List of battles of the Mexican–American War is a former featured list. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page and why it was removed. If it has improved again to featured list standard, you may renominate the article to become a featured list.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 15, 2005 Featured list candidate Promoted January 17, 2009 Featured list removal candidate Demoted
Current status: Former featured list

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States Start‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force Mexico List‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico 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.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. United States Unassessed 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. North America Unassessed This article is within the scope of WikiProject North America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North America 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.North AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject North AmericaTemplate:WikiProject North AmericaNorth America articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Hi there, is anybody watching this page. As part of a prospective sweeps of older Featured lists, this page has been flagged up as needing some attention. As a start the WP:LEAD does not summarise the article adequately. It might also need some tightening up of the references, with specific citations for some of the contentious statements. If I can help, or if there are any questions, leave them on my talk page. (I have watchlisted this page as well.) Woody (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of the Mexican–American War → Battles of the Mexican-American War —

• 1. Most reliable sources use a hyphen instead of an en dash
  2. Adherence to the WP:Manual of Style
  3. Consistency with Mexican-American War
  • I hope this will be an uncontroversial request; I know the first two reasons are debatable but the last certainly is not. –CWenger (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The first is irrelevant, as we do not depend on RSs for stylistic choices. The second is false. As for the third, a bad title at another article is not reason to imitate it. — kwami (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I agree with all the above points. A Mexican-American war would be a war of the Mexican-American variety, whereas Mexican–American war suggests a war between Mexicans and Americans. McLerristarr | Mclay1 11:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose—Agree entirely with Kwami. Tony (talk) 11:56, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move, the immense majority of reliable sources in paper use hyphen. That includes military history publishers, divulgative book publishers, textbook publishers and university presses. Such sources use dashes for other purposes like page ranges, to separate sentences and in other compound words; so, let's not raise the strawman of lazy publishers. Per WP:COMMONNAME, which is policy, we should follow the common usage in English language RS. People have been supporting dash over hyphen in this name because it's more "correct" or something. I don't know enough English to know if their position is defensible, but I do know that wikipedia is not based in the editor's personal opinion of what is correct or wrong.

This is not a trench war where unliked changes are resisted page by page (WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND and stuff). So, someone close the RM in Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move and then implement the necessary changes in the necessary articles and categories. Without having to start a new RM for every single friggin' page. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different publications have different conventions for hyphens and dashes. What you're saying is that we cannot have an in-house style, but must copy whichever sources are relevant for a topic. No other encyclopedia works that way. — kwami (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The immense majority of publications use hyphen for the name of the war. Wikipedia does have an in-house style: following the common usage in English. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply false. We follow common usage for naming, not for formatting and style. We do not follow the style guidelines of whichever sources happen to apply to a particular article: that's why we have an MOS in the first place. — kwami (talk) 10:32, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, we are just repeating the arguments from the on-going RM in Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move_.28March_2011.29. I suggest that this RM simply follows the closure of the RM in the main article. As others have pointed out below, it's ridiculous to change the title of the main page of the war and not change it in its related articles and categories. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. This should have been done as part of the tidying up after the move - see Talk:Mexican-American_War.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Yes, Kwami is right. As the proposer knows very well, the move to Mexican-American War was hugely controversial, and bungled by the admin who allowed it to go through apparently without comprehending the arguments. The forum itself was wrong, as the issue involves innumerable other articles. It is entirely improper to initiate a closely related request when Mexican-American War is currently under consideration to revert to Mexican–American War. And the matter is also being discussed at the proper location: WT:MOS.

Due process demands that you withdraw and wait, CWenger. But for the record, on your three points:

1. Most reliable sources use a hyphen instead of an en dash?

Comment: Sources are inconsistent (as demonstrated before); and punctuation is something we at Wikipedia determine, just as any other publisher would. Especially for titles. There is no Wikipedia policy that says otherwise. Nor should there be.

2. Adherence to the WP:Manual of Style?

It is the form with an en dash that conforms more to WP:ENDASH, part of WP:MOS – which also requires adjustment of punctuation to fit our prevailing styles. The vast majority of Wikipedia articles that name wars adhere to those guidelines. Indeed, they partly inspired that guideline, which enshrines established practice throughout the Project.

3. Consistency with Mexican-American War?

That case is deeply dubious, and contested even as I write. It will be subject to vigorous appeal if the current request to revert, at Talk:Mexican-American War, somehow fails.

I therefore open a new section to request speedy denial of the current request here, on weighty procedural grounds. The Project cannot afford such time-wasting diversions from our proper work.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the other RM I bothered to make a search of google books, and I found that the immense majority of RS use hyphen. I haven't seen you challenging the accuracy of my statement, or providing counterproof. There are, maybe, a couple dozen RS using hyphen for every RS that uses a dash? You call that inconsistent? Please stop saying that sources are inconsistent as if there was a 50/50 spread of usage. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, a section of the governing policy, WP:TITLE. Our titles should be in English, not in something three editors have made up at WP:MOS. This is no publisher's convention; the only possible exception would be the Oxford University Press, and this article should be in American, not Oxford English (and OUP uses Mexican-American War anyway). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know full well this isn't an ENGVAR issue. Please make factual arguments. — kwami (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please retract this personal attack. The only support for the dashed form, outside the personal opinions of a handful of Wikipedians, is the style guide of the Oxford University Press –against OUP's own practice. There is no American support for this usage at all. That means that Kwami's preference is a subvariety of Commonwealth English be imposed on this article, strongly tied to the United States (a combatant in (almost?) all of the battles on this list.)

PMAnderson, you write: "The only support for the dashed form, [...] is the style guide of the Oxford University Press [...]". This is an error of fact. It is, to speak plainly, a lie. The matter can be properly addressed in an orderly way at the talkpage for WP:MOS, which is encumbered by protection due in large part to your actions. You were given a one-week block. When the disorder you bring about is properly countered, we might address this rationally – with respect for demonstrable fact.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an error of fact. Really? Have you any other sources? It is, to speak quite plainly, a lie. Really? What evidence do you have for this personal attack? The matter can be properly addressed in an orderly way at the talkpage for WP:MOS... Now that is a falsehood; moving pages is properly addressed, as CWenger has done, at the talk page, with notification to WP:RM. The rest of this is more personal attacks, the usual tactic when a handful of editors have firm beliefs and no reliable sources. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response:

• "Really? Have you any other sources?" Yes. To be discussed at WT:MOS, since the matter is global. Not here, where the issues ought to be local.
• "Really? What evidence do you have for this personal attack?" (1) Yes, really. It is a lie. Either a deliberate lie (as I fear) or a reckless lie (careless of what might be true; as I hope). (2) Not meant as a personal attack. I respond directly to a direct statement of a falsehood.
• "Now that is a falsehood ..." Wrong. This accusation is based on a misrepresentation. The matter here is general, not specific to the present article. Of course merely local RMs are appropriate, to remedy merely local issues. But the real issue here is general: how existing guidelines and policies are to be applied in the general case. But this article is only one instance.
• "The rest of this is more personal attacks, the usual tactic when a handful of editors have firm beliefs and no reliable sources." Not meant as personal attacks: just attacks on continued improper process that subverts the smooth running of Wikipedia. We have all the precedents needed to support established guidelines at WP:MOS. They can be revealed and reviewed at WT:MOS, when recalcitrant editors show good will and when orderly process is restored.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow whatever form is used in the main article. I don't know whether a hyphen or endash is correct here, but I do know that it is silly to have this subarticle use a different form than the main article, and it is equally silly to refight the battles of that article here with the same arguments. Ucucha 00:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • AMEN! –CWenger (talk) 03:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it should be consistent with the main article; 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose - As Wareh said on the main article discussion, "It's a Mexican-American person, and likewise a Mexican-American war." Since it's not actually a war about Mexican Americans, that's a good statement of the problem that would be caused by moving the article to the hyphen form. Just because there was a failure to obtain consensus to repair the improper move to hyphen at the main article doesn't mean we should mess this one up to match. Dicklyon (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any RS to support that this is a reason for using a dash? because, if you don't, then you are supporting your opinion only in your original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for speedy closure of the request

I ask for speedy closure, and denial of the requested move. Its proposer knows it to be deeply flawed. A related matter is still under consideration at Talk:Mexican-American War, and more generally at WT:MOS (where the matter belongs). Some other reasons are given above (in the "oppose" statements); and I can provide more reasons if they are wanted.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 12:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The move under consideration at Talk:Mexican-American War is pretty clearly going to fail, so at least for the time being, it will stay at the hyphenated name. What is the point of keeping this article at the en dashed title? It makes Wikipedia look inconsistent and like an unprofessional encyclopedia. This request should have been linked to the move request of Mexican-American War; it was merely an oversight that it wasn't and I am trying to rectify that after the fact. –CWenger (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more accurate to describe the change to the hyphen as making WP look unprofessional and inconsistent. Just because one admin breached the WP:INVOLVED policy, leaping in against vocal opposition when himself a partisan, doesn't mean that the whole box and dice has to be changed to be in breach of WP's site-wide and well-established style guide. I have not yet seen a good case for this, and Kwami's and Noetica's points make much better sense. Are you suggesting that all similar articles should be renamed? There are an awful lot of them. Why is this being discussed here, and not centrally? Tony (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of any potential breach of policy, the original vote was 8–2 for moving to the hyphenated form. The vote for moving back to the en dashed form is similarly one-sided against. So consensus is definitely for the hyphenated form. I think everybody would agree that ideally, this page would have been part of a multi-move request, and it would not have affected the vote. So had everything proceeded ideally, this page would currently be at the hyphenated name. Why oppose moving it now? –CWenger (talk) 14:07, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it should have been part of a request at the MoS, centrally, where a broader part of the community might have participated; the discussion would have been advertised properly; and the big picture would have counted for something, not Mr Anderson's war of attrition against the MoS and his desire to see people do as they please at article level. The move had no legitimacy, IMO, and still doesn't. I don't acknowledge it. Aside from this, the breach of WP:INVOLVED demands that User:Graeme Bartlett revert his move, which was subject to a serious conflict of interest: that is the only proper course of action. Tony (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for either of these procedural claims yet? (The claim about centralized procedure is the less flimsy, and the only one significant here; it is supported by these three users - although not by WP:POLICY nor WP:MOS.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CWenger, you write above:

Regardless of any potential breach of policy, the original vote was 8–2 for moving to the hyphenated form. The vote for moving back to the en dashed form is similarly one-sided against. So consensus is definitely for the hyphenated form.

You ignore breaches of policy, and run away with the spoils? Why would you do that, I ask? What minuscule, temporary reward does anyone get from the disorderly naming of a page, against established practice in thousands of others, and against guidelines? What about the procedural point that I made emphatically, in the original discussion? It should be obvious: the real issue was not the naming of one page. But to make sure, I spelled it out. The closing admin ignored the point, and refused to answer my questions about his actions (at his talkpage). So what if the ill-informed vote was 8–2? The move to Mexican-American war should only have been done after weighing the arguments of both sides. This was not done, though policy demands it.

As for the more recent discussion (Talk:Mexican-American_War#Revisit_requested_move), and the trend of opinion in it, both have swayed violently all over the place. Most disturbingly (for anyone concerned about consistent naming and use of guidelines), people are moved by incompetent and facile linguistic points. Let those points be raised in an orderly way at WT:MOS, and they will get the refutation they deserve. The same for unsupported claims about what style guides recommend, or what publishers other than Wikipedia do.

PMAnderson, your remarks and questions about policy are as spurious and malicious as your grasp of style guides younger than 100 years is tenuous. But this is not the proper forum, so I do not waste my time responding to those. At how many more miscellaneous talkpages will you disrupt the orderly naming of articles? At how many more will you wage your ruinous war to undo the work of our Manual of Style? Take it to WT:MOS, where if you present your case in comprehensible form (for a change) you might get answers.

CWenger, PMAnderson, admins, and everyone else, please read Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions, especially noting these points:

Consensus is determined not just by considering the preferences of the participants in a given discussion, but also by evaluating their arguments, assigning due weight accordingly, and giving due consideration to the relevant consensus of the Wikipedia community in general as reflected in applicable policy, guidelines and naming conventions.

Further, any move request that is out of keeping with naming conventions or is otherwise in conflict with applicable guideline and policy, unless there is a very good reason to ignore rules, should be closed without moving regardless of how many of the participants support it.

Now that is policy; and it refers to guidelines, which plainly and centrally include WP:MOS, the interpretation and maintenance of which is conducted at WT:MOS, not at thousands of talkpages around the Project.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noetica, please show me a move discussion where the closing admin decided in favor of the side with 2 votes against 8. Then I will grant that you may have a point about Graeme Bartlett. Even then I don't think anybody has shown he did anything wrong. Also in the unlikely event that Mexican-American War gets moved back to the en dashed title, I can guarantee I will withdraw this move request instead of fighting for every inch over punctuation. This isn't Stalingrad. –CWenger (talk) 03:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grant or fail to grant what you see fit, CWenger: but you deserve to be ignored if you do not support your suggestions with argument. The reasons for contesting the move to Mexican-American War are laid out in fine-grain detail, at the talkpage. Now, you show me a requested move so patently motivated by a political agenda as that one was, and that was so ineptly handled by an admin. I am interested in sound procedure to encourage high quality in our articles. That calls for consistent implementation of policy and guidelines. I am also interested, and active, in consultatively developing and refining those guidelines for the benefit of the community. I have seen no evidence that you share such an interest. Think about it. Finally, your comment in the preceding section:

"AMEN! –CWenger (talk)"

If that, along with the comment to which I have just responded, marks the extent of your grasp of the issues, I would counsel you to withdraw – and yes, think even longer.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 03:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is all irrelevant to the discussion at hand. My point is simply this: ideally, when the move request to Mexican-American War was proposed, it would have been of the multi-move variety including this article, among others. When the move was closed—whether or not you agree or even think it was legitimate—the second-best option would have been for the closing admin to recognize the related articles to which the same arguments apply and move them as well. This is a lot to ask and neither was done in this case. This is merely an administrative request to rectify that after the fact. I have absolutely no problem with non-stop discussions about move requests on talk pages, which 90% of readers are unaware exist, as long as Wikipedia looks professional and consistent to them. –CWenger (talk) 04:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Specious, and easily dispatched. You are merely showing another way in which the original move was mishandled. A further mishandling as a follow-up would do nothing to remedy that. The only available way to proceed (using just the mechanism of WP:RM), if a whole range of articles need moving, would be this:

1. Undo the initial move, which we agree was mishandled.

2. Identify all articles with names similar to Mexican–American War. (There are thousands of them.)

3. Request a joint move for all of those.

But of course, we don't do that. Instead, we have policies and guidelines to settle such issues centrally. We manage the few apparent exceptions as apparent exceptions, not as opportunities to disrupt the Project. And if those guidelines or policies need improvement or replacement, we discuss that at their talkpages.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 04:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the original move was mishandled, just not done as thoroughly as it could have been. That is no reason to undo what was a pretty strong consensus to move. It just means we should go back and do what the admin missed, which is what I was trying to do here. However, I have to say, I would support moving Mexican-American War back to Mexican–American War as a temporary measure so we could have a full move discussion concerning all the articles involved. –CWenger (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The original move was a breach of both WP:INVOLVED and WP:TITLE. It is not legitimate. Tony (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you've never shown that. Unless you have evidence, it's just slander. I don't agree with the move either, but can we stick to facts rather than opinion? — kwami (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are just going around in circles. Two days after his admin action, he declared partisanship in an attempt to reverse it. That is the evidence, plain as day. Tony (talk) 06:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony! We can agree that the move was egregiously bungled without going into all of the reasons, every time. Their detailed enumeration is disputed.

CWenger, at Talk:Mexican-American_War I am raising your suggestion to start afresh with the whole suite of related articles. And I am seconding it. (The present request would be withdrawn for now also, yes?)

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 06:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwami, here's the evidence in chronological sequence:

• First, the closing of the debate, actually citing one of the two policies his subsequent move was in breach of (WP:TITLE); and the move of the talk page (the article page was moved within minutes).
• Second, his disclosure of a partisan set of views that were contested by many people on that page and other pages—particularly, "If there are many other articles with ndash, that is not a reason to make this article also match, but a reason to rename those articles to match the common name, rather than trying to make the title look the best". Tony (talk) 07:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with either. I disagree with his interpretation of TITLE (AFAIK it's intended to cover names, not formatting or style: as many have noted, we don't follow sources for caps), but that's the kind of thing you raise there for discussion and elaboration. And given his understanding of TITLE, he's right: you wouldn't not-implement the policy just because some other article doesn't implement it. So no foul, just IMO a misunderstanding of policy. But if you really think he's in violation, you should raise it at ANI. Making repeated accusations without doing anything about it just makes you seem cranky, and it doesn't help. — kwami (talk) 07:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to deal with all Mexican~American articles jointly

There is a new proposal here (at Talk:Mexican-American_War). Both sides would agree to start again, with a new consideration of all titles that include "Mexican~American War". This is an efficient compromise. Either both sides can pursue the issue at enormous length, page by page; or both can agree to do it all in one discussion.

See preceding subsection: The proposal arises from the goodwill of CWenger (who wants hyphens), and is taken further by me (I want en dashes). Let's try for a genuine solution. Please join in support of the new proposal, and let's withdraw the lesser request for this present page. It will all be covered under the new request.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Let's try a genuine solution: Compel Kwamikagami, Noetica, and Tony1 to supply evidence for their assertions on the English language and on Wikipedia policy and practice or retract them. So far they have presented adverb adjective all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boring, inflammatory, futile, and effectively addressed at WT:MOS (see the exchange in the blue box). Briefly, I have had to say again and again that all the evidence PMAnderson requests, at talkpages dotted around the Project, can be provided. But only when he and other editors have stopped any opportunistic disruption, clearing the way for orderly discourse at WT:MOS. In how many more irrelevant forums will this same stupid challenge be issued, requiring me to repeat the same obvious answer? Can we stop this, please?–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Noetica has made claims until xe is blue in the sig. Xe has provided evidence for none of them, here or at WT:MOS; least of all that "orderly" discourse must be (or is indeed possible) at WT:MOS. Bare assertion proves nothing; it suggests that the "evidence" claimed does not exist. "What at mead man vows, let him at morning with deeds answer." Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weave the wind here, PMAnderson, and your vacant shuttles waste time's fleeting bounties. The place to discuss the content, articulation, and associations of WP:MOS guidelines for punctuation is at WT:MOS. The place to apply them, or to argue that present cases are exceptions to those guidelines, is at talkpages like this. There is no argument here (or at Talk:Mexican-American War) that anything about the war in question justifies punctuation against the Project's guidelines, when the vast majority of parallel cases conform. Stop being a nuisance.

If you cannot accept or even perceive proposals aimed at compromise, and an end to all this, I will have to begin ignoring you completely. Quite soon.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 21:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This contains no more evidence than any of your other posts. It also contains several falsehoods:

• WP:MOS, insofar as it addresses this case at all, supports the hyphen; it's a compound adjective, per WP:HYPHEN 3. That's one of the reasons Mexican-American War was moved.
• I am not, at the moment, proposing to change the wording of MOS, although it could use clarification to avoid this confusion.
• If it needed to be changed, this is as good a place to discuss that as any. If the wording or interpretation of MOS is not supported by a wider consensus, that is the best reason to change it.

You are welcome to ignore me; the more of Wikipedia you spare your artificial syntax and invented policies, the better off we shall be. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]