Talk:France–Germany border

Requested move 15 October 2022

France–Germany border → Franco-German border – This is by far the more 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)

• Support, with en-dash not hyphen, per WP:COMMONNAME. BilledMammal (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  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)

  Good point, support as proposed. BilledMammal (talk) 10:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

• 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)
  • 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)

    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)

  • 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)

    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)

    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)