Talk:Germany–Slovakia relations

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified

Move? edit

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved to the noun versions; no consensus for moving from the hyphenated to dashed forms. Will take care of the histmerges. Ucucha 01:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply


German-Slovak relationsGermany–Slovakia relations


  • I strongly object to all the moves above that involve bilateral relations pages moved from an adjective-adjective compound form to a noun-noun compound form. These cases have been controversial for years, and there is explicitly "no consensus" [1] about which version is preferable. Mass moves in this domain are disruptive; trying to steamroll all articles into one preferred naming scheme has not worked for years, and will not work. No opinion about the preference for a hyphen or an en-dash. Fut.Perf. 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
To add: the latest community discussion on this issue, which ended in "no consensus", was here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject International relations/Archive 3#RfC: Bilateral relations article name. Applicable policy is WP:COMMONNAME: "the most common English-language name [...] [or] a concise, recognizable and neutral description [...] we follow the usage of reliable sources." This demands determining the most common expression used in good English writing for each individual case. In the case of Germany/Slovakia, "German-Slovak relations" (no matter whether with hyphen or dash) has 673 google hits; "Germany-Sovakia relations" has zero (if you discount Wikipedia mirrors and incidental juxtaposition outside running text). Similar situations can be found for other country pairs, see further examples at the link above. For countries where simple adjectives exist, the noun-noun alternatives are so vanishingly rare in good English use as to be effectively ungrammatical. Fut.Perf. 12:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Move Please see WP:DASH. Whatever the name of the article, the use of a hyphen is inappropriate. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  1. WP:DASH prescribes neither form of dash for the adjectival compounds. It doesn't mention them at all.
  2. Stop using that dash red herring in order to push for the nominal forms. Fut.Perf. 21:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose No significant argument for changing from adjective to noun form has been presented and FWIW I like the adjective versions; no prejudice against a different RM to only change the dashes/hyphens. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. While nouns can certainly be used as adjectives (although these particular cases sound a bit awkward), why do it when the adjectives are available, willing, and in common usage? — AjaxSmack 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • Note to admins: several of the pages above are in need not of a page move but of a history merge, especially several of the Greek ones. The original pages (whose history is currently at the "N–N" style) were merged and redirected to Foreign relations of Greece last year, and then somebody re-created them in December by copy/paste at the "Adj-Adj" location where they now are. The editor who created most of those, Hdelcourt78 (talk · contribs), may be a sock of the earlier Groubani (talk · contribs) aka Plumoyr (talk · contribs), who showed similar behaviour. Fut.Perf. 00:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  • If so, we better get all relevant copy-and-pastes histmerged first and then see about the page moves. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified edit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germany–Slovakia relations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply