Wikipedia

Talk:Poland–Lithuania

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Xoloz in topic Requested Move 2
Learn more about this page

Requested move edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago147 comments20 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Rename this dab page (based on the understanding that Poland-Lithuania was a single country) and keep all other articles. Ruslik_Zero 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Poland–Lithuania → Poland-Lithuania — Poland-Lithuania is always written with a dash hyphen, ALWAYS.
proof of the first 100 books, 59 separate with a hyphen, 3 with a dash, and 38 with a "/" or a space. The first two use a hyphen in the title and are published by University of California Press[1] and Cambridge University Press[2].
Per WP:COMMONNAME, there is solid proof from reliable sources that the most common name is spelled with a hyphen. Relisted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply


--Relisted. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Enric Naval (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply


  • Comment this is a disambiguation page. 65.93.14.196 (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support a disambiguation page should not be subjected to the picayune nitpicking of MOS:DASH . It is a disambiguation page, not a content page. MOS:DASH cannot prescribe every usage that may occur on such a page, as we do not have a different dab page for every different capitalization, why should we for every dash form? 65.93.14.196 (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose. A disambiguation page should follow the titling of the majority of its entries. The entries here use the dash. If you have reliable sourcing that those articles should be titled with the hyphen, then those moves should be carried out first, and then the disambiguation page can follow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • That's a good point, I changed to a multi-page request, and now I'll look at reliable sources to see how it is written in sources.:
Long dump of sources, showing article-by-article that "Polish-Lithuanian" is commonly written with hyphens. (read it, dammit – even though it's incorrect)

That's incorrect. On your book search for Polish-Swedish, 2 of the first 3 book hits use the en dash, as in this one.

I didn't check the rest of those above, but did look for more en dashes in Polish–Lithuanian, since that seems to be the issue. I found quite a few, especially when it's not referring to the joint state, but even some of those:

Example of a different name that has 50% dashes and 50% hyphens.
  • So, the immense majority of sources in the articles, and sources found via google books, use only hyphen when using the compound name "Polish-Lithuanian" of the Commonwealth and the Union, and variations of it, and also use hyphen in other combinations like "Polish-Russian" or "Polish-Muscovite", showing that those names are commonly spelled with a hyphen and not with a dash. Some high-quality sources have some books that use dashes, but they also have a majority of books using hyphens. Additionally, as shown above, the immense majority of reliable sources, including university press books, use hyphen for "Poland-Lithuanian".
  • The article names have to be determined by the usage in reliable sources, as explained in Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#Widely_accepted_name. Wikipedia is not a reliable source and it should not be used to determine by the names of other wikipedia articles. (and personal theories, like "certain compound names should always use dashes because of stylistic reasons", are also irrelevant to the naming of wikipedia articles, in case someone was thinking of raising it).
  • WP:COMMONNAME is part of the "Article naming" policy, it can't be superseded by WP:EMDASH or MOS:DASH, which are style guidelines for the content of articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support Per Enric Naval's points. NB I think you meant "hyphen" in the opening line here: "Poland-Lithuania is always written with a dash,". Traditional/historical and widely-published normal uses are the standard, and it's not Wikipedia's place to decide that "style" supersedes the real world; nor is it Wikiedians' place to come up with specious, original (and rather sophomoric) "rules" that determine to change that. Doing so creates a new paradigm and, because of Wikipedia's pervasiveness on the internet, would have far-reaching and unfortunate consequences if allowed to continue.Skookum1 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment There may be other dash-substitutions of this kind out there, though the other country-name examples found so far still use the hyphen (as should remain the case and become the Wikipedia standard - nothing is written in stone here, though there are those determined to "make it so", clearly). Guinea-Bissau, Baden-Württemberg (and its English-version redirect Baden-Wuerttemberg and a mis-spelling Baden-Wuerttemburg I think), Baden-Baden and Austria-Hungary are all correctly titled (so far).Skookum1 (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Two other examples, both the same place but one the English name, the other the German one: North Rhine-Westphalia/Nordrhein-Westfalen and NB Category:Double-named places (which seems to be a bit of a spurious category, IMO). There are countless names in the UK and France which use hyphens e.g. Henley-on-Thames and Stratford-on-Avon and should remain so. All of this in the context of the RM at Talk:Alberni–Clayoquot Regional District where it is argued that Alberni and Clayoquot are separate names and should be linked by a dash, not a hyphen, despite all published evidence contrary as to what the existing norm is, or the historical origin and actually very unique usage of the double-barreled form (as also with other Regional districts of British Columbia articles/titles which have also been "wikipedia-ified"). I'll say again, the campaign to overwrite reality and real-word usages in favour of "Wikipedia's style" is an imposition and OR and, to me, highly arrogant and ill-considered, given that Wikipedia should reflect the real world, not try to change it in its own image.Skookum1 (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. Why complicate things? The simple hyphen is quite adequate. Andrewa (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong oppose. What kind of dashes to use is part of publication's style. "Polish-Lithuanian x" and "Polish–Lithuanian x" are not two different names. They are the same name in different style. Wikipedia decided that is going to use n-dash in such cases and it should stick to it. Renata (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment you sound like a politician unwilling to back down on a platform, lest he/she show weakness. Since when does "Wikipedia decided" mean that "Wikipedia can't change its mind"?? Is Wikipedia a person? Are earlier Wikipedians GOD?? This policy should never have been a policy, and never been a sweeping rule; sources are sources, period. Wikipedia's vanity - or rather the wiki-vanity of some Wikipedians who care more about style than substance - is not a valid factor in overriding centuries and decades of WP:MOSTCOMMON use and standard spellings. Retitling things for this very peremptory "rule", when no one ever will type in the search window using a dash, means that there will be tons of redirects to satisfy this very vain need for Wikipedia to re-invent the wheel, and/or the world, in its own image. I'll repeat - Wikipedia's role is to reflect the world, not re-invent it in its own image. And all those redirects mean more processing time/power, which when added up over thousands of incremental uses nicks into the costs needed to expand/maintain servers - costs which would be better used to supprt content, not "style". Change the guidelines to accommodate reality, don't impose the guidelines on reality.Skookum1 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment: Apart from being questionable on other grounds, this argument of course depends on ignoring the fundamental Wikipedia policy recognising that consensus can change. No change of vote. Andrewa (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Consensus can change. Then go change WP:DASH and then come back to this article. Renata (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Actually, Renata, there's no need to change that at all - except to add exceptions - I just had a read through the dash sections, and also the hyphen section. Among other things it says is this:
Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here; the rules and examples presented above illustrate the broad principles that inform current usage.
Now, it's not really a subtlety at all that binary country and town names (e.g. Stratford-on-Avon, Baden-Baden), administrative-region names (North Rhine-Westfalia, Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District) and country names (Austria-Hungary, Guinea-Bissau) are historically and in all relevant sources spelled only with a hyphen; there is nothing in WP:DASH or WP:HYPHEN to say they can't be, and in fact nothing about titles at all, nor about double-barrelled place names (or dynastic names etc e.g. Szxe-Coburg-Gotha). There is nothing to support anything that's been claimed here or at the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District about conjunctive names of any kind, or about very normal binary-but-unique names such as these, which are always spelled with a hyphen (everywhere else but where ironclad Wikipedian rules are invoked to justify changing them). There's a lot of invocation of the almighty rule of WP:DASH but really there's nothing there at all, and if any changes to be made it's expansions of the hyphen section and additions to the dash sections specifying when they should NOT be used, as here. I repeat - there is nothing in WP:DASH that overrides the above comments from WP:HYPHEN about potential usages, nothing at all. The pretense - the misrepresenation - that WP:DASH says anything like the notions about it that are being claimed here or on the other "hyphen RM" are not just poppycock, they are somewhat dishonest; but in the spirit of WP:AGF I'll suggest that perhaps if you knew more about history and literature you might not so readily invoke a style guide as doctrine without knowing what you were talking about. The WP:HYPHEN carries just as much weight as the WP:DASH section says, but it wouldn't matter - because the dash section says nothing at all about double-barrelled names, and considering them punctuational usage is, well, linguistic and toponymic nonsense. That page should certainly be amended to explain important uses of the hyphen, and to proscribe the use of the dash in such situations, and in others, but there's nothing there that dictates, nor should anyone claim there is, preventing these names from being spelled as they have always been and continue to be everywhere and by everyone else. The are not "punctuated", which is another misrepresentation or at best misunderstanding of the nature of these names, these are spellings and part of ordinary English. Wikipedia is not its own universe, and it is not an ironclad rulseet like y'all are behaving that it is; but even that ruleset doesn't say anything about what it's claimed here it says, nor is there anything there overriding and excluding the forbidden of using this very widespread and normal English convention about double-barreled names of any kind. "Style" is a ludicrous argument about this, as well as complete misinvocation of what MOS actually says, and ignores many passages of the kind quoted above from WP:HYPHEN.Skookum1 (talk) 09:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
1) Adding an exception is changing WP:DASH. 2) Whatever your beef is with these MOS guidelines, it should be worked out on the talk pages of MOS and not hidden away under some obscure requested move. Renata (talk) 08:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support. The non-consensus and irrational diktats of WP:DASH should be ignored; they have no claim save on the editing of the handful of editors who agree with them. That's policy. Follow reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Commment Also WP:IAR. "Rules" being used as a substitute for "guidelines" is a common drift/attitude/pretension, too; nothing should ever be written in stone other than things like WP:BLP policy.Skookum1 (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong oppose (I think) per WP:MOS. The nominator has requested the page be moved to a hyphen but contradicted himself by saying it's always written with a dash. The page should stay with a dash as the is the style Wikipedia uses. I'm sick of bullshit arguments about hyphens/dashes being in violation of WP:COMMONNAME. An un-spaced endash is just Wikipedia's way of writing what other websites would call a hyphen. Our way is much easier to understand. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • reply You should retract your comment about the nominator contradicting himself, since he has fixed that with a strikeout. So if that's the basis of your Strong Oppose, then think again, as for "bullshit arguments about .... in violation of WP:COMMONNAME", the fact of the matter is there is nothing in WP:DASH or WP:HYPHEN to support your own assertions about what MOS says; in fact WP:DASH points out that hyphens are normal and accepted in names, and dashes are not. Your way is not easier to understand at all, because it doesn't make sense. If you were understanding things from the start, also, you'd have realized that Enric Naval's error was exactly that, or there would have been no point in launching this RM. It was clear enough from "Poland–Lithuania → Poland-Lithuania" what the intent here was; talk about picking hairs from a bald head....Skookum1 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • I've put strikes through it, but that had nothing to do with my opposition to the requested move; I was opposing the move, just slightly confused by the nominator's rationale (although I guessed that it was a mistake). McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • It's not "my way" – it's standard Wikipedia practice. MOS:ENDASH clearly states that endashes should be used to "stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment)". "Poland–Lithuania" clearly fits into that. Until the MOS is changed, this move should not go ahead. And, by the way, the nominator wrote "dash" instead of "hyphen" in a comment about dashes and hyphens – that's a large mistake and querying it is certainly not nit-picking. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:57, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment I believe Enric Naval, if consulted, will agree that "dash" was a brain-fart in the opening line; why else would a requested move be propoesd if not to change to a hyphen; this certainly also his position on Alberni-Clayoquot which is why and how he found about this one, as I'd come across it looking for examples of other double-barrelled names where there are few or in many cases, no examples at all, of using dashes. "just Wikipedia's way of writing what other websites would call a hyphen" is utter horses**t and pretentious to boot. MOS is not carved in stone, though apparently some people think WP:DASH is (and it's not).Skookum1 (talk)
      • Ouch, yes, that was a mistake. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • It's not utter horse-shit (no need for censorship) or pretentious. You are correct in saying that the MOS is not carved in stone, but it should be followed unless thee is a good reason not to, which this move is not. If you can find a historian that agrees with you that a slightly longer line in the name of Poland–Lithuania is incorrect, then I will agree with you. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
          • reply You're asking for a "negative citation" to disprove something you're original-research-asserting. That IS horseshit. If you can find a passage in WP:DASH, where it points out the use of hyphens in names but specifically includes country and region-names and town names and other normally-hyphenated names, "then I will agree with you". But it doesn't. Stop invoking DASH as some kind of holy writ, it's not, especially when it's abused and conflated as you and others are doing here; it doesn't say anything of the kind about what you are justifying/defending. And that's a fact.Skookum1 (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong oppose; the current punctuation follows standard wikipedia conventions. The redirect is in place for people who type it with a hyphen. The fact that many sources do not respect the stricter standards of English punctuation is not a reason for wikipedia to back off from its MOS. Dicklyon (talk) 05:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Does it? Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol, Baden-Württemberg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, North Rhine-Westphalia etc. all have hyphens. Are you thinking about where the MOS says "stand for and between independent elements" (boldface added)? In any event, this is a proper name, so Wikipedia rules don't apply: try requesting a move of Babe I'm Gonna Leave You to Babe I Am Going to Leave You per WP:CONTRACTION and be laughed at. A. di M. (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment "many sources" meaning "all sources" is entirely disengenuous; suggesting Britannica, Random House, and any established or academic publisher, including Oxford and more, "do not respect the stricter standards [of wikipedia]" is utter rubbish. Why should Wikipedia NOT back down when it's wrong. And once again, we see "Wikipedia" meaning "those who want to pretend WP:MOS is god and that nothing can change". I'm a Wikipedian, Encric is a Wikipedian, others who say "support" here are Wikipedians; we are Wikipedia every bit as much as you are; you have no right to speak for Wikipedia as you have, as if you were Wikipedia. And this is not a matter of punctuation, it is a matter of normal spelling and real-world convention. A dash is used to link two different concepts; in all these caess the hyphen is used in the NAME of a particular unique entity. "Punctuation" is not the issue at all. Give your head a shake and smell the encyclopedias (the real ones, not this too-often-amateurish clambake).Skookum1 (talk) 05:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
OK, I goofed, and didn't read and look deep enough. There are a few sources that use en dash in Polish–Lithuanian, like this one; but other like this one that set it with a hyphen on the same page where they use en dash in other pairs. So I shouldn't have jumped in. I strike my opposition, and take no position. Dicklyon (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Now that I've found out that WP:MOS does not support the widely-applied "prohibition" on the use of hyphens in names, titles, and normal conjunctive formations, there's a quite a few other places I've seen teh dash applied (over-applied) where it doesn't belong, and which look downright odd in their "Wiki style" formations, e.g. Hay-Herbert Treaty (the most common name of which, anyway, is Alaska Boundary Treaty or Alaska Boundary Settlement); categories have been wantonly changed also, including the regional district categories, as if WP:DASH were one of the Ten Commandments and enforceable by the Inquisition. "No arguments allowed", virtually. Also note this in WP:DASH about the en dash:

An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).

An element that lacks lexical independence is a crucial phrase, as also not used for a hyphenated name. Given the presence of these items in WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH, which have been apparently systemtically ignored, I'm calling for a broad look at all titles (and categories) using the dash now, which shouldn't be doing so, given existing MOS guidelines. Renata, you were quite wrong to suggest WP:DASH needs amending before we can make these changes; what it needs is highlighting and expansion of these issues, but there's no need to change policy; the policy is already clear enough - for those willing to see it, or with enough understanding of history and geography to have gotten it already.Skookum1 (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Hay–Herbert" is exactly the situation where the en dash is needed, to signal that it's the name of two different people, as distinct from a hyphenated last name like Hay-Herbert that might come about by two such people joining their names to make a new family name. This is what I thought we had here, before I read enough. There's no prohibition against hyphens in titles, just that hyphens shouldn't be used when the en dash is what's correct. Dicklyon (talk) 20:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
You really mean "when it's been decided [by [who?]) that the en dash is what's correct". This isn't a hyphenated personal name, but it IS a hyphenated treaty name; ni this particular case I'll do a different RM because the proper title should be Alaska Boundary Treaty as "most common" and "Hay-Herbert" is very much a US-ism (unsuitable to an article which includes or should t he perspective/language of other countries/parties). I think there's been a LOT of sloppy thinking about WP:DASH, and a LOT of misapplication of it to concepts adn titles those doing the change clearly did not fully understand the context/content of. Dashes should only be used in titles when the sources use them. Which won't be the case with Hay-Herbert Treaty or others of that kind. Dashes are used on Canadian federal election districts because that's what Elections Canada uses; and hyphens are used on British Columbia provincial articles because that's what Elections BC uses (important distinction because often enough the names are very similar). Wikipedia is not a source, and should stop with the pretense that it is one, or some kind of "style authority". MOS is not cast in stone, nor is WP:DASH.....those who claim they are perhaps should examine the granitic content of their own heads.....Skookum1 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, that's not what I mean at all. The question of how the decision is arrived at is independent of the policy I was referring to. But I disagree that we should just follow the styles of our sources; that's why we have a MOS. And there are good sources that put the en dash in Hay–Herbert: like this one. Dicklyon (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I think that articles that have a title which requires a - or – or — should use the hyphen, simply because that it the most likely thing that a reader (and that's who we're creating this beast for, after all) is most likely to type when searching. pablo 01:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Redirects take care of the ease-of-typing issue. Read the policy at MOH:DASH, which says "When naming an article, a hyphen is not used as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. However, editors should provide a redirect page to such an article, using a hyphen in place of the en dash (Eye-hand span), to allow the name to be typed easily when searching Wikipedia." Dicklyon (talk) 08:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Redirects burn server power, and cost money - don't we see requests for donations constantly?? That aside, you're wrong in your claim that eye-hand span necessarily requires a dash rather than a hyphen; from WP:DASH:
An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).
adjectival prefixes, like compound words conventionall hyphenated, represent individual concepts formed from the two, not a comparative or conjuctive linkage. This advocacy for the dash over normal spelling conventions based on a confabulation fo the important of style and Wikipedia's independence of anything anyone else does is run far out of control, and is beyond reason at this point. Let's leave aside the treaties (there's more in binary form, of various kinds, and none in normal sources are commonly 'type-set' as a dash; the hyphen is standard in English for that; why (some) Wikipedia(ns) are obsessed with doing something different is pure wiki-vanity. Wikipedia's influence on the language means in doing so it is setting new standards, which is not its place to do; its purpose is to not re-tool the English language, at least it's not supposed to. This is one of various MOS issues which have been ill-applied and misinterpreted out of context, or intent. The dual placenames like family names are names; "typographical" issues have no place in this discussion. Especially given what I've quoted from WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH previously, which do not exclude binary country names from hyphenization, and are sufficiently vague as to discredit the "tyranny of the dash" that's run amuck in Wikipedia this lasts year.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
WP:Redirects are cheap. Renata (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
That eye–hand thing wasn't my claim, it was a quote from the MOS. But it does agree with what I've always been taught about English typography, not a new thing that Wikipedia is going. And no, redirects don't consume any signficant resources, and I've been told when trying to have unneeded ones deleted. Why not just accept that style that has consensus in the MOS? Dicklyon (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't have consensus from me, and it's clear there's many others who don't like it either. And MOS is not written in stone, it's not unchangeable. And as far as how this "policy" has been applied without sensitivity to other considerations other than its own (and even then it's not all that clear, and is not some kind of Master Policy countermanding considerations in WP:HYPHEN and WP:NAME and various others, which its pushers/proponents ignore and justify ignoring by incanting "but WP:DASH dictates that".....as far as these dual geographic names go, that's not even covered by the WP:DASH section - the closest item there concerns dual family names, and they're exactly the same thing; any pretense otherwise is entirely without foundation, even by the policy that is so loudly tub-thumped as some kidn of assertion of Wikipedia's "style" and "we know better" way of thinking (advanced by, as noted by someone else here, a small group of people only - small groups of people citing consensus as if it were doctrine...which it's not....and as if immutable, when in fact it's very mutable and certainly needs revisitation - given the number of discussions there have been out there about all the unsuitable ways it's been applied. WP:DASH is not a core principle of WP:MOS and it's time its supporters stopped pretending it was a part of "Wikipedia's distinct visual style". Sez who? Oh yeah - they do.Skookum1 (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've implemented the move to en dash in article titles on about a hundred articles, and only had minor pushback on one. Most editors don't seem to have any issue accepting or understanding the MOS on this point. It's a long-standing convention of English typography, known to anyone who has studied typography, not something that wikipedia make up. Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, well maybe instead of studying typography they should have been reading a lot more, period, not just in that field. I've been through scads of history and geography books, and literature, and science, in my (rather long) lifetime and never seen widespread use of a dash as you are suggesting exists as the norm. It is certainly something people here are trying to make the norm. And it's also NOT a convention in "typography" for double-barrelled family or placenames. Not in the slightest, and it would help if all of you who claim it is would just back down. Newcastle-on-Tyne etc. etc. etc. Or are you now going to start a campaign to change all those into dashes? Very unsightly, very out of place, any such change, as iwth here on Poland-Lithuania and also on the hyphenated placenames in CAnada (and Germany, and France, and elsewhere).Skookum1 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I admit I'm less familiar with standards for geographic names. For compound family names (names of one person), the hyphen is standard, and the en dash is used to distinguish between that and joined pairs of names of two different people. My impression was that a similar convention applied to geographic names; a name of a place has hyphens (in agreement with what you're saying), and name about a connection between two places usually gets an en dash (like in German–Italian axis). No? Dicklyon (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
well, it's the convention about geographic names that's at issue here, and on Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District. Both very different items than German-Italian axis or Canada-United States relations, to name another example. The spurious arguments that dual geographic names are somehow conjunctive and not representing unitary objects is entirely without basis, and in defiance of both WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH - and both sections need more clarity, especially about items like Poland-Lithuania, Austria-Hungary etc.....Skookum1 (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Who made such an argument? Not me; I already said I had misread what kind of name we were talking about here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong oppose. WP:COMMONNAME has no applicability to punctuation or capitalization choice; in those arenas we use a particular house style and make only occasional exceptions. "Polish-Lithuanian" and "Polish–Lithuanian" are identical as far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned. Powers T 18:39, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • No they're not.Skookum1 (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Longstanding precedent is that we don't pay much attention to what everyone else does when it comes to punctuation; we punctuate things the way we think they should be punctuated. Perhaps I went too far in saying "identical", but it's certainly a minor issue as far as COMMONNAME is concerned. Much more weight is placed on consistent correct punctuation in our style guidelines. Powers T 23:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • Longstanding precedent is that we use the common spelling from reliable sources, see Talk:Burns_supper#Name, Talk:Mother's_Day/Archive_1#Move.3F and Talk:Macau/Archive2#Confusion_about_names. This is explicitly backed by article naming policy (see below).
        • Wikipedia:Article titles does regulate the capitalization and spelling of names, see National varieties of English, #Standard English and trademarks and #Article title format.
        • It also says "Article titles are often proper nouns, such as the subject's name. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name which is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article.", and the immense majority of sources use a hyphen. It also says "The term most typically used in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name.", so it explicitly says to prefer common usage over "technically correct" names.
        • WP:ENDASH does not recommend the usage of hyphen for names like "Polish-Lithuanian", it says "An en dash is not used for (...) an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade)." (emphasis added), so let's finish with this particular strawman. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
          • The choice of whether to use a hyphen or a dash has nothing to do with spelling. It comes down to house style and grammar. Both "Polish" and "Lithuanian" are lexically independent terms -- both are adjectives -- so the section you quoted is not relevant here. Powers T 14:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
              • I think you need to read more history and geography and fewer style guides, LtPowers, and this isn't "Polish-Lithuanian" and even if it were (e.g. for a person of that dual ethnic extraction) the dash would still be inappropriate and unsightly. The crux of the matter, clearly statede in WP:DASH, is that names using hyphens are not to be changed to substitute hyphens. There is nothing saying "all hyphens must be removed and replaced by dashes". Whats' not relevant here is anything YOU have said, not to MOS, not to the topic at hand- which is Poland-Lithuania, not Polish-Lithuanian. Repeating your misinterpretations of WP:DASH over and over and over again, without hearing what the rest of us are saying, or even acknowledging that WP:DASH and WP:HYPHEN support the proper use of the hyphen in compound names, is just making you look more foolish than your arguments already are.Skookum1 (talk) 18:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                  • Precisely; we spell Austria-Hungary with a hyphen, because English does. We should do the same thing here, for the same reason, rather than a conjecture of our own. In both cases, it's a compound name, for a compound country.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                    • Yeah, Austria-Hungary takes a hyphen, as should Poland-Lithuania were it an actual entity. But as far as I can tell, we don't have an article on an entity known as Poland-Lithuania; we have Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and Polish-Lithuanian union. As the constructions in those titles are adjectives and not nouns, I believe a dash is proper grammar there, as in the lead sentence of Lithuania–Poland relations. Powers T 20:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                          • You're squirming ridiculously; must be soft sand you're standing on: "...as should Poland-Lithuania as if it were an actual entity" is utterly specious and rather comical; it's the most common name for either the union, or the Commonwealth, and commonly seen on historical maps as such; you're picking at hairs in the face of overwhelming historical-source evidence and standard English conventions (and also in defiance of what ENDASH actually says). "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" is still a name (and properly should probably be "Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania", and likely is in Polish or Lithuanian languages. And WP:HYPHEN has this passage about subtlety....perhaps the subtleties just escape you.Skookum1 (talk) 21:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                            • If I'm squirming, it's because it's very difficult to respond to this multi-headed and complexly-threaded opposition. Powers T 23:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                              • There's nothing "multi-headed and complexly-threaded" at all about what WP:ENDASH says, which you seem totally unwilling to acknowledge, or respect, and instead try to deconstruct the compounds without any relevance to their historical origin and wide-spread real-world common use.Skookum1 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                        • Just as we have articles on the Austrian Empire and on Austria-Hungary; the politics and the name of the compound state changed. Poland-Lithuania, with a hyphen, can mean either, as this search will show; the data above show that Poland–Lithuania, with a dash, doesn't mean much. The dab page should be at what English sources actually use. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                    • ENDASH doesn't say what the dash-fans are so ardently trying to claim that it does: it says "An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones) or an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).". MOSDASH needs clarification and emendation, certainly, but it already does NOT support the rash claims that are being made about what it says. "A hyphenated name" is a hyphenated name, and not a "typographical issue"; and what the sources use, as PMAnderson and others here have pointed out, is what Wikipedia should use. Inventing new paradigms is not Wikipedia's job.Skookum1 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                  • Apologies for my lack of clarity. The move request covers four articles that contain the Polish-Lithuanian construction, so I'm not sure why you're saying "this isn't 'Polish-Lithuanian'". In fact, this is just a DAB page; it doesn't even have a topic, so I was not really commenting on this page's title at all. Powers T 20:27, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                    • And so again for the four related articles. Follow the sources. When MOS disagrees with them, so much the worse for it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
            • Wikipedia doesn't have a house style; it has a paragraph containing a preference with which good writers differ, imposed by a half-dozen provincial language reformers, and never consensus. By its terms, that paragraph doesn't even apply to article titles. Ignore it as not consensus, not based on sources. In this case, the dab page is intended to be easily reached; it should be at what readers have actually seen. This is also what they can type - which is lagniappe. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Polish-Lithuania, and Polish-Lithuanian, but Poland–LithuaniaHyphens, per ozob below per actual proper grammar. Polish is an adjective, thus "Polish-Lithuania" is mandated by grammar. Poland–Lithuania as in "the Poland–Lithuania joint team" requires an endash. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ozob's statement below clarifies a few things. Since it was only one state, it's a hyphen (like Austria-Hungary). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • You're being confusing; "per actual proper grammar" meaning a dash in a hyphenated country name? i.e. Poland-Lithuania?? No, it's just a hyphenated name like any other hyphenated name, and nothing to do with grammar. Yoursecond example "the Poland-Lithuania joint team" I gather you must mean some kind of joint team between Poland and Lithuania, not that I know one ever existed (I'm not bothering to use the dash here, because I can't be bothered to copy-paste and I'm not interested in having to learn special characters for English terms I've been typing for over forty years without them.; could be there's a visual distinction in your post that you've made, but definitely (copy-paste here) " Poland–Lithuania as in "the Poland–Lithuania joint team" requires an endash. " is not what's on the table here; Poland-Lithuania was a place, a country (one of the largest and most important for centuries, in fact); muddying the waters by posting the existence of a conjectured team where the dash would be OK is only adding to confusion of what is already clear and normal: Poland-Lithuania as a country-name (whether its official status was "union" or Commonwealth" is beside the point; though noting that "lower case union" is not what you'd see in history textbooks or sources, and that article is about Poland-Lithuania, and is something of a disambiguation term to distinguish it from the Commonwealth (which was chartered differently, hence the name difference).Skookum1 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support. The state of Poland-Lithuania did not consist of two independent states called Poland and Lithuania; it was one state, just as Austria-Hungary was one state. For the same reason we spell Guinea-Bissau and Baden-Württemberg with a hyphen and not an en dash, so should we spell Poland-Lithuania and Polish-Lithuanian with a hyphen and not an en dash. Ozob (talk) 12:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • You are entirely misinterpreting the guideline. The independence of Poland and Lithuania as countries is irrelevant; it's the independence of "Poland" and "Lithuania" as words that mean they should be dashed. "Poland–Lithuania" (the name) was created by joining "Poland" and "Lithuania". It's two words joined together, not one word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclay1 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 January 2011
      • Sez you. But it's you that's not must misintrepreting the guidelines, or rather wilfully ignoring the passage about "hyphenated names". Your arguments are specious, and quite frankly sound very very very silly.Skookum1 (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • Here I have to support what Skookum1 is saying: there are two ways to join independent names, hyphen and endash, and which one is correct depends on conventions about how the tightness of binding is signified. For surnames, it's an en dash for things named after two people, but hyphen for a new surname formed from two. It seems logical that he may be right that it works similarly for countries. When I first supported the en dash, I hadn't looked closely enough, and thought the pages were about a relationship betwween Poland and Lithuania; I was wrong; it's a separate country, if I can believe Skookum1, called Poland-Lithuania. If he's right about that, and the general point that single places with compounded names use hyphen, which I believe he is, then the hyphen seems right. We should get down to that specific question, and get off the generalities that generate more heat than light. Dicklyon (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
          • The guideline about hyphenated names is only for the names of people. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
            • The guideline says "An en dash is not used for a hyphenated name." It doesn't restrict name to people. It's kind of a tautology, though; if a name is hyphenated, it's hyphenated. Dicklyon (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
              • A name is a name, yeah; and that's why it s called a hyphenated name - and not "lexically independent" or anything else. It's not a tautology - it's just plain obvious.Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
              • It doesn't explicitly say it's restricted to the names of people, but that's what it means. It means "Ann-Marie" or "Johnson-Smith". If that's not what it means, then the guideline is completely pointless. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
                • The guideline isn't pointless, because that's what it means. It could use a non-family name example or two, but it's clear enough as it is; you just have to not want it to mean something else. It's not pointless in the slightest; you just want to find ways around the point, it seems.Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Seeing as I was heavily involved in writing those very guidelines, I am confident in my interpretation. My support for the proposal stands. To get me to change my opinion you will have to convince me that "Poland-Lithuania" was two countries; this is currently not supported by the articles about it. Ozob (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Though I got into this below just now, and if anything is proposed about an amendment to MOSDASH it should include the addition of examples of other kinds of hyphenated names (including for "objects", such as wars and treaties and devices, which have no "lexical independence" because they refer to single things in that combination; that's a language/syntax argument, but an arguable one...names for now...). As you may realize by now, I'm concerned about the mis-application of this to various regional district and potentially region-names and other names in British Columbia, my geographic and historical turf, and the regional district correction is needed to proceed before the similarly-changed categories can be CfD'd (hopefully CfD'd, given the outcome of this and the MOSTALK discussions which are ensuant upon my original raising of that item. I'd also submit that dash-changes of any kind be submitted to AfR's, even retroactively, to discuss whether the use of the dash was correct in terms of what MOSDASH and MOSHYPHEN really do say, not what it is claimed that they say. We're only dealing with a handful of hyphenated names here taht have been changed, and no doubt their categories too; do we have to go through this bit about names for each and every one of them, or once this is resolved can this discussion, and the MOSTALK one, be used as a "citation" of the decision here? Because clearly this is a "global" problem, given the scale to which the DASH "rule" has evidently been distroted and misapplied.Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment – This discussion is not about adjectives. Adjectives like "Anglo-American" or "Polish-Lithuanian" are always hyphenated and should not be dashed per MOS:DASH. Please stop bringing adjectives into the discussion. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Reply then tell that to whomever changed Spanish-American War and Greco-Persian Wars. Also places where dashes were applied by somebody who also didn't read, or devalued, the same paragraph in ENDASH. The reality, also is that "Spanish-American War" is a name, so that "Argentina-Brazil War" is also a name of a certain thing, ans also conventionally hyphenated. My comment about Spanish-American War being incorrectly dashed was not because it was an adjective, but because it also is a name, with a specific single context and not "two lexically independent" items that "must" be linked by a dash. That's what I meant somehwere here about it not just being countries, cities, regions etc that are specified as names, but also regular hyphenated constructions that are part of names, particularly well-known and established usages such as the names of wars, most articles for which have no been "dashed", whether adjectival constructions (Greco-, Spanish-) or not.....Skookum1 (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • I think you should write something about this at WT:MOS. HOWEVER, before hitting "save page" you are required to remove 75% of the words of your post. No exceptions. Otherwise you will be ignored. Ozob (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Poll edit

I recommend we start over, inviting one short summary support or oppose statement per interested person, with their reasoning in relation to the MOS, without followup discussion for now, so that we can see whether things have converged a bit given all the discussin above.

I'll start.

  • Support – although I originally opposed moving away from the en dash, I have become convinced that in the case of Poland-Lithuania, the name is of one joint entity, more like a hyphenated surname than like a two-person thing like a Bose–Einstein condensate. The MOS clearly anticipates both constructs in the case of person names, and it seems that the generalization to place names has been well justified per sources. Dicklyon (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Support this page move but oppose moves of "Polish–Lithuanian" pages per MOS:ENDASH (after MOS:ENDASH was changed) – MOS:ENDASH was intended to mean names like "Poland–Lithuania" be dashed. If this should not be the case, then the guideline should be re-written/clarified first, then this move can go ahead. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC) Polish-Lithuanian (with a hyphen) would be the adjective of Poland-Lithuania, but Polish–Lithuanian (with a dash) is two adjectives joined together. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Your assertion that "names like 'Poland-Lithuania' be dashed" is exactly what I'm complaining about, and as evinced by Ozob's testimony about the passage's purpose above, i.e. that DASH has been abused by people who don't know enough about the language to apply it as they have been doing, i.e. what is a name, and what is not a name. Pretty simple. Saying that MOSDASH says what it does not say is the big problem here, and with much obstinacy attached to it; the guideline should be clarified, as I have suggested, by the inclusion of country names, city names, region names, and so on; so there is no confusion in future about this, and no further argument about what MOSDASH says on this topic. Pretending that consensus dictates this when clearly there is no consensus, and one of the authors of the guideline is very specific about what it's supposed to mean - and which it already means, is why this section is titled "abuse of ENDASH and EMDASH" - by misinterpretation, sweeping mis-application, now requiring "consensus" to reach, rather arduously, when somone with some knowledge of the materials whose titles they were changing - again apparently by bot, often enough, or so it seemed from my watch list, and not by human discretion but by machine-derived logic, with the demands of technology being asserted as the reason why everybody else has to change to what their vision of what the Wikipedia standards is, requiring people to learn new ways to type, and to spell/form words and terms normally hyphenated; the hyphen is much older than the dash, in terms of common use. And common use should dictate the result here, not some visionary take on Wikipedia's interface being improved and people better get used to it etc....no, we're not used to it, and it complicates things, and nobody mandated many of the changes made; quite the contrary; MOSDASH proscribed them if you read it correctly, and didn't take on making dashes used across the board in places they never have been, because you think so. Or rather, because you want to believe that MOSDASH says things it does not say. And we have one of the guidelines authors to testify to that? Good enough for you? Why not? Did you write it? And it's not the Holy Writ of Heaven either; it needs clarification and expansion, but it doesn't need you deciding that it says something other than what it says, and what its authors intended....Skookum1 (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Your opinion. Also, did you not read the heading of this section that said "without followup discussion"? McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per MOS:ENDASH – names like "Poland-Lithuania", in the vein of Austria-Hungary, should be be hyphenated, as it refers to one nation, and not a partnership of two nations. If modern-day Poland, and modern-day Lithuania were to join force and create some team, it would be rightfully called "the Poland–Lithuania team", just like if modern-day Austria, and modern-day Hungary were to join forces and create some team, it would be called "the Austria–Hungary team". However, this is not the case here, as this refers to the single political entity of "Poland-Lithuania", exactly like "Austria-Hungary" for the periods of 1867 to 1918 refers to a single political entity, and is thus hyphenated. Moreover, "Polish" in "Polish-Lithuanian" is an adjective, and under no rules of grammar is such a construction ever endashed (see Canadian-American, Sino-Japanese relations, etc...), it is always hyphenated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Adjectives are dashed if they are not adjectives but two adjectives joined together. Canadian-American is used for a person who is Canadian and American, whereas Canadian–American would be used if there was a Canadian–American War. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support for all the above reasons by Ozob and Headbomb, and noting that it's not just countries, but also regions, cities, regions/states/etc and other also normally hypenated constructions (Spanish-American War is currently dashed btw, among other wars this was done to, and other "objects" formed of hyphenated terms modifying a noun/term). Given that the argument has already been supposed, that because only personal names were given as example, it would be a good idea if some emendation to the paragraph in question in ENDASH, with a corollary paragraph in HYPHEN, as to the variety of such names, so it will not be claimed that only personal and country names, but any hyphenated name (including in "object phrases" normally written as such, should do so also in Wikipedia. As with my note to Ozob above, this also applies to categories which have been affected by these changes, as in the case of Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District and Category:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District (which relay through redirects to their incorrectly-dashed versions, which were made by the same pretext that Poland-Lithuania and similar titles were incorrectly changed. I know this is only a poll on this one article, but there is a long list of other articles facing similar correction issues; this case should stand as precedent for "protecting the hyphen" - from what? Modernization? Improvements? New technological possibilities of the keyboard? Why?? WP:If it ain't broke, don't fix it should be the guiding hand; "Wiki" as I've noted before, means "fast, quick", and would seem to imply "easy". Making things more complicated just because you can should not be a wiki-ethic...I venture that something like the ethic of the Butlerian Jihad be applied to some of the way things are done, and how they are executed by fiat only to have to be reversed by arduous discussion. All these dash changes should have been the subject of RMs, not speedy renames by some bad interpretation of MOSDASH (MOSHYPHEN seemingly also not given as much weight in that interpretation). It shouldn't have to take RMs to reverse them all back, or a slew of CfDs to undo the damage there, also.Skookum1 (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support because Poland-Lithuania was, during the time it existed, a single state, not the union of two independent states. Ozob (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • That actually depends on who you ask. Poles will claim it was one big happy state, Lithuanians will insist it was a union of two independent states. Renata (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      That does not currently seem to be supported by the article, which is my only source for my stance. Ozob (talk) 03:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support although for every Skookum1 complaining at inordinate length about the hyphen being endangered there is a Skookum2 quibbling remorselessly about the underuse of the en-dash and a Skookumπ maintaining obdurately that they should all be changed to minus signs. (Most of the changes to en-dash are correct, and there are a few exceptions, such as this one.) Occuli (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment there's more than a few exceptions, including some glaringly bad ones which have met as much resistance as has been seen here by "dash advocates". And I'm unaware of a Skookum2 or Skookumn, perhaps you should rephrase that complaint, and bear in mind that "inordinate length" is needed to combat "inordinate irrationality". I can't help it if some people need things explained to them ten or twenty times before they "get it" (and some never do).Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Dealing with this issue piecemeal is not particularly helpful. Establish the principal first, probably most appropriately at WP:MOS-DASH, and then it can be applied to individual examples. This request is a clear example of the tail wagging the dog. We have a Manual of Style and Naming Conventions so that editors can easily look up which style to use. The fact that some can't be bothered to do that would apply whichever style we used (it doesn't help when the directions are open to multiple interpretations!). Get them clarified and these interminable heated arguments can be disposed of easily. Skinsmoke (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose per WP:DASH. Poland and Lithuania are independent words and should be dashed. If you disagree, change the guideline. Renata (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support "Poland-Lithuania" per the tradition of "Austria-Hungary". I continue think that the other articles should use "Polish–Lithuanian", however, so I oppose moving those. Powers T 14:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Objection The parallel and until-now abeyed RM at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District was just closed "no consensus" by Deacon of Whateverfield, who also relisted this one even though it's clear that consensus is being reached here. To me, these are not neutral actions and are highly questionable; Alberni-Clayoquot has to have a second RM now, or that closure should be rescinded as not being neutral in origin, which certainly appears to be the case (see Optics (politics)), as the imposition of a foreign typographic value-set on local English usage is not acceptable. As with Poland-Lithuania, this is a single geographic entity and is a hyphenated name; either ENDASH means what it says or somebody's placing loosey-goose with what the word "name" means, and also the word "hyphenated". I don't understand in the first place why the relisting here took place, but to see a closure by the same relisting person (admin or not) at the same time as a no-consensus closure on the RM whose debates brought Poland-Lithuania to light (it was me who discovered it, after naming Guinea-Bissau and Austria-Hungary and Baden-Baden. That RM should not have been closed until this one was; it could have been relisted, as this one has been, but shutting it down like that and staying with a BAD and WRONG spelling that nobody in British Columbia or anywhere in Canada or anywhere ELSE for that matter uses (except in Wikipedia) is not acceptable. The change was made by speedy-rename without consensus and using a wrong reading of ENDASH (actually I don't think the dash-ers actually just ignored much of ENDASH altogether); it's totally unfair to have to fight, long and arduously, to get back to the proper spelling after some person obsessed with "typograhpical reform" decided that all British Columbia sources, including official ones, were "lazy" and so only used hyphens because they weren't as technologically advanced etc.....we were reaching consensus here, and there was no good neutral reason to relist this; there was even less reason to declare "no consensus" on Alberni-Clayoquot when this is where that debate has moved. In optics, "things are what they appear", neither move appears neutral in nature and both have the effect of keeping the hyphen in place, here by keeping the near-consensus debate open so that it might be overturned, there (at the ACRD article) by simply shutting it down before this one's consensus was made in favour of the hyphen (which is certainly how things have been going). "Interference" (in favour of retaining the dash despite what ENDASH says) may not have been intended, but that was the effect.Skookum1 (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Objection: you didn't delete 75% of your keystrokes. Too long, didn't read. I recommend you try to get the MOS page to include a clarification about compound geographic names, so you don't have to do this at each place. Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
      • Retort Your short attention span is your problem, and it's only Ozob's recommendation that my addition to ENDASH be cut by 75%. This is a discussion, and just because so many people get their education by point-form exams, don't expect older people to truncate their use of language; control your own mind before you try to control mine, which is known to be resistant to being told what to do. Especially when the complaint about abuse of procedure is valid.Skookum1 (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
        • Are you familiar with WP:TLDR? I think your writing style undermines your goals. Ozob (talk) 03:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
          • Yeah I have read it, and among other things it says this:
As a label, it is also effective as a tactic which thwarts the kinds of discussion which are essential in collaborative editing. TL;DR is a shorthand observation very much like the complaint that Mozart's music has too many notes. The label is used to end discussion rather than engaging it.
Funny how that turns up whenever I have to lay out in detail why all the short and not-very-well-though-out posts which continue saying things not supported by ENDASH as if it did, someone needs to change the topic, or attack me directly. And when I point out the unfortunate optics of someone relisting this page when it was about to reach consensus, and in virtually the same moment closing the other RM which led to it, that people say "I didn't read it, you talk too much". Maybe should people to read, then, instead of hiding behind "I'm semi-literate and only have a short attention span". The relisting was inappropriate, and taken in tandem with the premature foreclosure of the other RM, which was where the ENDASH/HYPHEN debate had moved (from there), it comes off as highly suspect in motive. AGF? Fine, if peopla actually show some themselves, and not find wikirules to invoke to try and either bypass discussion, shut it down, or puerilely refuse to read it "because it's too long" . Because it makes a point, you mean, that you don't want to admit having heard.Skookum1 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support moving the disambiguation page that atleast should be at the simple name. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support (as nominator). As I showed above, the immense majority of sources uses a hyphen, so we should also use a hyphen per WP:COMMONNAME, instead of inventing our own new names. Also, in January past year it was already discussed here at WT:MOS that this sort of name should use hyphens. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
    • Comment "interesting", isn't it, that discussions like that get archived and ignored as precedents by people saying that MOS says things it doesn't, and claiming it doesn't say things it does? This refrain sounds very familiar:
What other sources do in terms of styling is not incumbent upon Wikipedia; that's the entire purpose behind a style guide......this would be where a style guide would function in ignoring what is common (and poor typography) in favor of a consistent internal style.
In other words, wikipedia is its own universe and need not refer to how language is "typeset" in media beyond itself. "what other sources do...is not incumbent upon Wikipedia" is all too much like saying "we can do what we want without regard for normal usage", and also very much an OR statement of the worst kind, as well as sophomorically arrogant. If there's not already an item, I suggest the topic of WP:Wiki-centrism be dealt with at some point.Skookum1 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think you're barking up the wrong tree. It's a good thing, in my opinion, for wikipedia to have its own internally consistent style, not matching the styles of the various sources in the variety of article topics that we have. The question here should really just be how to apply that style to this particular topic. Focus on that, and getting it clarified via examples in the MOS, and you'll probably get the intended result. Dicklyon (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I disagree - at least as long as we prefer inconsistency of spelling, using favor in articles on one set of topics and favour in another, there is no call for regularizing hyphens. If it were practical to amend MOS to reflect actual English usage, it would do less harm than it does; but experience shows that it isn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson
But if you show that it's a hyphenated place name then there is no conflict between this move and WP:ENDASH, so might as treat those as separate issues. Dicklyon (talk) 19:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
apparently since this move (to a dash) was made without specific discussion, and in clear violation of ENDASH, it should have been reverted and this discussion, if it happened at alll, should have started from there. It IS a hyphenated placename, obviously to any of us who actually know history and geography, and the onus is on YOU to prove that it's not; not the other way around. I'm also told that only on featured articles is MOS binding/overlord, so the blanket application to so many articles without discussion of any of them was in the wrong, and all should be reverted to their original titles; then case-by-case any dash-izing proposal would have to be "fought".....but you'd still have to prove this isn't a hyphenated name, which quite frankly (as someone who's clearly read more history and geography than you have), is pretty much an absurdity.Skookum1 (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
PS your assertion that "facts are open to interpretation" is virtually an invocation of the right to original-research, and to synthesize. Facts are facts and not open to interpretation.Skookum1 (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It was not a violation of MOS:ENDASH. No matter how much you argue, hyphenated place names were not mentioned in the MOS. It has now been amended, and seeing as the general consensus seems to support it, I will change my support to the humble hyphen. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
hyphenated names - inherently meaning all hyphenated names was indeed mentioned, and the author of the passage himself said that was the intent of it; then there's also this passage from the equally important MOSHYPHEN, which not incidentally is placed directly before the dash sections:
Hyphenation involves many subtleties that cannot be covered here."
The notion that "hyphenated names", without any qualifier, means something other than "all hyphenated names" is I suppose an "interpretation". Not common usage, though, at all; extrapolating "only family names" off of "hyphenated names" was an interesting leap of illogic. I'm curious to see if "lexical independence", used in MOS, is an actual term in linguistics or a bluelink; if it is a formal term, how is it defined? But "subtlety" is about knowledge and discretion and informed opinion, not wanton adherence to one principle above all others, be it a passion for MOSDASH or for typography. The sources are what they are, and names - all names - are what they are. The only qualifier was "hyphenated" and that was all that mattered; it was what it was; that's not a tautology; "DASH has no power over hyphenated names" is what that section says; it was not up to you or anyone else to decide what was a hyphenated name or not....and never should have been used to try.Skookum1 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Since you were the main opposer, and nobody else has said anything relevant to opposing, I suggest we consider it closed and git-er-done. Dicklyon (talk) 03:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Apparently because all these controversial dash-usages were done without RMs, or any discussion on their talkpages (and I know not on any of the several WikiProjects I'm a member of) they should all revert back to their proper titles and the RMs should have started from there. Not post facto. This has all at least amended MOSDASH of its subtleties; NAME and TITLE have their own parameters, they were passed over also, as was HYPHEN. Now wording is a bit clearer; but I've seen too many articles changed on the "lexical independence" basis, or where either "and" or "to" is supposed, as I've found with neighbourhood articles in Canada of late; who gets to decide what's a hyphenated name or not shouldn't be a one-man/woman posse; it's pretty clear what a name is, whatever it is of, and the idea that hyphenated names of any kind (including names of wars and events) could be alterable by "style" considerations is abhorrent to me, both as a Wikipedian and as an historiographer/historian. In history, of course, you go to the sources, and to common use; not invented use, or rare sources.Skookum1 (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
There is no consensus for the Polish–Lithuanian pages to be moved to a hyphen. They should stay at a dash because they are not adjectives but two adjectives joined together. Polish-Lithuanian (with a hyphen) is the adjective of Poland-Lithuania but Polish–Lithuanian (with a dash) is used for relations between Poland and Lithuania as separate countries. Sources count for nothing in this style argument because as I have pointed out many times before, nearly every source on the Internet will use a hyphen because they don't write in wiki mark-up making it difficult to use a dash (plus most people are lazy anyway). McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hum, both articles in this page are about a single entity (a Commonwealth and a Union). You are making an argument for using a hyphen.... (and please, people, stop using the "webmasters are lazy" strawman, I pointed at many many books from books.google.com, published by university presses, academic publishers, etc.) --Enric Naval (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, because they're unions between two peoples, not one combined people. It would be a Canadian–American union if Canada and the US united rather than a Canadian-American union which would be union of Canadian-Americans. And, you are of course right on your other point: it isn't just web-masters who are lazy; everyone is, or rather most people just don't differentiate between hyphens and un-spaced endashes. I don't think I've ever seen an un-spaced endash outside of Wikipedia. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
They were one single country under one ruler in 1385—1499 and 1569—1791, read their articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:29, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't matter. The dash is in the place of "and". Polish-Lithuanian (hyphen) Union would be a union within the Polish-Lithuanian people, not a union between two peoples. After they united they were one people but that's irrelevant. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would be open to this argument if I hadn't looked at high quality sources, and found out that all of the use hyphen. Either all those sources are interpreting the name wrong, or you are interpreting it wrong. I'll bet for the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

[undent]Your ignorance of history is almost as dazzling as the arrogance of your original research, including such lines as "The dash is in the place of "and". Polish-Lithuanian (hyphen) Union would be a union within the Polish-Lithuanian people, not a union between two peoples." and from your user page such as "WP:COMMONNAME does not apply to hyphens vs endashes" and "Sources count for nothing when determining hyphens vs endashes." You're quite the card, really, and only a student, apparently more knowledgeable about history and language than the rest of us, so your interpretation outweighs all of ours. You're not a student of language, by all appearance, and you'er not a grammarian either, so your adjudgement that in "Polish-Lithuanian union" is an "and" or "to" is entirely nonsense; e.g. the Polish-Lithuanian army was not the Polish army and the Lithuanian army, the Polish-Lithuanian union was not just Poland and Lithuania (it included, among other things, the Ukraine and Ruthenia, if you even know where those are). "Adjctival forms of hyphenated names should by hyphenated also" is a pretty clear, ordinary, very grammatical extension of what a hyphenated name is in ordinary English, and should be added to the passage now amended so as to keep "interpreters" like you from playing loosey-goosey with whatever's in the way of your pet agenda; "but you know better", so you're telling us, without any support from conventional thinking or language analysis or knowledge of the terms you're talking about, and claiming that "style" is more important than sources. That's so un-Wikipedian it's ridiculous. Comical, if you weren't wasting so many people's time defending your own position, which is only your own, and making specious arguments about words and constructions you plainly do not understand.....and is therefore original research.Skookum1 (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Style" is about taste, and you are in no position to claim superiority in either regard; to do so is to claim original research as your right, and the right of yourself to impose your taste - your beliefs about style - on others, even overriding the sources branding their authors and webmasters as "lazy", even backwards. Style is a subjective matter, taken upon by yourself as its Chief Inquisitor/Impositor here, and that's not your place to do; you insistence that you are right, where or not it's your obvious preference for using dashes wherever you think, or claiming that "and" or "to" are behind hyphenizations that you don't even understand the subject matter whose title you are claiming some kind of right ot judge/change/correct "because it's about style, not the sources". SheeshSkookum1 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
You're really something, aren't you? You'd best start acting more like a reasonable person if you want to be around on Wikipedia for much longer. I may be a university student, but you have no idea how old I am nor what I'm studying. Some things in the English language are not clear-cut, this being one of them. Any real grammarian would know that in a case between two sides, such as this, there is not one side who is wrong and another who is right. Please remember that I am not the only one who is arguing this way and it appears that you may be in the minority in your opinion. As for your comment that my "ignorance of history is ... dazzling", Polish–Lithuanian unions are not a particularly important part in the history of my culture; however, whether the name of a country is spelt with a dash or a hyphen is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to history or accuracy of the name, other than in the case of grammar. Now, please stop getting wound up about something as stupid as this and get on with your life. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Poland-Lithuania, Neutral on the rest. It has taken me a while to read this discussion—and I had no Internet access until a few days ago—so I hope people will excuse some extra length in my opinion. First of all, I note that there is some confusion about the role of the Manual of Style guideline on dashes. It says that, for an en-dash to be used in a title, the words must have lexical independence; it doesn't say that if this happens an en-dash must be used. There are other criteria for that, and we ought to go by them; Dicklyon has stated current practice with a clarity that renders any repetition thereof on my part redundant, and with a moderation of words and tone which is commendable.

    Personally, I have always supported the use of an en-dash for "Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth", on the understanding that it is a union between two independent states. If, however, a consensus is formed that it was a single state, then a hyphen would be appropriate as per other examples cited higher up on this page. The existence of the term "Poland-Lithuania" (which must itself use a hyphen) would reinforce this view, but I have not been convinced that it has actually seen wide use, hence my disinclination to vote one way or another on the other titles. A large majority of sources has been claimed to support the hyphenated version, and this would indicate a consensus in the academic world in favour of the "single state" view, but care must be taken to ascertain which publishers use en-dashes in general; a book with hyphenated year ranges, for example, would have to be discounted from such a survey of existing literature, because its non-use of en-dashes in the state's name is clearly a matter of house style.

    Speaking of which, I realise that there are those who support this move request because they oppose the use of en-dashes in article titles by principle, but this is not the place for that discussion. There is a reason why the MoS exists, and we do have to follow its provisions until these are changed—provided, of course, that these are interpreted correctly. Exceptional cases must surely exist where local consensus may override the Manual, but I wish to draw attention to the frequent invocation of "Ignore All Rules" and what that generally says about its own validity. And yes, the MoS is a guideline, and therefore people are free to ignore it, only that if there is a disagreement, the (side agreeing with the) Manual wins.

    Finally, I must stress that that the hyphenation of the Commonwealth article would still depend on whether it takes its name from a unified "Poland-Lithuania" or a separate "Poland" and "Lithuania", and if you include Muscovy or Ruthenia the situation becomes even more complex, as there are several conceivable combinations of hyphens and en-dashes. I understand that the different pages listed on this request for move are related, and that a change here would cause changes on the rest, but moving some of those pages may require separate discussion.

    Apologies for the length, but this is my sole contribution to this discussion. In any case, nobody has told me to delete 75% of my keystrokes. Not yet, anyway. Waltham, The Duke of 04:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Those books that use hyphens in those names, they also use dashes in proper places (at least, in those that i could check, there were a couple that only offered page excerpts and it's very difficult to find page ranges or year ranges in them). E.g. books that use hyphens in names and use dashes for page ranges Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press University of Washington Press, sources that use dashes to separate sentences and for page ranges and for year ranges Purdue University Press, this one uses dashes for page ranges and year ranges State University of New York Press.
As for not being valid for other names, note these books that use hyphen in "Polish-Swedish union" and use dashes in year ranges Cambridge University Press and University of Washington Press. Idem for "Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian_Commonwealth", with books that I already listed in the paragraph above. Note how this source uses a dash, but it's using a proper name, it's talking about "establishing a Polish–Swedish union of crowns". So, I understand your concern, but all these move requests are covered by RS that use dashes correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Original RM to move this title is where? edit

Where is the RM, if any, that moved this article, to the dash title? If there never was one, then the move should be reversed without this even being closed; clearly not an uncontroversial change, it should never have been "speedied" if that was the case. The proper procedure would be for this RM have been changing to the dash, not having to argue with people who don't even understand teh subject matter, or basic compound-construction, to argue it "back" to where it should have been all along. I note at some point it seems to have been Poland Lithuania, which was entirely wrong; but was it changed to a hyphen version first, then to the dash; or straight to the hyphen? Whatever the case, too many articles have been speedy-renamed without regard to dashed versions without discussion or RM in each case; it should be for teh "dash-ites" to argue in favour of the dash in each case, and not be obstructionist in preventing corrections of obvious errors of judgement, and mis-applications of ENDASH and HYPHEN, as this so clearly is (to those of us who actually know what Poland-Lithuania was). The specious arguments and equivocations and outright squirming about other forms of the combination needing to have dashes, even if the main form (the name), is really quite ridiculous; faulty logic is faulty logic, it doesn't help it to back it up with more. Claiming tha ENDASH superseds COMMONNAME, TITLE etc is just bunk - whose call was that? Oh yeay, definitely ont consensus.....Wikipedia is not a platform for individuals claiming "consensus" to impose their visions of typography and "style" (taste) on the rest of the world. To claim that reversions to the correct forms need to be RM'd when these weren't changed by RM in first place is just so much hypocrisy.Skookum1 (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

That was almost three years ago, and there was no discussion of the move, before or after. It appears to have been uncontroversial. And you forgot to remove most of your keystrokes again. Dicklyon (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
And you forgot to be un-patronizing, and that was Ozob's comment about any proposed changes to MOSDASH; go fix your own mind before assailing mine; yo'ure tiresome.Skookum1 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
By the way, I have moved hundreds of articles from hyphen to en dash, and only had pushback on one or two. I've also removed hyphens from titles, and added hyphens to titles, and downcased titles, and stuff like that. In most cases, without bothering anyone with a Requested Move discussion, as the move was not controversial. Don't start with the attitude that making things right always requires a discussion if it involves a dash. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
"making things right" when so much has been made wrong by the dash-everything campaign is kinda pathetic. The move was treated as uncontroversial because "someone" misrepresented what ENDASH says (said then, though clearer now). It's clearly not uncontroversial now, and the campaign has continued until it reach my part of the world, where it's been controversial since it was done (the regional district placenames, which like country names, are hyphenated names, not "and" or "to" constructions). I'm not the one with attitude here; the attitude is comning from people that say "MOS doesn't have to respect the real world, and neither do I". As for the lower-casing campaign, there's all kinds of titles there, too, which were incorrectly done, by speedy, and lately I've seen someone lower-casing proper names in article texts, running wild with AWB, e.g. "Columbia river", "Coast mountains" etc. Lower-case-ism isn't just controversial when mispplied, it's illiterate in nature when, like this dash thing, changing long-standing and obvious convention away from reality into some kind of wiki-fiction, backed up by sophomoric misinterpretation of/claims about what MOS says (when really it doesn't).Skookum1 (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Was there an RM for this title?? The only reason I came here because I'd used it as an example alongside Austria-Hungary and Guinea-Bissau and Baden-Baden re the importunately closed RM at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District, which also SFAIK was not properly taken to an RM, nor was WP Canada or WPBC consulted on whether this was appropriate or not; blanket dashifying without thinking and without knowledge was not proper, especially since the intent of ENDASH on hyphenated names was clearly ignored (as some continue to, it seems). So I'll ask again - was the a specific RM on this title? Where? What date?Skookum1 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Moves don't have to be discussed before going ahead if they're not controversial. Since this discussion is happening so long after the original move, clearly it was not controversial then. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
What's stupid is your gamesmanship not just with dashes and hyphens but with your re=imposition, and self-declared right to interpret, MOS as you see fit, without any basis in sources or in knowledge of the materials affected. The assertion that this was an uncontroversial series of moves is just another assertion by you but clearly isn't the case; that I never happened to notice it (Poland-Lithuania not being on my watchlist until the dashification crew rolled by the regional districts of British Columbia and decided to impose "style over substance", and I finally got the time to launch that RM (since closed by an interloping admin from, apparently, the UK).....blanket transformation of hundreds or articles (in CAnada alone) without consultation, without checking, without research as to conventions/norms, with suppositions about "and" or "to" and wild fumblings with grammatical relationships within names that aren't really there, by people who don't know anything about what the names are the names OF. Or how they're conventionally used, and why, and by who. "Wikipedia has a better way, and I'm the one defining it" is what I'm hearing from you - such arrogance. Talk about getting on with your life - why don't you actually read some books and write some articles instead of running around changing titles and spellings to suit your idle fantasies about what is appropriate "style", without any regard to substance or the informed opinion of others. Just because something has been rotting on the shelf for three years doesn't mean it should stay there; this was never uncontroversial, none of it, but it was snuck under the radar and speedied when nobody was looking, no doubt citing MOSDASH in the edit comment even though MOSDASH did not mandate ANYTHING like what it was used to justify. Again, in the case of the regional districts and neighbourhoods in CAnada, this was never discussed and no one, you especially, ever came forward to say "anyone have any objections to changing these few hundred placenames to dashes?". Because I sure as hell would have; just as I would have if you'd done it to Austria-Hungary (which happened to be on my watchlist); in the case of the RDs I winced when I saw the changes, but because of other stupidity-fires around Wikipedia I've been kinda busy.....so why don't you get a life, kid? and learn to respect not just the English language, but history, and the sources, and to respect others telling you that YOU have done wrong. You claim to be a speaker of "English English" in your infoboxes; why don't you respect English enough, and other English-speakers, to not decide it needs changing into your own image?Skookum1 (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

And I repeat, where is the RM that changed this title to a dash from a hyphen? WHERE?? Because your little tirade against me, calling me stupid (pot kettle black), is just another avoidance trying to dig in your heels and protect your precious dashifications from being changed back to what the sources say and what people educated on the topics affected think. But you're better than the rest of us, clearly, and are imperious enough to call a person probably 2.5 times older than you, who quite frankly has read a lot more than books on typography, "stupid". Either there was an RM for this or there wasn't; if there wasn't, it can be speedy changed back as non-controversial because of what MOS said/says (either before or after recent amendment, and it never said anything about "hyphenated names can be turned into dashed ones if silly interpretations of their strcuture can be made". Your wheedling that the adjectival forms of hyphenated names, even if you begrudgingly (and still resistantly) admit that Poland-Lithuania really is a hyphenated name (which to those of us "stupid" people, ot so very obviously is). should still be dashed is just so much schoolboy twaddle....Skookum1 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Seriously, shut up now. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Bluebot did it - "not a person" and mis-citing MOS edit

Found it, dated Sept 24, 2008, followed up by User:Renata to change the title once Bluebot had changed hyphens in the text to dashes. This was not a valid application of MOS, and in clear violation of it in fact, and had no proper RM of any kind (as with all the others). Turns out user:Bluebot is also blocked, and is a "legitimate alternative account" of user:Bluemoose. An erroneous change made by a now-blocked bot should not have more weight than informed knowledge by people educated on the subject matter; serves to prove my point - MOS has been misapplied, without thinking, and too regularly knee-jerk in nature and without regard to existing common usages and sources; this RM's obstructionist behaviour re restoring the proper usage is a good example of what I meant by DASH-advocates going on a holy war against the hyphen, without any justification at all either in MOS or in common sense.Skookum1 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

In addition to BlueBot being blocked, Bluemoose is no longer active and has in fact made a point of using a password he won't remember so he doesn't log in again. I submit that a blocked-bot application of a mis-reading of ENDASH by someone who has long since left Wikipedia should not be allowed to stand, no further discussion needed.Skookum1 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, bluebot merely moved the disambig tag to where it belongs. The en dashes and move were both done by User:Renata3, an admin since 2006. Probably it was not a great choice, but was uncontested for years, so not obviously bad either. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Another poll edit

Last time sort of degenerated, didn't it? How about we allow everyone to chime in without reacting this time, to see where we stand? I'd prefer to narrow the question, to leave out the general issue of MOS and how much we like it and how much we like dashes and how much we like how we got here, and address primarily the narrow question, relative to the MOS, of whether Poland-Lithuania is a hyphenated place name (like a hyphenated surname), or a pair of places with a symmetric relationship (like and or to) that needs an en dash; and this may differ in the different article titles, potentially. Alternatively, if you don't think that's the right question, then a brief statement of some other reason why you support or oppose the move. OK? I'll go:

  • Support the move of Poland-Lithuania to hyphen – Although I'm a big fan of using en dashes where they are appropriate, and glad that the MOS supports that, I've been convinced that Poland-Lithuania is more properly thought of as a hyphenated place name (like other examples we've been shown), than a connection between two names. I also see the danger of over-application of en dashes to where they are not wanted, which could cause a regrettable backlash. On the ohters, more specific investigation and discussion may still be needed. Polish–Lithuanian union is clearly not a proper name and I've provided examples above where this and similar terms with Polish–Lithuanian x is found in books with en dash; same with Polish–Swedish union. I do support the move for the country name Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth to hyphen. I haven't look at Polish–Lithuanian–Muscovite Commonwealth or Polish–Lithuanian–Ruthenian Commonwealth w.r.t. sources and meaning yet. Actually, checking the latter, I do find sources suggesting that it is not a proper place name and not set tightly connected with hyphens as here, where they use spaced hyphens to stand in for dashes, so I oppose that one, and the ohters I didn't support for now. Dicklyon (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support move of this page to a hyphen but oppose the others. I've been convinced that Poland-Lithuania and Austria-Hungary are hyphenated names like Guinea-Bissau; however, "Polish-Lithuanian" and "Polish–Lithuanian" have subtle differences in their meanings and I'm unconvinced by the ramblings of a particular editor that he is right and everyone else is wrong. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support per my 08:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC) post, and per WP:DASH. Also, to reply to McLerristarr, Polish-Lithuanian is no different in structure, meaning, or otherwise than any other adjectival compounds, whether it's physico-chemical, lefto-fascist, Greco-Roman or Polish-Lithuanian. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 08:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support, per reasons explained several times: immense majority of sources use hyphen (including university press books that use dashes correctly to separate sentences, page ranges and year ranges, as ), it's the name of a single country, WP:COMMONNAME dictates a hyphen, WP:DASH now also dictates a hyphen, WP:DASH does not dictate the titles of articles (except for using dashes when the title should rightfully carry a dash, which is not the case here), etc. (Also, when closing this, please don't discount the arguments of people who supported/opposed in the previous sections, just because they didn't repeat the same argument here). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support as before: As far as I am aware, during the time it existed, Poland-Lithuania was a single state, not the union of two independent states. Ozob (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support as before. In all of these, Polish-Lithuanian functions as Austro-Hungarian and should be hyphenated. It is possible that Polish–Lithuanian–Muscovite Commonwealth should retain the second dash (I will consult if this passes) to mark that Moscow would have been bound less tightly that the others - but that is, if anything, a second move request. Let us improve matters now, and then consider whether they can be improved from there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Strong support for all the OBVIOUS reasons it's taken a few weeks of hammering to get people to admit to. And I reject completely and utterly the denials and sniffling that "Polish-Lithuanian" has a different meaning as it's obviously derived from the country-name "Poland-Lithuania" and any suggestion it is different is just "more of the same" mindlessness from "fans of the dash", who maintain that only they are right and reality and normal English is wrong and/or "typographically backwards". This article is a clear "revert to hyphen" and NEVER should have been changed, and the corollary "adjectival forms of hyphenated names should also be hyphenated" should be added to MOS, even if "only I'm right and everyone else is wrong". "Everyone" is a typical over-stretch/over-claim since it's clear I'm not the only one who thinks - who knows this. Another item to be added to MOS should be "editors who have not read an article (or in this case, it's subarticles) should not change its title". i.e. without knowing what they're talking about (meaning the content of the article, not what they want/think MOS says)Skookum1 (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Poland-Lithuania; oppose moving the adjectival forms, just as I did before. Powers T 13:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Adjectival forms still needed to be properly/logically addressed edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Halleljuh! - but praise the Lord and pass the ammunition, the adjectival forms were not similarly addressed, which is an incomplete decision to me and now must face RMs. It's fairly common sense to ordinary users of the language, if not to typographical cultists, that adjectival forms of hyphenated proper names should also be hyphenated. Arguments that they should not be are entirely unsubstantiated and not supported by abtruse syntactical deconstructions whose only purpose it to support the imposition of dashes where they do not belong.Skookum1 (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

There was a good mix of opinions on Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. If you treat Polish–Lithuanian there as an adjective, you'll probably lose, since that's where an en dash would be called for. If you treat the whole thing as an official hyphenated name, and can make that case with evidence, than maybe it should be moved back to the hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
There's a difference between an adjective meaning "Polish and/or Lithuanian" and an adjective derived from a proper name, which obviously "Poland-Lithuania" explicity and very much so is (despite attempts to deconstruct it otherwise). I'll compile a list of published (and typeset) sources which use the proper hyphenated form, and the linguistic logic of proper names being declined into adjectival forms with th same punctuation is so painfully obvious it's a wonder to me that anyone could resist it. MOS needs amendment for cases like this; citing MOS and saying "you'll probably lose" is a non sequitur since MOS is not immutable, and it's also very clearly not perfect, it it's capable of making gaffes like this one. And it is a gaffe (as was my typing "archival" instead of "adjectival", though that was a brain-fart, not blind adherence to a very questionable style guideline that has nothing to do with sources, and only with shallow understand of the subject-words affected. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is a hyphenated name, no matter how many people want to insist its some kind of adjectival compound; "Commonwealth of Poland-Lithuania" would be hyphenated; saying that another construction of the same name should be punctuated/spelled differently is nonsense and an ad hominem over-application of a set of too-narrow rules.Skookum1 (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'll only "probably lose" because that's only if MOS is treated as if it were the Word of God, which obviously it's not. Anyone arguing that the adjectival forms of properly hyphenated names should not be hyphenated with definitely lose if logic were at play here, instead of nit-pickery and ad hominem heel-digging to impose a wiki-ism rooted in a MOS that wasn't written with cases like this in mind; if thine eye offend thee strike it out; reality should not suffer because Wikipedians are not capable of flexibility with their "rules" and incapable of seeing the basic logic here - hyphenated names are hyphenated, and so therefore should adjective that are based on them.Skookum1 (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't think anyone would argue that, nor agree with you that we're talking about "adjectival forms of properly hyphenated names"; I'd say that either Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is itself a proper name, or Polish–Lithuanian is a two-name adjective applied to Commonwealth, and therefore should have an en dash. There may be other positions, but no need for you to advance one that you think is wrong. Dicklyon (talk) 02:13, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
The answer to that is painfully obvious: both Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Polish-Lithuanian union refer to two different phases/constitutionalities of the same country, Poland-Lithuania. And per MOSFOLLOW, the one cite on that page uses the hyphen (and it's a typset, not HTML); the presupposition, often heard hereabouts, is that web-copy is flawed because it's HTML, just doesn't wash and is very much original research, based in "I think". I'll assemble a bunch of print sources -easy to find - using the hyphen as is the norm for these names, always - the Wiki-claim that they're faulty is only that - a claim. Follow the sources....Skookum1 (talk) 02:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Requested Move 2 edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion
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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There appears to be a consensus that the issue of "dash vs. hyphen" is sufficiently trivial such that RMs on the question are not encouraged. In any case, the status quo suffices. Xoloz (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)Reply


Poland-Lithuania → Poland–Lithuania – First, because WP:DASH seems to suggest this is the correct usage. But more importantly for consistency, all three articles on this dab page use the dash rather than the hyphen and I can't see a good reason why this page should differ from them. 101.176.89.125 (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

  • Strong oppose WP:DEADHORSE. Read the previous RM above.....WP:DASH maybe has been re-amended since, with the "war on the hyphen" reinstated, but common usage and normal English means use the hyphen, not the dash. The other still-dashed items are the ones that should be re-hyphenated. I can see a good reason why this page shouldn't differ from the others, but I strongly feel/know that the NORMAL usage for these names is with the hyphen, not the DASH. That the last RM excepted some of the dash->hyphen changes that remain is not a reason to say that this one should conform to them. Rather the opposite. Consistency with the real world should be more important than the many inconsistencies of MOS and those who advanced it to try to transform English to suit their own orthographical tastes.Skookum1 (talk) 04:54, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • I would be able to understand this argument if it was an actual article we were talking about, then sure I can see the idea of encyclopedic accuracy being more important than consistency between similar articles. But this isn't an article, it's a dab page, simply a listing of other Wikipedia articles -- all of which use the dash. I'm not sure where "normal usage" comes into it, an index of Wikipedia articles and should reflect Wikipedia practice. 101.176.89.125 (talk) 13:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • The above RMs are about all usages of "Poland-Lithuania". The imposition of DASH on those titles still having them remains controversial, as does moving hyphenated titles to the DASH; certain "rules" apply (in Wikipedia, per the Fifth Pillar, "there are no rules", however) were used to apply, then preserve the DASH, even though it is not used in common English; the issue of whether there were more cites that used it vs not using it is a typographical-theory dispute, very arcane and not part of English-as-she-is-spoke-and-written in the real world. The result of the imposition of the DASH is a Wiki-affectation and, obviously as you note, not easy to understand.Skookum1 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Note this comment from EnricNaval above in reply to Mclay1:
          • "It doesn't matter. The dash is in the place of "and". Polish-Lithuanian (hyphen) Union would be a union within the Polish-Lithuanian people, not a union between two peoples. After they united they were one people but that's irrelevant. McLerristarr | Mclay1 12:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
          • I would be open to this argument if I hadn't looked at high quality sources, and found out that all of the use hyphen. Either all those sources are interpreting the name wrong, or you are interpreting it wrong. I'll bet for the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)"
        • Note especially "high quality sources, and found out that all of the[m] use hyphen." Could anything be more clear? To some, no, which is why a "compromise" was reached for adjectival constructions and non-"and" uses of two joined nouns; Poland-Lithuania was one country, like Austria-Hungary, and others where the imposition of DASH was overridden by sources, i.e. reality, not wiki-extrareality.Skookum1 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • If the two were one country (which I guess they were?) then I must oppose Red Slash 20:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • if you have to guess, it means you haven't read up on the country and its history, which is referred to historically as one country; same situation applies to Austria-Hungary and similar country-names.Skookum1 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
      • I did look. It's complicated. Red Slash 03:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
        • Indeed it is, but that's not an excuse for typographical preferences of certain Wikipedians to prevail over sources and long-standing normal usage of the hyphen. Austria-Hungary was also complicated (actually several kingdoms and two imperial thrones, plus more). The last RM proposed by EnricNaval contains all kinds of illogics in defiance of sources; but all items that had the DASH affirmed/compromised by its closer should be revisited, and this one should be left as it is as MOSTCOMMON in English, and indeed in a score of other languages as well. I'm tired of seeing a certain type of Wikipedian hold forth on niggling over typography in various ways; Wikipedia should reflect reality, not distort it in the image of its editors' vanities and preferences; the history of Poland-Lithuania is indeed very complicated, which is why simplistic/OR "analysis of grammar" should not have anything to do with its title; which should follow in all cases what the sources have used for hundreds of years, and continue toSkookum1 (talk) 06:18, 24 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • WP:LAME#Mexican-American War vs Mexican–American War. walk victor falk talk 12:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Fwiw, oppose, because I am a philistine that uses neither the hyphen nor the dash, but the "minus sign". I use the extra-long one only when it's necessary to make it extra-clear it's e.g. a time period like 1939-1945. walk victor falk talk 12:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • (I am the guy who opened the last RM, I am only commenting) The union of these two countries has evolved over a long period of time, and they were more separated or more united depending on political and historical circumstances. In the last RM, I saw that most reliable sources used a hyphen. Arguably, they use a hyphen because they consider it more of a single country. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
    • Which it appears there are Wikipedians who do not; but is it the sources that should define how this is titled, or grammar analyses (really all very OR per historiography and reliable sources) that should prevail? The compromise of the previous RM was not satisfactory for that reason; it preserved this hyphen but inflicted the dash on other titles based on said grammatical OR-cum-analyses. Wikipedia has too strong an influence on English beyond itself for this matter to be shrugged off or equivocated away; given sources, and widespread long-standing use in all cases e.g. Polish-Lithuanian Commmonwealth, now, I believe, with a DASH, this RM should not be about changing the Poland-Lithuania hyphen to a dash, but reverting the imposed-by-grammar-OR dashes in the related titles to hyphens. In the-then parallel hyphen-dash RMs found at Talk:Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District#Requested move, determined resistance to the original title's hyphen was finally silenced, albeit with a prejudicial "not what I prefer" comment from the closer, who begrudgingly had to acknowledge legislation/regulation and formal style guides of the British Columbia government. i.e. to finally acknowledge the obvious and concede that the DASH should not be used on those titles. Similar situation applies here; it's Wikipedians, not sources, who hold forth about the DASH....and that kind of folly and presumption should end.Skookum1 (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose - Does it matter whether a Dash or Hypen's used ? ... It reads no different and in general looks no different so IMHO it's pointless moving over a "dash" issue. →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 11:16, 26 May 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Poland–Lithuania&oldid=1091060982"