Talk:Mexican–American War/Archive 3

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..." [my emphasis] (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:
 * Wikipedia Manual of Style: Internal consistency:
 * An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.
 * Wikipedia Manual of Style: Clarity:
 * Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
 * Wikipedia:Readers First:
 * Having established that potentially every English-reader may also be a reader of Wikipedia, 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit or Category:Wikipedia 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 talk 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 (February 2011)

 * 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 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 T 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 Wikipedia 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.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 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.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. If ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN 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 Invasion of Armenia, 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia. 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.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 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 Wikipedia 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 (&minus;10 to 10, not &minus;10–10).
 * 2) *Is this War a range from Mexican to American?
 * 3) To stand for to or versus'' (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border).
 * 4) *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.
 * 5) 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).
 * 6) *Again, no; these are noun compounds.
 * 7) ''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.
 * 8) *No list here.
 * 9) 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.
 * 10) * This would imply that we were joining Mexico and American War.
 * 11) As a stylistic alternative to em dashes (see below).
 * 12) * Nope. Mexican—American War with an em dash is unheard of.


 * WP:HYPHEN, however, says:
 * 3.[Hyphens are used] 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 Wikipedia 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 Invasion of Armenia, 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.

– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 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 Invasion of Armenia, it is equally clear: as far as I can see, only Wikipedia uses the dash, and Wikipedia 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)
 * [My response here also addresses PMA's remark in an earlier section, where I strongly opposed his proposal to move this article.–Noetica] 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 Wikipedia style. As you well know, PMAnderson, I am opposed to your widely recognised efforts to weaken the effectiveness of Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 22:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And if I do go away, and appeal to Wikipedians in general against a misinterpretation that makes Wikipedia 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" [sic]; 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.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 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.

Revisit requested move (March 2011)

 * 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: No consensus to move. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. "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 Wikipedia is allowed to have its own as well. For example, Google search "Michelson-Morley experiment". You will note that besides Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia, virtually everybody uses a hyphen instead of an en dash. That's right; and it is an assertion that this English Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, 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 Wikipedia needs to address the needs of a more international readership, Mexican-American War is a better title for this encyclopedia. --Allen3 talk 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 "Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. + m t  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)


 * Wikipedia 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 wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A "curly apostrophe" is just another way of writing an apostrophe, you write all of them in one way or in the other (example). It's nothing at all like hyphens/dashes, which are used for different purposes, and can be used in the same work in different places.


 * Most RS use a hyphen --&gt; If the problem is consistency, then we should use hyphen. (Wikipedia 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, 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 Wikipedia has a policy to follow common English usage (WP:COMMONNAME). Again, with all due respect, you are only citing your personal opinion, wikipedia 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)
 * Can you give any source that makes that distinction? AFAIK it was invented by Sep as part of his argument for the move, but has no basis in any professional style guide that I can find. (Note that many style guides use the term "adjective" for attributive nouns, so it seems unlikely they would then make a distinction between attributive adjectives and attributive nouns.) — kwami (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * MOS:ENDASH #2 says the en dash stands for to or versus. I think we agree that is the guideline that would apply here. Note all the examples use nouns on both sides of the dash. You could say Mexico versus America War, but you couldn't say Mexican versus American War. A minor distinction but one nonetheless. If the reliable sources overwhelmingly used en dashes it would be a different story. –CWenger (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only a minority of RSs use en dashes for nouns in this situation, so it's not surprising that only a minority use them with adjectives. Our sources also describe this as "disjunction"; summarizing it as "to or versus" is just that, a summary.
 * Ahah! Hudson (1993) Modern Australian usage : "Use of the solidus in place of a dash in such phrases as the French/German border is not recommended, as it can lead to accidental ambiguity. The French–German border (using an unspaced en-dash) is unambiguous." — kwami (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the rationale of Headbomb immediately above. Mexican-American is a compound adjective and hyphenated even under a MOS that prescribes en dashes for noun relationships.  It's a Mexican-American person, and likewise a Mexican-American war. Wareh (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Those two examples are quite different: the Mexican–American War is a conflict between Mexicans and Americans. It is analogous to Mexico–America in that it names two independent entities. In a Mexican-American person, on the other hand, the Mexican and American are not independent. That's the relevant distinction between a hyphen and an en dash. — kwami (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, give us examples of en-dash-joined independent-entity adjectives. If they are enough and plausible, I will give your objection more weight.  I take it you rest your point entirely on this indendent-entity criterion, and did not mean to imply that we have simply "Mexicans-Americans War," but with singulars replacing plurals?  In any case, once we're in the land of adjectives (as we are, pretty much, even as soon as we change the Workers Party to the Worker Party), I'm not sure "quite different" is so obvious, since a Mexican-American teenager and the Mexican-American War can both fit under the umbrella "of, from, or concerning both Mexico and America."  Arguably, "Mexico" and "America" are no more independent in the war than in the ethnic adjective; the war itself is both a Mexican War and an American War and some interdependent and distinct combination of the two.  Do we punctuate blue-green differently if it refers to a solid in-between color or a pattern of the two colors?  Wareh (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, they both involve Mexico and America, but in a person, they are not independent entities, but fused together. If the en-dash convention were rigorously applied, a "Mexican-American war" with a hyphen would be a war between Mexican-Americans.
 * Wareh, this is an important issue because, if Headbomb is correct, it would necessitate changes to a large number of articles. He may be correct, but we have professionally typeset sourced which use an en dash for "Mexican–American War", so we really need citations to the contrary to make that decision. In the style guides, "compound adjectives" are almost always attributive nouns, but that may only mean that the simplest or most common examples are attr. nouns. I have found a very few cases which involve adjectives, or as in this case, words which are both adjective and noun and so may be arguable: "19th-century possessive–genitive dichotomy", "Italian–Russian-Jewish ancestry" (the dashed elements form a unit), "brown–red shade" vs "equal-weighted pair". (Citations given on Headbomb's talk page.) On the other hand, I have failed to find a single source which states that usage depends on part of speech, and apparently Headbomb does not have such a source either. — kwami (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think in the case of "possessive–genitive dichotomy", MOS:ENDASH guideline #3 is in play and not #2. Replacing the en dash with an and makes sense. I suppose you could make an argument that it is the Mexican and American War, but versus seems more logical to me. –CWenger (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are not independent parameters, but different wordings to capture aspects of a single parameter, what some sources call "disjunction". (The word "disjunction" was removed from the MOS because people misinterpreted it to mean a hard disjunction, whereas it's often a soft "and" disjunction that could be covered under the term "conjunction". In any case, I think the "French–German border" example should cover this. — kwami (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a nuanced issue, no doubt. It is likely that neither side is entirely consistent. But that being the case it seems logical to me to go with the reliable sources. Google Books seems to show that most use a hyphenated Mexican-American War. –CWenger (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait a second. The example given at MOS:ENDASH is "France–Germany border", not "French–German border". This is very relevant to the dispute we are discussing. –CWenger (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the example at ENDASH is "France–Germany border", but "French–German border" is what I was able to find a source for. (Hm, given this convention, the "Swiss-German border" would presumably be the border of the Swiss-German area, whereas the "Swiss–German border" would be the international border. But better to reword in cases of such a contrast so that that isn't misread.) — kwami (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "If the en-dash convention were rigorously applied, a "Mexican-American war" with a hyphen would be a war between Mexican-Americans." This is less than a sound technical statement; it does not even address what it would mean for a war to be Mexican-American as a person can be (Swiss-German border suffers from the same issue as an example: it is derivative from an established human application rather than illustrative of what a non-human application would be, the point being that if wars as well as people can be Mexican, perhaps wars as well as people can be Mexican-American). Perhaps, it seems, qualified at the intersection between "Mexican War" and "American War." "French–German border" is indeed a relevant example, but different authorities will always draw the line differently, and if we can't find a source that says it's not about parts of speech, it seems we also can't find a source that explains the issues carefully enough in light of some of these patterns. So let me, at the same time, grant that a style based on the principle you suggest would be coherent enough, while continuing to complain that such a style is neither widely enough used nor clearly enough defined to answer these questions.  Finally, I think Italian–Russian-Jewish ancestry is a problematic example, because many authorities recommend the en dash for no other reason than making a hierarchical organization among several elements clear (i.e. here that the element Italian is parallel to the element Russian-Jewish).  So, while I appreciate and acknowledge your sources, I think only the French-German border one is wholly germane.  Wareh (talk) 00:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's clearly the most germane; I agree with you on that. However, it's always up to the proposer to demonstrate that a proposal is valid. If we're going to claim that part of speech is relevant, we need to demonstrate that part of speech is relevant. It wouldn't matter if I couldn't come up with any source to the contrary: why would sources specify that the use of en dashes in compound "adjectives" applies to adjectives? Most style guides give a few quick examples and don't go into much detail. Without being able to support the argument that en dashes are not used with adjectives, that is not a substantiated argument.
 * BTW, I interpreted the 'Italian–Russian-Jewish ancestry' example to mean Italian-Jewish + Russian-Jewish, though agreed it's an obscure example. But regardless of what it's supposed to mean, it clearly shows a second source that's willing to use en dashes with attributive adjectives, when the argument here is that we can't use en dashes with attributive adjectives.
 * And here's another: Martin (2009:127) New Oxford dictionary for scientific writers and editors : "electron–nuclear double resonance (en dash)". That one compounds an attributive noun with an attributive adjective. No reason so far to think that nouns and adjectives behave differently here. — kwami (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree the parts of speech argument may not be valid. But I think it is a rule of thumb that works most of the time. It seems that a better one might be: use an en dash when the dash could be replaced by one of the words in the rules given at MOS:ENDASH (to/through/versus/and) and it sounds correct. All of the examples given there seem to work. Can anybody think of something that is usually en dashed for which this does not work? –CWenger (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is a Mexican-American both Mexican and American? Yes, but they are not independent entities, so they take a hyphen. Since "and" does not correspond to that distinction, I'm not sure how well that generalization would hold up. I could see someone using it to argue that almost any compound should be dashed.
 * Wareh asked above about "blue-green". Blue-green algae is a single color, blue-green, so that's hyphenated. A blue–green coalition describes two entities, hourly workers and environmentalists, and so could be dashed. In this case your generalization would seem to work.
 * Ah, another case that wouldn't work: "the May-June issue" of a magazine is published for the months of May and June, but is hyphenated as "May-June" is one of six points of time in the year it's published, as opposed to "the May–June budget", which is dashed because it spans the range of May to June. (Einsohn The copyeditor's handbook 2000:109) — kwami (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Aside from the last example, I think all of these work quite well. A Mexican-American person is not both Mexican and American, so we use a hyphen, not a dash. Blue-green is a mixed color but blue–green is blue and green. May-June/May–June issue is indeed an issue. But I feel like this case has to be an exception. The only reason an en dash doesn't work (May and June issue) is because the dash could be interpreted as a to/through as well. Otherwise it would be acceptable. That is a case where one would have to follow the guideline but then recognize the possible ambiguity and opt for different punctuation/wording. –CWenger (talk) 13:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Kwami says: Those two examples are quite different: the Mexican–American War is a conflict between Mexicans and Americans. That's not why it is named this way (though in this case the adjectives for the countries happen to be both identical to the nouns for the people): compare Polish-Swedish Wars, *Pole-Swede War. --A. di M. (talk) 13:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then reword my argument to "a conflict between Mexico and America". It's the same argument either way: the en dash indicates the Mexico/Mexican part and the America/American part are independent entities. A hyphen would imply they are a single entity. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Headbomb, above.  This was correctly settled earlier and shouldn't be reopened. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So, rather than a drive-by comment, could you provide actual reasons for why you think this article alone should breach the MoS? Opposes that say just "I oppose" (likewise for supports) are really worth little, unless this is a voting chamber. They should be disregarded. Tony   (talk)  13:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose and all take a Wikibreak from the issue. Good decision last time, and lots of new words but no new arguments. Andrewa (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment [I fervently hope that the current request will succeed, and that the name goes back to Mexican–American War. But I do not formally register a vote, because I regard the discussion here as wrongly situated. It should be at WT:MOS (since WP:MOS has the relevant guidelines), or at WT:TITLE (since WP:TITLE gives the policy, and it currently makes no mention of punctuation with a bearing on the issue here; that is left to WP:MOS) as was the discussion for the original move to Mexican-American War, preserved above. But I will make some comments on what I have read here. Please do not interrupt this post, but put any comment after it.–Noetica]
 * Kwami is absolutely right to distinguish spelling and punctuation. Publishers have always amended punctuation according to their manuals of style. Nothing in WP policy says that we should do otherwise. Hyphen and en dash are routinely varied accordingly to the prevailing style choices. Kwami points out there are three styles for the name in question here: "Mexican-American War", "Mexican–American War", and "Mexican American War". But there is a fourth also in print: "Mexican/American War". And yes, incompetent publishers mix these (and add others, with varied spacing); and no, we should not do what they do. We should be consistent, rational, and orderly in our naming of articles.
 * PMAnderson (the first cause of the present mess) is mistaken. He is far from the mark with this comment, especially:
 * "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."
 * Point by point:
 * The guideline at WP:MOS is not merely made up for Wikipedia. It has long-established precedent in publishing, and in Wikipedia naming practice. But the place to argue that is not here.
 * The rule is not against English usage. But the place to argue that is not here.
 * The rule is not against the Manual of Style. But the place to argue that is not here.
 * The recent vote (for the original move that was requested by PMAnderson to score a point in his campaign against WP:MOS) did not show consensus (see quotes from policy, just below) and was not a proper basis for determining the matter. The closing admin erred. Among other failures, he ignored the following points of policy from Requested moves/Closing instructions:
 * "Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions."
 * "Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it."
 * CWenger is swayed by incorrect analysis from Headbomb (see below).
 * Alien3 is mistaken and biased in appeals to WP:TITLE and WP:FOLLOW (part of WP:MOS). When we examine the details, and parallel guidelines, we find that they do not support the original move of this article. Nor, as I show above, was consensus obtained for that move.
 * JojHutton gives no evidence of having understood or even read the arguments, procedural or substantive. Unsupported opinion, glossed with "I don't give a rats [sic] booty either way", must carry no weight in assessing the present case.
 * Tony is right: "The name is now inconsistent with WP's practice, and that recommended by many authorities." PMAnderson's challenge to him ("Name three; if they have more weight than the Chicago Manual of Style, you may convince me to change my mind") can easily be answered with sources. But the place to argue that is not here.
 * Graeme Bartlett confronts the present matter with a flat refusal to focus on the arguments, just as he did as the admin who closed the original request. In any case, he can fairly be accused of bias because of his administrative decision that we are now seeking to overturn.
 * Enric Naval is good at finding sources. A pity that they are all irrelevant, for the reasons amply laid out above. WP decides on the punctuation it will use, as all publishers do.
 * Headbomb writes:
 * "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'."
 * Yes, each component of the compound Mexican~American may naturally be considered an adjective, if it were to occur on its own. (It may also be used as a noun, but I set that aside.) It is a complete non sequitur to move from this to "so this should be hyphenated". No one satisfactorily meets Kwami's challenge: "Can you give any source that makes that distinction?" I have surveyed sources, and can say something about this. But it is improper to do so at this outlying talkpage, when the matter is general and concerns interpretation of WP:MOS for thousands of articles. The discussion here of deeply flawed opinions like Headbomb's is a jumble, and riddled with error. But demonstrating this is not the business of a talkpage for a 19th-century war.
 * Wareh accepts Headbomb's opinion, which is flawed and not discussed in an orderly way, nor in the appropriate forum. Wareh's own subsequent treatment of these technical matters is similarly inept; but I will not show how, at this talkpage.
 * Groundsquirrel13 makes unargued assertions (against points that are supported in great detail). Unargued assertions of one's opinion on a technical matter carry no weight in a rational discussion.
 * Andrewa (his talkpage says he is a logician!) makes unargued assertions that bypass the details of all argument, procedural or substantive. As mere opinions, they carry no weight whatsoever against points supported by argument and evidence.
 * Finally, this request for a move does not seek to overturn a name that has been established properly, but one foisted on us by a flawed process. It would therefore be grossly unfair to require the same weight of argument or evidence as in a normal request. There is a solid, overwhelming majority of support in Wikipedia practice for forms that use an en dash, like Mexican–American War. The present name for this article is manifestly an anomaly, brought about mischievously for a purpose that has nothing to do with good naming of articles. The background community-wide consensus has been this: in all cases like the present one, an en dash is used by default. There are cases that diverge from the default (Poland-Lithuania is a recent one, of great interest linguistically and ontologically). But our article here is a plain-vanilla case of using the en dash according to well-founded guidelines, and according to clear Wikipedia precedent.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 01:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Noetica, I assume you are relying on MOS:ENDASH #2. It says "To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, France–Germany border)." Let's try it out, shall we? Mexican versus American War. Just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? I assume it is pure coincidence that all 4 examples given are nouns? –CWenger (talk) 03:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * CWenger:
 * 1. "I assume you are relying on MOS:ENDASH #2"
 * No, I am not relying on that point alone. And anyway, the place to discuss the wording and interpretation of WP:MOS is WT:MOS.
 * [What, no answer to that one? ☺ – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)]
 * 2. "I assume it is pure coincidence that all 4 examples given are nouns?"
 * Interpreting charitably, I must suppose that you mean this: "all 8 components of those premodifiers normally function as nouns, when used alone." Not a decisive consideration, even if it were true. And it is not true. Discuss at WT:MOS.
 * Really? Of male, female, 4, 3, Lincoln, Douglas, France, and Germany, which is not normally a noun when used alone? –CWenger (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Half of the eight: male, female, 4, 3. Dictionaries and grammars differ on the details, but for most the primary uses (not necessarily the first listed) of male and female are as adjectives. See OED for example. These words are used as adjectives only by extension. Compare Blacks, Japanese, greens, Greens, and so on. As for numerals, they are variously classified, and have several different roles. The primary role is not as nouns. In most languages that have declensions (like Latin, Greek, and Sanskrit) the lowest numerals are declined as adjectives. In basic English uses (four onions, we were four, but my oldest brother died), four is very like an adjective, even though it lacks the full range of syntactic features of adjectives like green. But none of this is easily settled, or relevant anyway, in combinations like 4–3 vote. I will not discuss this here any more. The matter concerns thousands of articles if it concerns any. Take it to WT:MOS.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. "Let's try it out, shall we? Mexican versus American War."
 * Have you tried your spurious test with France and Germany? Your pedantic interpretation of the guideline would have us saying "France to Germany border", or "France versus Germany border". Try again – but not here. At WT:MOS.
 * "France to Germany border" certainly sounds more natural than "Mexican versus American War". I am just pointing out you are not abiding by the MOS word-for-word like you expect everybody else to. Let alone the fact that nowhere does WP:COMMONNAME say that punctuation is an exception. And this is a policy, not just a guideline like the MOS. –CWenger (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I dispute that hair-splitting finding, and its analytical assumptions. Forgive me: I cannot help thinking that your line on en dashes affects your judgement in arriving at it. If we had time or interest, we could compete in pedantry. I am very confident that I would win. But the guidelines are not there to be interpreted hyperpedantically; they are written for use. And not abuse. If you think there is uncertainty in the intent behind that particular guideline, raise it at WT:MOS. Sure it could be tightened, against pedantic and captious misuse! Any guideline can be. Go for it.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 04:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I second CWenger's idea: revert to the original form, and start again
At 05:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC), at Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War, the following suggestion was made (I use bold to emphasise): "I don't believe the original move was mishandled, just not done as thoroughly as it could have been. That is no reason to undo what was a pretty strong consensus to move. It just means we should go back and do what the admin missed, which is what I was trying to do here. However, I have to say, I would support moving Mexican-American War back to Mexican–American War as a temporary measure so we could have a full move discussion concerning all the articles involved. –CWenger (talk)"

I second that suggestion, and I advance it as a further reason for the present request to be accepted. What do others say? Then the whole suite of Mex~Am War articles, and categories, could be dealt with together more rationally and efficiently.

– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 06:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First, the immense majority of RS use hyphen. Second, there was already a discussion while the title used a dash, and it has already been closed, and the current discussion is to challenge the move. Third, there are still no proof whatsoever that the first discussion was closed improperly. Fourth, please wait until the current discussion is closed formally before starting any move sprees (that goes to both sides of the dispute). --Enric Naval (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [Enric, since your comment reiterates issues that are already on the table, and distracts from the new procedural proposal we are considering, I am putting our long exchange in a box for anyone interested to examine.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 20:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)]
 * {| class="collapsible collapsed" style="width:100%;font-size:88%;text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"

! style="background-color: #cccccc;" | Text of side discussion
 * Enric Naval, your points considered one by one:
 * 1. "The immense majority of RS use hyphen."
 * If it is that true that "respectable sources" (assuming that's what you mean) use a hyphen for wars named in the style "X~Y War", that is completely irrelevant in this procedural subsection.
 * 2. "There was already a discussion while the title used a dash, and it has already been closed, and the current discussion is to challenge the move."
 * We all know that. And we should all know that if we continue to work trench-to-muddy-trench as at The Somme, from vigorously disputed precedents and dogmas, no durable solution can be achieved. For peace and stability in our little theatre, start again. This time, abiding by the Geneva Conventions.
 * 3. "There [is] still no proof whatsoever that the first discussion was closed improperly."
 * So you assert. If it is so, it is only because no formal action has been taken (yet) to test those improprieties formally. Strong evidence abounds, if not proof to your satisfaction. And it is harder to deny that PMAnderson started the whole woeful mess as part of his pointed push against MOS, despite prolonged efforts to get him to debate fairly. (Note: PMAnderson has just come back from being blocked for a week – the latest of many, many attempts to bring him to order.)
 * 4. "Please wait until the current discussion is closed formally before starting any move sprees (that goes to both sides of the dispute)."
 * It is absurd and inflammatory to characterise a suggestion that we start afresh, with proper procedure that is seen by all to be proper procedure, as a "spree".
 * Enric, I invite you consider other ways. Even if you sincerely believe what you say, in response to this conciliatory suggestion to break the impasse, think how others might perceive it. It looks opportunistic, because it just happens that by a kind of fluke the temporary state of the present article suits you. That is not a good look. Compare my recent moves at WT:MOS, where I repeatedly ask Kwami to revert his own changes to WP:ENDASH, in breach of the policy WP:FULL. They favour my stance and his, for the present article. But we should all act with propriety and fairness, and be seen to do so.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 09:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS has to describe current practice, not prescribe it. In other words, first we make a few RM to decide what practice has to be followed in individual articles, then we discuss if it's necessary to change the MOS to fit the practice, or if it's already describing practice correctly. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears you're not getting the point, Enric. The procedure you suggest is just bizarre. Do you really think ten people, in a deeply flawed process initiated for transparently political reasons, should really set precedents for literally thousands of Wikipedia articles, requiring thousands of moves contrary to established Wikipedia guidelines? Don't insult editors with such a ludicrous idea. And don't insult me, by simply brushing aside the generously detailed reply I gave your last brisk deliverance.
 * MOS does in fact enshrine common practice for the naming of wars on Wikipedia, which in turn reflects one rational way some publishers do it. MOS is in accord with several major style guides, doing a far better job than most in articulating clear guidance for hyphens and en dashes. Don't believe me? Raise the matter at WT:MOS. When orderly dialogue is at last set up there, I'll give you all the proof you need. But on present evidence, I must wonder if that will make any difference to your cherished opinion.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 11:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Noetica, this "deeply flawed process" is how things work in wikipedia. Ten persons, with RS-based and policy-based arguments, can cause thousands of articles to be renamed. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric, if that is so, it applies to rational well-advertised discussion where people expect it to take place, so they can set their watchlists and be duly alerted. It does not apply to the manipulative actions of serial offenders against community standards of behaviour, at content pages with extremely narrow focus, abetted by inattentive admins who cannot keep their opinions and their duties separate, or follow explicit directives at WP:RM. You're still not getting it. Discuss policies at policy pages, guidelines at guideline pages, and 19th-century North American wars at 19th-century North American war pages. Simple.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This specific RM, which affects only this article and related categories and articles like Battles of the Mexican–American War, has been mentioned several times in WT:MOS. Anyone interested in this discussion should already be watching this page. All subsequent RMs will probably also be mentioned in WT:MOS. The discussion to change MOS will probably happen in WT:MOS, and only after several RM. Please explain to me what sort of extra advertising is required. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll answer, but then pursue no further discussion in this sideline. Requests for moves are notified centrally at WP:RM. People expect to be notified there, and they include it in their watchlist for that reason. Many interested editors do not have WT:MOS on their watchlist, and would not expect RMs to be notified there even if they did. Now, the original RM for this page was notified at WP:RM; but it was for a single article only. Editors were therefore not alerted to the aberrant nature of the request (it conflicted with all the other Mex~Am War articles, and all X~Y War articles generally). That was a serious deficiency: one of several elements in the mishandling of the original RM. If the intention of the proposer was that all related pages be changed, that intention should have been made public and visible to all (and indeed, in my opinion, moved to a more general forum). We are left with the task of mopping up. There is now a proposal under consideration to achieve that. If you want to join in the proposed process, support it. Or you can oppose it, giving your reasons without appeal to disputes over facts that were utterly chaotic, or exhausted procedural shifts.
 * No more in this boxed discussion, please.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 02:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll answer, but then pursue no further discussion in this sideline. Requests for moves are notified centrally at WP:RM. People expect to be notified there, and they include it in their watchlist for that reason. Many interested editors do not have WT:MOS on their watchlist, and would not expect RMs to be notified there even if they did. Now, the original RM for this page was notified at WP:RM; but it was for a single article only. Editors were therefore not alerted to the aberrant nature of the request (it conflicted with all the other Mex~Am War articles, and all X~Y War articles generally). That was a serious deficiency: one of several elements in the mishandling of the original RM. If the intention of the proposer was that all related pages be changed, that intention should have been made public and visible to all (and indeed, in my opinion, moved to a more general forum). We are left with the task of mopping up. There is now a proposal under consideration to achieve that. If you want to join in the proposed process, support it. Or you can oppose it, giving your reasons without appeal to disputes over facts that were utterly chaotic, or exhausted procedural shifts.
 * No more in this boxed discussion, please.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 02:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * }
 * That was not a side discussion, that's a discussion where I complain that there is no procedural mistake whatsoever. This RM is exactly how things are regularly done at wikipedia. And, as I say below, MOS:CONSISTENCY doesn't require consistency across wikipedia, and allows exceptions for substantial reasons. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. Noted, for all to see – as are the contents of that box. It's just that some of us, somehow, need to work towards orderly presentation. You see the sprawling results of not doing so, above on this talkpage.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 11:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Statement of the Proposal
"1. We agree to revert this article to Mexican–American War (en dash), by withdrawing opposition to the present request for that move. 2. We also agree to withdraw the request away from en dash at Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War, and to hold back from any similar requests for single articles. 3. We discuss here, or at WT:MOS in the first instance, any procedural issues. 4. A nominated editor who opposes en dashes makes a multiple request – to move all articles with titles that include Mexican–American War so that they include Mexican-American War instead. For discussion at this talkpage. 5. We all deal with that multiple request as a new initiative: in the standard way, but with great care to maintain trust, order, efficiency, and collegiality." – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 23:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support, dissent, discussion

 * I support this idea. I propose we set a timeline (maybe two weeks) to fully discuss the issue and advertise it anywhere people see fit, in particular WT:MOS. At the end of two weeks we can request an uninvolved admin make a decision that affects all related articles. Kind of like arbitration, but governed largely by ourselves. Of course we would have to decide what to do about not-directly-related but similar article names like Spanish–American War. –CWenger (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this, as long as the article is reverted to its original form. Tony   (talk)  16:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the whole problem with this plan is, what admin would be willing to close the current move request (which consensus says to keep at Mexican-American War), and then turn around and move to Mexican–American War. I hate to say it, but maybe arbitration is the best bet. –CWenger (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, I boldly applied bold to "I support this". And yes, it is essential to the proposal that the en dash version be reinstated for the time being, enabling us to discuss all relevant articles in a collegial and orderly way.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 04:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I support this idea. As co-proposer with CWenger, in effect. From opposite sides of the debate, we both see a need to start again in a way that all accept as fair and efficient. I agree with the details in CWenger's statement of support, above. As for certain natural concerns that will arise, all parties can safely surrender positions of advantage they maintain here and at Talk:Battles of the Mexican–American War‎. It will be visible from the records who is going forward in good faith, and who is taking unfair advantage of the general move to compromise.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where would it be? If we're including all wars, it shouldn't be here. An obvious place for it is on the MOS page. — kwami (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Once we have agreement here to revert temporarily, we could adjourn to the WT:MOS section concerning this proposal, or better still a new section there, to iron out any procedural issues. But when we are ready, the multiple-move request itself should be raised here in the established way (this being the central page of the group). The request is then signalled to the community in the right place: WP:RM. [Supplement: I have now added a statement above that suggests details.]– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 22:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I can see no good reason why an article would have a dash and the other a hyphen or vice versa, so any discussion should be about both at once. --A. di M. (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose There seems to be a group from WP:MOS that will attempt any technique to get their way with the use of ndash. However I do support the idea of a central discussion about amending WP:TITLE to clear up the use of punctuation of titles.  This should take the form of an WP:RFC to get a broad input of opinion from the community, not just the WP:MOS contributors.  It should not be at the MOS page because that is not a policy, but should be at the policy page. The discussion should not just be about wars, but cover when hyphen ndash or mdash would be used in any title.  It could also be broadened to cover other punctuation, (but some is already covered, such as no quotes and full stops at the  end). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a disappointing attitude for you to be taking, Graeme. Some of us want to move on, so let's do so. Stop making unsupported claims against experts (some of them full-time professionals in the relevant fields) who dedicate themselves to consultative development of style guidelines for a few million WP articles. You might then find them backing off in their censure of your actions (the consequences of which our present work is intended to rectify, if that turns out to be possible). Of course work needs to be done on WP:TITLE, and we should look at that. Same for WP:MOS. There's always room for improvement, as we find by testing guidelines and policies in action with requests for moves, and other WP processes. In fact though, nothing at WP:TITLE is against the use of en dashes. The only mention is this: "In particular, provide a redirect from the hyphenated form when a dash is used in an article title." That is not a prohibition; rather it is an acceptance that en dashes are used. The matter of punctuation is entirely delegated to WP:MOS, for forms used within articles, and therefore certainly for the forms as they appear in titles of articles – which must match what is in articles' content. That is clear from WP:TITLE, yes? And in dealing with requests for moves, there are explicit instructions that guidelines are to be considered. There is therefore no clash between WP:MOS and WP:TITLE; and WP:MOS gives rulings that affect the question confronting us at this page, in this discussion. So regardless of what changes are desirable to policies or guidelines, we have current rulings from both, and we can attempt to interpret them and apply them here. Some of us would like the matter dealt with entirely at WT:MOS, for sound reasons. Since people insist on using the mechanisms of WP:RM, we will compromise and accept that. But we must use WP:RM correctly. We should have been doing that all along; the proposal before us is that we start again, and get it right this time. I am sorry to have taken so much space to say all this, but obviously someone had to spell it out.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with N oetica that the articles should not be picked off one by one, but dealt with as a group, and that use of the symbol should be consistent. The main point of my oppose is that the proposal is mainly about getting the ndash back in use. WP:RM is an inefficent way to deal with what should be an amendment to the policy for naming. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The current proposal, along with the current RM, is about uniform implementation of a guideline that has wide support in practice, throughout the Project. Is that plainly worded guideline disputed? Yes, for this article. For some reason. But my clear call to have the matter dealt with at another forum was ignored. By you, Graeme. WT:MOS is a perfectly reasonable place to consider all this. As I have shown, WP:TITLE delegates all questions of punctuation to WP:MOS. Have a look at the first "see also" at WP:TITLE: it is Wikipedia:Manual of Style (article titles). That is how things stand now'', so it should have been acted on for the first RM. It was not though; and a large group of us must mop up this mess as a result.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 22:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mixed Oppose. Wikipedia requires intra-article consistency, not intra-project consistency.  Ideally, we should determine whether an en-dash or hyphen is correct, say so on WP:MoS and have that stand for all articles of this type (yes, I realize how unlikely that is considering how often this issue comes up for discussion) but while the matter remains unresolved, we should not require any pro-en-dash or pro-hyphen editor to get the denizens of all related articles to agree before changing any.  Also, it seems to me that things like "withdrawing opposition" might mislead the admins into thinking that there is no opposition.  However, the simplest way to counteract this would be to flat-out tell them that it's a temporary measure and that the matter us unresolved and ongoing. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Darkfrog, see this policy provision at WP:TITLE: "Consistency – titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred." See also text and analysis of WP:CONSISTENCY (comment on Enric Naval's oppose, below). The guidelines for en dashes and hyphens in cases like the present one are clear: use only en dash. If that is disputed, it can be disputed at WT:MOS. The admin closing the first RM here dismissed that clarion call out of hand; so we must compromise, and consider it again using WP:RM. But properly, for all articles using the same phrase as this one: "Mexican~American War". We do need to make WP:ENDASH even more immune to opportunistic misinterpretation. In due course; but just now, WP:MOS is protected and there is other business.[Signed out of sequence later:]– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose MOS:CONSISTENCY says that an article needs to be consistent with itself, but it doesn't need to be consistent with other articles. MOS:STABILITY says that "editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style"; here, the substantial reason is that the immense majority of RS use a hyphen, the editors changing to a dash have only talked about choices of style. MOS:FOLLOW says to follow the usage in sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course no one has suggested changing the present article "from one guideline-defined style to another". Only the form with the en dash is a "guideline-defined style". See WP:ENDASH (part of WP:MOS), paragraphs 2 and 3; see also WP:HYPHEN (same page). If that is disputed, let it be disputed for all affected articles. That's the proposal we're looking at. Consistency between articles is addressed in policy at WP:TITLE (see comment for Darkfrog, above), not just at WP:MOS. For the convenience of editors, the full text of MOS:CONSISTENCY (at WP:MOS):
 * "An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion."
 * We all agree with that. But "not necessarily" is different from "not desirably". If consistency across articles were not desirable, what justifies this edit (which is contrary to the guideline WP:ENDASH)? Marked as a minor edit, it was made on 25 March 2011 – for consistency with the present article's new name.[Signed out of sequence later:]– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's common sense that "Battles of war X" uses the same spelling as its main article "War X". Idem for the category "War X" being spelled the same way as its main article. What you are asking for is consistency across every article that uses a compound name in any topic ever, which I think qualifies as "Wikipedia as a whole". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your common-sense comment is inconsistent with your statement of opposition, which appealed misleadingly to WP:MOS (your words: "[an article] doesn't need to be consistent with other articles"). Of course such consistency is common sense. It is also the very point I make, and the very point made at WP:TITLE: "titles which follow the same pattern as those of similar articles are generally preferred". And at WP:MOS, as you can see from other comments here. The present proposal is not so general as you say. It is not about the naming of all articles using the form "X~Y War", or "X~Y Z". That is already covered at WP:MOS, with delegation from WP:TITLE. This proposal aims at uniform treatment of articles with "Mexican~American War" included in their titles. That, we agree, is common sense. Policy supports it; guidelines support it; this proposal aims to restore it – and to restore conformity with policy and guidelines.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 00:07, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All these discussions have already taken place at WT:MOS discussions, for example here, here and here. You have been already having discussing for a month and a half and you still can't agree on when to use dash and when to use hyphen. -Enric Naval (talk) 00:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Enric, whom do address with that use of "you"? Is it me? If so, anyone can see that I do not engage in those discussions you point to. I refer editors to the RM disputed here (and a related RM). Apart from that, my opinion as an expert on punctuation is invoked by another editor; and I make this appeal for order: "I propose that we defer discussion on this excellent point till other more pressing matters are resolved concerning hyphens and dashes. We have to keep this manageable." On the other hand, if you are referring to MOS editors in general, of course they are discussing things! But the relevant content of guidelines stands. As they concern us here, they have been stable for a long time. We work with present guidelines, not with discussion behind the scenes.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 00:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "you" as in "you people who keep forcing me to do lengthy searches of RS, and then ignoring them in favour of your personal opinion". How can call this RM "behind the scenes", when it was already advertised at WT:MOS here and here. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope no one here wants to ignore your opinion, Enric. I have responded fully to everything you say. Also, no one said this RM was "behind the scenes". All I say is this: yes, there are disagreements at the talkpage archives you point us to. That too is how things work at Wikipedia. WT:MOS is full of vigorous debate; if I can help it, never just the parading of pre-formed views. But WT:MOS is not the page that people watchlist if they want to find RMs. And it is not where stable style guidelines are found. You'll see them at WP:MOS, clearly laid out. I hope that explains things for you. Now, the idea here is that we try something new to undo this stalemate. If you remove your opposition, you can be a part of that work.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 11:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I see no justification - and little profit - to any of Noetica's proposals. It is effectially a rollback to the initial state, before the first move proposal; a request for a do-over, including Battles of the Mexican–American War in the move request this time. That inclusion - and the resulting consistency - is the little profit to be had; and we would have that now if the same editors had not opposed moving that article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PMAnderson, what you cannot see (or refuse to see, because of your central involvement as instigator of all this chaos) has no bearing on the present discussion. Arguments are lucidly laid out for you; evidence is adduced; relevant policy and guidelines are exhibited. Heaven help us, even common sense gets a mention! But if you are hermetically sealed against any of this, you are not a bona fide participant in these deliberations. If you would at least answer the detailed points articulated here, your opinions might merit our attention. So far, they do not.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 00:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Support No half-measures, please. I abhor this deliberate and disruptive attempt at creating a free-for-all. The issue ought to be covered by the MOS – either apply endashes consistently, or hyphens. In the meantime, let's rewind this and thrash it out in a 'global' approach. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * But English doesn't use all dashes or all hyphens. This is another proposal that we invent our own language; and as such undesirable.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Noetica's points
Since Noetica keeps demanding that I answer xer remarks in detail, I will do so here. Unsigned comments are by Noetica unless in brackets. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

[I begin with the separate statement]:
 * And anyway, the place to discuss the wording and interpretation of WP:MOS is WT:MOS.
 * That is not true of any guideline. What is true is that WP:MOS can be quoted here (as it has been), and that the result of this discussion should be considered there (as I expect it to be), to see whether rewording is justified given the absence of consensus for the "rule" being appealled to here. Like all the procedural demands of Noetica, Tony, and Kwami, this is unsourced - and AFAICT unsourceable; it's not the way Wikipedia does things. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The response is obvious. As I wrote in my first substantive comment on this long page: "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." But what you cite is the quickest summation of my position. If you attended to all the rest, you would not have misunderstood as you did (or pretend to have done). Surely I must be allowed abbreviated remarks, with full versions elsewhere on the same page. We would in an even deeper word-swamp, if this were not allowed. And the proposal before us is quite simply that we roll back and – yes, see what if anything needs interpretation in the guidelines that might apply specially to this article, along with others in the cluster to which it belongs. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Because I said so", combined with "because Kwami said so". These weren't arguments or evidence the first time they were posted; they still aren't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Kwami is absolutely right to distinguish spelling and punctuation. Publishers have always amended punctuation according to their manuals of style. Nothing in WP policy says that we should do otherwise. Hyphen and en dash are routinely varied accordingly to the prevailing style choices. Kwami points out there are three styles for the name in question here: "Mexican-American War", "Mexican–American War", and "Mexican American War". But there is a fourth also in print: "Mexican/American War". And yes, incompetent publishers mix these (and add others, with varied spacing); and no, we should not do what they do. We should be consistent, rational, and orderly in our naming of articles.
 * Ignores the major point that Mexican War, followed by Mexican-American War, are overwhelmingly the most common forms. Why should we follow insolated eccentricities? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My comment ignores no such thing. Rather, it amplifies the case for going beyond any crass assessment of "common forms". The point you essay here has been amply addressed. Once again, on this very page: "The sources I gave above show this is not a difference in nomenclature and thus COMMONNAME is not really relevant" (Kwami); "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" (Kwami); "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); "[... WP:TITLE] currently makes no mention of punctuation with a bearing on the issue here; that is left to WP:MOS" (Noetica); "Enric Naval is good at finding sources. A pity that they are all irrelevant, for the reasons amply laid out above. WP decides on the punctuation it will use, as all publishers do" (Noetica). Beyond all that, the guidelines at MOS are by no means "isolated eccentricities". If you thought they were, you should challenge them in an orderly way at WT:MOS. All of this has been said. Why raise it all again? Why should I exert myself to answer more than I have already, in painstaking detail? You rarely pay due attention, or meet objections to your stance fairly, the first time. Neither here, nor at the other Mex~Am article's RM, nor at WT:MOS. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Because I said so". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * PMAnderson (the first cause of the present mess) is mistaken. He is far from the mark with this comment, especially:
 * 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.
 * First cause is a false personal attack. This issue was raised by Enric Naval and Skookum1 on Archive 119 of WT:MOS, long before I said anything about it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As the editor who grasped the opportunity and actually instigated the first RM (and I have openly alleged that it was to make a point about and against MOS), you caused the current state of affairs. Not alone (incompetence from an admin locked us into this trajectory): but you started the action at this page, so you were the first cause. This is all made clear above. If you purport to have acted on behalf of or at the suggestion of others, we must note that it was still you who in fact acted, not they. The failure to identify the related pages, and make a multiple RM, was an especially disruptive omission. We see the chaotic results: an impasse for that whole group of articles, with separate time-wasting RMs at two of the many related pages. And more to follow? Who knows! Yet you oppose the current proposal, which offers a conciliatory way out. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A continued personal attack, combined with a very private understanding of "first cause"; I appealled an existing dispute to the Wikipedia community. Tony at least provided (fallacious) arguments for the attack on Graeme Bartlett; even Kwami is unconvinced by them, but they exist. Noetica has given none. "Because I say so". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Point by point: The guideline at WP:MOS is not merely made up for Wikipedia. It has long-established precedent in publishing, and in Wikipedia naming practice. But the place to argue that is not here.
 * If it did have "long-established precedent", some publisher would actually be using it consistently. This does not appear to be the case. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Appearance and reality are to be distinguished. It is long-established practice advocated in a number of style guides, and some publishers follow it. Some do it inconsistently; but we should not take their inconsistency as a precedent or a licence for ours, even if that failing is common. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What publisher follows it? None that I can see. But the answer to this is more of "Noetica's evidence, which will be given real soon now". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The rule is not against English usage. But the place to argue that is not here.
 * The rule is not against the Manual of Style. But the place to argue that is not here.
 * All three of these are "I could show that, an I would." I don't believe that; Noetica hasn't shown any such thing here or elsewhere. But until xe does, there's nothing to answer,
 * [You break off just there.] There's plenty to answer, on proper location for discussion and on orderly procedure. But check the archives at WT:MOS. You should know very well that I can bring copious evidence to back my recommendations for punctuation practice. (At the very least, compared to your ancient Fowler's.) And there's much more to show yet. I can also back my points about interpretation of the relevant guidelines, as they stand. No one knows them or their implications better than I do. Take the challenge, if you don't believe me. Adjourn in an orderly way to WT:MOS. I dare you! (That seems to be the tone that is set here.) – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Accusations of cowardice are generally regarded as personal attacks. If this post is not intended to be "nyah, nyah, you don't dare discuss this at WT:MOS," it needs recasting. But, as Noetica must know, there is such a discussion, at WT:MOS. I have posted to it five times, which seems at least my share, beginning before this thread existed; demonstrably false claims of fact are not arguments. Now that your dare has been taken, now what? The "wonderful evidence which this margin is too small to contain", at last? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The recent vote (for the original move that was requested by PMAnderson to score a point in his campaign against WP:MOS) did not show consensus (see quotes from policy, just below) and was not a proper basis for determining the matter. The closing admin erred. Among other failures, he ignored the following points of policy from Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions:
 * Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.
 * Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it.
 * The opposes on the first move request above are Tony and Noetica. They presented no arguments on substance; on procedure they made one up, which has no grounding in practice or policy. Therefore this lengthy quote supports the close. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For my part, I pretty well preferred to offer arguments concerning procedure rather than substance in that first RM – as you can read for yourself. The very quotes you make of my citations of policy WP:RM demonstrate that the closure of the first RM was irregular, and indeed incompetently handled. The admin had an obligation to consider my procedural point along with all other argument, but clearly he did not attend to it or weigh it against the merely local points made by others who voted: who showed only scanty appreciation of the details in relevant policy or relevant guidelines. That said, it is absurd to suggest that Tony and I offered no substantive arguments. Read our posts again! As for the excerpt you posted from one part of MOS (other parts have relevance too), res ipse loquitur would suffice in response, and it is against your twisted interpretation. Disinterested and precision interpretation of the excerpt shows that the en dash is called for in the present case. Add details from policy at WP:TITLE, and the case is clinched. But only on a careful reading, not a sloppy and pre-judging one. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, those posts were - and are - "it wrong because Noetica says so." ((Quoting Latin is more effective if you know some: res ipsa loquitur, si tibi placet.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * CWenger is swayed by incorrect analysis from Headbomb (see below).
 * Alien3 is mistaken and biased in appeals to WP:TITLE and WP:FOLLOW (part of WP:MOS). When we examine the details, and parallel guidelines, we find that they do not support the original move of this article. Nor, as I show above, was consensus obtained for that move.
 * Nor, as I show above, Noetica, unsupported assertion isn't "showing" anything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You must be afraid of tackling this in the proper centralised forum, where the guidelines are developed and the linguistic foundations can be expanded on at length, with citation from the most highly reputed linguists. Your only recourse is to skirmish in backwaters, and then to move the discussion to another of those whenever your latest foray against MOS looks like hitting the wall. Headbomb's analysis is way off the mark; but I will not waste time countering it here. I have explained my refusal to do such things, again and again. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Nyah, nyah, you don't dare." But I do dare. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * JojHutton gives no evidence of having understood or even read the arguments, procedural or substantive. Unsupported opinion, glossed with "I don't give a rats [sic] booty either way", must carry no weight in assessing the present case.
 * Jojhutton made an argument of his own, to which nobdy has responded; a closed RM is supposed to settle things for a few months. Take Graeme to ANI for manifest impropriety (which will be laughed out of the page), or wait. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The closure of the first RM, and much more about it, has been contested with cogent arguments. Jojhutton did not seem to have taken them on board, or at least gave no analysis of them. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Cogent arguments" again; as usual, invention of non-existent procedural claims, which are valid "because I say so." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Tony is right: "The name is now inconsistent with WP's practice, and that recommended by many authorities." PMAnderson's challenge to him ("Name three; if they have more weight than the Chicago Manual of Style, you may convince me to change my mind") can easily be answered with sources. But the place to argue that is not here.
 * Again, "I could, an I would". No substance here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Answered amply above. Take the challenge, and take it to WT:MOS. Anything else is futile repetition. I have six times more substance to offer than you can glean from your lean library of superannuated Edwardian style guides. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Noetica's "wonderful - and invisible - sources", again. Where, oh where, can they be? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Graeme Bartlett confronts the present matter with a flat refusal to focus on the arguments, just as he did as the admin who closed the original request. In any case, he can fairly be accused of bias because of his administrative decision that we are now seeking to overturn.
 * He has declined to agree with you; if you had given him some reason to do so, this might be a real complaint. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * He has declined to agree, and he has declined to respond to the points I quite properly took to him at his talkpage. A fair conclusion would be that he is out of his depth. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Spmebody is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Enric Naval is good at finding sources. A pity that they are all irrelevant, for the reasons amply laid out above. WP decides on the punctuation it will use, as all publishers do.
 * This involves separate falsehoods:
 * WP has not "decided" on the rule Noetica made up. It's not in MOS; it's not supported by consensus.
 * WP:COMMONNAME is relevant to this question; it's part of the governing policy.
 * You ignore all that has already been said about that. WP:COMMONNAME has no bearing on punctuation; WP:MOS has. This is not an opinion of mine alone, as you can see by reading. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't ignore it; I deny it. Noetica has made up procedural rules, unsupported by WP:TITLE, WP:MOS, WP:POLICY... The nearest xe has come to argument for it is claiming, that because TITLE mentions a different section of MOS in the See Also, therefore WP:TITLE...delegates all matters of the punctuation of those names to guidelines at WP:MOS. In the words of Anna Russell, "I'm not making this up, you know." But Noetica is. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:56, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Headbomb writes:
 * 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".
 * Yes, each component of the compound Mexican~American may naturally be considered an adjective, if it were to occur on its own. (It may also be used as a noun, but I set that aside.) It is a complete non sequitur to move from this to "so this should be hyphenated". No one satisfactorily meets Kwami's challenge: "Can you give any source that makes that distinction?" I have surveyed sources, and can say something about this. But it is improper to do so at this outlying talkpage, when the matter is general and concerns interpretation of WP:MOS for thousands of articles. The discussion here of deeply flawed opinions like Headbomb's is a jumble, and riddled with error. But demonstrating this is not the business of a talkpage for a 19th-century war.
 * Headbomb's is precisely the distinction MOS now makes. Arguing that it should make some other distinction has not been done, here or there. If it were, the nonce-phrase "Mexico-America War" and the established "Mexican-American War" can both use dashes or both use hyphens; either would require an argument of benefit to the encyclopedia, which has also not been made. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Headbomb's is not a distinction that WP:MOS makes, anywhere. And if it is alleged to be otherwise, the place to settle the matter is at WT:MOS. If Headbomb were right, and if MOS enshrined a similar point, it would apply to very many articles, and is not to be sorted out at this minor talkpage. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wareh accepts Headbomb's opinion, which is flawed and not discussed in an orderly way, nor in the appropriate forum. Wareh's own subsequent treatment of these technical matters is similarly inept; but I will not show how, at this talkpage.
 * "I could an I would" and the renewed assumption that Noetica's say-so is evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No, and no. See above. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where Noetica says so - without argument or evidence. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Groundsquirrel13 makes unargued assertions (against points that are supported in great detail). Unargued assertions of one's opinion on a technical matter carry no weight in a rational discussion.
 * Andrewa (his talkpage says he is a logician!) makes unargued assertions that bypass the details of all argument, procedural or substantive. As mere opinions, they carry no weight whatsoever against points supported by argument and evidence.
 * Finally, this request for a move does not seek to overturn a name that has been established properly, but one foisted on us by a flawed process. It would therefore be grossly unfair to require the same weight of argument or evidence as in a normal request. There is a solid, overwhelming majority of support in Wikipedia practice for forms that use an en dash, like Mexican–American War. The present name for this article is manifestly an anomaly, brought about mischievously for a purpose that has nothing to do with good naming of articles. The background community-wide consensus has been this: in all cases like the present one, an en dash is used by default. There are cases that diverge from the default (Poland-Lithuania is a recent one, of great interest linguistically and ontologically). But our article here is a plain-vanilla case of using the en dash the according to well-founded guidelines, and according to clear Wikipedia precedent.
 * In brief, "Unargued assertions of one's opinion on a technical matter carry no weight in a rational discussion." Noetica has expressed xer opinions at great length, both on Wikipedia procedure and on English. Unlike everybody else, xe presents (in this passage) no argument for any of them; even Tony has quoted policy in arguing Graeme is out of line. (I am not convinced, any more than Kwami; but it is argument.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All explained above. Read (not just the passage you pick out here), understand, and don't insult us with transparent sophistry. It is glaringly obvious that I have cited policy and guidelines, and I have limned connexions between them that no one else here has. The record shows that, and it is imprudent and impudent to say otherwise. You know full well my reasons for not touching on substantial issues of English usage on this little page, only to have you raise the whole nest of issues afresh at some remote outpost or other. Read, and report accurately. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * All asserted above. Noetica's claims about the relations of WP:COMMONNAMR have no source in WP:TITLE, WP:MOS, or anywhere else - except Noetica's imagination. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I reword because the following passage is an argument; it is also a falsehood.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Only the form with the en dash is a "guideline-defined style".
 * Nonsense. WP:HYPHEN is a guideline. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense; it is not nonsense, but plainly true – if you read the guidelines with care and an open mind. The form Mexican-American War has no support from either WP:HYPHEN or WP:ENDASH, and these are the guidelines that would be relevant in warranting it as a "guideline-defined style". The only effective counter to this point must trade on the fact that there is no example of the exact form "X~Y War" at WP:MOS. But it is absurd to expect MOS (already criticised for being too long) to predict every possible demur and quibble. It relies on fair-minded and cautious interpretation. You are showing us that such a thing is not always to be expected.– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If I "read the guidelines with an open mind", I will find that Noetica's say-so is correct. That appears to be Noetica's definition of "open"; it is not what I find if I read what the guideline says. Headbomb, Wareh, Skookum1, CWenger and Enric have all read MOS; none of us see what Noetica claims to see; CWenger even changed his !vote at Talk:Mexican-American War for that reason. This is MoS says that "because I say MOS says that." This rule of interpretation, while popular among self-appointed prophets of all flavors, is contrary to the nature of a wiki governed by consensus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

In brief, Noetica has nothing to say but When you have anything substantive to say, do let us know. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Because I say so".
 * "Because I have tons of sources, which I will display Real Soon Now"
 * "Nyah, nyah, you don't dare discuss this at WT:MOS" (when I have).
 * In brief, PMAnderson continues in his tactical choice: to look only at selected statements without the huge context of this dispute, and the fuller statements made elsewhere in it. That is the only means available to him to distort the truth. And doing that is the only way he can advance this ruinous campaign in his interminable war on MOS. I have completely run out of time to indulge his appetite for discord. See next subsection; and see, below. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not believe that I have been selective. As far as I can see, I have omitted one substantive claim, because it is false: the jibe above abouit using "six Edwardian style guides". I presume that is a reference to this section of WP:MOS, where I consulted the style guides recommended by MOS as further reading. If so, this is a deliberate falsehood, a "terminological inexactitude." None of them is Edwardian; and I intentionally consulted the oldest one in the 1998 annotated and updated edition to be sure that I read current guidance.


 * But I invite Noetica to supply xer sources, xer quotations of policy, and xer cogent arguments, everything I have omitted, here or elsewhere, in a lump. Xe may omit the entire mass of "I told you so"; xe hasn't, and I will reply to any more of that (if at all; Graeme's silence has its points) with the same classification I do here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:48, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Noetica has no more time

 * Now, alas: I have spent ten times more hours on this saga than I can afford. I will stay to answer any more points in reply briefly – if they are genuinely new for a change. But very soon I must take a Wikibreak. I have to catch up on other business, and leave these issues for others to debate, with as little precision and memory as suits their taste.
 * I hope the proposal CWenger and I have fashioned will be acceptable to editors, and that some might come to support it who at first stood against it. Anyway, some admin might see the futility of allowing the bungled first RM for this isolated page to stand, against Project-wide practice and against the form of name accepted for the great majority of similar articles, in accord with a careful reading of WP:TITLE and guidelines at WT:MOS, to which as I have shown WP:TITLE delegates matters of punctuation.
 * – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 12:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is plain as day that CWenger's and Noetica's proposal is the only one that will get anywhere. Tony   (talk)  13:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "My way or the highway," again, Tony? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:21, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A pitifully partisan way to smear the only attempt at conciliation we have seen in this whole ruinous affair. Look and learn, and then change, PMAnderson. See next subsection. – ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Naming wars: the only way out
Ten key eristic facts (since the process has regrettably been set up from the start as a matter of fighting and factions) [comments below this post please; not within it]: I commend these points to editors here, and to admins interested in maintaining policy, guidelines, and peace in the Project. One hour from now I will be taking no more part in these naming wars – at least until the present deadlock is broken.
 * 1) There are two requests for move (RMs) in progress, for two articles out of a mass of articles with "Mexican~American War" in their titles.
 * 2) One group of editors seems tactically ahead at this article; its opposition seems tactically ahead at the other.
 * 3) Unless we commit to a struggle of Mahabharatic length, neither group can achieve consistent naming for all of those articles by the current means.
 * 4) The governing policy WP:TITLE confirms the community's obvious preference for consistency at that larger level.
 * 5) Two editors (representatives of each opposing group) have laid out a means to settle the whole thing, and to keep consistency in the whole mass of Mex~Am War articles.
 * 6) We are waiting for general acceptance of that proposal.
 * 7) If this deadlock-breaking proposal is not adopted, a crassly localised decision for closure of the RM for Battles of the Mexican–American War would take note only of a head-count at its talkpage. The en dash would be retained.
 * 8) If this deadlock-breaking proposal is not adopted, a crassly localised decision for closure of the RM for Mexican-American War would take note only of a head-count at its talkpage. The hyphen would be retained.
 * 9) From 3, 4, 7, and 8 above, we see that a localised decision from admins determining closure of the two RMs is against community interest, and works against policy at WP:TITLE.
 * 10) From 5 and 9, we see that either: a) the proposal gets accepted collegially; or b) any admin closing the present RM ought to act in the conciliatory spirit of the proposal, and restore the form of name with an en dash to allow discussion of the real issue (which is broad), in a broad forum. There is no third way: not one that avoids chaos.

– ⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝo N oetica! T– 22:58, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
 * On reviewing these points, I think it's safe to say that Noetica would probably, if asked, extend his No. 5 thus: "5. Two editors (from opposing groups) have laid out a means to settle the whole thing. See our Proposal, above. This would keep consistency in the whole mass of Mex~Am War articles." I will stand corrected if I'm wrong, of course. Tony   (talk)  08:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Shorter Noetica: "Tony, Kwami, and I didn't get what we want. Therefore Noetica gets to invent a whole new set of procedures to start things over, so we have another chance. This is the only way possible; our way or the highway." No other compromise is possible; no agreement that what goes for this article goes for related articles (as Ucucha suggested, and CWenger - Noetica's "cosponsor" - agreed).   We have met this sort of peace-maker before; but let us see what other people think.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

However, tbere are a large number of other ways to go, rather than wait for closure.
 * WP:MEDCOM will provide the sort of wide discussion that Noetica wants, without any rollbacks. It does require that everybody invited agree to participate.


 * WP:MEDCAB is more informal, and is essentially a neutral volunteer.


 * I'm sure there are others. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the 10 points above: they are practical, reasonable, and embrace a good conciliatory process. I don't like to name people (there's too much of that here), but I find it inescapable. Mr Anderson seems to object to a resolution that might evolve here; he has just come out of a block for edit-warring at the MoS, and has a long history of such blocks. Many editors are tired of the endless disputation he provokes. I have no wish to be in dispute (it's boring), but it is important to make the community aware of the consequences of his continual attempts to erode the style guides. Particularly obvious is the apparent turf-war between WP:TITLE and WP:MOS he has been promoting for years, wherever it causes trouble. It's like the High Court and the Court of Appeal in London, which occasionally tried to resolve disputes by sending their clerks to the other's building to engage in fisticuffs. Please. Mr Anderson stands against customised remedies by editors to solve disputes as they arise; how, then, can he be in favour of exclusively local decisions on style? These lead to chaos if not dealt with centrally: that is what the style guides are for: to minimise disputes in articles and to stop ludicrous inconsistencies in the project; that is, to avoid the mess that Mr Anderson and Graeme Bartlett have created here. Methinks Mr Anderson wants "mediation" (an astoundingly unsuccessful wiki-process) to avoid the pursuit of a conciliatory proposal in situ. We have such a proposal at hand, here, right now. I call on editors to support it. Tony   (talk)  03:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand against any only way out; especially when one side is insisting on getting everything they would like - and then they will agree to discuss the remainder. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This doesn't explain why wikipedia's Manual of Style should follow "stylistic choices" that are used in a small percentage of RS, and why some people here are absolutely refusing to entertain choices that are used in 80%-90% of RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Where is this deadlock-breaking proposal that you referred to but didn't link? Dicklyon (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that Noetica means the ten points themselves, complete with the threat that if we don't accept xer demands this will not be settled. Typical. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 09:48, 4 April 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.