Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:55, 18 March 2011

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mexico Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Old West Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American Old West.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 13, 2004, May 8, 2005, May 13, 2008, May 13, 2009, and May 13, 2010.

Quibble about usage

Re: section entitled "Defense of the War"

I have been asked by another contributor to solicit consensus here on a point of usage.

When is it appropriate to deviate from the past tense in writing about historical events?

Explaining his changes to my text, Beyond My Ken writes, "Let's please recall that we are compiling an encyclopedia for general audiences. There's no particular reason why an article about a past historical event needs to be so complex in its use of tenses - plain old past tense is just fine."

I maintain that when discussing the contents of a book, an argument, a speech, etc., the present tense is employed.

For example:

"At the end of the Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein takes note of his frequent references to the very general facts of nature and fends off any overeager metaphysical use of them..." (The Cambridge Companion to Wittgenstein, ed. H. Sluga and D. Stern (Cambridge U. Press, 1996), p. 152.)

This is an instance of the "ongoing truth exception" to the general rule governing sequence of tenses, and a common source of confusion. When we speak of an ongoing truth or state of affairs, the present tense is employed, regardless of when it originated. Thus She said she is sorry, not She said she was sorry. The act of speaking is indeed past, but not its contents.

I agree that we needn't be overly fastidious about slight deviations from standard usage in a popular work of this sort, but it seems odd to bother actually introducing them into material that is already written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakesnobread (talk • contribs) 20:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

You are not doing a free-standing analysis of a speech or communication, you are recounting the events surrounding the speech in the context of an article in a general-interest encyclopedia about a historical event. The proper tense is use is obviously past tense -- this stuff isn't happening now, and the subject is not some eternally present thing. It happened in the past, it is of the past, and the description should indicate that. Your desire to change tenses in the middle of the article for the length of a paragraph entirely disrupts the flow of the article for the reader and is totally unnecessary. This is not an academic paper, and your wish to flip tenses is pedantic in the extreme. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted your last three edits, since in the process you deleted my response. Please be more careful. You'll need to re-add your minor changes to your original comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but how is one supposed to know when the page is being edited by someone else at the same time? Bakesnobread (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't being edited at the same time. In your first re-edit, here, you deleted my comment, which I had saved 9 minutes before. If we had been editing the article at the same time, when you tried to save the system would have told you that there was an "edit conflict". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please consider:

• Misplaced Pages Manual of Style: Internal consistency:
  • An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Misplaced Pages article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.
• Misplaced Pages Manual of Style: Clarity:
  • Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
• Misplaced Pages:Readers First:
  • Having established that potentially every English-reader may also be a reader of Misplaced Pages, albeit that certain elements of a very small number of articles may include some technical details not everyone will understand, how should we cater for this audience?

    This can be difficult. Misplaced Pages is fortunate in having many editors who are full-time academics and who know a lot about their subjects. Their edits are very welcome, but often they are too complicated for the average reader. This is not surprising, when you are accustomed to writing for one audience throughout your professional life, it is difficult to write for a completely different one. Perhaps some good advice would be to imagine you are writing for people who read serious (i.e. non-tabloid) newspapers. Don't worry, that doesn't mean write in a newspaper style, it means imagine the selection of words and how much knowledge it is fair to assume that audience will have (bearing in mind they could be anywhere in the world). Another group which might make a good theoretical audience are high school and college students. Many of them do use Misplaced Pages to read about certain topics on a reasonably advanced level for the first time.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

While this entire discussion is certainly pedantic, following simple, established rules of good usage is not. This is the only issue here, no matter how many red herrings get thrown up.

For the sake of wikipedia, I hope the next newcomer gets a less acrimonious reception. Bakesnobread (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

"Acrimonomious"? You are new, aren't you? Why not try to get your feet wet a bit and get the feel of the place before you start attempting to change things? I know we don't meet your exacting standards, but there might be value in the project anyway. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Be wary of confusing ignorance of particular parochial habits with general nescience. Experto crede!

I know that[REDACTED] is used by many millions of young people and learners of English whose writing habits are not yet so incorrigible as ours seem to be, and therefore has an opportunity and a responsibility to set the best practicable example. Bakesnobread (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Be wary of confusing ignorance of particular parochial habits with general nescience. Sure, and you be sure not to confuse access to information with wisdom. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The speech itself is not what I was writing about, but rather its atemporal contents. I've given several examples of correct usage in such cases. You will find further discussion in the entry on tenses in Garner's Modern American Usage. If you have any counter-examples or other editors who share your opinion, please produce them. Bakesnobread (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys, I don't quite understand why you are arguing. Either grammar is correct for common readers, however the more similar to a newspapers, probably the better. If it is such a point of contention, I would suggest moving on to something else.

Bakesnobread, please consider exploring the standards of Misplaced Pages a little bit more and try to deal with articles that really need to be examined for grammar, not ones like this where only specialist knowledge of stylistic handbooks would be alarmed at such a use. To find other articles that need grammar work, consider checking out Category:Misplaced Pages articles needing copy edit or Category:Misplaced Pages articles needing style editing. Thank you for the work, and happy editing, Sadads (talk) 15:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I never had any interest in proofreading this article. I was concerned with its bias, and added some material which I felt might be a start towards achieving some balance. This was then revised by another editor, whose changes I disagreed with. Only then did I talk about usage and grammar. This other editor should perhaps be looking at the lists you mention. In any case, I agree that it's time to move on. Bakesnobread (talk) 07:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Combat Photography

This was the first war to ever be photographed, but nowhere in this article does the word 'photograph' even appear.--70.178.226.24 (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you find some sources for us to write a section on it? That would be really useful. Sadads (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that good sourcing would be needed for this claim. During the 1840s, the only real photographic process available was Daguerreotype. This is a technology suitable for landscapes or staged portraits, but photographing any type of action was not practical. Thus while it was technically possible for some of the war's participants to have portraits made, battle field photography similar to that made during the American Civil War would clearly qualify as an extraordinary (if not impossible) claim. --Allen3  15:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Scott's Mexico City Campaign vandalized

Has been vandalized can someone roll it back

Included in the invading force were Robert E. Lee, George Meade, Ulysses S. Grant, and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The city was defended by Mexican General Juan Morales with 3,400 men. Mortars and naval guns under Commodore Matthew C. Perry were used to reduce the city walls and harass defenders. The city replied as best as it could with its own artillery. The effect of the extended barrage destroyed the will of the Mexican side to fight against a numerically superior force, and they surrendered the city after 12 days under siege. U.S. troops suffered 80 casualties, while the Mexican side had around 180 killed and wounded, about half of whom were civilian. During the siege, the U.S. side began to fall victim to yellow fever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.138.193 (talk) 11:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: move; MOS is only a guide and the Misplaced Pages:Article titles is a policy overiding it. Consensus here is to move, but with vocal opposition. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Mexican–American War → Mexican-American War — Believe it or not, this is controversial; therefore this request to move to a hyphen, what English actually uses - and should use. These are the printed books which use "Mexican American War" (search phrase chosen for neutrality). I have looked some way down the list for one which does not hyphenate when one clicks through to the actual scan and not found one; for one Google has an OCR error and reports a space. Since this a compound adjective, being the war which is both Mexican and American, hyphenation also complies with WP:ENDASH. (Unlike Michelson–Morley experiment, which is a compound (proper) noun used attributively, this falls under WP:HYPHEN 3.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support as nom; unless there is some well-printed source which actually uses the dash, this ahould be strong support; it there is merely a consensus of sources, it is MOS:FOLLOW. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose—Mr Anderson, you know very well this is just a WP:POINTY exercise because you (1) have always disagreed with the MoS on this matter, and (2) object to the role of the style guide at WP in the first place. Thank you. Tony (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please discount this personal attack. I subjoin the entirety of what MOS says about endashes. Most of it is sound; none of it supports this bizarre formation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support I think you're right about this, Septentrionalis. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 12:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per Septentrionalis. Jonathunder (talk) 23:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support, Mexico–America but Mexican-American. Powers 14:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support lighty but status quo is fine, in researching the proper usage of the en dash and hyphen, it is clear that a strong case can be made for using either one. To quote the Misplaced Pages article on dashes, "Prefixes normally takes hyphens, not en dashes. For example, while the France–Germany border is commonly dashed, the Franco-Prussian War is hyphenated, as Franco- is not a separate name but a prefix for France. However, when prefixing a compound word, an en dash may be used." BUT "This is generally avoided as a distraction in the case of hyphenated compounds." So even the article on dashes gives us two ways to do it. It does imply strongly that a hyphen is preferable in our case, but not required. -- Avanu (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: I am in full support of changing the title of this and similar articles where a dash has been used in place of a hyphen. (see discussion for full reasoning)--Xession (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. See new subsection below: Discuss this centrally at WT:MOS.–_⊥Noetica!– 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

  First edit in over two months by editor who speaks routinely with the first oppose.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

See response below: Discuss this centrally at WT:MOS.–_⊥Noetica!– 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support. If N would like a discussion at MOS, she can (first) link to a clear discussion and (second) still keep in mind the posters here. But she does come off like a ranting petty tyrant and would be better served by discussing the merits of the policy. In any case, per Tony1 below, no, we don't have to justify ourselves against standard policy (Semp already did fine) and feel free to cut and paste our votes over there as votes against this policy towards establishing a new and less ORy format. — LlywelynII 02:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I try to keep what I have to say in one place (see below: Discuss this centrally at WT:MOS); but I am disparaged here, and will reply just once. LlywelynII says I "rant" like a "petty tyrant"; but she gives no grounds for that. I have clearly shown that the issue is general, not specific to the compound "Mexican–American". As such it should be considered generally, along with vastly many similar cases like those I mention below: Turkish–Armenian War, Zhili–Anhui War, Saudi–Yemeni War, Iran–Iraq War, and so on. You'd need to produce an argument that my voicing such a concern is "petty" or "tyrannical". Far from disrupting the project in any way, I have not even edited an article or guideline since January last year. I remain concerned for Misplaced Pages, and choose to have my say against an irrational proposal that threatens consistency in the naming of articles. It gives nothing but precedent for local wrangling throughout Misplaced Pages. As for LlywelynII's remarks "per Tony1", and about the enigmatic Semp, I have no idea what she is talking about. Neither, I suspect, does she. I have no interest in discussing anything further at this talkpage. If anyone seeks to continue such a juvenile squabble, know this: I will not be a participant.–_⊥Noetica!– 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• Support Apart from WP:FOLLOW, there is also the issue of policy WP:V. The hyphenated name has been verified in multiple books. The dashed name has not verified anywhere. Also WP:COMMONNAME, the hyphenated name is the most commonly used name.

Also, in case someone raises the strawman of "lazy webmasters / lazy book editors that don't use dashes correctly because it's too much effort", those books use dashes correctly (for example, dashes in page ranges, dashes to separate sentences). --Enric Naval (talk) 14:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this needs to be sorted out centrally at WT:MOS. This page is entirely inappropriate for such a poll. Mr Anderson has launched the poll as a point exercise because he cannot gain consensus at the MoS for his views. We do not want inconsistent treatment in article titles. Tony (talk) 07:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, what this page should be titled is properly discussed here - that's what move requests are for; please stop making things up. When you have a policy that says so - and MOS itself does not - or an argument on the substance of this RN, do get back to us.

And the results of discussion at MOS, principally your own cries of "sabotage", have been several comments, particularly Xession and Enric Naval, who support this move. So your undocumented procedural claims aren't consensus either. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

discussion

I'm sorry, this is not legitimate. The Manual of Style clearly says that the dash is used in this case ("versus"). Mr Anderson has failed repeatedly to gain consensus that the MoS should be simply overridden by anyone who doesn't like some aspect of it. He has mounted another one of his challenges at the talk page now. Those who are saying Support need to to provide cogent, clear reasons why the MoS needs to be breached on this occasion—not simply "Support" per Anderson, and "I think you're right about this" and, bizarrely, support "Mexico–America" but "Mexican-American" (why?). If you want to change the article name, you need to give specific reasons why, in this instance, "common sense" should apply to make the project better by going against the guideline, as it says at the top of the MoS. Better, you need to gain consensus to change the guideline at the MoS if you think it is inappropriate. Mr Anderson has failed to do so, as I said, and he is using editors on this page to pursue his campaign. Tony (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Not legitimate? Where does it say that? Please stop inventing policy; what policy actually says is that Misplaced Pages is not governed by statute. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

But I grant the appropriateness of claiming a procedural rule which does not exist in order to argue a substantive issue on which MOS does not support you. ;} Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• From the College Handbook of Composition:

"The dash, a dramatic mark of punctuation, indicates a sudden change in the thought or structure of a sentence."

"A hyphen is used to indicate the division between syllables of a word at the end of a line, and to join the parts of a compound word."

This book is rather old and is is indiscriminate in regards to the various types of dashes. However, the content regarding this matter is clearly stated and is just as relevant today. In this matter, the words, "Mexican" and "American" are both adjectives, describing the noun "War", or in this case, which war. (see Adjective restrictiveness)

"Words used as a single adjective before a noun are usually hyphenated."

Examples: bull-necked fighter, worn-out clothing, high-strung girl, right-hand man, far-reaching results

As such a description suggests, I fully support PMAnderson's position on this matter, to change the title from "Mexican–American War" to "Mexican-American War"

--Xession (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Again, this is not a legitimate straw-poll. Any opposition to Mr Anderson's agenda to challenge the role of the MoS is apparently labelled as a "personal attack". Registrations of "Support" that express reasons such as "I think you're right about this, Septentrionalis.", and "per Septentrionalis." and "I am in full support of changing the title of this and similar articles" provide no substantive reason, as required, that this article presents a special circumstance requiring non-compliance with the site-wide guide line. The fact the Mr Anderson has on several occasions failed to convince editors at the MoS of his line about en dashes is no reason that this article should be moved, and User:Llywelynil's comment, "we don't have to justify ourselves against standard policy", and "feel free to cut and paste our votes over there as votes against this policy towards establishing a new and less ORy format" expose a very strange perspective. So does the use of as supporting evidence a page that is tagged "This page contains material that is considered humorous." (WP:FOLLOW). So does the notion that because a few sources have been found that use a hyphen (against the strong evidence supplied by User:Noetica concerning the use of dashes, both on and off wiki), somehow this article should be moved. Unless people can come up with well-argued, substantive reasons, such a move would be pure disruption, with the clear implication that it is WP:POINTY and part of a political campaign. Tony (talk) 13:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

  You're repeating yourself, Tony.

  • Your attacks on me have no evidence (and are false: what "politics" could possibly be involved in the punctuation of this war?)
  • You've brought this up at WT:MOS, and gotten the response that your insistence is petty and non-collaborative.
  • You still haven't presented any reason to believe that this poll, the standard mechanism of WP:RM. is "illegitimate".
  • You haven't presented any reason to ignore WP:TITLE, which is policy on article titles.
  • You haven't said anything about the substance of what title we should use for this article.
  • You haven't found any sources which use a dash for the Mexican-American War (which would be relevant - and if I were cherry-picking, easy). I can't find any either.

  Noetica came in convinced, as she says; no wonder you haven't convinced anybody else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Manual of Style

1. To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war). Ranges expressed using prepositions (from 450 to 500 people or between 450 and 500 people) should not use dashes (not from 450–500 people or between 450–500 people). Number ranges must be spelled out if they involve a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−10 to 10, not −10–10).
   • Is this War a range from Mexican to American?
2. To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border).
   • This is closer; but no; all of these are noun compounds. The War is both Mexican and American; we are not dealing with the nonce-phrase Mexico–America War.
3. To stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones), nor a hyphenated place name (Guinea-Bissau), nor with an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).
   • Again, no; these are noun compounds.
4. To separate items in a list—for example, in articles about music albums, en dashes are used between track titles and durations, and between musicians and their instruments. In this role, en dashes are always spaced.
   • No list here.
5. In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces (the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate) and when prefixing an element containing a space (pre–World War II technologies, ex–prime minister) – but usually not when prefixing an element containing a hyphen (non-government-owned corporations, semi-labor-intensive industries). However, recasting the phrase (the conscription debate, technologies prior to World War II) may be better style than compounding.
   • This would imply that we were joining Mexico and American War.
6. As a stylistic alternative to em dashes (see below).
   • Nope. Mexican—American War with an em dash is unheard of.

WP:HYPHEN, however, says:

3. To link related terms in compound adjectives and adverbs

And there we have it. Mexican-American is a compound adjective. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• That's right, but so is "east–west", in "east–west runway", since there is motion to or from, or a range, or an opposition, not merely the jamming together of two words such as mostly occurs in a double adjective ("most well-known factors"). Thank you for your interest in the distinction. Tony (talk) 04:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  Last time I checked, east and west were nouns, the adjectives being eastern and western, so that's in point 2 of the list above, unlike this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.43.105.17 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

  East and west can be adverbs, nouns, adjectives, lots of things. I don't understand your point. It's the relationship between the two words in the context that matters. Tony (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  The part of speech that a word is depends on usage. "East coast" has 'East' as an adjective modifying 'coast'. "He came from the East" has 'East' as a noun. -- Avanu (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  I can't see why "east" in "east coast" would be any more of an adjective than "Dublin" in "Dublin Corporation" is. All the features distinguishing nouns from adjectives I can think of (and being an attribute of a noun isn't one, both nouns and adjectives can) would point at "east" being a noun, and "eastern" an adjective. (It is true that the part of speech that a word is depends on usage, as love is definitely a verb in I love you and a noun in Love is a feeling, but I don't think this is the case here.) 137.43.105.17 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  East coast partly, and east part entirely, has one characteristic of the adjective which is not shared by attributive nouns; the adjective can be separated from the noun (east, marshy part). But the real difficulty here is that east-west does normally have a hyphen, not a dash. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

  Attributive nouns or noun adjuncts: In many languages, including English, it is possible for nouns to modify other nouns. Unlike adjectives, nouns acting as modifiers (called attributive nouns or noun adjuncts) are not predicative; a beautiful park is beautiful, but a car park is not "car". In plain English, the modifier often indicates origin ("Virginia reel"), purpose ("work clothes"), or semantic patient ("man eater"). However, it can generally indicate almost any semantic relationship. It is also common for adjectives to be derived from nouns, as in English boyish, birdlike, behavioral, famous, manly, angelic, and so on.

So there is what it is.... anyway, this is a silly debate :) -- Avanu (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Certainly is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this centrally at WT:MOS

This is decidedly not the place to have such a wide-ranging debate. I hold back (here at least) from any observations on the proposer's motivation for initiating this outlying skirmish, and on the excessively localised analysis presented so far in support of the proposal. I invite editors to look at the larger picture. They will plainly see that wars are regularly named on Misplaced Pages according to MOS style – interpreted as calling for an en dash (except where the first element is a mere prefix-form, such as Sino-). Look for example at the articles linked at List of conflicts in Asia. Sure, there are a few irregularities in the names of articles as they appear in that list (which need fixing, even for mere local consistency). But the linked articles themselves conform to the MOS guideline requiring an en dash (see Turkish–Armenian War, Zhili–Anhui War, Saudi–Yemeni War, Iran–Iraq War, and so on).

If you genuinely think (PMAnderson, and others) that the present article differs materially from those cases, by all means make the special case here. Otherwise, present the general question to WT:MOS, and propose wholesale changes to names of articles throughout the project.

–_⊥Noetica!– 03:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is being discussed at MOS; indeed, most of the posts at WT:MOS for a couple months have been related to this issue, directly or indirectly. There is no consensus for the dash; there is at least strong opinion that MOS should in general follow English usage.

But this begs the real questions:

• Is MOS the central authority here?

  No. We have a policy on Article titles, which says to follow reliable sources; so does MOS, if the actual pronouncements of the oracle make any impact here.

• Does MOS actually say anything about this case?

  Yes, and it says it in WP:HYPHEN: Hyphenate compound adjectives.

• What is English usage?
  • Here it is clear; for Turkish Armenian War, it is equally clear: as far as I can see, only Misplaced Pages uses the dash, and Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source.
  • This is an arbitrary comparandum in any case: Most wars are named after one side, like First Afghan War, or the precipitating circumstance like War of the Spanish Succession, or a general description First Balkan War - and have no internal punctuation. Those that do mostly use hyphens, like the Franco-Prussian War mentioned abovem or the Russo-Japanese War; this whole WP:MADEUP rule is an artificial separation between analogous forms. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Beyond that, there is the question whether MOS should respond at all to a consensus of opinion elsewhere. Two editors think not; our policy, however, is that Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. Their claim is that a shadow of a penumbra of MOS does set practice, against consensus, and against the evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, my first edit in over two months – and one of only a half-dozen edits in the past thirteen months. That shows how seriously I view the present diversion from rational procedure. Each of my rare edits has been against subversion of stability and consistency in Misplaced Pages style. As you well know, PMAnderson, I am opposed to your widely recognised efforts to weaken the effectiveness of Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style. Take the whole substantive issue (which is large, not local), to WT:MOS. If you are not happy with the treatment it gets there, just go away. (Learn from my example: it is not compulsory to make your own Thersites-like presence felt quite so relentlessly.) Above all, do not sow chaos in talkpages of particular articles, when it is clearly demonstrated that Misplaced Pages has a consistent and stable style – even if conservative paper-based publishers, with less universal coverage, are demonstrably inconsistent among and within themselves. I have shown Misplaced Pages's consistency in naming wars, which is derived from one respected and rational practice in traditional publishing. But you do not acknowledge such settled consistency, and you work tirelessly against every form of it that MOS has managed to bring about.

The Misplaced Pages endeavour is new. Appeals to fragmentary precedent are only one part of the story. Get with it, or take your skirmishing to some sphere of lesser importance in the new economy of knowledge.–_⊥Noetica!– 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

And if I do go away, and appeal to Wikipedians in general against a misinterpretation that makes Misplaced Pages look stupid, what happens? Tony follows me and objects strongly to writing in English, and solicits your voice (contrary to WP:CANVASS) - not for any benefit this does the encyclopedia, neither of you having named any - but to preserve the "status of MOS" ; and you demand that I go back there. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

And - albeit I revile not, but am reviled - I thank you for the comparison to the most sensible man at Troy. If I be Thersites, who is "Ajax the elephant"? Who is "dog-faced" and "deer-hearted" Agamemnon, misled by a lying dream? It's not my metaphor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The expected reply (since I know you for a Hellenist). The analogy is imperfect. You might, by the way, have mentioned the swift-footed Achilles. He remains aloof and uninvolved until certain reparations are made.–_⊥Noetica!– 04:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

"Agamemnon is a fool to offer to command Achilles;

Achilles is a fool to be commanded of Agamemnon;

Thersites is a fool to serve such a fool,

and Patroclus is a fool positive." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines are descriptive of practice, not the other way around. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Easy Solution

I propose a new unicode character called the war dash. It looks just like an en dash or a hyphen, depending on your political orientation or number of eyes. Also, you can resolve conflicts about its appearance by simply starting another war and using the appearance that you prefer. Additionally, it has its very own manual of style written collaboratively by a collection of hyper-intelligent rodents armed with those tiny swords you find in drinks. -- Avanu (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

If you take it up at WP:Bugzilla, I'll support this; it could work just like date autoformatting. ;} Quite seriously, if our boldface dash were as similar to a hyphen as in Roman script, this might well be moot. And I have some gerbil food for those hyper-intelligent rodents; having a MOS written collaboratively would be a great change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative and almost as easy solution

I propose that MediaWiki be modified to allow us to randomise the selection of hyphen, dash, m-dash and whatever other virtually identical characters we have when used in article titles, noting that they're already treated as identical for the purposes of searching. Then editors will have no need to decide, while readers, who don't care and mostly can't even tell, will be unaffected. (;-> Andrewa (talk) 05:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Superfluous, since MOS and the wikignomes have already done it. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point.

Seriously, is there a better way forward? We seem to have strong opinions on several sides, some more logical than others perhaps but who is to judge, but more important, would any of them, even if adopted immediately and by sudden, strong and miraculous consensus, add sufficient value to the project to justify the effort being expended? I doubt it. Andrewa (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

If either of them were miraculously accepted as consensus, there would be next to no further effort required. For example, if the view that MOS is entitled to invent usage for dashes were abandoned, just page-moves for some of the wars Noetica names above and a copy-edit each. (Iran–Iraq, as a noun compound, may well be right.) The value to the project is that Mexican–American War is a public embarrassment, and it misleads foreign readers.

One miraculous transformation requires a half-dozen editors to stop pushing MOS into the Internet Newspeak Dictionary - if that were done, even they would have a break: they could stop running automatic editors to undermine the work of the rest of us. The other would require that all present and future editors fluent in English agree to abandon it at the whim of MOS. I know which I think less work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Additional moves needed

These pages also need to be moved:

• Category:Mexican–American_War to Category:Mexican-American_War
• Battles of the Mexican–American War to Battles of the Mexican-American War

--Enric Naval (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• • No, the move was illegitimate. There is utterly no consensus at the MoS for it; no notice was taken of the cogent reasons provided here that there should be no move; no article-specific reason was given here as to why this article alone needs to breach the guidelines. It will need to be moved back unless some reason is given and supported by consensus. Tony (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
    • No, Tony's claim that there must be a centralized discussion is illegitimate; guidelines (especially contentious and ill-mannered ones like MOS) should reflect the decisions on actual talk pages, not the other way around; as Enric Naval says above, that is policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, Sep invented the distinction between attributive adjectives and attributive nouns. That is not supported by our sources. — kwami (talk) 16:39, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

To Tony and Kwami: if you have a problem then make a new RM showing English language usage of dashes in this name. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No he didn't. That distinction is explained e.g. in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language, Ch.6, §2.4.1. (As for its relation between it and the hyphen vs dash issue, long ago I saw a source recommending red-green shirt for a shirt which is red and green (adjectives) and red–green colour blindness for the inability to tell red from green (nouns). --A. di M. (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Revisit requested move

The request to rename this article to Mexican–American War has been carried out. If the page title has consensus, be sure to close this discussion using {{subst:RM top|'''page moved'''.}} and {{subst:RM bottom}} and remove the {{Requested move/dated|…}} tag, or replace it with the {{subst:Requested move/end|…}} tag.

Mexican-American War → Mexican–American War — Recent move not well founded. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

TITLE does not refer to details such as punctuation, formatting, and regional spelling, but to distinct names. En dashes are used for this name in RSs. Many sources do not, of course, some because they do not use en dashes for such compounds, and some because they don't use en dashes at all. But there are those which fit WP formatting conventions, such as Lee Stacy (2002) Mexico and the United States (entry "Mexican–American War" on p 515ff; text and references to the entry use an en dash, as on p 549, though page headers and captions do not), Mary Warner Marien (2006) Photography: a cultural history (p 46ff, p 99, p 104, though TOC does not), Robert Fantina (2006) Desertion and the American soldier, 1776 - 2006 (p 43ff, in the text, chapter title, TOC, and page headers), Tim McNeese (2009) Early National America 1790–1850 (p 114, in the text but not the section header or index), A. Robert Lee (2003) Multicultural American literature (en dash in the text on p 123, but a hyphen on p 134), Joe R. Feagin (2010) Racist America: roots, current realities, and future reparations (p 234ff), Andrés Reséndez (2005) Changing national identities at the frontier: Texas and New Mexico, 1800–1850 (scattered throughout the text), and Charles Haecker (1994) A Thunder of Cannon: Archaeology of the Mexican–American War Battlefield of Palo Alto (in the title itself).

The fact that sources vary in their use of the en dash depending on formatting (in some, hyphens in TOC, page headers, and captions but en dashes in text, article titles, and links to articles) demonstrates that this is not a distinct name, but rather merely a matter of formatting style. Such variation occurs with other uses of the en dash. For example, in McNeese (2009) above, an en dash is used in the "1790–1850" of the title in the text (see the LOC page before the TOC), but not on the front cover, where it's typeset with a hyphen; the same with "1800–1850" in Andrés Reséndez (2005), where in addition one review on the back cover uses "Mexican-American War" with a hyphen while a second has "United States – Mexico War" with a spaced en dash, but the text uses "Mexican–American War" throughout.

There are three punctuations I've found of this single name: "Mexican-American War", "Mexican–American War", and "Mexican American War". (Some sources mix hyphenated and unhyphenated forms in the text as well.) Since we're an encyclopedia, precision is desirable; that's why we use logical punctuation with quotations. "Mexican-American War" with a hyphen looks like a war among Mexican-Americans. "Mexican–American War" with an en dash is unambiguous.

Whether it should really be the "Mexican War" is another question. That strikes me as US-centric, for AFAIK only in the context of the United States would the name be unambiguous. Internationally, it seems that both countries are named. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• Very strongly oppose. I am glad to see that kwami has shown that there is a small minority of sources which use a dash, or I would be proposing a ban. He has been very desperate in seeking out rarities which do so; none of them appear (for example) to be among the sources for this article - and none of them are standard works of general reference.
• Of these forms, Mexican War is the most common by an order of magnitude and the one we should be using. The first book behind the link (The Mexican War by D.S. and J.T. Heidler (2006) offers a "an overview of the Mexican War from both the American and Mexican perspectives"); this is not anglocentric; it is anglophone. This request - and the argument against Mexican War - are both arguments against Misplaced Pages being written in English.
• If we use a variant of Mexican American War, we should use the punctuation most commonly used in English. I have searched through that list to see if any use dashes and found none; they must be vanishingly rare.
• This is also the rule supported by the Manual of Style (WP:HYPHEN, section 3: Hyphens are used "To link related terms in compound adjectives and adverbs". This is a compound adjective.
• No reliable source recommends using a dash in such a situation.
• In short, Kwami is proposing to require a "rule" which two or three editors have WP:MADEUP one day; against English usage, against the Manual of Style, and against a recent consensus of 9-2 (immediately above). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Your "adjectives" claim is off the mark. "Adjective" (or sometimes "adjectival phrase") is simply a term many sources use loosely for attributives, as should be obvious from the examples given in WP:HYPHEN: "face-to-face discussion", "gas-phase reaction dynamics", "hard-boiled egg", "hand-fed turkeys", "three-digit number", "ten-truck convoy". Apart from the participles, which are debatable, these are not actually adjectives, but attributival usage of various parts of speech. The section you quoted then goes on to say, "In some cases, like diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes below." This is precisely the kind of case that refers to.

As for there being no RS, what about Garner (2001:155) Legal writing in plain English: a text with exercises? "6.1 Use an en-dash ... to denote a pairing in which the elements carry equal weight." — kwami (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong support: As a little background, this move has been discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Responding to a move involving an en dash: Mexican–American War. "Mexican War" is a possibility, but as far as I know, that is not a very commonly used name. I don't think our punctuation need conform to the majority of sources, as they all have their individual styles and Misplaced Pages is allowed to have its own as well. For example, Google search "Michelson-Morley experiment". You will note that besides Misplaced Pages, virtually everybody uses a hyphen instead of an en dash. Almost all examples at MOS:ENDASH are compound adjectives, I think the rules regarding dashes override those of hyphens, unless you are proposing elimination of all of the MOS:ENDASH guidelines except for possibly 1, 4, and 6? –CWenger (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose: After listening to the arguments I realize I was wrong. I still do not believe MOS:FOLLOW applies to punctuation, but rather I think MOS:ENDASH actually does not support Mexican–American War. Headbomb (below) is right: Mexico–America War would be correct but Mexican-American War should be hyphenated. –CWenger (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Please consult the bibliography of this article, which has several sources that use Mexican War in their titles and one using any form of "Mexican American War" (Foos, which has been corrupted by editing; it uses a hyphen).
    • This might be a good compromise, but Mexican War also has the problem of being ambiguous. Anyway the issue will just come again at another article.
      • Ambiguous? With what? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • The rest of this is Wikilawyering. No part of MOS suggests that WP:DASH overrules WP:HYPHEN; why should it? They're both sections of he same guideline.
    • Clearly there are examples at MOS:ENDASH which are compound adjectives that use en dashes over hyphens, correct? One of them must override the other in those cases.
      • Clearly there are not. Excluding the case of a compound whose elements are themselves compounds, the examples are: male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border, diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment (contrasted with Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones). All these are compound nouns, used attributively. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • But the entire case is conceded by besides Misplaced Pages, virtually everybody uses a hyphen instead of an en dash. That's right; and it is an assertion that this English Misplaced Pages should not be written in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Getting rid of en dashes entirely is a major change that would require a massive discussion. It is a perfectly defensible position but obviously up until this point Misplaced Pages has opted to use en dashes in a variety of circumstances. I don't like the idea of moving this one article when virtually all the others are left unchanged, e.g. Spanish–American War. –CWenger (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
      • I do not propose to "get rid of endashes entirely"; I propose to use them where English does. That we have a long series of subliterate forms (Spanish–American War is even worse than this) is no excuse for not acting; that's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Shorter CWenger: This form is vanishingly rare in English and is not really supported by the Manual of Style (unless we read into it what it doesn't say) therefore we really must use it. This reasoning should be given the weight it deserves. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a matter of formatting style. I know you want to change the style on WP, but the place to do that is on the MOS page.

En dash is minority usage. But that does not mean it is "not English". I think you know that.

If you wanted "Mexican War", you should have proposed a move to "Mexican War".

As for where DASH overrides HYPHEN, simple: where HYPHEN says to use an en dash instead of a hyphen. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as per WP:TITLE, MOS:FOLLOW, and clear consensus established in discussion closed less than 72 hours ago. As explained at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style#Responding to a move involving an en dash: Mexican–American War, the opposition of the small clique that dominates the conversation at WT:DASH does not justify overruling multiple policies to satisfy the demands of this outlying MOS guideline. As for comments about Mexican War, this is a very commonly occurring term for the conflict. The obvious reason for this is that the vast majority of English language scholarship about the war is from American sources and from a purely American perspective this is sufficient to clearly identify the conflict. As Misplaced Pages needs to address the needs of a more international readership, Mexican-American War is a better title for this encyclopedia. --Allen3  00:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Support as nominator. The point of having an MOS is to have a consistent style, which is part of an effort to make WP look professional. If we think we should not have a consistent style, then we should work to have the MOS deleted. If we think we should have a different consistent style, then we should work to have the MOS amended. Piecemeal arguments on individual articles is not a practical way to deal with these issues. — kwami (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • By WP:ENGVAR, this article should be in American; I have consulted several literate educated speakers, and gotten the consistent reaction "Misplaced Pages spells Mexican-American War how? Why would anyone do that?" Clearly Kwamikagami has a different definition of "professional look" than most people; I do not regard boggling a literate audience as professionalism - unless our profession is shock comedy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

So article titles are to be determined by informal polling.

Yes. That's policy. See WP:TITLE and WP:RM; that's how we determine titles. When the informal polling repeats the same thing over and over again, we collect the consensus into guidelines. That's how guidelines acquire authority; MOS has little and this invention of a handful of editors (against the wording of MOS) has none. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it not American, when the style guide which you say does not exist was published by the University of Chicago Press? — kwami (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

To start with, because the Chicago Manual of Style says the opposite: The en dash can be used in place of a hyphen in a compound adjective when one of its elements consists of an open compound or when both elements consist of hyphenated compounds and only then (§6.80). That the legal profession may do otherwise, at least according to some obscure guide, might be relevant to style on legal articles (where legal jargon will often be usage); but this is not one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

All that tells us is that different publishers have different styles. We already know that. It hardly makes the ones you disagree with un-American. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Different publishers?!? The Chicago Manual of Style is called that because it is published by - wait for it - the University of Chicago Press. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - Isn't it a bit gamey to be doing this?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It is honestly a case of a lot of interested parties who were not aware of this requested move until after it was closed. I don't see any problem revisiting the issue. –CWenger (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - per previous name change just three days ago. This was discussed and done. Usually when I come across a name change that I wasn't aware was even being discussed, but approved, I just shrug my shoulders and decide that "consensus is consensus", even if I don't agree with the outcome. Really I don't give a rats booty either way, but when I see serious gaming of the[REDACTED] system, I have to step up and oppose that.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support—The name is now inconsistent with WP's practice, and that recommended by many authorities. The move was illegitimate, based on a discussion that made no reference, let alone a case, as to why this name should be treated any differently from the thousands of others that are analogous on WP and out there. I believe Grahame Barlet should be blocked for disruption, and to protect the project from further damage. Tony (talk) 07:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

  recommended by many authorities? Name three; if they have more weight than the Chicago Manual of Style, you may convince me to change my mind. The unsourced nature of this arbitrary rule is one of its gravest weaknesses. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose the move and continue to reiterate my earlier close with the consensus. The naming policy clearly states that the names Misplaced Pages uses for articles are those most commonly used. The MOS is subsidiary to the policy. If there are many other articles with ndash, that is not a reason to make this article also match, but a reason to rename those articles to match the common name, rather than trying to make the title look the best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Have you read WP:INVOLVED? You have clearly breached it. I believe you should resign as an admin, since you performed an administrative action while being partisan. Even before your disclosure of involvement five minutes ago, your action was worthy of being blocked. That was out of proportion. Tony (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Tony (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony, unless you have evidence of actual wrong-doing, calling for the closing admin to be blocked or to resign because you didn't like his decision is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, do you understand WP:INVOLVED? Have you read it? Let's get something right: a closing admin needs to be uninvolved in the issue. That is basic to the role. Mr Bartlet needs to resign his adminship, in my view, for a flagrant abuse of the role: he has shown he is anything but disengaged from the discussion. On the contrary, he is expressing strong views in it. Tony (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I am involved in this second discussion, but not in the first one. I will not be closing this second discussion. If you have an issue with admins, the place to bring this up is WP:AN/I. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Support: use of en dash is appropriate, as the article is a conflict between the United States and Mexico. Thus an en dash is the appropriate thing to do here. +mt 08:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• Strong oppose because the ímmense majority of sources use hyphen, even in the title, see see google books search. Specific books: books by military history publishers like Osprey_Publishing or university presses like Indiana University Press, University of New Mexico Press, University of Missouri Press, University of South Carolina Press, Texas A&M University Press when citing sources , University of North Caroline Press, Georgetown University Press or publishers of academic divulgative books Blackbirch_Press, Greenwood Press, ABC-CLIO, or publishers of textbooks like Cengage Learning, Infobase Publishing, Prentice-Hall uses dash in title but hyphen in text, Longman, Hackett Publishing.

The point is there are some books using a dash, but they are in the minority (for example, Cengage Learning has published many books that mention the topic, and almost every one uses hyphens, and the nominator has listed a few books by academic publishers like Prentice-Hall and one university press). And the most notable publishers use hyphens in the immense majority of their books. For every prestigious RS using a dash, you can find literally dozens of equally-prestigious RS using a hyphen.

So, per WP:COMMONNAME policy and WP:MOSFOLLOW guideline, and per a couple more of acronyms that scape my mind right now, we should use hyphen. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

But that's a stylistic choice that affects all words in those books, not a choice of a distinct name. It's more like whether they put the date in a reference second or last. If we use citation templates that format our references for us, but our refs use a different style, we don't need to abandon our templates just to satisfy MOSFOLLOW. The sources I gave above show this is not a difference in nomenclature and thus COMMONNAME is not really relevant. — kwami (talk) 17:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is based in sources (WP:V and WP:NOR, which are cited right at the top of WP:TITLE, and WP:MOSFOLLOW seems to emanates from WP:NOR). So, why should wikipedia, a RS-based work, use "stylistic choices" that are used in a minority RS, in preference to a choice that is a majority in RS? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a simple binary way of seeing a subtle and complex issue. If WP were based solely on "sources", we would not insist that article names and section titles be written in sentence case. Title Case Is Widespread Across The Board Out There. Although this is a big-picture example, it is a good one to demonstrate that slavish adherence to whatever one source, or even more than one source say or do in a particular instance has never been the reality as an overriding principle. For example, now we are faced with inconsistency in article names in whole categories, because of Mr Anderson's campaign to win his anti-dash war by attrition. Editors who support this line should be careful of what they wish for: the MoS is a means of cohesion in what would otherwise be a very messy site. In many cases, a call has to be made across the board; the alternative would be arguments such as on this page, all over the place, all the time, and illogical and distracting inconsistency through WP. Can you imagine? Mr Naval's assertions above, I believe, invent over-simple relations between pages in a way that promotes a "do as you please" practice throughout the project. Please think of the consequences of this war against the style guide. Tony (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no "subtle and complex issue."

A handful of editors, led by Tony, made up a "rule" which hardly anybody uses (very few questions of English usage are 100%, but this appears to be about 99%). The present title conforms to the Manual of Style; it also conforms to English usage, as MOS:FOLLOW recommends; a consensus, immediately above, supports it. Tony's WP:MADEUP violation is "Do what you please" - or perhaps "Do what Tony pleases"; "Write in English" isn't. The rest of this is an emotional reaction to Tony not getting his way. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources are for facts. Style and formatting are for us to choose as we see fit: we could print in green if we liked, or in runes. The fact that you're turning this into an ad hominem attack suggests that you do not have reason on your side. — kwami (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about the title of the article. Our policies say very clearly that we have to follow the sources unless there is a really good reason for not doing so. Again, why do you want[REDACTED] to drop the spelling punctuation used in the immense majority of RS, in favor of a minority spelling? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

There is a good reason: Without consistency, puntuation becomes meaningless. For example, if we have two words without a period between them, we conclude that they belong to the same sentence. If, however, some editors were to decide to not use periods to mark the ends of sentences, then readers would no longer be able to conclude that the lack of a period means there is not a sentence break. Similarly, if we use en dashes to mark compounded attributive names, then the reader can conclude that a hyphenated attributive name is so punctuated because the name itself is hyphenated. They will not be able to do that if we waffle on our formatting. Now, we can debate whether titles such as this one should be hyphenated or dashed, but IMO we should not have a free for all, with style determined by the sources covering different topics. Also, it's clear from Sep's ridiculous arguments (such as en dashes not being "English") that this was a POINTy proposal.

Your V and NOR arguments do not support the move. It's easy to verify that an en dash is used for this title in several professional publications. Therefore, while it may be minority usage, it in both verifiable and not OR. It would seem to be a stylistic choice, considering that some sources alternate between hyphens and en dashes depending on font and style.

I'm also not convinced that our title policies were meant to address style and formatting, but were intended to settle disputes over the actual name of the article. Take apostrophes. We use straight apostrophes in WP. Yet the majority of our sources use curly apostrophes. For some minority of articles, however, the majority of sources will use straight apostrophes. Should we really have a mish-mash of straight and curly apostrophes in our titles depending on the formatting of the sources covering the topics of the articles? What if I went to an article such as It's a Wonderful Life and made a POINTy request to move it to It’s a Wonderful Life, based on the fact that the movie itself, and the theatrical release posters, used a curly apostrophe? By your reasoning, we would have to move it in order to satisfy TITLE and MOSFOLLOW. Similarly, article titles that are the names of books are italicized. It's quite possible, however, that in some cases the sources, due to typographic constraints or stylistic choice, underline the title, or place it in quotation marks. Should we therefore do the same for those titles? — kwami (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You're a linguist; you know better. As Enric Naval says under the hat below: The difference between the straight and curly apostrophe is not intended to be meaningful; the difference between dash and hyphen is (or why object to this in the first place?); therefore this is not parallel. What you are doing is insisting on a semantic distinction which English does not make - and which the reader will not comprehend. Your argument is bad faith; your proposal actively harms Misplaced Pages. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Most RS use a hyphen --> If the problem is consistency, then we should use hyphen. (Misplaced Pages is supposed to be consistent with sources, not consistent with itself! And it's supposed to follow common English usage from RS) Why do you insist in using dash? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That's not true. Most RS's use traditional punctuation with quotation marks. WP uses logical punctuation, because, after all, we're an encyclopedia and place a premium on precision. Common English usage is often very imprecise, and therefore inappropriate for a reference work. Now, you might argue that the extra information conveyed by an en dash here is not worth it, but that is still something which should be argued on the MOS page. — kwami (talk) 02:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Kwami has some strong points here. Also, let's imagine that most of the reliable sources use Mexican-American War but Spanish–American War. Would you suggest we use mixed styles? Would any respectable encyclopedia? This is why WP:MOSFOLLOW cannot practically be applied to punctuation.

By the way, let's stop the edit warring at Mexican-American War—there is no point in fighting over hyphens/dashes while the article is at its current name. –CWenger (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

(left)This is purely hypothetical. The same overwhelming preponderance of well-printed sources use Spanish-American War as use Mexican-American War. If there were a vast difference between them, there would be some reason for it, which we would consider following; but there isn't.

As for the edit war, I agree. Kwami, after his cries of "professionalism", has been introducing two "MOS breaches" (of its more sensible sections) and an error of fact. If this is the start of a tag team, I shall have no hesitation in referring both parties to WP:AN#. See #Regrettable edit, below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

@Kwami. Regarding "Common English usage is often very imprecise, and therefore inappropriate for a reference work.", with all due respect, I am fairly convinced that you are totally wrong. First because I cited many reference works from reliable publishers that use a hyphen, and second because Misplaced Pages has a policy to follow common English usage (WP:COMMONNAME). Again, with all due respect, you are only citing your personal opinion,[REDACTED] is not based in the personal opinion of editors, and I already gave policy-based and RS-based reasons for the hyphenated name. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose Mexican and American are adjectives not nouns, so this should be hyphenated. The "Mexican–American War" is a war between the entities of "Mexican" and "American", and these entities do not exist. Hence "Mexican-American War", or in the case of a war involved Mexico and America, "Mexico–America War". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 09:27, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Breach of the WP:INVOLVED policy by Graeme Bartlett

Mr Bartlett has broken the strict policy against administrative actions by admins who are "involved"; the stated reason for this rule is to avoid conflict of interest by editors who have been granted special powers in good faith by the community. The policy, inter alia, states that:

He has breached the rule by pursuing an administrative action and then, within a day, entering exactly the same dispute to barrack for one side and against the other in line with his use of the tools. It is utterly irrelevant whether his admin action or his unwitting disclosure came first. He has attempted to defend his actions by saying, "I am involved in this second discussion, but not in the first one. I will not be closing this second discussion." The discussions are about the same issue, and the second has been directly brought about by his admin action. He appears to be up to his neck in it, and it is now there for everyone to see that he was up to his neck in it while acting as an admin, too. He is welcome to express his views as an editor, of course.

Mr Bartlett gave explicit and implicit undertakings at his RFA to abide by the policies pertaining to admins, and the community took him on trust when they voted to give him admin status. I will show good faith by assuming that he is misunderstanding a basic duty of WP admins (rather than disregarding it). I ask him to respond to the points I have made here. Tony (talk) 14:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony, as per the above discussion the appropriate forum to press this charge is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and not this talk page. Given your own involvement in this dispute, both in the previously closed discussion and in related discussions among involved parties on talk pages predominately favored by only a single side of the debate, I would recommend you read WP:BOOMERANG before continuing to press the issue. --Allen3  14:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

No thanks, Allen. I've chosen to ask Mr Bartlett to respond here, the scene of the breach, and the most appropriate place to give him the right of reply. Are you saying that daring to take an admin to task about a flagrant abuse of a fundamental policy is to "shoot oneself in the foot"? I wonder why you are taking this stance? Does it have anything to do with the fact that you yourself are an admin? Do you believe admins should be able to breach policy for their own ends as they wish, with impunity?

You say, ""Given your own involvement in this dispute". As I pointed out above, everyone is welcome to put their view as an involved editor—Mr Bartlett and you included. However, I did not take an administrative action while involved: he did. What exactly is your point? I'm not sure you understand the principle of conflict of interest; and I had hoped the en.WP had moved on from the practice by which admins gang up to support each other's wrongdoing. Tony (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure that the admin Did Not breach any policy as an involved admin. The above WP:RM had already been closed and done, and there was a new WP:RM created. Graeme Bartlett was not involved in the RM that he closed and is very capable of commenting on a completely new RM. Unless of course you feel that the two discussions are the same?--Jojhutton (talk) 15:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's someone who "Is not a Misplaced Pages admin, but would like to be one someday". I'm sure your support of the admin's wrongdoing will be appreciated; will it be returned at your RFA? Now, listen carefully: the two RMs are over exactly the same matter, yes? Are you trying to say that they are not? If so, exactly what is the difference between them, aside from the fact that one is attempting to reverse the other? You people will argue that red is blue to get your way, it appears. Tony (talk) 16:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it obviously looks like you have done some checking up on my user page. Good job. So much for the Assume Good Faith crowd. The first RM is closed and done. Once a new RM is opened, its a new thread and new discussion, even if covering the same topic. You may not be happy with the result, but[REDACTED] policy says that you should respect consensus, and stop trying to Game the System with countless RMs.--Jojhutton (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm quite sure that Bartlett is allowed to give his opinion as the closer of the last RM (I have seen this done in many places like AFD and DRV). Also, the proper place for this complaint is WP:ANI (although WP:AN would be a better place). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony, you have not provided any evidence he was involved when closing the RfM. If he's crusaded against en dashes, that would be a COI, but you've not shown that. There's no reason for him to even respond to you here. If you only want a personal explanation, there's his talk page, assuming he's willing. If you want to pursue sanctions, take it to the proper place, ANI. But they'll require evidence, or you'll simply be seen as disruptive. — kwami (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

• The admins have nothing but garbled anti-logic to offer. There is no "proper" place in particular, and this page is where the wrongdoing occurred. It is perfectly legitimate to ask, AGAIN, that Bartlett resign his adminship. It defies common sense to ignore the fact that Bartlett had strong feelings on the matter. He has displayed these publicly above, and it matters not one bit whether he revealed them at the time or afterwards. Here again, if you didn't get it, is the policy:

It is surprising how quickly other admins (and one want-to-be) have rallied to his support with non-arguments. This is a strong display of why admins have a very bad reputation on the English WP. Still waiting to hear why the involved rule has not been breached. And here, since you ask yet again, Kwami, is the evidence:

1. Oppose the move and continue to reiterate my earlier close with the consensus. The naming policy clearly states that the names Misplaced Pages uses for articles are those most commonly used. The MOS is subsidiary to the policy. If there are many other articles with ndash, that is not a reason to make this article also match, but a reason to rename those articles to match the common name, rather than trying to make the title look the best. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 6:54 pm, Yesterday (UTC+11)

Tony (talk) 08:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with his reasoning (IMO this is a difference of style, not of naming), but all that quote shows is that he was convinced that one side of the dispute better corresponded to WP consensus. That's an imperfect system, but pretty much how things work. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Bottom line Tony, Bartlett was not involved when he closed the previous RM, but he has the right to become involved at a later time if another RM is opened, which it was.--Jojhutton (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  • No, I'm not going to be waylaid by this. He has told us fair and square that he feels strongly biased towards one side. It is spelled out explicitly in his comment. What part of "Oppose the move and continue to reiterate my earlier close with the consensus. The naming policy clearly states that the names Misplaced Pages uses for articles are those most commonly used. The MOS is subsidiary to the policy. If there are many other articles with ndash, that is not a reason to make this article also match, but a reason to rename those articles to match the common name, rather than trying to make the title look the best." is unclear? A lot of people here do not agree with this view, and now Bartlett is seeking to become part of the consensus by !voting on exactly the same issue at the same place within a few days. If it were an even slightly different issue, we would take it into account; but it's not. The WP:UNINVOLVED policy says that administrative actions must not be taken by admins who feel strongly one way or the other. It also says the the community interprets involvement very broadly. It is improper, for example, for an admin to express their personal opinions on the issue when closing. That is why the policy insists that another, uninvolved admin be brought in to make the judgement.

    Johjhutton says, "Bartlett was not involved when he closed the previous RM, but he has the right to become involved at a later time if another RM is opened, which it was." (1) He was' involved, by his statement (unless his views have suddenly changed in a day or two). (2) He does not have the right to become involved a few days later in exactly the same debate he has closed and resolved to favour one side—casting a !vote, no less, to influence the outcome of moves to reverse his action. It is the most blatant conflict of interest I have seen on WP for some time. Tony (talk) 12:29, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

    • So, since Tony is using WP:INVOLVED as a basis for admin misuse, let me actually cut and paste what the guideline actually says, because Tony is just using a small snippet of the guideline to advance his theory that Bartlett misused admin privileges.
      • In general, editors should not act as administrators in cases in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may have, or may be seen to have, a conflict of interest in disputes they have been a party to or have strong feelings about.
    • This means that admins should not act as admins if they are involved in an already continuing discussion. It does not say that an admin cannot act as an admin if they have strong feelings only.
      • Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute.
    • As far as time goes, it says Current and past discussions. It says nothing about future discussion.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a non-issue, and we should stop wasting our time. I've asked Tony to provide difs showing a COI, and he has failed to do that. Without evidence there is nothing for us to talk about. — kwami (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Response: It is a fundamental issue that goes to the heart of the admin policy. Kwami, you keep asking for diffs, but the evidence is just above. I have copied it here twice: Bartlett disclosed strong feelings (that is, "involvement") within a day or two of making an administrative action. Mr Hutton is concerned about past versus present versus future: the policy says nothing about when a disclosure of CoI is made; it cares only that an admin action be made without involvement at the time. The main argument by fellow admins who have rallied around Bartlett seems to appeal to when the disclosure of CoI was made. If, as an admin, I closed an RfC, took admin action to implement what I interpreted as consensus, while admitting there was vocal opposition, and then admitted two days later that I was partisan (!voting as such in a move to reverse it), I would resign as an admin when someone complained.

Kwami and others talk about WP:TITLE gazumping MOS. Let's take a look at WP:TITLE. I see this, first off:

Could Bartlett explain how his actions were in accordance with WP:INVOLVED and the text above in WP:TITLE? His continuing silence, in my view, proves his guilt. The matter will need to be pursued, sooner or later, since the community deserves to know whether the protection against corrupt actions that is afforded by WP:INVOLVED can be simply glossed over by wikilawyering over whether the disclosure of involvement at the time of the action was made before, during, or after the action. Tony (talk) 07:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Tony, there's nothing wrong with an admin being convinced by the arguments in a RfM, and therefore having a strong opinion about it from then on. The only problem is if they come in with a COI.

If I may offer my opinion, I think it would probably be a much better use of time to start a discussion at TITLE or MOSFOLLOW on whether they really intend that the stylistic choices of our sources should override the MOS. Such a position could potentially be quite disruptive: either title formatting & style would no longer match the text of the article (as currently here), or if it is further decided that text style needs to conform to title style, much of the MOS would be invalidated. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Replying to Tony1's issue: My response to you is already included above. I was not involved in the previous move request. In the current move request I have opposed it, and therefore am involved in the second request. I have remained quiet because my response had already been made. I will not be closing the current discussion. For newcomers to this: my talk page also has discussion on the nature of the earlier consensus decision. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Regrettable edit

This edit changes some of the hyphens to dashes; whatever may be justified, this is contrary to MOS:CONSISTENCY: while some may think An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Misplaced Pages article, though not necessarily throughout Misplaced Pages as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion. is too strong, that is what MOS says.

Perhaps more seriously, it damages the article. Foos' book is subtitled about the "Mexican-American War", not, as Kwami makes it, the "Mexican War" - a significant error in these days of string searches. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Kwami's revert war also restores from 1846–48 - yet another MOS violation. (What is the standard of professionalism being used here, anyway?) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The page move was illegitimate, I'm afraid, made in flagrant breach of WP:INVOLVED—it needs to be moved back to the original en dash, in conformity with the MoS and the practice elsewhere in this and related categories of articles. Tony (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Give it up. Nobody but you thinks that the page move was against WP:INVOLVED.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Sep, you were so quick to revert that I had no time to restore the actual corrections that you made. BTW, you left en dashes in the article (U.S.–Mexican War, multiple instances of Mexican–American War, Texan–Mexican conflict), so it was hardly consistent as you left it.

Tony, whether the move was legitimate is rather beside the point. The move was made based on the conclusion that TITLE took precedence over MOS. There was no decision that the MOS is therefore suspended from the article. As with any article, if one has a problem with the MOS, that should be discussed at the MOS. — kwami (talk) 03:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Just ask yourself what normal people think of this

So now you have a title with hyphen, the lead-section ("lead–section"?) with en dash, the reflist with hyphens, and the talkpage notice (yes, up there ^) with hyphen... hello?... WTF people? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

It appeared to be part of a crusade to change the MOS through the back door by getting articles changed and then claiming that the MOS needs to be changed to match. Wanting a hyphen in phrases like this is a perfectly legitimate POV, but it should be debated on its own merits at the MOS. — kwami (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

from 1846–48

Guys, I am not a native English speaker, but, are you sure that this construction is correct? I don't recall seeing this before. Shouldn't it be one of the following?

• in 1846–48
• of 1846–48
• from 1846 to 1848

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

As a native English speaker I don't see a problem with this. Someone seeing "from 1846–48" would read it as "from 1846 to/through 48", which is perfectly acceptable. Is this really a violation of the MoS? If so can somebody point out where exactly? –CWenger (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Trivia Question: Which was longer, the Mexican+American War, or the argument over what to call it?

We've seen great arguments from both sides of this issue, and in this editor's opinion, it barely matters. 99.9% of people who come to this page are not going to care or notice. So, why not just move on for a while? Its actually making me smile and chuckle about how much effort we have put into on this tiny technical detail. Maybe we need to have a forked article, The - -/— — War of 2011.

Well.

Maybe not. -- Avanu (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Me thinks a Lamest Edit War addition may be in order.--Jojhutton (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Add the Eye–hand coordination one too? Tony (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class Mexico articles
• Mid-importance Mexico articles
• WikiProject Mexico articles
• B-Class military history articles
• B-Class North American military history articles
• North American military history task force articles
• B-Class United States military history articles
• United States military history task force articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Mid-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
• WikiProject United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed American Old West articles
• Unknown-importance American Old West articles
• WikiProject American Old West articles
• Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2008)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
• Selected anniversaries (May 2010)
• Requested moves