Talk:Shasta–Trinity National Forest

Requested move 15 July 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Not moved. See general agreement below to not change the endash to a hyphen in this particular article title. Of course, if a centralized discussion on the MoS talk page with an eye toward making the MoS clearer for the inconsistencies cited below garners consensus to use a hyphen in this and similar titles, then this article could and should be moved. Kudos to editors for your input, and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth , ed.  put'r there  03:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Shasta–Trinity National Forest → Shasta-Trinity National Forest – I would have reverted this as an undiscussed move if I'd noticed this before six years had passed, and others hadn't implicitly endorsed it. The rationale for using a dash here is a misinterpretation of MOS:DASH. More specifically, per MOS:ENBETWEEN "use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities." Two formerly independent national forests were merged to form one National Forest – a single entity which should use a hyphen in its compounded proper name. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Further rationale in support

 * At 05:26, 25 March 2013‎ moved page Shasta-Trinity National Forest to Shasta–Trinity National Forest: en dash connects two names (but, this isn't two names, it's the compound name of one entity)
 * At 07:59, 28 June 2019  tagged the hyphenated name Shasta-Trinity National Forest with R from incorrect punctuation
 * I ran into this while working Database reports/Linked misspellings, which reports that there are some 57 links to that "incorrect punctuation". Clearly if these haven't been fixed yet in six years, the argument that they are incorrect is pretty weak. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a great idea to tag such redirects as incorrect punctuation. Can't we then get a bot to just fix all the links?  Dicklyon (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Bots are sometimes more trouble than they're worth. There is a lot of time and bureaucracy involved in getting one approved. Generally I make such changes fairly rapidly using a semi-automated tool, i.e. AWB or JWB. Unfortunately there is a shortage of editors like me doing these gnome-tasks. The thing is when you bump these redirects from "alternative" to "incorrect" status you are bumping up the priority, and that effects the speed at which more serious errors, such as outright misspellings, get fixed. wbm1058 (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Another similar example, which I found when someone tried to "move" a page by changing the DISPLAYTITLE: Toronto-Dominion Centre, not Toronto–Dominion Centre; Toronto-Dominion Bank, not Toronto–Dominion Bank – it's just a single entity formed when two formerly independent banks merged; the Centre is named after that single bank. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose as a step backward, away from serving our readers by letting them know that Shasta and Trinity are distinct names of distinct areas, and the managed national forest is named for both of them, not for something/someone named Shasta-Trinity. Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. That is exactly what MOS:DASH says not to do. Agreed with DickLyon below that the rest of the inconsistent titles of this sort need to move to "Foo–Bar Baz" format, with the en dash. —&thinsp;AReaderOutThataway&thinsp;t/c 15:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what specific text in MOS:DASH says not to do this? says "In article titles, do not use a hyphen (-) as a substitute for an en dash, for example in eye–hand span (since eye does not modify hand)." My opinion is not that this case should use a hyphen as a substitute for a dash, but rather it should use a hyphen because that is appropriate. Eye–hand span isn't a valid comparison because it doesn't refer to a single entity called an "eye-hand". Eyes and hands are separate, distinct entities; "eye-hand span" doesn't refer to an eye merged with a hand. If Shasta and Trinity are distinct names of distinct areas, and the article topic is the forests rather than a single management entity, why shouldn't the article title be Shasta–Trinity National Forests? The topic being two (plural) forests named Shasta and Trinity, which have joined themselves for the purpose of management efficiencies? wbm1058 (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that guidance might not be as clear as AReaderOutThataway says. But to me, the only place where it really makes sense to jam a pair of names together with a hyphen is when two people marry and combine their names that way and rename themselves.  For cases where an entity is named for two people, two founders, two regions, two predecessors, etc, the hyphenated compound is just weird.  The main reason you see it a lot is that most modern orgs don't have a style of using en dashes in such constructions (parallel pairs of items, not one modifying the other); orgs that do have such a style (like Wikipedia) should prefer the en dash for these.  In no way does this ever hurt a reader who is unfamiliar with en dashes; a little less tight coupling of the names just looks natural.  But for readers who are able to appreciate such cues to whether it's a national forest named for two things, as opposed to some weird compound, the en dash is a big help. Dicklyon (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, note that the alternative form with plural "Forests" is also common in sources. I made a redirect for it. Dicklyon (talk) 00:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per a comment by SMcCandlish at Talk:Brown–Forman, mergers of distinct entities should use an en dash. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So how do we handle the potential upcoming Brown–Forman–Stitzel–Weller merger talks? Are Brown, Forman and Stitzel negotiating with Weller? Or is Brown negotiating with Forman–Stitzel–Weller? You're left guessing because we've overloaded this by escalating perfectly valid hyphens to en dashes. I suppose a solution would be to escalate the defining en dash to an em dash: the Brown–Forman—Stitzel–Weller merger talks. Really, why is a corporate marriage any different than a human marriage? Corporations are people now, right? wbm1058 (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * There are five additional national forest articles with this same format: Rogue River–Siskiyou National Forest, Ozark–St. Francis National Forest, Wallowa–Whitman National Forest, Medicine Bow – Routt National Forest, and Humboldt–Toiyabe National Forest, while some others do not. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Right, good point. Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest hasn't been moved to Beaverhead–Deerlodge National Forest yet; neither has Bridger-Teton National Forest moved to Bridger–Teton National Forest, nor Salmon-Challis National Forest → Salmon–Challis National Forest. This certainly merits a meta-discussion, rather than ad-hoc random moves of these. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Moving toward more consistent use of en dash between distinct names is the right idea. The spaced en dash in Medicine Bow–Routt should be unspaced.  Things like Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest are just abhorrent; and what is a Salmon-Challis anyway? Dicklyon (talk) 03:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Usage is also quite inconsistent for the U.S. wilderness areas. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 14:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I see that we have a long list of former National Forests, and that many of these are names that were dropped when they were merged / combined into other National Forests. I'm pinging administrator to this discussion, who I observe has created many of these former National Forest articles. – wbm1058 (talk) 16:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)


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