Talk:red-green alliance

En-dash versus hyphen
This term should technically have an en-dash, not a hyphen. Actually, this may be a widespread problem on Wiktionary. For instance cost-benefit analysis and win-win should be using en-dashes as well. In fact, from a quick search I can't see any entries on Wiktionary using an en-dash! —DIV (1.129.105.237 09:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC))
 * That's because hyphens are the only character of the type on the standard keyboard, and because the different dashes and the hyphen tend to get mixed up frequently by OCR and in usage. The alternative is a chaotic and confusing mess of competing alternative forms that are hard to tell apart for the average user. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree.
 * The standard keyboard has a non-specific dash.
 * It is the computer operating system and/or software applications that interpret how that dash should be interpreted (some 'smart' applications nowadays can automatically recognise intended use as an em-dash for example, if it's surrounded by spaces) and the choice of font determines the concrete form in which it is rendered (some fonts are poorly made and use the same glyph for a variety of dashes/hyphens).
 * The "average user" is less likely to learn anything if reference materials don't respect them enough to do things properly.
 * —DIV (49.180.194.255 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC))
 * There is more discussion at Talk:win-win.
 * —DIV (49.180.194.255 13:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC))

RFD discussion: March–August 2023
You could have any-colored alliances. Perhaps rainbow alliance would be entryworthy though. Meh. See also red-green-brown alliance. Van Man Fan (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 20:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is textbook idiomatic use, and the use of to refer to Islam wasn't obvious to me before reading the entry. Binarystep (talk) 22:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete or Redirect. As well as this phrase, where green can have one of two meanings, there's also the phrase red-green coalition, where green normally means environmentalist and red-green axis where green normally means Islamist. The meaning of green isn't transparent in any of these phrases but would be if we created a new sense at green (there is also green threat, green menace and green peril) and red-green instead. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per Binarystep. No, green does not mean Islamic in and of itself, .... just as yellow doesnt mean liberal by itself, black doesnt mean conservative, etc .... those are just the traditional colors of the parties in Germany's w:Jamaica coalition. — Soap — 06:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
 * green can mean that, I've just created the relevant senses at green and red-green. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you really think this is the best way to help our readers understand an unfamiliar phrase? As we have it now, all a reader needs to do is look up the phrase red-green alliance, and the two definitions will be right there in front of them.
 * If we delete the page, they will need to first figure out which words to look up .... should it be red and then green, or will it be at red-green? If they go with red-green, then they'll be back where they would have been without deletion. But why make them take an extra step?
 * Anyway I think it's likely a lot of users will find themselves looking up the terms separately. Red is probably easy enough to figure out, but as you yourself admitted, you didn't know about the less common Islamist sense of green, so Im sure a lot of readers will be unfamiliar with it as well.  So a reader trying to figure that out would need to go to the entry for green and then pick out from among the dozens of listed senses the one that was actually intended, which you've just listed under the Noun section, making it even more difficult to find.  Why do we expect our readers to jump all these hurdles? Why not just leave the  entry in place? — Soap — 11:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * When I said it wasn't transparent I just meant it's not immediately obvious to the general reader what the phrase means because of the multiple meanings of green, especially environmentalist. I have encountered green used to refer to Islam in political contexts before. The existence of other phrases such as red-green axis means that red-green has a meaning outside of the phrase, thus making it SOP. I feel more strongly about keeping the senses I've just created than deleting the challenged phrase though. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as a side issue for the moment, can we agree to compress the etymologies on the page into one? They're both from the colors.  I wanted to add a literal sense just now, for red-green colorblindness, but realized I would need to create a third etymology section or else merge them into one. I think having three etymologies is a bit excessive when all three meanings derive from the same two words juxtaposed in the same way.  This has no bearing on this RFD, ... I just bring it up here so that if I merge the etymologies on red-green it doesnt look like I'm trying to undo what you've been doing.  Thanks, — Soap — 12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not a problem at all. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Redirect to red-green? * Pppery * it has begun... 20:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That would work. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2023 (UTC)


 * RFD failed after sense added to red-green Pious Eterino (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)