Talk:Make Do and Mend

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

Make-Do and Mend promotional advertisement, c. 1943. Imperial War Museum, Board of Trade.

• ... that Make-Do and Mend cemented frugality through thrift as an important contribution to the war effort? Source: Summers, Julie (2015). Fashion on the Ration: Style in the Second World War (1st ed.). London: Profile Books LTD. pp. 130–131. ISBN 978 1 78125 326 7
  • Reviewed:

Created by Diary of a Dress Historian (talk). Self-nominated at 10:52, 29 July 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Make-Do and Mend; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: None required.

Overall: Nicely done! New enough [Article created on July 22, 2023] Long enough [3636 characters (548 words)], [plagiarismfree], picture is [clear and free ] RV (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 12 August 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: Campaign moved to Make Do and Mend, band moved to Make Do and Mend (band). Clear consensus that the band is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the phrase "make do and mend", and a fairly strong consensus that the campaign's article should omit the hyphen. The main point of contention here is whether the campaign is the PRIMARYTOPIC, or whether there's WP:NOPRIMARY instead. Users showed that the two articles receive comparable pageviews, but many participants argued that the campaign had sufficient long-term significance to retain PRIMARYTOPIC status, leading to a consensus that the campaign should hold the primary title. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 14:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Make-Do and Mend → Make Do and Mend (campaign)
• Make Do and Mend → Make Do and Mend (band)

– Suggesting this per WP:COMMONNAME. While Shrimpton and Summers do use a hyphen, Howell and the rest of the sources do not. There is an American band called "make do and mend", but they were only formed in 2006 and this ngram shows clear preference for no hyphen even before that. A Google scholar search for the WWII campaign also shows a clear preference for no hyphen [1]. Make Do and Mend is possibly the primary topic, but I'll let y'all discuss that. :3 F4U (they/it) 17:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Support move. Makes sense. (I came across the band a lot when I was searching on the campaign name.) I doubt there's a primary topic between the two, as these have two very different readerships. Each article could hatnote the other. Schazjmd (talk) 19:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support the band has 231 views and the campaign has 198[[2]] and although I'm a supporter of WP:SMALLDETAILS I don't think hyphens are sufficient as they are normally interchangeable. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support. I was thinking the two article titles are too similar, but didn't have a suggestion of what to do about it. This is an elegant solution. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support Neither has a real argument to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and the names are otherwise too similar. This seems to be the simplest and best solution. The Kip (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Wouldn't a hatnote link to the band be simpler? Roy Bateman (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per above. I might suggest that the wartime campaign should be the primary topic: a famous nationwide campaign that has echoes today with people still talking of making do and mending. (also, if the band takes its name from the campaign, that's another argument for the campaign to be the primary topic)Stronach (talk) 08:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  I would generally agree with this. The viewcount suggests that neither is primary topic with regard to usage—but that this campaign is certainly the primary topic with regard to long-term significance. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 11:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose "Make Do and Mend", an expression that has been in widespread use since WW2, is obviously the primary topic: the band (how well-known?) is relatively recent and can easily be linked via a hatnote. Roy Bateman (talk) 08:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I think it would be better to have "Make Do and Mend" and "Make-Do and Mend" to link to this article, while the band be moved to "Make Do and Mend (band)" BeŻet (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move Make-Do and Mend to Make Do and Mend. Not usually seen with a hyphen, but definitely primary topic for both versions. Any claims that it isn't are laughable. Very obvious long-term significance. Support 2nd. Obscure band which clearly needs disambiguation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose On the basis that the campaign is the primary topic, certainly as regards long-term significance, like Keep Calm and Carry On and Careless Talk Costs Lives (propaganda). Nigej (talk) 15:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  But Careless Talk Costs Lives is disambiguated? ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 15:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  It is, but it shouldn't be IMO. Nigej (talk) 17:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose The campaign is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and more historically significant topic than some obscure metal band so if anything, just the band needs to be moved but leave the campaign where it is with a hatnote for the band. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  @The C of E Why would you oppose for ptopic reasons when the discussion is primarily about whether or not there should be a hyphen in the title, not whether one is the primary topic. I ask that you self-revert this edit [3] so that ptopic discussion can be done separately to the hyphenation discussion. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  • @Freedom4U: Then I'd suggest that this proposal be closed and a separate one be opened to discuss that individually. You did open it with that last sentence about not being sure if it was primary and I think that consensus as determined that the campaign is and the band should be moved to the (band) disambiguator. As for the hyphen, that should be specifically what the move discussion should state that it's there to cover clearly. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

    @The C of E There's nothing requiring a move to be done according to the original proposal—that would be bureaucratic and unnecessary. The whole point of a RM is to determine what the consensus is for the title and I'm pretty certain now that the consensus is against "Make-Do and Mend", which is what you're essentially proposing here. Instead of tying the ptopic/hyphen discussion together, by separating the two discussions, we can individually determine consensus for ptopic and consensus for hyphenation. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 19:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support dehyphenating the title. "Make-Do" makes no sense as a compound, and if most of the sources support it as "Make Do", that is preferable. (Anecdotally, I've never seen this hyphenated and seen it plenty of times unhyphenated.) - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
• Move the band to Make Do and Mend (band) and the campaign to Make Do and Mend. Clear primary topic by historical importance. BD2412 T 18:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Make Do and Mend the primary topic?

• The opposes from Roy Bateman and BeŻet have to do with whether or not this campaign is the primary topic, rather than whether there should be a hyphen in the title. Reading the arguments, I agree that this campaign is the primary topic because of its long term significance (though there really isn't an issue with keeping the articles disambiguated until we get a better sense of viewcount). I'm separating this out so that discussion about the hyphen isn't crowded out by discussion on ptopic. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC) Pinging Schazjmd, Crouch, The Kip, and Stronach who have previously express opinions about this. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 13:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  The campaign isn't primary by usage but may be per long-term significance. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes it is the primary topic - predating the band by about 65 years - and note, the Spanish article links to this one (without hyphens). Roy Bateman (talk) 02:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Notes

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.