Talk:Nuclear–cytoplasmic ratio

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 to Nuclear–cytoplasmic ratio. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 09:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • @
    MOS:ENBETWEEN. The existing redirect can be retargeted without special permissions. PleaseStand (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @PleaseStand: I'd agree that ENBETWEEN would call for a dash in "nucleus–cytoplasm ratio", since that means "nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio". But this would imply "nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratio". SilverLocust 💬 23:08, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @SilverLocust ENBETWEEN does say though that "The components may be nouns, adjectives, verbs, or any other independent part of speech." And I'm not sure that "nuclear-to-cytoplasmic [volume] ratio" is any less valid of a construction than, say, "observed-to-expected [events] ratio" or "wide-to-narrow [bar width] ratio". PleaseStand (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Fair enough. SilverLocust 💬 02:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Molecular Biology has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Medicine has been notified of this discussion. – robertsky (talk) 07:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as it appears to be by far the common name. And yes, style it with en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with EN dash, as the
  Nucleus-to-cytoplasm ratio. ― Synpath 03:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• support per Synpath--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:40, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]