{{subst:empty template|1=This template must be substituted. Replace {{move review list with {{subst:move review list.}}
Narrow gauge railways in Saxony edit
- Narrow gauge railways in Saxony (talk|edit|history|logs|links|archive|watch) (RM){{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page1}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page1}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page1}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page1}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page1}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page2}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page2}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page2}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page2}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page2}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page3}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page3}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page3}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page3}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page3}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page4}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page4}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page4}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page4}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page4}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page5}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page5}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page5}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page5}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page5}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page6}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page6}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page6}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page6}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page6}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page7}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page7}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page7}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page7}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page7}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page8}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page8}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page8}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page8}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page8}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page9}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page9}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page9}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page9}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page9}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }}{{subst:#if:|
- [[:{{{page10}}}]] ([[|talk]]|[{{fullurl:{{{page10}}}|action=edit}} edit]|[{{fullurl:{{{page10}}}|action=history}} history]|logs|[[Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{page10}}}|links]]|archive|[{{fullurl:{{{page10}}}|action=watch}} watch]) }} (WARNING: THIS MOVE REVIEW IS INVALID IF NO DISCUSSION WAS HELD WITH THE CLOSER. IF YOU ARE READING THIS, PLEASE CLOSE THIS REQUEST IMMEDIATELY IF THERE HAS BEEN NO DISCUSSION.)
Closer seems to have mis-read both the issues and the strong consensus to use the hyphen to clarify that "narrow-gauge" is to be parsed as a unit when used as an adjective. Closer's comment that "there were very robust and well-presented arguments in both directions" is indefensible in light of the actual comments presented, as we will review here. Details follow. Dicklyon (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- The arguments
1. consistency – Closer's analysis is that there are 3 main issues: the substantive merits of hyphenating "narrow gauge"/"narrow-gauge"; consistency with other articles; and WP:ENGVAR/WP:TIES issues. In fact, the idea of consistency with other articles, which she regarded as a weakness, was not an issue or argument that anybody raised. She says On the question of consistency, a clear majority of editors supported changing this title to the hyphenated form to match the head article and other related articles. However, that claim was undermined by the point made by others that the current balance of usage largely derives from WP:BOLD moves, and may not reflect a consensus. I find nothing about this in the discussion. The only editor to comment in this space (of consistency with other articles) was Cinderella157, who argued that the hyphenated form should be used throughout because The converse of consistently not using the hyphenated form would lead to a degradation of clarity in some cases. This had nothing to do with the history of naming of other articles.
2. well-presented arguments in both directions – There were only three (3) editors arguing against the hyphen. None of their arguments were well presented. They were:
- Bermicourt – started out with an argument based on ENGVAR, which was previously discredited in prior discussions and unsupported in this discussion. He argued RETAIN, and accused me of a "campaign", but really had no argument based in evidence, policy, or guidelines. He cited an online dictionary as if it was the OED, and I showed him that he was wrong, and that the OED totally contradicts his position.
- Bahnfrend – a self-described "railway enthusiast" as his username attests, too, simply asserts that he has seldom encountered "narrow-gauge"; ignores the evidence about prevalence. He argues that the expression "narrow gauge railway" is not ambiguous, but that's from the POV of a rail insider who immediately recognizes the familiar complex construct. His point that the hyphen can be dropped is true, but his provides no real evidence that dropping the hyphen is preferred in writing for a general audience, less familiar with such rail terminology.
- Mjroots – showing up after Bermicourt's canvassing here, simply asserts there's no such thing as a "Standard-gauge railway", so there's no need to hyphenate either Broad gauge or Narrow gauge. This is immediately shown to be absurd.
3. Nine (9) editors, including nom, supported using the hyphen in "narrow-gauge" when it is used as an adjective before "railways" or such, and hence supported the move proposal. Their reasons were various, but strongly based in cited evidence from dictionaries, grammar guides, and actual usage stats in books, including showing that there is no significant difference between usage stats in different English variants.
Closer mis-read and/or misrepresented these arguments in saying that they were "well-presented arguments in both directions". A 9:3 !vote would need a much stronger rationale than that to be interpreted as no consensus. There was a clear consensus to move, to include the hyphen, based on usage evidence, examples from dictionaries, advices from grammar guides, and our own MOS as some pointed out as well. It is clear from the discussion that omitting or including the hyphen will not hurt the readibility by readers by people familiar with rail terminology, but that for the general reader, the inclusion of the hyphen can only help. Only railroad buffs opposed this, and with reasons that were easily shown to be nonsensical, irrelevant, or just too biased. Most editors understand that we write for a general audience, and made a good case that the hyphenation per standard English practice is part of that. It is unclear how closer missed that, though the text was admittedly very long.
Finally, sources could not be more clear that hyphens are preferred by a wide margin. Closer ignores that fact.