Talk:Shasta–Trinity National Forest

Latest comment: 5 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Requested move 15 July 2019

Requested move 15 July 2019

edit
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 Ellsworthed. put'r there  03:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)Reply


Shasta–Trinity National ForestShasta-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)Reply

Further rationale in support

edit

Survey

edit
Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this subsection with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', 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)Reply
  • 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. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 15:33, 16 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    Sorry, what specific text in MOS:DASH says not to do this? Wikipedia:Manual of Style § In article titles 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)Reply
    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)Reply
    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)Reply
  • 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)Reply
    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)Reply

Discussion

edit
Any additional comments:

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.