Talk:France–Germany border

Requested move 15 October 2022

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: Not moved. No such user (talk) 09:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

– This is by far the more WP:COMMON NAME for the border in English sources; according the ngram viewer about 36 times more common than the current title. Bermicourt (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with en-dash not hyphen, per WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This one actually would need a hyphen per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES: Franco- is a combining form, not an independent word, so use a hyphen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, support as proposed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposed article title would go against the WP:CONSISTENT criterion, since it would become inconsistent with France-Germany relations and the quasi-totality of articles under Category:Bilateral relations of France and Category:Bilateral relations of Germany (as well as other border articles and bilateral articles from all other the world). A 2022 RfC similarly tried to change bilateral relations articles from the noun form to the adjectival form, but ultimately failed to achieve consensus. Pilaz (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. "France-Germany relations" doesn't even figure in English sources - see ngram viewer here (nor does "Germany-France relations"); whereas both adjectival forms do; "Franco-German relations" being way the more common. So looks like that needs changing too, but that's a separate debate. Basically the title of this article is an ungrammatical Wikipedia invention that is not used by WP:RS whereas the proposal here is simply to use the WP:COMMONNAME. Bermicourt (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Although I appreciate the expansion of your argument, there is no real need to reiterate what you have already written in the nomination (which, if done repeatedly and in a disproportionate manner, may amount to WP:BLUDGEON). I find your WP:NATURALNESS argument vastly matched by the current title and vastly outweighted by the consistency WP:CRITERIA. If you'd like a more in-depth explanation of my position, you may read what I and other "B" voters wrote at the 2022 RfC. Cheers, Pilaz (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The well attended RfC failed to find a consensus in favour of either consistent adjectival or nounal forms. As the closer said, no consensus that one pattern across all bilateral relations article currently exists on Wikipedia that is so dominant that it is the be-all-end-all in every discussion on naming bilateral relations articles. As such we need to consider all of WP:CRITERIA, not just WP:CONSISTENT, and due to the increased naturality of the proposed title WP:CRITERIA as a whole supports this move. BilledMammal (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I am happy to clarify that it is my opinion that WP:CONSISTENT is the WP:CRITERIA that clenches this discussion in favor of the current title for me, since it is backed by the stability that these article titles have had over the past several years. I do not find the naturality of either term particularly superior to the other in either direction. Perhaps your last sentence, which reads due to the increased naturality of the proposed title WP:CRITERIA as a whole supports this move, is also worth qualifying as your opinion. Pilaz (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:CONSISTENT is the WP:CRITERIA that clenches this discussion in favor of the current title for me Since the RfC found that there is no consensus for that argument it should be discounted by the closer.
      is also worth qualifying as your opinion It's a fact, per the evidence provided by the nom. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      This is a WP:AT discussion, and consistency of the five accepted WP:CRITERIA. When two or more criteria are in contrast, editors are asked to evaluate which to prioritize. The 2022 RfC hasn't affected the WP:AT policy. I'm not sure I understand where your disagreement comes from. Pilaz (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      My disagreement is because the RfC found no consensus that one pattern across all bilateral relations article currently exists on Wikipedia that is so dominant that it is the be-all-end-all in every discussion on naming bilateral relations articles. Because the broader community has not accepted the argument for one pattern local discussions cannot either and that means that arguments that support a proposed title over another on the basis of consistency must be discounted. BilledMammal (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:NOCONSENSUS states that In article title discussions, in the event of a lack of consensus the applicable policy preserves the most recent prior stable title. The RfC ended as no consensus and didn't alter either the naming convention or WP:AT. Therefore, WP:CONSISTENT, as one of the five WP:CRITERIA of WP:AT, is as valid argument an argument as remaining five criteria. I look at Category:Borders of Germany, Category:Borders of Germany, Category:Bilateral relations of France, and Category:Bilateral relations of Germany, and what I see the noun form almost exclusively used. You're in your full right to disagree with me prioritizing CONSISTENCY over the four other criteria of WP:AT, but to call for an argument to be discounted by the closer feels to me like WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Pilaz (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      What the RfC did was establish that the broader community does not accept your position. If you disagree with that you can appeal the close, or open a new RfC and see if consensus has changed. BilledMammal (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Or we can ask simply the closer, Mhawk10, to clarify whether a WP:NOCONSENSUS closure to 2022 RfC impedes me from making a WP:CONSISTENT argument in a WP:AT discussion, grounded on the uniformity of the article titles in Category:Borders of Germany, Category:Borders of Germany, Category:Bilateral relations of France, and Category:Bilateral relations of Germany. By your same logic, by the way, the broader community does not accept your position either. Pilaz (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      By your same logic, by the way, the broader community does not accept your position either. Yes, I said that at the start: The well attended RfC failed to find a consensus in favour of either consistent adjectival or nounal forms. BilledMammal (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Which doesn't impede one from making a consistency argument in light of all five WP:CRITERIA. The close is pretty clear that it allows that, since, per the clarification you requested, consistency is one among five explicit criteria; evaluation of proposed titles must be weighed with respect to the strength of arguments made in light of the article titling policy as a whole. Having weighted all five, in particular the NATURALNESS argument of the two wordings which I find close to equal, it is my opinion that consistency between border article titles is still more desirable (as this particular proposed change makes the set of article titles more heterogenous). I think this reasoning is explicitly allowed by the close, and I don't see anything in the close explicitly forbidding one from using CONSISTENT as an argument in a WP:AT discussion, but we'll see what the closer has to say about it. Pilaz (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Relisted as the result of a move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2022_October. Adumbrativus (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Text of original closing statement
The result of the move request was: Moved. There's only one oppose, and it's based entirely on WP:CONSISTENT. CONSISTENT refers to following a common consistent naming convention among similar articles, where and when applicable. But it has been pointed out, without any disagreeing much less refuting, that a recent RFC (last year) failed to establish consensus that such a consistent naming convention exists for precisely the articles in question here. One user apparently feels that, nevertheless, there is a consistent naming convention applicable here, despite the finding of the RFC, favoring the current title, and CONSISTENT should still apply. I'm sorry, but I think the RFC result trumps the opinion of one user. If they had argued something like the scope of the RFC was larger than what matters here, I might have given it more weight. But I just don't see that, and I can't go beyond the bounds set by the arguments actually presented here. More importantly, there is simply no retort to the nom's powerful "36 times more common than the current title" argument. Even if there was a strong consistency-based argument favoring the current title, I don't see how that could outweigh such an overwhelming COMMONNAME situation. В²C ☎ 05:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but I think WP:CONSISTENT wins the day in this case. The proposed title would be pretty glaringly out of step with all the like articles I see, among which the term "Franco" is rare to absent. These include articles in categories about bilateral relations of France and of Germany: France–Germany relations, France–Italy relations, France–Spain relations, etc. More significantly, it includes articles in categories about the borders of France and of Germany: France–Italy border, France–Spain border, France–Switzerland border, etc. The proposed name pretty clearly fails to meet the criterion.

    With conciseness, precision, and recognizability all similar, that just leaves naturalness, and the results of a quick search (54k for "Franco-German border" versus 46k for "France-Germany border") doesn't suggest it's a slam-dunk. Seemingly both forms are natural, just not equally so, whereas the proposed one is not at all consistent with like articles; as such, I think keeping the current title is the most sensible path. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:04, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Huwmanbeing: For search result counts, see WP:GOOGLELIMITS; those numbers are likely to be very inaccurate. A search of Google News and going to the last page to obtain the exact number of results shows 37 results for "France-Germany border", compared to 106 results for "Franco-German border" and 239 results for "French-German border".
    On that basis, I would support "French-German border" over "Franco-German border", and "Franco-German border" over "France-Germany border". BilledMammal (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If counts were the only factor we considered, I might do the same. However, per WP:AT we have to consider all the criteria, and as such the current title seems the better option. ╠╣uw [talk] 18:45, 8 November 2022 (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.

Requested move 31 December 2022

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: Speedy close. Recently rejected, no new arguments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:24, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

France–Germany border → Franco-German border – Grammatically, Franco-German makes more sense than the current one Signed, Pichemist ( Contribs | Talk ) 12:44, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and speedy close. This was discussed recently and the consensus was against the move. Vpab15 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2022 (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:France–Germany_border&oldid=1206006189"