Talk:An Post–Chain Reaction

Major victories

I suggest to put only the victories of the team in this list, and not every single placement in a top ten. LegendK (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, we need to keep this standard Racklever (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Denis Dunsworth

There is no birth date on the cyclingnews website for birthdate of Denis Dunsworth.Phil_Nolte^talk 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

2010

I put in about license being Belgian for 2010. I didn't want to go further as it sounded pr-ish about high level and low level racing Phil Nolte (talk) 12:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the move request was: not moved. Consensus here and the manual of style call for a dash. A wikiproject-prescribed style that is at odds with the manual of style is problematic and ought to have a compelling justification. In any case, there is no consensus here to favor the cycling wikiproject's guide. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

---

An Post–Sean Kelly → An Post-Sean Kelly – Per WP:CYC-CD, there's a consensus that team names should be written with a hyphen and not an endash. Team names indicate conjunction and not dysjunction, thus requiring a hyphen. To quote User:Kevin McE in the discussion which resulted in the decision, "Silence and Lotto are in partnership, not opposition; two separate entities have established links that form a new, third, entity, which has a single, compound, name." Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 14:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support, but the hyphen should be spaced to make it clear which lexical elements are being conjoined. Powers ^T 12:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Where is the alleged consensus that teams are named with a hyphen, not an en dash? That may be done in sources that exclude en dash from their repertoire, and use a hyphen faute de mieux. It is not a consensus for style on Wikipedia. Where is there any support for the suggestion by Powers (see above) that a spaced hyphen be used? That is unheard of in respectable publishing. WP:DASH has recently been revised after wide community consultation, under ArbCom supervision. The process confirmed support for uses of en dash such as we see in the present title, and served to resolve long-standing problem cases like Mexican–American War (the case that led to that consultation). This is a stylistic and punctuational question such as "publishers" generally (and that includes Wikipedia) reserve to themselves; so WP:MOS (including WP:DASH) is the appropriate resource. Noetica^Tea? 02:47, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • From the section linked in the OP (although I admit, as it's in-text it's not the easiest to spot), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 111#Is this conjuction or disjunction?. From "Can I try to draw this back to my original question?" down it seemed pretty clear that there was a consensus. However, it's 18 months old, and it seems the consensus has changed, and I wasn't aware of that fact. Thanks for the input, you three – I think User:Kwamikagami is right here and it probably needs to be spaced, as I indeed believe that was the issue User:LtPowers was raising. So, would everyone agree with An Post – Sean Kelly? Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 07:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
  • I opposed and continue to oppose the ridiculous notion that constructions like "New York–Los Angeles" be used over the much clearer "New York – Los Angeles". We buffer the dash with spaces when used in a date range, and there's no reason it oughtn't apply to other situations where there are spaces in the units being conjoined. That issue aside, WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH are still unsatisfyingly ambiguous when it comes to choosing between the two for conjunctive phrases. I admit I could be wrong in my interpretation of the current documentation. Powers ^T 15:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Two things, Powers. What you suggest above is a spaced hyphen, not a spaced en dash. It has been pointed out that practically no guide advocates a spaced hyphen – except as a poor substitute for a sentence-punctuating dash as a legacy from the typewriter era. As for the spaced en dash in constructions like "An Post – Sean Kelly", WP:MOS used to provide for that, and I supported it. But it was never well received, and there were sound grounds for opposing it. In the end, the community spoke; and it was pretty solidly rejected. What we have now is a good, workable, and robustly founded consensus for the use of dashes (em and en), with just a little fine-tuning to complete. That should be done when WP:HYPHEN comes up for systematic review, since en dash and hyphen obviously overlap in their uses. Noetica^Tea? 23:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, that may be, but the spaced hyphen likewise clarifies things; neither the current title nor the proposed title makes it at all clear whether it's "An", "Post-Sean", and "Kelly" or "An Post" and "Sean Kelly" that are being conjoined. Powers ^T 12:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the present title could be construed in any of these ways, at least (some variations are excluded because an en dash is in use, rather than a hyphen):

• {An Post}–{Sean Kelly} [Correctly]
• {(An Post)–(Sean)} Kelly [With "Kelly" modified by the compound that precedes, somehow]
• An {Post–(Sean Kelly)} ["Post–Sean Kelly", whatever that is, modified by "An", whatever that is]

The context will often determine which is right. In fact, if the context involves teams that often have a joint name with two elements (each with a typical maximum of two smaller elements), even "An Post Sean Kelly" would probably get parsed correctly, though with some hesitation. A major role of punctuation is to give maximum ease and certainty to our interpretation of a string of words when it is written down. In this case, the way WP:MOS suggests is also the way a majority of style guides suggest, the way the community has endorsed, and the way that most people have least trouble interpreting because of that widely accepted practice. Again, a spaced hyphen corresponds to no common practice in current publishing; nor therefore does it match most readers' expectations, or aid their understanding.

Noetica^Tea? 07:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose – partnerships are among the things specifically called out for en dashes in style guides. And there's no condition under which a spaced hyphen is acceptable punctuation, as far as I'm aware. Dicklyon (talk) 03:27, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Conjunction is covered by an en dash. The point is that these are two independent entities being joined. If they were permanently joined, so that they lost their independent existence, then a case could be made to hyphenate (as in Mercedes-Benz), but even in that case a dash would be used here, because it wouldn't be An [Post-Sean] Kelly but [An Post]–[Sean Kelly]. That might be what Powers means by a spaced hyphen, but it should really be a spaced en dash: An Post – Sean Kelley. — kwami (talk) 03:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment All this seems to disagree with the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 111#Is this conjuction or disjunction.3F :/ Severo^TC 06:28, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Given how extensively this effects the cycling project (a good handful of teams frequently have co-sponsors at any one time), should I leave a note on the project talk page to raise wider awareness of this? The changes in the MOS, and the explicit section 2 at MOS:ENDASH have completely changed the intention since that previous discussion took place, and it seems that my original suggestion is out of date with new working practices. This is cited as a consensus decision within the WikiProject at WP:CYC-CD, which is what led me to propose this change, and is within the regular editing style of the project – clearly this will need to change. Given the widespread community consensus, this seems clear that the vast majority of pages will need to be moved to new titles, and I think it would be helpful to let project participants know. (Side-note, going back to the revision from the day that discussion was started, my word how it's changed! That entire second section, which deals with issues like this, has been written since then. It's no wonder my original suggestion was wrong :)) Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 07:02, 14 September 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.

Recent Chain Reaction

Can someone explain why Chain Reaction has been substituted for Sean Kelly in the title? And the styling was also messed up; I fixed the dash and missing space. Dicklyon (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

---

An Post-Chain Reaction → An Post–Chain Reaction – On Oct. 30, a so-called "uncontroversial move" changing en dash to hyphen was executed, contrary to normal English punctuation and style guides, and contrary to usage in sources (Google search shows only Wikipedia doing it with a hyphen that way). The partnership of An Post and Chain Reaction in sponsoring Sean Kelly is best signified by an en dash connecting the two entity names, according to the guidance in MOS:DASH—a hyphen is never used this way. In sources that aren't into en dashes, the two entities are variously connected with a spaced hyphen ("An Post - Chain Reaction", not a recognized style in any guide I've seen) or as Anpost Chainreaction, or just An Post Chain Reaction. The hyphen as it is now suggests that Post-Chain is a compound term of interest here, which it is not. We should revert to the previous name with en dash, or go with no punctuation at all. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support as nom – see also the section above, #Requested move, where it was decided that the en dash was appropriarte in the previous title. I'd call this an uncontroversial revert, but I'm being cautious. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose [see new Support entry by XyZAn at the bottom] per rationale that all (but perhaps one or two) articles use a hyphen and until there is clear wording in MOS that says a dash must be used. XyZAn (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I have initiated discussion on the project talk page. XyZAn (talk) 14:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • MOS was updated to clarify. For a case like this one, with multipart sponsor names, it was never unclear to begin with, so this "oppose" appears to be moot.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that this specific and very common scenario of cycling team names should first be fully sorted out in the style guidelines. We should get a firm consensus on Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Consensus decisions, rather than submit move requests here based on bold edits to that guide. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose – Cycling teams on here use a hyphen between the sponsor names, that is pretty clear. Can you give an example of a cycling team article name using an en dash? If the issue is that it's confusing having a hyphen with no spaces between two-word sponsor names then it would be An Post - Chain Reaction. Also, there are lots of team articles using the same style (Plowman Craven-Evans Cycles, Team IG-Sigma Sport, Charter Mason-Giant Racing Team), so why are you taking such issue with this? BaldBoris 16:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Support – My argument was with consistency, so now a consensus has been reached with the MoS I have no problem with it. BaldBoris 19:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

• • As a matter of policy, at WP:CONLEVEL, wikiprojects cannot make up their own rules in defiance of site-wide ones, and MOS (our site-wide guideline) clearly calls for an en dash here. Furthermore, the discussion linked to from Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Consensus decisions, on which you're relying here without citing it explicitly, does not in fact show a consensus in favor of hyphens.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    • As I've already said on the WP talk page, I don't think is a case of a WP ignoring MOS, but no-one pointing the project in the correct direction. As you've said "MOS's present wording is unclear" and we don't work on "intent", why doesn't MOS get updated with clear and concise guidelines that a layman/we can follow..? Literally something as simple as: "if a sports teams name is made up of sponsor names use X" XyZAn (talk) 13:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
      • I don't mean that it's a matter of ignoring, but of conflicting. The MOS has already been fixed as request [1], and the further discussion at WT:MOS#Punctuation of multi-sponsor team names appears to have come to the conclusion to use en dashes, especially in the cases of multipart sponsor names, which was already covered by an MOS rule before that edit anyway. MOS would not say anything about sports team names in particular. If we tried to repeat general advice for every single topic's examples, MOS would be about 1,000 times longer than it is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • BaldBoris, fixing the other teams will be straightforward once we agree to follow our manual of style and normal good typography, in which rendering a dash as a spaced hyphen is just not done. This is normal wikignoming; I understand you moved the page to use the hyphen in good faith, for consistency, but by now you should be able to see which way we should be headed; being held back by a pack of mis-styled page titles is not a good idea; let's move forward. Dicklyon (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support, obviously, and this could have been speedily reverted. It should be an en dash, because it's a name formed from two multipart but distinct entities. Even if it were something like "Post–Chain", it would still use an en dash because it's composed of the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound. MOS's present wording isn't wasn't as clear as it could be, but its intent is clear, and it's in agreement will all major style guides that address this question. Journalism ones usually don't because most of them do not recognize the existence of the en dash at all; WP doesn't care because WP:NOT#NEWSPAPER. Journalism style guides used either a spaced hyphen or a spaced or unspaced em dash for this purpose, both styles that other style guides denigrate. However, the frequency of "An Post - Chain Reaction" in external sources directly supports "An Post–Chain Reaction" since the spaced hyphen is the journalistic equivalent of the en dash, and not of an unspaced hyphen. The An Post–Chain Reaction case is confusing at first, because it's really short for "the An Post–Chain Reaction team"; i.e., it's an attributive construction that has been "nouned" in a short form for convenience, exactly like "Hale–Bopp" being derived from "comet Hale–Bopp" (a case of the slightly archaic reversal of the attributive order in English, as in "the brothers Grimm" instead of "the Grimm brothers"). It is not a self-contained, non-attributive noun like Wilkes-Barre. The team is neither a merger of those two business entities, nor randomly named after them in an honorary fashion (e.g. I could start a band called Asimov-Einstein, and it would be proper to hyphenate it), but attributively as a joint project of their sponsorship. In this it is, thus, precisely like a three-author paper or a two-discoverer comet, and should be en-dashed. Finally, "An Post-Chain Reaction" is ridiculously confusing, and will be parsed by almost everyone but an Irish speaker as a multi=part typo for "A Post-chain Reaction" or "A Post-chain-reaction".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Updated:  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Note: Discussion at WT:MOS and WT:CYC have led to a revision at WP:CYC-CD, clarifying that the project never had an intent to have different conventions that recommended the MOS. If anyone disagrees, please join those discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, per newly formed consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cycling/Consensus decisions. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support, I'm now happy to support this move. Thanks to all for their work on clarifying MOS XyZAn (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support—Chicago MOS supports this use of the en dash, and it was inserted into our own MOS a few years ago. Tony (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2016 (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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on An Post–Chain Reaction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530020348/http://www.irishcycling.com/publish/news/art_3085.shtml to http://www.irishcycling.com/publish/news/art_3085.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)