Jump to content

Talk:Dash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 218.189.204.101 (talk) at 06:58, 21 February 2019 (→‎drgsergsdnfsdfsefserghserrgegnefnawdbhqdfhse: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Notice of RFC

Talk:Common_English_usage_misconceptions#RfC:_Hyphens.2FDashes_misconception

Please help improve this related article. Comments should be placed at that Talk page rather than here.

There is currently a discussion and !vote in the Manual of Style regarding en dashes.

Interested parties are invited to participate: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposed_change_.282.29 startswithj (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image illustrating the different hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes could be more illustrative

"The most common versions of the dash are the en dash (–) and the em dash (—), named for the length of a typeface's lower-case n and upper-case M respectively."

Then later in the article: "The widths of en and em dashes have also been specified as being equal to those of the upper-case letters N and M respectively,[8][9] and at other times to the widths of the lower-case letters."

The image should show lowercase n,m and uppercase N M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.128.188.180 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em_(typography)#History has a good explanation with a good picture. Terrel Shumway (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What'

Deleted 18:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Em and en re­fer to units of ty­po­graphic mea­sure­ment, not to the let­ters M and N.

"Em and en re­fer to units of ty­po­graphic mea­sure­ment, not to the let­ters M and N. In a tra­di­tional metal font, the em was the ver­ti­cal dis­tance from the top of a piece of type to the bot­tom. The en was half the size of the em. Orig­i­nally, the width of the em and en dashes cor­re­sponded to these units. In to­day’s dig­i­tal fonts, they run narrower." [1]

See also: [2]

References

  1. ^ http://practicaltypography.com/hyphens-and-dashes.html
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Em_(typography)#Incorrect_and_alternative_definitions

Terrel Shumway (talk) 13:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted paragraph as written at PracticalTypography.com is misleading because it is too oversimplified, to the point of misstatement. They were trying so hard to explain to a total-novice reader that they created a misapprehension that the one has no relationship whatsoever to the other, which is false. There is in fact a relationship (a fuzzy historical one) between the letters M and N and the measurement units of em and en (and their names). The relationship is touched on in the linked WP section (Em_(typography)#Incorrect_and_alternative_definitions). And Words Into Type, third edition, one of the blue-chip references in typography (and thus one of the R-est of WP:RSs on this subject), makes clear that it exists (pp. 498, 501–502, 539). I agree that Wikipedia should explain it better. Not even Words Into Type explains it well enough; for example, it uses the phrase "the square of" in a nonmathematical way, falsely implying that an em would be (solely) a unit of surface area (which is not accurate). Still, it makes clear that a relationship exists. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dash. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Usage statistics

Most people use the minus sign: (-) as a dash sign: [ a. short dash: (–), b. long dash (—) ] inbetween words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:582:5821:E400:6DE0:C7C1:3118:3720 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split en/em dash articles?

Is there a reason that En dash and Em dash don't have their own articles? They're certainly long enough and have deep enough trees of subsections to justify splitting them. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:25, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This article is well within WP:LENGTH. How would splitting serve reader or editorial interests? The average reader doesn't know the names "en dash" and "em dash"; the average reader may well not even know these characters serve sometimes different, sometimes overlapping functions. There's no requirement that WP have a separate article for every character in Unicode.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:39, 9 November 2017 (UTC)T[reply]
The sections on En dash versus em dash and Rendering dashes on computers are common to the two types of dashes. Splitting them would accomplish nothing and would be unnecessary labor. Peter Brown (talk) 00:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any value in splitting the dash article. The redirects on en dash and em dash are effective for directing people to the correct information within article. Carter (talk) 14:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would normally agree to a split but because of the common sections as Peter Brown says above, I think there is more value in keeping them together. The number of subsections is a little unwieldy but that is more a matter of presentation. The Wikipedia stylesheets could use some improvement there. ··gracefool 💬 21:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a different option, perhaps a spin-off page for En dash and em dash would be reasonable? Pages like Perihelion and aphelion suggest some precedent for that type of naming. "Rendering dashes on computers" would stay here, "En dash versus em dash" would get moved. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:17, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the worst of all worlds, treating them together but not in the dash article. Let's leave it here with separate sections for these dash usages, please. Dicklyon (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support a split, because people are coming to Wikipedia in order to look for system- or program-specific ways to render a specific character without having to wade through paragraphs upon paragraphs of boring text. What they usually want, is a key combination in a simple and concise format (in a table), and not to read the entire history of the character. As I don't see any how-to tables with specific key combinations, then it seems, that someone must have removed the tables. -Mardus /talk 11:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

En dash vs. figure dash to indicate a range of values

In the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view in the section Similar Unicode Characters, I just changed the claim that the figure dash is the "preferred character to denote intervals" to say only that it "may be preferred" to the en dash. Perhaps that's still too strong. The subsection on the usage of the en dash calls connecting the ends of a range one of its main uses while the Figure dash section says that the en dash is more appropriate for this purpose. Perhaps the article should more rigorously avoid expressing any point of view as to which is better suited or whether, in accordance with the AMA manual of style (see the subsection on Ranges of values), the hyphen is better than either. Peter Brown (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed names "n dash" and "m dash"

Nobody uses "n dash" or "m dash", HTML codes notwithstanding. Note that the hits in books for "m dash" are all for authors (M. Dash) and races (100 m dash). And don't stick hyphens in them, as a few do. Dicklyon (talk) 04:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common dashes → less common dashes not readable

Don't know anything about dashes but two examples are not showing up for me in the text of either the article or the editing window. The sentence with them in is:

"Less common are the two-em dash (⸺) and three-em dash (⸻), both added to Unicode with version 6.1 as U+2E3A and U+2E3B."

Using Safari browser they appear as unfilled squares. Using Firefox each one appears as four tiny letters and numbers, enclosed in parentheses.

MATERIALS USED:
MacBook Pro computer, 17-inch, mid 2010
Mac OS 10.13.4
Safari version 11.1
Firefox 59.0.1
Moonsell (talk) 12:10, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm using Firefox 59.0.3 on a PC laptop running Windows 10; I have no problem and haven't since at least Version 57. Perhaps the problem is in the OS, not the browser? Peter Brown (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

drgsergsdnfsdfsefserghserrgegnefnawdbhqdfhse

guyjbgvugimnmnmnmnmnmnjnlfnnlkzkpk,pko;j;lmopm,l;;okmkp;pkmo;ofgmopyk,ppjkfjopdkp;dlxp['l[]ol-ldrx['tl;]l-[ed=y;ers][t;r][4t;[;];]lp['pp[d'l;t]ljry[;l,ygsyh3iotj9ouijpouhokdopkp'lp'p;l'

[ujdrkp,kodm[ktgri-0j-0reetjkpsz]\'[ff;\]\

\zs]][r;\e][pr]-s[lj[r[;'t][fd;r']\fd;kg][fydr['op][df;]r-dol'p[l;dr]llp[rlt[doyrp[l][gpr][y;]r[t]=p][as;r]][p;[ 'stflsswgsddrswgnsertfsebserdthsfdbzsdbszxdrgdxeXAvasdsdyhszscsfbzsddqwwafavsfdbadsdbadfnsefnzxbdxerhdffgndrt

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dash&oldid=884377665"