Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting

What do we agree upon?

I have included my own opinions so we can see where we disagree. If we all disagree with the same point in the same direction, we may be able to find a new point where we agree; otherwise our starting point should be what hardly anybody disagrees with.

I acknowledge those who want only hyphens and those who want exactly this text will agree/disagree with everything; if they comment, therefore, the result will be to strike everything. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

(It is a pity this page doesn't have a talk talk page really) PMAnderson do the following items cover all areas of the dispute? You've done the right thing in succinctly itemizing each use. We need to ensure the page remains easy to navigate and gage consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There are some related issues with WP:HYPHEN, but they may fall out if the dashes are settled.

Unfortunately, I'm going to have to change my mind about this; one section called for. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

There are also more general issues on what MOS is, most of them mentioned in the RfAr; but they aren't really covered in the MOS text, so this approach won't work. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a great opportunity while this is the focus of the wider community to examine usage of a related area such as WP:HYPHEN but am not familiar with them so if you reckon they will settle spontaneously that sounds prudent. Agree the broader issue of the strength/weight MOS actually has is a bigger issue and arguably beyond the scope of this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we can really address what led to the arbcom thing and all the fuss about this unless we do address the strength/weight of the MOS. IOW, assuming the style guide is not amended to prefer hyphens in this case (hypothetical) will I need to open a move request to move from Carbon-carbon bond to Carbon–carbon bond where we can repeat this debate and see who happens to show up? It would be nice to not have to have this same discussion over and over, with different outcomes depending on what is on whose watchlist. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I could not agree more. To amplify, absent consensus for changing the MOS, the page moves to dashes would seem in compliance. Depending, of course, on what the MOS means. JeffConrad (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The present text of MOS does not have consensus now. This position is absolutely unacceptable; to insist that a text on which we are divided authorizes those who wrote it to do whatever they want until they admit there is consensus against them is exactly what has been wrong with MOS for five years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Also this page is intended to judge unanimity, not consensus; we already have an RFC which shows that this text isn't consensus. On the other hand, a next limited to what everybody agrees on will still draw objections from those who wanted to include something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This well may be your intent, but that′s not how I read the ArbCom motion

Interested parties are instructed to spend the next 14 days from the passing of this motion . . .

which directs us to

1. determining the structure of a discussion on En dashes in article titles to obtain consensus.
2. gathering of consensus on the issue. The discussion should be of sufficient structure to allow easy quantification of consensus rather than a large amount of poorly-framed debate.

It seems to me that we’ve largely skipped 1, and may be taking a different approach to 2 than was given. To be honest, I have no idea what was meant by the the final sentence:

If after two months, a determination isn't realised, a case will be opened and conduct violations will be dealt with severely.

JeffConrad (talk) 20:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I created this page, in response to a suggestion that we determine unanimity. It is not intended to produce a consensus text; it is intended to inform us what would be a minimal text, containing only points to which almost everybody agrees. That text may or may not be consensus; in either case, this is only a first step. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Concede that this is perhaps an initial step, assuming we agree on the structure of the discussion. JeffConrad (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I doubt ArbCom will think well of anybody who argues about the shape of the table. Please don't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: "if they comment ... the result will be to strike everything". If I may translate into Kwamese (since I'm well known to not speak "English"), it sounds like this means that Anderson thinks he owns this page, and will strike out opinions that do not approximate his own. Do I understand that right? We will then arrive at "unanimity" by disregarding those opinions which diverge from it, a rather Orwellian definition of the term. — kwami (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

No no, this page is being observed and we'll ensure we get an idea of consensus. Some uses may be similar below but keeping each item as segmented as possible will avoid "yes/no" or otherwise conditional/partial answers to any bits. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• You guys need to make this page easier to find; I barely managed to do so. The 1st RfC has some 34 !votes about equally split for/against. The 2nd one only 14 with about the same ratio split. I don't want to make any predictions here, but people are getting tired... Tijfo098 (talk) 11:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree - I'd think centralised discussion, and notifying all voting editors in previous to reiterate their votes here would be good. I just wanted to ensure that all the questions that needed asking have been listed below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Text

En dashes (–, –) have several distinct roles.

• Comment: 1–3 are the same thing, as are 4 & 6, and should probably be worded that way. — kwami (talk)

( facilitator note: keeping the items as subdivided as possible will make it much easier to determine consensus. Lumping items risks the need for dissecting out for who wants what. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm replacing {{xt}} with code tags for the HTML entity; hope you don't mind. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Excellent idea; we should do the same throughout the MOS so it’s clear what′s coded and what’s rendered. JeffConrad (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Ranges

1. To stand for to or through in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war). Ranges expressed using prepositions (from 450 to 500 people or between 450 and 500 people) should not use dashes (not from 450–500 people or between 450–500 people). Number ranges must be spelled out if they involve a negative value or might be misconstrued as a subtraction (−10 to 10, not −10–10).

• Agree. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Maybe add example of nested range (from x–y to z). Also, does this cover geographic ranges, or is that supposed to be the next point? — kwami (talk)
• I can support this, and it's well-written, but there are other positions I could support; for instance, dashes are less common outside the main text of articles.
• Agree. Almost all guides and the majority of published sources use a dash in this case. JeffConrad (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

to/vs.

2. To stand for to or versus (male–female ratio, 4–3 win, Lincoln–Douglas debate, French–German border).

• Disagree. I am willing to permit this, but not to require it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. (As it seems Anderson does: this is currently permitted but not required.) — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Judging from the number of articles which were moved from hyphens to dashes with no prior discussion, I'd say this rule is commonly treated as requiring rather than permitting. What about replacing have with can have in #Text above? ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, but it would seem that we have at least two different classes of use here. We need to separate them if this discussion is to be meaningful. JeffConrad (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• The question of whether MOS permits or requires things isn't up for discussion here, but since the question has been raised, MOS is required at FAC, and WP:DASH is being treated as if it's required by some; thus the Arbcom case. The 4–3 win example belongs in the previous subsection. I won't speak to other varieties of English here, but "Lincoln-Douglas debate" is usually written with a hyphen in AmEng. WP:CREDO gives 9 hits, all with hyphens, and see this WT:MOS discussion for what the American style guides say. (I have recommended a dash here previously because I'm aware that other varieties of English are more pro-dash. I didn't want to come across as doggedly pro-AmEng, and as long as it wasn't causing problems, there was value in supporting one easy-to-learn rule. But this page isn't about getting along, it's about reporting accurately.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Dank, 4–3 win isn't a range, so it wouldn't fall under 1. 1 never says anything about being restricted to numbers, or that numbers aren't used for other things. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Quite right. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Generally, I would like the MOS to "require" things where "require" means we can just move pages/edit text without having this same argument thousands of times. Dank - hopefully this is up for discussion? I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think we can realistically ignore this issue, can we? It's been a pretty big part of the recent WT:MOS discussions and the debates leading to them and to the arbcom thing, I think. Maybe we mean different things by "The question of whether MOS permits or requires things"? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Generally, I agree with Fut. Perf.'s edits in the original discussion here (and in the preceeding section); I very strongly disagree with any effort to make a minority usage compulsory. If we need uniformity on this, we should choose the far more common alternative; but I don't think we do.

  I do not agree with anyone - and I am naming no-one at this point - who holds that "whatever is not compulsory is forbidden". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Discussions of how prescriptive we want to get about dashes are fine. I'm just saying that, since several members of Arbcom promised trouts or topic bans for all unless we get the current mess settled in the allotted time frame, I'd rather not throw big questions into the pot that have evaded consensus for years. - Dank (push to talk) 17:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  What then is up for discussion? JeffConrad (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  I don't think anyone is threatening "topic bans for all". My point is just that how prescriptive the MOS is about dashes is a significant part of the current mess. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  That's exactly what Arbcom promised, and the fact that everyone is saying "Well surely they can't mean me, I haven't done anything wrong, they mean the other guys" is exactly why it turned into an Arbcom case. Having said that ... they can't mean me, I haven't done anything wrong :) But I don't want to see anyone else caught by surprise, so please, let's not get too fancy, let's just answer the questions and get to the end of the Arbcom case. When there's no active threat, we'll have time to discuss all of this in depth. - Dank (push to talk) 17:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  No, the motion said: "a case will be opened and conduct violations will be dealt with severely". ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:53, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant what some at Arbcom said. My biggest worry is that people are forgetting that this is an Arbcom case, with potential nasty surprises at the end, and certainly for some who won't be expecting it. Here's what Arbcom predicted in the "Arbitrator's opinion" section of that case. I think there's enough reason here to just aim for getting to the end of the case without digressions and without anyone losing editing privileges:

• Iridescent: "such a case is likely to take a huge amount of time, and be very unsatisfactory for anyone involved; WP:RFAR/DDL took five months to come to a decision and resulted in a huge stack of bans, blocks and restrictions for all those involved, including those who initially brought the case. Are you sure this is a firecracker you really want to light?"
• Casliber: "I echo Iridescent in that a case will not be pleasant, and sanctions for aggressive proponents on both sides possible."
• Roger Davies: "In practical terms, we can take a case, which will likely be long and nasty; issue liberal quantities of bans, topic bans and restrictions; and ask the community to forge a solution via an RFC."
• Sir Fozzie: "Does anyone see any resolution of an ArbCom case that wouldn't end up in "Trouts for all" or "Topic Bans for all?"."
• NewYorkBrad: "Much of the user conduct surrounding this issue has been wretched. All editors who have used excessively strident rhetoric in discussing this issue, or have otherwise acted obnoxiously, should stop doing that."
• JClemens: "but I consider the impact of tolerance (or lack thereof) for individual article differences to be a legitimate conduct matter inasmuch it provides a barrier to editing by those unfamiliar with its nuances." ["Sanctionable conduct matter" seems clear to me in context.]
• - Dank (push to talk) 18:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

( facilitator note: Current policy for MOS seems to lie about 2/3rds along the way from "Optional" to "Required". Each person can state their own strength of opinion but cannot dictate how others vote or try and railroad this. This section is now getting unwieldy due to discussion here. I will either collapse, footnote or move more general discussion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Um, my only goal here was to urge people to be more focused and careful than normal, given all the talk of trouts and bans. I can't tell anyone what they should or shouldn't discuss. I've probably said everything I wanted to say at this point. - Dank (push to talk) 22:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment:I totally prefer, against some apparently higher minds but in line with common usage, to use a hyphen with verses and a dash with "to stand for and between independent elements" . There has to be some common sense here that also goes along with compromise. If there is not a run to do away with the hyphen, that I am so totally against, and a move to use "Wiki" mark-ups regardless of common usage, then give meaningful reasoning for different usage.

• Also, PLEASE!; if someone is making comments, putting in "their two cents", or even giving civil comments, lets not use the "we have to do this now because of ArbCom and certain sanctions that are sure to come to involved editors". If I am civil and trying to help better Wikipedia and someone decides that for that reason I deserve sanctions then I will decide I have a far better use of my time than here. Apparently one editor is contemplating this. I just recently became involved and it took a while to attempt to try to catch up. I feel something that is deadlocked needs attention and an Arbcom is one way but threats just for the sake of it, and using this a lot as an argument to possibly force compromise, as apposed to compromise for the betterment of Wikipedia, is against what I perceive as a fundamental Wikipedia process. As stated above, "guidelines" for consistency is a good thing and needed to a point. If a majority of common usage (and not some 5% I observed) is one way then Wikipedia should lean in that direction. If a project is shown to use one certain way because common usage, consensus on the project, and other like titled articles, then there should not be a mandate to "do it wrong" just to be politically correct. If a title is otherwise correct (but just not within some views) the difference can be noted at the beginning of the lead. My goal here is the betterment of Wikipedia, threats of bans and sanctions notwithstanding. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

disjunctive "and"

3. To stand for and between independent elements (diode–transistor logic, Michelson–Morley experiment). An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name (Lennard-Jones potential, named after John Lennard-Jones), nor a hyphenated place name (Guinea-Bissau), nor with an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix Sino- in Sino-Japanese trade).

• Disagree in part. Permit, not require, although the specific use for multiple proper names is worth mentioning, because the contrast with Lennard-Jones is a real differentiation of meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Reworded as 'disjunctive and', as that's when it would be used. Not sure of the exception for affixes. How robust is that? — kwami (talk)

  I don't think I have seen dashes after stuff like Sino a non-negligible number of times (i.e., not significantly more often than I have seen a space after that). ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Eleven hits on WP:CREDO on "Michelson–Morley" (searching with quotes and either a hyphen or a dash); 6 non-AmEng pages give the dash, and all the AmEng hits use a hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Replying to no one in particular: would more examples be helpful? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    Perhaps, but would it not be simpler to list the positions of popular style guides? Absent a very large sample of published sources, Google hist, or whatever, the results would seem dubious. JeffConrad (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Again, if we have partial agreement, we need to separate the uses. JeffConrad (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree; See additional comments and reasoning above in to/vs.. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

( facilitator note: if you think there may be variance in views on the two items within this section, then I strongly suggest we split this now to clarify consensus, we ok with this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I have suggested breakouts on the main Talk page; they’re not necessarily the only way to do it, but they could serve as a starting point. JeffConrad (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To separate items in a list

4. To separate items in a list—for example, in articles about music albums, en dashes are used between track titles and durations, and between musicians and their instruments. In this role, en dashes are always spaced.

• Agree, although it is largely a part of 6 below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree, and agree with it being merged w 6. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Redundant with 6. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• It's understood that in list-y and tabular contexts, the rules aren't the same. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Could you give an example? JeffConrad (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree that it should be merged with 6. JeffConrad (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

facilitator note: if you think there may be variance in views on the items 4 and 6, then I strongly suggest we keep separate to clarify consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I’m not sure I completely understand the usage, which is why an example (or a link to one) would help. If the usage is what I think, it is just an alternative to a unspaced em dash—I’ve seen many examples of the latter. Again, we need to understand what we’re discussing before we can discuss it effectively. JeffConrad (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces

5. In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces (the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate) and when prefixing an element containing a space (pre–World War II technologies, ex–prime minister) – but usually not when prefixing an element containing a hyphen (non-government-owned corporations, semi-labor-intensive industries). However, recasting the phrase (the conscription debate, technologies prior to World War II) may be better style than compounding.

• Agree in small part. (the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate is valid usage; ex–prime minister is eccentric, and ambiguous with 2 and 3; if it is doesn't need to be done before a hyphen it doesn't need to be done at all. The last sentence really ought to be closer to don't do this if you can avoid it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree. Disagree with Anderson's understanding: this is not ambiguous w 2–3 if those do not apply to affixes, as we currently have it. The reason not to apply to non-government-owned corporations is simply that it's not visually intuitive and it seldom disambiguates. (Several style guides recommend the dash in such cases; others comment that such a convention is largely pointless.) — kwami (talk)
• Chicago says, "... only when a more elegant solution is unavailable" (rarely), and Chicago is the most pro-dash of the popular American style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Again, we have more than one type of use. Chicago’s long-standing example of quasi-public–quasi-judicial body is indeed much better given as quasi-public, quasi-judicial body. But post–Civil War is perfectly OK, and is consistent with many other US style guides. JeffConrad (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  It's not okay with Chicago, which advises that we work around it when possible, and it's possible here ... "postwar", "after the Civil War". I'm not sure if we're talking about the same US style guides; I'm talking about guides that writers are told they have to follow whether they like it or not if they want to get their book or article published in the US. I covered AP Stylebook, NYTM, Chicago, APA Style and MLA Style here, which more or less covers the landscape, but there are other US guides that are compulsory for specific segments of writers, and if anyone wants to throw them into the mix, please do. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  It depends on what the meaning of it is . . . The problem here is that we have at least two types of usage; if we judge by the examples, Chicago appear to deprecate only the combination of hyphens and dashes (OSM doesn’t even allow the combination). Perhaps we should separate the two uses.

  As for style guides, add Garner’s Modern American Usage and Merriam-Webster’s Manual for Writers and Editors as endorsing this usage; Words into Type and the APA style guide are silent.

  I question the applicability of the AP and NYT guides here—this isn’t a newspaper. And as I mention elsewhere, I′m leery of anyone who suggests using an en dash for a minus—the two characters clearly are not the same (– −), though the difference may matter less in a newspaper than in a technical book. JeffConrad (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. Pmanderson′s characterization of ex–prime minister as “eccentric” strikes me as eccentric. JeffConrad (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Therefore we disagree. This provision does not have unanimity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Here again Anderson is claiming veto power over any provisions of the MOS. Whatever he does not agree with personally is therefore inappropriate. — kwami (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Is he really, or did I miss something? His previous post is trivially true; it only says we disagree, therefore no unanimity. He isn't vetoing a provision of the MoS. The title of this section is "What do we agree upon?", not "What stays in the MoS?" Thus it is both relevant and undeniable than Septentrionalis does not agree upon this point. Art LaPella (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment; Are we requiring unanimity as a basis of compromise. And this provides solutions how? It seemed to me there was more "agree" than "disagree" so I go with Agree. Does this help solve the problem are are we just spinning wheels?

stylistic alternative to em dashes

6. As a stylistic alternative to em dashes (see below).

• Agree, but should this be merged to WP:EMDASH as a section on the use of dashes as punctuation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree, and agree merger with em-dash may be best. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• It's not often mentioned one way or the other in AmEng style guides, and I could live without it. I don't have any burning desire to enforce it one way or another. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral. Agree with Dank that this is very uncommon in AmE (and OUP don’t use it, either). I think it should not be used when en dashes indicating ranges are also spaced. JeffConrad (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Neutral; should be merged. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Spacing of endashes

Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items (the New York – Sydney flight; the New Zealand – South Africa grand final; June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940). Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem).

• Disagree with the exception "when there is a space"; an ingenious invention to avoid the problem with the New Zealand–South Africa grand final, but artificial.

  I agree that we should avoid artificial inventions. I have no idea whether this is artificial or not. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Not sure, probably simply because I'm not terribly familiar with this usage. But it would seem to warrant consideration to resolve potential conflict with 1–3 and 5. (Anderson, all punctuation is artificial.) — kwami (talk)
• Disagree. The spaces in such situations are very rare in the literature, and hence unfamiliar to readers and potentially confusing, especially in articles which also use spaced en dashes as em dashes substitutes. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Let's agree on en-dashes before we tackle the spacing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? This would seem a simple example. JeffConrad (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree on the exception. This usage is rare in published works (at least any that I′ve seen), and is at odds with every style guide that I’ve read. JeffConrad (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The space before an en dash should preferably be a non-breaking space ( ).

• Not sure. — kwami (talk)
• Don't get me started. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  ...even because that would then get me started. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 17:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how to interpret Dank's comment, but this isn't controversial, is it? This just means you don't want a dash/hyphen/whatever at the beginning of the line, right? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd just rather not get into it right now when sanctions have been promised if we don't finish in time. I haven't seen anyone demanding resolution on this as part of this Arbcom case. - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    Ok, so just leave as is (for now)? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    Agreed, leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 18:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

    I tend to make the same interpretation of the ArbCom motion as Dank, but fail to see how anyone could be “sanctioned” for failing to reach consensus. What exactly would a sanction be? JeffConrad (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree, as Erik has stated. Too much trouble? Use {{ndash}} or use an unspaced em dash. JeffConrad (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment; I agree with JeffConrad and the continual use of the "threats of sanctions" if consensus is not met is not how the ruling appeared to me. I can see that the ordered part of admins being proactive is not being followed or these continued mentions of such "threats" would be a good time for clarification. I guess some that worry about this so much as Wikipedia is their lives, with nothing else to do, this might be a motivation for compromise or a time for silence. I also feel that compromise should be a two-way (would that be with a hyphen or en-dash) street (to agree) with Wikipedia interests, reader interests, and other editor's interests, in mind. I think the "sure to come" sanctions are concerning civility and disruptions. At least I would hope this is the intent of the rule (it is somewhat— or maybe a lot "vague") as I feel that would be an over-reach of authority. Again as stated, if I am sanctioned or banned for trying to improve Wikipedia then that would be a big hint I need to find better use of my time. I have noticed that some editors that have been very active has not made comments and feel that if this is a serious issue any editor can seek clarification at the comment section of the Arbcom ruling. With that in mind (ask if you are worried) can we be more concerned with improving Wikipedia than some sanctions that we are not even sure about. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

En dashes in article titles

When naming an article, do not use a hyphen as a substitute for an en dash that properly belongs in the title, for example in Eye–hand span. To aid searching and linking, provide a redirect from the corresponding article title with hyphens in place of en dashes, as in Eye-hand span.

• Very strongly disagree. Not the business of this page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  I can see where you are coming from, but the idea that it's silly to use “eye–hand span” in the text of an article titled “eye-hand span” or vice versa should be mentioned somehow somewhere. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  When we get done with this exercise, I shall propose a text consisting of the points on which we agree. At that point we can enlarge it by consensus. Some wording about the desirability of an article spelling its subject like the title may well be consensus. (There may be exceptions, where the article uses a "correct" spelling and the title doesn't.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  If agreement takes “unanimity” literally, we seem to agree only on the current item 1, which I think we could have predicted. (and there are a few, such as those that insist on no dashes whatsoever, who probably disagree even on this). We might find agreement on a few others if we separate some of the different uses within the current categories, but even then I′m not sure we can find unanimous agreement. JeffConrad (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• Agree. TITLE covers naming, not punctuation and formatting. It will only provoke edit wars, as we've already seen, if we have different forms in the title and text. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  Well, punctuation is part of naming after all: Finnegan's Wake and Finnegans Wake are the titles of two distinct artworks, even if they are pronounced the same. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 12:49, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

• I find that even editors who know that some punctuation or spelling is wrong will unthinkingly copy it from page titles into article text, especially when they're using the page title in a link. So if we allow a different set of rules for page titles, whatever problems that causes in page text will never go away. - Dank (push to talk) 15:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• I think the idea that different punctuation/whatever should be used in titles is probably a non-starter, and rightly so. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree, if that means the title and the article should be consistent; perhaps we should reword to that effect. To have it otherwise seems absurd. JeffConrad (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree with Jeff Conrad. To me this would be where MOS is important. A style should be consistent right? The different uses can be listed at the beginning of the lead as is common. I have seen the word “unanimity” two times now and I missed this part of the discussion. Are we seeking all to agree (which will be almost impossible and a certain stalemate on many items) or a consensus?

From WP:HYPHEN

*In some cases, like diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes below.

• Very strongly disagree. The example is not consistently dashed in actual English, and the use of require is utterly unacceptable. This also affects the point above to which this refers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• I'm fine with this verbiage. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
• Agree, though perhaps requires is a bit strong. “Actual English” is a bit problematic, because styles do vary among publishers. An obvious example the nearly complete absence of en dashes from newspapers; it’s obviously their call, but with advice such as that from the New York Times to use it only for a minus sign leads one to wonder whether their usage should serve as a general example. JeffConrad (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • styles do vary among publishers That's the point. I didn't say "consistently dashless," I said "not consistently dashed." Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Yes, newspapers are not an adequate example. WikiProject Mathematics is never going to accept using an en dash for a minus sign, for example. Not in an electronic text, even if they looked identical. — kwami (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone deliberately use a minus sign which hasn't identical height, thickness and length as the horizontal bar of the plus sign? (“Deliberately” as opposed to “because they are unable to or can't be arsed to make them the same”.) I'd be somewhat surprised by that. ― A. di M.​_plé​^dréachtaí 03:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I hate to shock you, but . . . the New York Times Guide to Style and Usage says what it says. And Unix manual pages used a minus sign for an en dash (in partial defense of that practice, original troff did not have an en dash. But the result looked terrible nonetheless.). Several popular books on computer typography that are rigorous on the use of proper quotation marks and dashes seem to think that typewriter single and double quotes (' and ") are used for single and double primes (′ and ″). The moral? As much as I generally believe in following the major style guides, any recommendation still needs a sanity check. Having dealt with these issues when laser printers first became widely available 25 years ago, I’d have thought most people today would be up to speed. Clearly, I was mistaken. I would hope we could do better. JeffConrad (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment; A majority of newspapers are owned by a handful of companies. I do not ever wish to entertain the thought that newspapers are the sole guide to English usage. If this thought is being entertained then just forget everything and follow the New York Times Guide to Style and Usage. Newspapers in my area are horrible at punctuation and possibly saving space may be one intention. I am just stating that I would prefer another guide (primary) than one that can have a broad influence that may not accurately depict the over-all mainstream trend of authors and editors. If an author uses a hyphen or dash and the New York Times has decided against this usage do we agree to do away with them? I am against this as I feel there is a very important need for hyphens and dashes. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)