This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Film: Filmmaking / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Organized Labour Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Cinema / Television Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

It has been proposed in this section that multiple pages be renamed and moved. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use ((subst:requested move)). Do not use ((requested move/dated)) directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

• SAG-AFTRA → SAG–AFTRA
• 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike → 2023 SAG–AFTRA strike

– MOS:DASH Wow (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, according to the website, IMDb, and other news sources that mentioned. --2001:4451:824F:B700:351F:F869:156A:4BFD (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has now been moved twice while the article is on the main page in violation of WP:MPNOREDIRECT. For the time being, I've applied moved protection. If the consensus is that it's got to be moved again, this needs to be done by an admin who can simultaneously fix the resulting redirect from the main page. Schwede66 09:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you you Schwede. Please can y'all not move mainpage articles without going through a Requested move! :3 F4U (they/it) 12:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per MOS:DASH. Exactly like AFL–CIO. This is an article title formatting issue, not a common name issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that's a real stretch of an argument in this scenario. The point of MOS is so that Wikipedia follows what the primary English-language publications and style guidelines do and there is no evidence that the "en-dash" form for SAG-AFTRA is used...by anyone at all. A look through Google Books and pretty much all the books mentioning the organization use a hyphen, the same is the case for practically every news agency. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a stretch at all. It's the same thing as our formatting convention of not capitalizing short prepositions in titles regardless of what sources do. Whether or not to use a hyphen or a dash is a formatting issue and our formatting rules are what should win out. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is the formatting issue? Why should this use an en dash vice a hyphen? I cannot tell based on the MOS section cited because it does not clearly fall under those sections. -2pou (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...And I agree that it's a stretch. I don't think I've ever seen someone use an en dash for SAG-AFTRA, or AFL-CIO for that matter. —theMainLogan (t•c) 23:44, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could someone kindly point out which aspect of MOS:DASH actually applies here? I do not necessarily oppose (though I lean that way as of now), but pointing to MOS:DASH is not persuasive in and of itself. It does not appear to be in an attempt to convey a range for "to or through" use; it does not appear to convey a connection that would use to, versus, or between; it is not a prefix to a compound; it is not a list; and under "other uses" it states a hyphen joins components more strongly. My understanding is that this is not a relationship between SAG and AFTRA (for which an en dash would seem fitting), but in this case neither SAG nor AFTRA exist any longer in order to have a relationship. Those organizations no longer exist, and they have now merged into a single entity. -2pou (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Officially opposing now since Walt Yoder pointed out the part of MOS:DASH that actually argues against this move in the !vote below. -2pou (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move. Reliable sources tend to use a hyphen, not a dash. O.N.R. ^(talk) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per MOS:DASH { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Which part of MOS:DASH does this fall under? It is not clear to me. -2pou (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  See my !vote below, the use of a dash falls under MOS:ENBETWEEN. Happily888 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per MOS:DASH, specifically Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. Walt Yoder (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out. It definitely narrows down such a long MOS guideline to the point that is actually relevant. -2pou (talk) 04:50, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  This exemption shouldn't apply here because the name isn't referring to a single entity, but rather an organization which involves two entities and therefore falls under MOS:ENBETWEEN; this case pertains more to 'Minneapolis–Saint Paul' rather than to the other examples of 'Guinea-Bissau', 'Wilkes-Barre', and 'John Lennard-Jones'.

Looking through the guideline's page history, it is worth a note that the exemption your quoting initially only pertained to place names prior to August 2011 and only linked to the examples of 'Guinea-Bissau', 'Austria-Hungary' (now in MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES) and 'Poland-Lithuania'.[1][2] Happily888 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the same reason as Walt Yoder. CAMERAwMUSTACHE (talk) 00:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This case is exactly like AFL–CIO, and the full name of the merged organization is "Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists" not "Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists". PS: We do not rely on news journalism to set style on Wikipedia; nearly all journalists follow a style guide (AP Stylebook, Guardian and Observer style guide [sic], or some other one) that makes no use of dashes at all except as parenthetical punctuation. They are not examples of how to write encyclopedically; our style manual is derived from academic style guides, which do make appropriate and distinctive use of en dashes, in precisely the way called for here. We did not come up with MOS:DASH out of nowhere. WP is not written in news style as a matter of policy (WP:NOT#NEWS). Otherwise we would not have our own style manual at all and would just follow news style for everything. What is happening in the opposes above is the WP:Common-style fallacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Using that logic, shouldn't it be called "SAG – AFTRA"? —theMainLogan (t•c) 22:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, by your logic shouldn't internal spaces also need to be added whenever a colon or slash is used, we don't write "Space Jam : A New Legacy" instead of "Space Jam: A New Legacy" or, "Harvard / MIT Cooperative Society" instead of "Harvard/MIT Cooperative Society". Also, this is covered at the bottom of MOS:ENBETWEEN: Do not use spaces around the en dash in any of the compounds above. Happily888 (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  SMcCandlish wrote "Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists" as the "SAG-AFTRA" example. I was simply pointing out that—based on that example—"Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists" should become "SAG – AFTRA", not "SAG–AFTRA". —theMainLogan (t•c) 02:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But this would be incorrect. Taking any of the examples from the section you've referenced, the "Uganda–Tanzania War" is able to be re-written as the "Uganda and Tanzania War" but not "Uganda – Tanzania War", and "Minneapolis–Saint Paul" is able to refer to "Minneapolis and Saint Paul" yet not "Minneapolis – Saint Paul". Basically, just because the acronym doesn't involve spaces doesn't mean the full name can't do so as well. Happily888 (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—by WP's rules, it's a dash. Tony (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom ReneeWrites (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There is no presence in MOS:DASH of a rule supporting the use of an en dash in the union's name. There is, however, a set guideline stating that a hyphen should be used for compound names. I think the people who say "per MOS:DASH" or something similar to it A) never actually read the page, or B) are fully aware that there is no rule requiring an en dash for compound names and that is why they keep using "per MOS:DASH" as their reasoning without specifiying where said rule is written. —theMainLogan (t•c) 11:16, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's amazing how much interest there is in discussing the length of a line between two letters. 331dot (talk) 11:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed that you're an administrator. While you're still here to notice how pointless this discussion is, may you please close this and the discussion at Talk:2023 SAG-AFTRA strike#Requested move 20 July 2023? —theMainLogan (t•c) 11:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a policy being discussed here so I don't think the discussion should be summarily closed. I just found it interesting that such a minor point was attracting interest. I don't really see a distinction here but some people do, then they do. 331dot (talk) 11:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  331dot, you'd be amazed the lengths some people will go to just to avoid compliance with some MoS point that doesn't agree with their personal style peccadilloes. It's usually motivated by the WP:SSF (imitate specialist style), but in this case it's the WP:CSF (imitate news-journalism style).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support,

• "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)."
• "Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists"
• SAG does not modify AFTRA
• SAG and AFTRA work together like eyes and hands
• title should use dash.

85.147.66.47 (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per MOS:DASH, specifically MOS:ENBETWEEN: [Use dashes] In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between. As this is the acronym-form of a merged organization (per SMcCandlish's comment above), the name could reasonably be rewritten as "Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists". Therefore, the article title and article should use the en-dash format. There is a clear implied relationship in this name, as it refers to the two union groups which the organization is composed of, satisfying that it is involving separate or independent elements. Happily888 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – like AFL–CIO, ZANU–PF, AD–IA model, NBN–ZTE deal corruption scandal, 1962 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF–UEFA play-off), GC–MS, ONGC–GAIL Delhi Open, DRC–CAR border, where an en dash would be used to signal the parallel relationship in the spelled out version, using an en dash in the initialism similarly provides a useful semantic cue to the reader (at least, to those readers whose fonts show the difference). Dicklyon (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe aside from AFL–CIO, the examples you're using are irrelevant. —theMainLogan (t•c) 23:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have merged the move request from Talk:2023 SAG-AFTRA strike#Requested move 20 July 2023 to here. @Wow, Jurisdicta, Tim O'Doherty, Dawkin Verbier, ModernDayTrilobite, Rreagan007, 2pou, Freedom4U, Old Naval Rooftops, TheMainLogan, Fjardeson, CAMERAwMUSTACHE, PickleG13, SMcCandlish, Tony1, ReneeWrites, Happily888, Dicklyon, and AsteriodX: Pinging all participants of that discussion in the event they want to add anything here. (My apologies if I'm pinging you and you have already participated in this discussion; there's a chance someone may want to alter their comment(s) based on a discussion merge, so I felt the pings to be appropriate either way.) Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Very strongly oppose per MOS:DASH, from which I took this quote: Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. And WP:COMMONNAME also comes into play in this situation.
  Compound names are supposed to use a hyphen instead of an en dash, and common names should be used. On top of that, seemingly all of the article's sources use "SAG-AFTRA" instead of "SAG–AFTRA", and the union's official website uses the hyphen as well. Pretty much everybody uses a hyphen in the name, which I feel already outlines a consensus. In other words, nobody writes the name with an en dash because that's not the union's name! —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please see WP:TSC, its a moot point whether or not external sources use a different punctuation. Consensus is made in discussions based on Wikipedia policy, not based on what other websites use. Clearly Dicklyon's !vote examples above show that even when external sources use hyphens, the consensus in Wikipedia has been to use dashes, in a majority of cases. Maybe these previous discussions (1, 2) would be relevant and/or helpful here, as similarly merged organizations. Happily888 (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When I said "consensus", I meant the dictionary definition, not the Wikipedia definition. And I'm pretty sure the en dash is a special character. —theMainLogan (t•c) 02:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Then if you meant the dictionary definition, then this point isn't valid, as titles don't need to be the same as the most common usage outside of Wikipedia. SMcCandlish's post hoc comment here quite clearly explains the reasoning for the use of dashes in this instance. Happily888 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Where exactly is that comment? —theMainLogan (t•c) 09:35, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's after the discussion linked above Talk:Brown–Forman#Requested move 28 August 2018. I've copied the comment below:

  Post hoc comment to forestall any re-RM stuff. It's Brown–Forman, Stitzel–Weller, Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, etc., because these are mergers of comparable entities. It's Epstein–Barr and Black–Scholes because of a different convention, to use en dashes between surnames of co-discovers/proponents, to get around the problem of hyphenated surnames. But it's Hewlett-Packard and Wilkes-Barre with a hyphen because these are not mergers, and are just entities that happened to have two namesakes (which did not have to have been people's surnames, they just happen to be in this case). In a perfect world, the convention applied to surnames of discoverers and proponents would also be applied to corporations and co-founded towns, when they use surnames. But it just isn't the real-world case. However, you can probably bet money that if Chris Winston-Smyth and Jan van Diesel form a partnership and it uses their surnames that you'll get "Winston-Smyth–van Diesel" not "Winston-Smyth-van Diesel" (or they might use a "not conjoined with a horizontal line" form, like "Winston-Smyth van Diesel", "Winston-Smyth/van Diesel", or whatever some combination of their trademark lawyer and their logo designer come up with – maybe even WinstonSmythVanDiesel the way things are going these days). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 13:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Happily888 (talk) 09:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  theMainLogan: As one of the principal authors of MOS:DASH, I can tell you unequivocally that you are willfully misinterpreting it, and badly. "Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities" means cases like Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, which is not a merger of a Wilkes and a Barre, but simply named after two namesakes. Similarly, people with "double-barrelled" surnames like Baden-Powell take a hyphen. SAG–AFTRA is the product of a merger (and a very recent one at that, in 2012), and there is absolutely no question that MOS:DASH intends for an en dash to be used here. If you think otherwise you are just smokin' crack clearly in error.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 22:09, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SMcCandlish: Even if meant non-literally, "you are just smokin' crack" is a personal attack, and one that seems to have upset TheMainLogan. Could you please strike it? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:40, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's really, really obviously a joke. Try cultivating a sense of humor.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as hypercorrection. This article is not about two entities called SAG and AFTRA. It is about a single entity called SAG-AFTRA, with a hyphen, essentially never rendered any other way by any reliable source. A double-barreled union name is no different from a double-barreled place name or surname. AFL–CIO should probably be moved to AFL-CIO for the same reason, but that's beyond the scope of this RM. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the number of replies (ab)using AFL-CIO as an "example", I think it fits within the scope of the RM. —theMainLogan (t•c) 23:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that page move should be proposed for the AFL-CIO page. Historyday01 (talk) 13:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: As others have stated above, on its website (www.sagaftra.org) the organization itself designates itself as Screen Actors Guild - American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, its copyright notice states © 2023 SAG-AFTRA. All Rights Reserved, its Mission statement uses SAG-AFTRA, the Membership Cards use SAG•AFTRA and so on. Regardless of MOS:DASH/"what other websites use"...why isn't WP relying on the organization itself as the authority in this matter? SAG-AFTRA is not just some spurious "external source", the organization itself calls itself by its own name - why would we even consider basically calling it something else?Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because if we used the stylization which every organization itself chose to use, there would be no consistency nor clear standard amoung article titles. This entire article, including the article title, should comply with Wikipedia's style manual, which is MOS. If you disagree with MOS and wish to change it, discussion to seek consensus should occur at its talk page, as this RM discussion should be about correctly applying its policy instead of whether or not it should be applied. Happily888 (talk) 03:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Because if we used the stylization"? It's not the style, it's the actual name. How about someone ask the organization what its name is or is that also somehow against policy... Yes, imo there actually should be an addendum to rely on the organization as to what its actual name actually is. But I apparently digress stating how the organization's name is rendered on the organization's own website and official letterhead etc since I am being admonished to only discuss dash or hyphen as it pertains to policy etc. according to Wikipedia rules about organization's names. Do I now have that straight? Well, maybe I think WP:IAR - since it is policy - should apply in this case. And the explanatory essay WP:COMMONSENSE is especially helpful. Shearonink (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WHO-CARES or better articulated as WHO–CARES. I found this suggested move banner on the article itself more disruptive than any benefit of either the original or target page. When the article is on the home page, we should prioritise our readers instead of fighting over weird internal consistencies/wiki conventions. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:48, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• THIS–POINTLESS—note the en-dash, indicating a connection between "this" and "pointless"—and note also the em-dash setting off that parenthetical clause. Furthermore, note the hyphens in "en-dash" and "em-dash"—you'll see that this is proper as well—and finally, note the fully grown adults (many of whom are honest-to-God scholars, have doctorate degrees, &c.) getting so mad over the G——-d—— en-dash in an article title that they are ending up at arb enforcement over it. Meanwhile—I should note—per the traffic report—a wonderful piece of software—by the way——for this article——some thirty-nine thousand people—and obviously more from the twenty-fifth—who haven't been counted yet—because it takes a day for the views to be updated——have had their viewing experience tainted by this maintenance template on top of the page—which leads them to an unbelievably deranged argument on the talk page—how many potential new editors do we lose every time we pull one of these?—and I don't think the fact of having it at the correct title is really worth the cost. jp×g 20:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think the above comments are really that helpful, this discussion and the template at the top of the page wouldn't have needed to occur if the initial move by Rreagan007 hadn't been reverted by 2pou, both whilst the article was on the main page. If previous commenters don't have a preference for either option, why did they write such long comments about how much they didn't care or believed the move was pointless; clearly it is contentious whether or not the article is moved, so clearly the discussion should occur at least for another two days. Happily888 (talk) 03:45, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not have a preference on whether "SAG-AFTRA" is written with a hyphen, an en-dash, or a ･ U+FF65 HALFWIDTH KATAKANA MIDDLE DOT. What I object to is four thousand words of text—nearly a full novelette—devoted to a decision on two options that probably upwards of ninety percent of English speakers literally cannot distinguish between, which is listed at WP:RM, WP:DASHBOARD etc. It also requires a close, which involves a great deal of extra volunteer clerical work from someone (who is then later subject to being yelled at if they misread consensus, so they really need to read the entire thing). In light of this, I change my comment to Strong Support for whichever option seems the most popular and will end the discussion quickly. jp×g 06:22, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I wouldn't mind the other titles as re-directs. Changing the titles is pointless and a waste of time. Why even propose this change at all? Historyday01 (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Although they use a regular hyphen when referring to themselves, as seen on their website and social media profiles, MOS:ENBETWEEN does set precedence for the use of a dash on-wiki, and that is for a dash to be used in this and instance. BhamBoi (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever-gets–this—closed・quicker. I second Shushugah and jpxg's comments here; for almost a week now we've had this banner on two highly trafficked articles linked on the main page. There's no CSK#6 equivalent for requested moves but honestly maybe there should be since similar problems apply (highly visible notice, Main Page needs to be updated to fix WP:MPNOREDIRECT if the RM closes as a move). Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 23:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think the references to MOS:ENBETWEEN are misguided. In general, "SAG-AFTRA" is not a compound where the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between. It's not the "SAG and AFTRA strike" because SAG-AFTRA is one entity (formed from two formerly separate entities). SilverLocust 💬 07:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]