist). The analogy is imperfect. You might, by the way, have mentioned the swift-footed Achilles. He remains aloof and uninvolved until certain reparations are made.–<font color="blue"><sub>''']'''</sub><sup>¡ɐɔıʇǝo</sup><big>N</big><small>oetica!</small></font><sup>]</sup>– 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Agamemnon is a fool to offer to command Achilles; |
|
|
:Achilles is a fool to be commanded of Agamemnon; |
|
|
:Thersites is a fool to serve such a fool, |
|
|
:and Patroclus is a fool positive." ] <small>]</small> 15:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Guidelines are descriptive of practice, not the other way around. --] (]) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Easy Solution == |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose a new character called the war dash. It looks just like an en dash or a hyphen, depending on your political orientation or number of eyes. Also, you can resolve conflicts about its appearance by simply starting another war and using the appearance that you prefer. Additionally, it has its very own manual of style written collaboratively by a collection of hyper-intelligent rodents armed with those tiny swords you find in drinks. -- ] (]) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:If you take it up at ], I'll support this; it could work just like date autoformatting. ;} Quite seriously, if our '''boldface''' dash were as similar to a hyphen as in Roman script, this might well be moot. And I have some gerbil food for those ]; having a MOS written collaboratively would be a great change. ] <small>]</small> 18:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Alternative and almost as easy solution=== |
|
|
|
|
|
I propose that ] be modified to allow us to randomise the selection of hyphen, dash, m-dash and whatever other virtually identical characters we have when used in article titles, noting that they're already treated as identical for the purposes of searching. Then editors will have no need to decide, while readers, who don't care and mostly can't even tell, will be unaffected. (;-> ] (]) 05:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:Superfluous, since MOS and the wikignomes have already done it. ;-> ] <small>]</small> 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Good point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== De Facto vs De Jure == |
|
::Seriously, is there a better way forward? We seem to have strong opinions on several sides, some more logical than others perhaps but who is to judge, but more important, would any of them, even if adopted immediately and by sudden, strong and miraculous consensus, add sufficient value to the project to justify the effort being expended? I doubt it. ] (]) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::If either of them were miraculously accepted as consensus, there would be next to no further effort required. For example, if the view that MOS is entitled to invent usage for dashes were abandoned, just page-moves for some of the wars Noetica names above and a copy-edit each. (''Iran–Iraq'', as a noun compound, may well be right.) The value to the project is that '''Mexican–American War''' is a public embarrassment, and it misleads foreign readers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't the statement"the Republic of Texas was De Facto a independent country" be replaced with De Jure? ] (]) 18:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::One miraculous transformation requires a half-dozen editors to stop pushing MOS into the Internet Newspeak Dictionary - if that were done, even they would have a break: they could stop running automatic editors to undermine the work of the rest of us. The other would require that all present ''and future'' editors fluent in English agree to abandon it at the whim of MOS. I know which I think less work. ] <small>]</small> 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Unclear, potentially superfluous language == |
|
== Additional moves needed == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In '''Background''' -> '''Mexico After Independence''', a sentence reads "The Mexican military and the Catholic Church in Mexico, both privileged institutions with conservative political views, were stronger politically than the Mexican state." It is not clear what the words 'privileged' or 'conservative' mean in the context of 1830s Mexico and what relationship that might have to why they were stronger politically. Without additional information (or citation), this statement appears to be more of a judgement than a statement of fact. There is a risk that these words would be interpreted according to their present-day meaning, which may not convey an accurate picture of the relationship between the Mexican military, Catholic Church, the Mexican government, and broader Mexican society. I would suggest one or a combination of the following edits: |
|
These pages also need to be moved: |
|
|
|
1) Add whatever information is needed to clarify the sentence and better connect it to the preceding and following paragraphs, |
|
* ] to ] |
|
|
|
2) Add a tag at the end of the sentence, |
|
* ] to ] |
|
|
|
3) Remove the phrase "both privileged institutions with conservative political views" altogether ] (]) 00:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
--] (]) 08:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**No, the move was illegitimate. There is utterly no consensus at the MoS for it; no notice was taken of the cogent reasons provided here that there should be no move; no ''article-specific'' reason was given here as to why this article alone needs to breach the guidelines. It will need to be moved back unless some reason is given and supported by consensus. ] ] 12:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
***No, Tony's claim that there must be a ''centralized discussion'' is illegitimate; guidelines (especially contentious and ill-mannered ones like MOS) should reflect the decisions on actual talk pages, not the other way around; as Enric Naval says above, ]. ] <small>]</small> 15:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
Also, Sep invented the distinction between attributive adjectives and attributive nouns. That is not supported by our sources. — ] (]) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:To Tony and Kwami: if you have a problem then make a new RM showing English language usage of dashes in this name. --] (]) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2024 == |
|
==Revisit requested move== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Requested move/dated|Mexican–American War}} |
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Mexican–American War|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Texas is misspelled and reads Tejas. Just noticed this because it's a link. Not big, just noticable. ] (]) 19:52, 29 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 00:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Reverted. The Mexican province was named Tejas, and later it was joined with the province of Coahuila to form the state of Coahuila y Tejas. ] (]) 03:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2024 == |
|
] → {{no redirect|1=Mexican–American War}} — Recent move not well founded. — ] (]) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Mexican–American War|answered=yes}} |
|
TITLE does not refer to details such as punctuation, formatting, and regional spelling, but to distinct names. En dashes are used for this name in RSs. Many sources do not, of course, some because they do not use en dashes for such compounds, and some because they don't use en dashes at all. But there are those which fit WP formatting conventions, such as Lee Stacy (2002) ''Mexico and the United States'' (entry "Mexican–American War" on p 515ff; text and references to the entry use an en dash, as on p 549, though page headers and captions do not), Mary Warner Marien (2006) ''Photography: a cultural history'' (p 46ff, p 99, p 104, though TOC does not), Robert Fantina (2006) ''Desertion and the American soldier, 1776 - 2006'' (p 43ff, in the text, chapter title, TOC, and page headers), Tim McNeese (2009) ''Early National America 1790–1850'' (p 114, in the text but not the section header or index), A. Robert Lee (2003) ''Multicultural American literature'' (en dash in the text on p 123, but a hyphen on p 134), Joe R. Feagin (2010) ''Racist America: roots, current realities, and future reparations'' (p 234ff), Andrés Reséndez (2005) ''Changing national identities at the frontier: Texas and New Mexico, 1800–1850'' (scattered throughout the text), and Charles Haecker (1994) ''A Thunder of Cannon: Archaeology of the Mexican–American War Battlefield of Palo Alto'' (in the title itself). |
|
|
|
convert the citation for teh result of amreircan vicorty study.com it is not cited it si a bare citation ] (]) 10:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> I added a citation template, thanks for pointing this out. ] (]) 16:40, 22 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Vectorise image == |
|
The fact that sources vary in their use of the en dash depending on formatting (in some, hyphens in TOC, page headers, and captions but en dashes in text, article titles, and links to articles) demonstrates that this is not a distinct name, but rather merely a matter of formatting style. Such variation occurs with other uses of the en dash. For example, in McNeese (2009) above, an en dash is used in the "1790–1850" of the title in the text (see the LOC page before the TOC), but not on the front cover, where it's typeset with a hyphen; the same with "1800–1850" in Andrés Reséndez (2005), where in addition one review on the back cover uses "Mexican-American War" with a hyphen while a second has "United States – Mexico War" with a spaced en dash, but the text uses "Mexican–American War" throughout. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Mexican–American War|answered=yes}} |
|
There are three punctuations I've found of this single name: "Mexican-American War", "Mexican–American War", and "Mexican American War". (Some sources mix hyphenated and unhyphenated forms in the text as well.) Since we're an encyclopedia, precision is desirable; that's why we use logical punctuation with quotations. "Mexican-American War" with a hyphen looks like a war among Mexican-Americans. "Mexican–American War" with an en dash is unambiguous. |
|
|
|
Change the image "Wpdms mexican cession.png" to its vectorised equivalent, "Wpdms mexican cession.svg". ] (]) 21:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 22:16, 12 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
Whether it should really be the "Mexican War" is another question. That strikes me as US-centric, for AFAIK only in the context of the United States would the name be unambiguous. Internationally, it seems that both countries are named. — ] (]) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Very strongly oppose'''. I am glad to see that kwami has shown that there is a small minority of sources which use a dash, or I would be proposing a ban. He has been very desperate in seeking out rarities which do so; none of them appear (for example) to be among the sources for this article - and none of them are standard works of general reference. |
|
|
*Of these forms, is the most common by an order of magnitude and the one we should be using. The first book behind the link (''The Mexican War'' by D.S. and J.T. Heidler (2006) offers a "an overview of the Mexican War from both the American and Mexican perspectives"); this is not anglocentric; it is anglophone. This request - and the argument against ''Mexican War'' - are both arguments against Misplaced Pages being written in English. |
|
|
*If we use a variant of , we should use the punctuation most commonly used in English. I have searched through that list to see if any use dashes and found none; they must be vanishingly rare. |
|
|
*This is also the rule supported by the Manual of Style (], section 3: Hyphens are used "To link related terms in '''compound adjectives and adverbs'''". This is a compound adjective. |
|
|
*No reliable source recommends using a dash in such a situation. |
|
|
*In short, Kwami is proposing to require a "rule" which two or three editors have ] one day; against English usage, against the Manual of Style, and against a recent consensus of 9-2 (immediately above). ] <small>]</small> 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::Your "adjectives" claim is off the mark. "Adjective" (or sometimes "adjectival phrase") is simply a term many sources use loosely for attributives, as should be obvious from the examples given in WP:HYPHEN: "face-to-face discussion", "gas-phase reaction dynamics", "hard-boiled egg", "hand-fed turkeys", "three-digit number", "ten-truck convoy". Apart from the participles, which are debatable, these are not actually adjectives, but attributival usage of various parts of speech. The section you quoted then goes on to say, "In some cases, like diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes below." This is precisely the kind of case that refers to. |
|
|
::As for there being no RS, what about Garner (2001:155) ''Legal writing in plain English: a text with exercises''? "6.1 Use an en-dash ... to denote a pairing in which the elements carry equal weight." — ] (]) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong support''': As a little background, this move has been discussed at ]. "Mexican War" is a possibility, but as far as I know, that is not a very commonly used name. I don't think our punctuation need conform to the majority of sources, as they all have their individual styles and Misplaced Pages is allowed to have its own as well. For example, Google search "Michelson-Morley experiment". You will note that besides Misplaced Pages, virtually everybody uses a hyphen instead of an en dash. Almost all examples at ] are compound adjectives, I think the rules regarding dashes override those of hyphens, unless you are proposing elimination of all of the ] guidelines except for possibly 1, 4, and 6? –] (]) 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**Please consult the bibliography of this article, which has several sources that use ''Mexican War'' in their titles and one using any form of "Mexican American War" (Foos, which has been corrupted by editing; it uses a hyphen). |
|
|
***This might be a good compromise, but ] also has the problem of being ambiguous. Anyway the issue will just come again at another article. |
|
|
****Ambiguous? With what? ] <small>]</small> 01:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**The rest of this is Wikilawyering. No part of MOS suggests that ] overrules ]; why should it? They're both sections of he same guideline. |
|
|
***Clearly there are examples at ] which are compound adjectives that use en dashes over hyphens, correct? One of them must override the other in those cases. |
|
|
****Clearly there are not. Excluding the case of a compound whose elements are themselves compounds, the examples are: ''male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border, diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment'' (contrasted with ''Lennard-Jones potential'', named after John Lennard-Jones). All these are compound ''nouns'', used attributively. ] <small>]</small> 01:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**But the entire case is conceded by ''besides Misplaced Pages, virtually everybody uses a hyphen instead of an en dash.'' That's right; and it is an assertion that this English Misplaced Pages should not be written in English. ] <small>]</small> 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
***Getting rid of en dashes entirely is a major change that would require a massive discussion. It is a perfectly defensible position but obviously up until this point Misplaced Pages has opted to use en dashes in a variety of circumstances. I don't like the idea of moving this one article when virtually all the others are left unchanged, e.g. ]. –] (]) 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
****I do not propose to "get rid of endashes entirely"; I propose to use them where English does. That we have a long series of subliterate forms (] is even worse than this) is no excuse for not acting; that's ]. ] <small>]</small> 01:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**Shorter CWenger: '''This form is vanishingly rare in English and is not really supported by the Manual of Style''' (unless we read into it what it doesn't say) '''therefore we really must use it'''. This reasoning should be given the weight it deserves. ] <small>]</small> 02:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::It's a matter of formatting style. I know you want to change the style on WP, but the place to do that is on the MOS page. |
|
|
::En dash is minority usage. But that does not mean it is "not English". I think you know that. |
|
|
::If you wanted "Mexican War", you should have proposed a move to "Mexican War". |
|
|
::As for where DASH overrides HYPHEN, simple: where HYPHEN says to use an en dash instead of a hyphen. — ] (]) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' as per ], ], and clear consensus established in discussion closed less than 72 hours ago. As explained at ], the opposition of the small clique that dominates the conversation at ] does not justify overruling multiple policies to satisfy the demands of this outlying MOS guideline. As for comments about ''Mexican War'', this is a very commonly occurring term for the conflict. The obvious reason for this is that the vast majority of English language scholarship about the war is from American sources and from a purely American perspective this is sufficient to clearly identify the conflict. As Misplaced Pages needs to address the needs of a more international readership, ''Mexican-American War'' is a better title for this encyclopedia. --'']'' <sup>]</sup> 00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Support''' as nominator. The point of having an MOS is to have a consistent style, which is part of an effort to make WP look professional. If we think we should not have a consistent style, then we should work to have the MOS deleted. If we think we should have a different consistent style, then we should work to have the MOS amended. Piecemeal arguments on individual articles is not a practical way to deal with these issues. — ] (]) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**By ], this article should be in American; I have consulted several literate educated speakers, and gotten the consistent reaction "Misplaced Pages spells ''Mexican-American War'' how? Why would anyone do that?" Clearly Kwamikagami has a different definition of "professional look" than most people; I do not regard boggling a literate audience as professionalism - unless our profession is shock comedy. ] <small>]</small> 01:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::So article titles are to be determined by informal polling. |
|
|
::::Yes. That's policy. See ] and ]; that's how we determine titles. When the informal polling repeats the same thing over and over again, we collect the consensus into guidelines. That's how guidelines acquire authority; MOS has little and this invention of a handful of editors (against the wording of MOS) has none. ] <small>]</small> 02:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
:::How is it not American, when the style guide which you say does not exist was published by the University of Chicago Press? — ] (]) 02:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
::::To start with, because the ''Chicago Manual of Style'' says the opposite: ''The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds'' and only then (§6.80). That the legal profession may do otherwise, at least according to some obscure guide, might be relevant to style on legal articles (where legal jargon will often be usage); but this is not one. ] <small>]</small> 02:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' - Isn't it a bit ] to be doing this?--] (]) 02:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
**It is honestly a case of a lot of interested parties who were not aware of this requested move until after it was closed. I don't see any problem revisiting the issue. –] (]) 02:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Oppose''' - per previous name change just three days ago. This was discussed and done. Usually when I come across a name change that I wasn't aware was even being discussed, but approved, I just shrug my shoulders and decide that "consensus is consensus", even if I don't agree with the outcome. Really I don't give a rats booty either way, but when I see serious ], I have to step up and oppose that.--] (]) 03:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Strong Support'''—The name is now inconsistent with WP's practice, and that recommended by many authorities. The move was illegitimate, based on a discussion that made no reference, let alone a case, as to why this name should be treated any differently from the thousands of others that are analogous on WP and out there. I believe Grahame Barlet should be blocked for disruption, and to protect the project from further damage. ] ] 07:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Oppose''' the move and continue to reiterate my earlier close with the consensus. The naming policy clearly states that the names Misplaced Pages uses for articles are those most commonly used. The MOS is subsidiary to the policy. 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. ] (]) 07:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC) |
|
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Referencing and citation: criterion met
Done M.Bitton (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2024 (UTC)