Talk:Free trade agreement

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:Trade Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trade, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Trade 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Economics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

International relations: Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law.

Law Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Requested move 12 December 2020

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 section.

---

• Free trade agreement → Free-trade agreement
• Free trade agreements of Canada → Free-trade agreements of Canada
• European Union free trade agreements → Free-trade agreements of the European Union
• United States free-trade agreements → Free-trade agreements of the United States
• Euro-Mediterranean free trade area → Euro-Mediterranean free-trade area
• UK–Japan free trade agreement → UK–Japan free-trade agreement
• G3 Free Trade Agreement → G3 free-trade agreement
• Grand Free Trade Area → Grand Free-Trade Area
• Template:Free trade agreements of Hong Kong → Template:Free-trade agreements of Hong Kong

– In standard English, hyphenation is required for the compound adjective. Capitalisation is correct only for a proper noun. Invert redirection or move page towards the correct spelling. Numerous articles already have the correct spelling and are not listed here. 83.228.144.229 (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

• Skeptical: Saying hyphenation is "required" in English in this situation is not really accurate. Such constructions are often found without hyphens as well. Without performing any real analysis, my impression is that the form without the hyphen is more common for most of these terms. "Euro-Mediterranean" should probably be "Euro–Mediterranean" (with an en dash). — BarrelProof (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. I'm having a hard time finding a single instance of it being hyphenated. Walrasiad (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, absent evidence of this being the common usage for these phrases. BD2412 T 15:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose unless there is evidence that this is common usage. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

---

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.