Jump to content

Talk:Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 19 October 2021

[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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move based primarily on WP:COMMONNAME. Editors differed on what the MOS actually requires in this circumstance but the numerical weight of the votes, and the important basis of WP:COMMONNAME in neutrality, which is core principle of Wikipedia, is a sound basis by itself, and provides a simple guide that editors can easily apply. (non-admin closure) FOARP (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC) FOARP (talk) 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– The article was moved by User:McVahl without discussion in May 2020, stating en dash preferred as per MOS:ENDASH. I don't believe that this is in line with the official spelling of the shire name. The official shire website uses no dash at all, using Shire of Serpentine Jarrahdale instead. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses Serpentine-Jarrahdale, as does the Western Australian government. I don't think, the use of the Endash here is in line with the official spelling of the shire name. The category for the article however was left at Category:Shire of Serpentine-Jarrahdale. Please note that User:McVahl done the same move on (as far as I can see) all Western Australian shire article names that included a dash with the same reasoning. Calistemon (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 16:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:OFFICIALNAMES doesn't mention this reason for having the article at an unofficial name. In this case, the common name is the same as the official name. This name is not obscure, isn't subject to competing authorities, isn't propaganda. Steelkamp (talk) 04:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This isn't a matter of styling but of spelling, the various options are different characters. If we were using the dash to create a descriptive title that would also be a matter of styling, but we aren't, it's the common name. So we should go by common usage. If the guidelines don't allow for this then the guidelines are wrong so IAR and try to fix them. Andrewa (talk) 10:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the hyphen makes no sense in the context of a style that has the en dash available to signal the "and" relationship. A space (like in the official website) would be an acceptable alternative, but a hyphen is not. And spelling is about letters; this is not that, but rather punctuation or styling. There are other sources using the en dash, too, e.g. this book. And some style it with a "slash", another recognition of the inappropriateness of a hyphen here. Dicklyon (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as the name of the article's subject has a hyphen in it, so MOS is irrelevant. Would those who oppose this move wish to move, say, Jacob Rees-Mogg to Jacob Rees–Mogg because it fits the Manual of Style? No, of course they wouldn't. YttriumShrew (talk) 21:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't a different name; it's merely a slightly different (and more semantically meaningful) orthographic convention. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But a different and official name might be the answer here. Their official web pages (and their Facebook page) seem to use neither a hyphen nor a dash, but just a space or linebreak. Why don't we propose to just use the space version instead? Dicklyon (talk) 20:44, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I don't find any of the above arguments very persuasive. I agree with the opposing editors (and disagree with the supporting editors) that this is a matter of a style and not of spelling, so WP:COMMONNAME is irrelevant. Moreover, I don't see any evidence that common usage actually does favour a hyphen: I only see evidence suggesting that this is official usage, which is not the same thing.
However, if we say "Wikipedia has its own guidelines about such matters in its Manual of Style", then we have to follow what the MOS says. It remains the case that MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES states that Austria–Hungary is wrong and Austria-Hungary is right. That reflects the consensus in this 2010 RM and the article remains at Austria-Hungary. It was suggested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 221#En dashes and merged jurisdictional names that this was wrong and the MOS should be changed, but this suggestion attracted no support. The RM at Talk:Travancore–Cochin#Requested move 12 March 2021 did not reach consensus, so it cannot show that we now have a consensus to use an en-dash.
I !voted the other way at Talk:North Rhine-Westphalia#Requested move 28 October 2021, but there is an additional factor there, namely that North Rhine is a single element containing a space, so the current title suggests that the article is about the northern part of Rhine-Westphalia (which it is not). Exactly this point was made by Quondum in the MOS talk discussion.Havelock Jones (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the recent close at Talk:Baden-Württemberg#Requested move 25 October 2021 found a consensus to use a hyphen in that case. Havelock Jones (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shire_of_Serpentine-Jarrahdale&oldid=1241514118"