Talk:Municipality of Bifrost-Riverton

This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Canada: Manitoba / Geography / Communities Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Manitoba.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Geography of Canada.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian communities.

On 7 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Municipality of Bifrost-Riverton to Municipality of Bifrost-Riverton. The result of the discussion was moved.

Requested move 7 November 2023

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: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Reading Beans (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Municipality of Bifrost – Riverton → Municipality of Bifrost-Riverton – I'm unable to ascertain a reason for the bizarre spelling with the en dash. All sources I've been able to identify are using the spelling Bifrost-Riverton. I wouldn't object to use of the unspaced en dash if this is what Wikipedia policy demands, but the spaces are perverse and probably wrong. This, that and the other (talk) 08:38, 7 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 11:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nom says "all sources…" yet doesn’t look at the very first reference on the article. Section 2 of the regulation that created the municipality states "On January 1, 2015, the Rural Municipality of Bifrost and the Village of Riverton are amalgamated to establish the Municipality of Bifrost – Riverton." Accordingly, just redirect other configurations used erroneously to this title. If still WP:IDLI, then lobby the municipality and the provincial government to change the name to match Wikipedian preferences, conventions, policies, or whatever. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 08:02, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source was a dead link for me when I tried it yesterday, but is working now. It's in a two-column bilingual format and its own French version uses "Bifrost-Riverton". The other three sources cited in the article and also the two external links at the bottom all use "Bifrost-Riverton". Whatever someone was thinking when they wrote the left column, we wouldn't necessarily look to some kind of "official" external sources for matters of punctuation/styling on Wikipedia anyway. Wikipedia has its own WP:MoS, which says to look for ordinary English formatting and the plurality of independent reliable sources. As far as I can tell, the spaced en dash makes no grammatical sense here and the nom's characterization of it as "bizarre" is apt. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 16:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a number of other articles which use a similar "space - en dash - space" format at Category:Manitoba municipal amalgamations, 2015. 162 etc. (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 22 November 2023 (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.