Talk:Bahamas and the American Civil War

Requested move

 * The following is a closed 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: Result was move all but Canada, which should be discussed separately. RockMagnetist(talk) 01:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Bahamas in the American Civil War → Bahamas and the American Civil War
 * Canada in the American Civil War → Canada and the American Civil War
 * France in the American Civil War → France and the American Civil War
 * Prussia in the American Civil War → Prussia and the American Civil War

– The use of the preposition "in" implies these countries were in the war (as belligerent states) which they were not. Their citizens may have fought in the war and interesting bits of diplomatic relations may have occurred but the country itself was never in the War. Also for consistency with Australia and the American Civil War and United Kingdom and the American Civil War.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 04:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what the problem is. In does not imply that these countries were participants to me; it simply means that the article is about the Bahamas in the period of the American Civil War.  I oppose Bahamas and the American Civil War &c. as unnecessarily vague.  However if others feel there is a problem with the current titles, how about Bahamas during the American Civil War?  This is what we do for some other semi- or non-participants including Argentina during World War II, Cuba during World War II, Sweden during World War II and  Switzerland during the World Wars.  (Others still use in, though, including Portugal in World War II.)  —  AjaxSmack   01:19, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Canada", the territory of Canada was certainly featured in military operations in the American Civil War, so "in the American Civil War" would seem to apply. (ie. the St. Alban's Raid) -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support: 'and the' is clearly a better term as they were not 'in' the war. The alternative proposal of 'during the' made by is not a good idea as that would suggest the article was about everything that happened in the country during the American Civil War. However the move should not be just to Bahamas but to The Bahamas which is its correct name. Ebonelm (talk) 09:03, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support' except Oppose the Canadian move (maybe that should be struck from the opening nom list). Randy Kryn 13:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I did a search on site:https://en.wikipedia.org/ and.
 * relevant results that showed the use of the conjunction were: Adam and Joe (a comedy duo); Show and tell (education) (where one thing works with another thing); Perth and Kinross (presenting two associated places; List of Parks and Recreation episodes (the closest parallel so far to the proposal); Yin and yang (opposites) and Victoria and Albert Museum (a reference to a married couple).
 * "And" is problematic though, arguably, not as problematic as "in". GregKaye 07:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support all. Srnec (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, though perhaps it would be better to discuss the Canadian article separately. I agree with the nom and Ebonelm. Clearly "in" is less than ideal because these countries did not participate in the conflict and "during" implies coverage of the entirety of what happened in that country during that period. Other articles happily use this format and there don't seem to be any problems there. I'd also be OK with Ebonelm's suggestion to add "The" for The Bahamas. Jenks24 (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, but alternatively recommend Merging into an existent Bahamian history article or sub-section. The present length suggests a lack of sufficient notable material for a stand-alone article.Froglich (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support all per nom. "in" is wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2015 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.