Category talk:Municipality of Miren-Kostanjevica
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Fayenatic london in topic Hyphen, not dash
Hyphen, not dash
edit
Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy- Category:Municipality of Šempeter–Vrtojba to Category:Municipality of Šempeter-Vrtojba – C2A/C2D per Municipality of Šempeter-Vrtojba Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- See comment below for this and the following nominations. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Municipality of Log–Dragomer to Category:Municipality of Log-Dragomer – C2A/C2D per Municipality of Log-Dragomer Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Municipality of Mokronog–Trebelno to Category:Municipality of Mokronog-Trebelno – C2A/C2D per Municipality of Mokronog-Trebelno Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Municipality of Miren–Kostanjevica to Category:Municipality of Miren-Kostanjevica – C2A/C2D per Municipality of Miren-Kostanjevica Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Category:Municipality of Hrpelje–Kozina to Category:Municipality of Hrpelje-Kozina – C2A/C2D per Municipality of Hrpelje-Kozina Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Question: @Good Olfactory: aren't these like the example at WP:DASH of "Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities", in these cases the main settlements Šempeter pri Gorici & Vrtojba, Log pri Brezovici & Dragomer, Mokronog & Trebelno, Miren & Kostanjevica na Krasu, Hrpelje & Kozina? I am not persuaded by the edit summary given when the municipality articles were moved, "placename for a unified entity". IMHO the articles should be moved back to use the dash. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Not really, because the two place names have been combined to form a new, official, self-standing name. They are more like Austria-Hungary or Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which were combinations of two place names that became self-standing names unto themselves. The endash is only retained when the combination remains artificial/unofficial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Good Olfactory: but Winston-Salem has only one article, whereas these all have two. The municipalities seem to be local government areas, rather than merged settlements. Only the first one, Municipality of Šempeter-Vrtojba, seems to be a conurbation, and in that case it's physically one with Gorizia and Nova Gorica; it still doesn't say that the two neighbourhoods of Šempeter & Vrtojba have merged their identity. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- They haven't merged their identities, but we have a place called the Municipality of Šempeter-Vrtojba. It's a legal entity. FWIW, the websites of these municipalities use a hyphen: [1] Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The latter does not dictate Wikipedia usage; e.g. the Minneapolis-St. Paul MN-WI Combined Statistical Area also uses a hyphen.[2] I accept that these five are official, as local government areas, but they remain artificial – the other criterion that you mentioned for using an endash. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: I think what User:PanchoS has written below is a good point. Note that for municipalities of Slovenia which (1) combine two place names and (2) one of the place names includes more than one word, an endash is used. This is another reason that Minneapolis–Saint Paul is endashed instead of hyphened. I agree that in general the endash is overapplied and mostly misunderstood. By "artificial", I meant created by the writer as a unique combination as opposed to a name that objectively exists in the world. It was somewhat "artificial" to combine Austria and Hungary into one state, but once it was done, it was referred to as Austria-Hungary, and never Austria–Hungary. It's very similar to the reason that double-barrelled surnames as hyphenated, not endashed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Good Olfactory: I'd even say, if a writer spun a yarn of a Union of Ireland-Scotland, a joint Labour-Tories caucus, or a merged federal state of Berlin-Brandenburg, they'd use a hyphen, while an Ireland–Scotland war, a Labour–Tories dispute or a Great Britain–Netherlands Union would call for an en-dash for two different reasons. --PanchoS (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think that's true. Which is a way of rendering the artificiality argument somewhat moot. The issue is more whether we're referring to something in distinction or comparison (endash) versus a combined entity made up of multiple parts (hyphen). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Good Olfactory: I'd even say, if a writer spun a yarn of a Union of Ireland-Scotland, a joint Labour-Tories caucus, or a merged federal state of Berlin-Brandenburg, they'd use a hyphen, while an Ireland–Scotland war, a Labour–Tories dispute or a Great Britain–Netherlands Union would call for an en-dash for two different reasons. --PanchoS (talk) 00:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: I think what User:PanchoS has written below is a good point. Note that for municipalities of Slovenia which (1) combine two place names and (2) one of the place names includes more than one word, an endash is used. This is another reason that Minneapolis–Saint Paul is endashed instead of hyphened. I agree that in general the endash is overapplied and mostly misunderstood. By "artificial", I meant created by the writer as a unique combination as opposed to a name that objectively exists in the world. It was somewhat "artificial" to combine Austria and Hungary into one state, but once it was done, it was referred to as Austria-Hungary, and never Austria–Hungary. It's very similar to the reason that double-barrelled surnames as hyphenated, not endashed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- The latter does not dictate Wikipedia usage; e.g. the Minneapolis-St. Paul MN-WI Combined Statistical Area also uses a hyphen.[2] I accept that these five are official, as local government areas, but they remain artificial – the other criterion that you mentioned for using an endash. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- They haven't merged their identities, but we have a place called the Municipality of Šempeter-Vrtojba. It's a legal entity. FWIW, the websites of these municipalities use a hyphen: [1] Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Good Olfactory: but Winston-Salem has only one article, whereas these all have two. The municipalities seem to be local government areas, rather than merged settlements. Only the first one, Municipality of Šempeter-Vrtojba, seems to be a conurbation, and in that case it's physically one with Gorizia and Nova Gorica; it still doesn't say that the two neighbourhoods of Šempeter & Vrtojba have merged their identity. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Fayenatic london: Not really, because the two place names have been combined to form a new, official, self-standing name. They are more like Austria-Hungary or Winston-Salem, North Carolina, which were combinations of two place names that became self-standing names unto themselves. The endash is only retained when the combination remains artificial/unofficial. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:49, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Good Olfactory and Fayenatic london: Support rename per both C2A and C2D. IMO this has nothing to do with artificiality. Quite some article titles give the impression that since we eventually found out about the en-dash, we've been tending to overuse it. No, it's not like the whole world is illiterate while we're all experts at English grammar. Even per WP:ENDASH, en-dashes should only be used for ranges (or endpoints), ratios, or more generally, the relation between two entities (as opposed to the amalgamation of the two entities), as well as in those attributive compounds, where one of the two entities consists of more than a single word. IMO the latter is the only valid reason, why Minneapolis–Saint Paul has an en-dash, because a hyphen would otherwise unintelligibly contract the first two words, "(Minneapolis-Saint) Paul". Though not wrong, the example given on WP:ENDASH would therefore be misleading, attributing the use of an en-dash to the wrong reason. --PanchoS (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thank you both, I'll process these. The MOS may need to be amended. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- While cleaning up I found an older discussion on this topic, with reasons against using en-dashes in Croatian counties, here: User_talk:Eleassar/Archive_5#endashes. – Fayenatic London 15:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- OK, thank you both, I'll process these. The MOS may need to be amended. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- Question: @Good Olfactory: aren't these like the example at WP:DASH of "Minneapolis–Saint Paul, a union of two cities", in these cases the main settlements Šempeter pri Gorici & Vrtojba, Log pri Brezovici & Dragomer, Mokronog & Trebelno, Miren & Kostanjevica na Krasu, Hrpelje & Kozina? I am not persuaded by the edit summary given when the municipality articles were moved, "placename for a unified entity". IMHO the articles should be moved back to use the dash. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 1 August 2016 (UTC)