Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎to/vs.: 3a, 1d
Line 126: Line 126:
**'''Agree''' [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


*'''3b. An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name ({{xt|Lennard-Jones potential}}, named after {{xt|John Lennard-Jones}}), nor a hyphenated place name ({{xt|Guinea-Bissau}}), nor with an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix {{xt|Sino-}} in {{xt|Sino-Japanese trade}}).'''
*'''3b. An en dash is not used for a hyphenated personal name ({{xt|Lennard-Jones potential}}, named after {{xt|John Lennard-Jones}}), nor a hyphenated place name ({{xt|Guinea-Bissau}}), nor with an element that lacks lexical independence (the prefix {{xt|Sino-}} in {{xt|Sino-Japanese trade}}).'''
Line 135: Line 136:
**'''Agree'''. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree'''. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


*'''3c. To stand for ''and'' between other independent elements ({{xt|diode–transistor logic}}).'''
*'''3c. To stand for ''and'' between other independent elements ({{xt|diode–transistor logic}}).'''
Line 144: Line 146:
**'''Agree''', as in space–time continuum. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''', as in space–time continuum. [[User:Binksternet|Binksternet]] ([[User talk:Binksternet|talk]]) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:Dabomb87|Dabomb87]] ([[User talk:Dabomb87|talk]]) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
**'''Agree''' [[User:SarekOfVulcan|SarekOfVulcan]] ([[User talk:SarekOfVulcan|talk]]) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)


====To separate items in a list====
====To separate items in a list====

Revision as of 16:53, 4 June 2011

What do we agree upon?

(removed, see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting/discussion#What do we agree upon? Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Text

En dashes (–, &ndash;) 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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 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. [Who wrote that? NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]
  • Agree. Almost all guides and the majority of published sources use a dash in this case. JeffConrad (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC) [Who wrote that? NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)][reply]
  • Agree. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. This point is simple enough, and has very wide acceptance. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Kotniski (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agrees. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

to/vs.

voting in this section has been replaced by itemised section immediately below collapse box, to better enable judging of consensus

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)[reply]
  • Agree. (As it seems Anderson does: this is currently permitted but not required.) — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(removed, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#to/vs.)

  • Agree. This has strong support from the style guides on both sides of the Atlantic. Yesterday, when I opened Scientific American and noticed "predator–prey relationship", and in the prestigious US-based online journal PNoS noticed "protein–protein interactions" in an article title, I didn't blink. Many scientists are too busy to bother with professional typography – that's fine, they're not professional writers; let them stay in their labs. But the good publishing houses follow the style guides and do it properly, with professional editors to tweak the manuscripts of their authors. It's commonplace in the industry. Agree with Kwami's take. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Very commonly accepted; best retained among MOS recommendations. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Pretty standard in style guides, except for Chicago. Agree on the "require/permit" distinction: no editor is required to enter en dashes (they can enter hyphens, just like they can enter misspellings); and other editors are permitted to change to en dash (like they are permitted to fix spellings); this distinction is not unique to dashes and such. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(NB: Please comment agree/disagree in each section below)

  • 2d. To stand for between (male–female relations, French–German border).
    • Support ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree JeffConrad (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. But here I have even stronger doubts as to whether we can say it "stands for" anything - you can't say "male between female relations" or "French between German border".Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      But aren’t we really saying “relations between males and females”, which seems OK to me? JeffConrad (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That would certainly be another way of saying the same thing; but I still wouldn't say that the dash "stands for" between in the original (if anything, it stands for and). Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Tony (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree -- while I might support the use of the endash in these cases, it's definitely wrong to say "border between French and German".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disjunctive "and"

split out to better judge consensus below. Apologies to all who've commented but please acknowledge each subsection

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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    • Replying to no one in particular: would more examples be helpful? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      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)[reply]
      Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems to me that this might be worthwhile for every usage (properly broken out, of course). But it’s also a fairly significant undertaking; would anyone pay any attention? JeffConrad (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Again, if we have partial agreement, we need to separate the uses. JeffConrad (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree; See additional comments and reasoning above in to/vs.. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree: supported widely by authoritative guides in North America, the UK, and other countries. Furthermore, no WPian has ever been at risk of a negative comment – let alone a back-street mugging – for using a hyphen (or a space or a word-jamming) instead of a dash; but just as the best professional publishers do, we have editors who don't mind fixing typography. I believe this attention to detail aids readers' comprehension, even if they're not schooled in the precise usage themselves, and makes our text look good to readers.Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. This is similar to the preceding point, and the two could be made a little clearer if they were merged. I'd like us to simplify the text, but add extra examples showing concretely what MOS calls for. The ACS Style Guide, referred to at WT:MOS on these matters, supports this point; and it gives enough examples so that no one is in doubt. We should study it as a fine example of lucid exposition. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Pretty standard in style guides, except for Chicago. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • 3a. To stand for and between independent elements that are proper names (Michelson–Morley experiment).
  • 3c. To stand for and between other independent elements (diode–transistor logic).

To separate items in a list

superseded and plit out below. Apologies to those who've commented already - please comment in each section

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)[reply]
  • Agree, and agree with it being merged w 6. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant with 6. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    Could you give an example? JeffConrad (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; the main need is a better explanation and example (or link to one)Agree that it should be merged with 6. JeffConrad (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Agree. Jeff's comment suggests it should be clarified: "in a bulleted or numbered list". Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. But this is a fairly arbitrary matter of choice for the styling of lists; there are no strong precedents to follow or to care about. The intention should be made clearer, that's all. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Just an em dash style alternative; merge with 6 would be fine. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • : To separate items in a list—for example, in articles about music albums, en dashes are used
(please clarify acceptance of each section, and style below)

In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces

split out below. please comment in each section

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

(removed, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces)

  • Agree. [Could someone put the blowout above under a collapsible banner?] It's been around in US style for a long time, and Dank, I don't see much difference between the MoS wording and that of Chicago MoS and other US style guides: it's typical to find "reword where possible", although you can't always do it. Less common, but still used, outside North America. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, with reservations. This usage is definitely American, as New Hart's simply notes without recommending it for use. But American guides disagree sharply over the details; and like the contested spacing of en dashes below, if it is employed mechanically it may distract or mislead the reader. We should eventually insert some sort of proviso or caution, for this point and the later point about spacing. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. As an American, I'm not used to the spaced version, but I see it's in other guides, and it does make logical sense. I don't think it should always be used, e.g. probably not in "New York–London flight", and that rewritng to avoid it is often a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5a. In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens (the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate).
    • Agree (somewhat reluctantly) This construction strikes me as ugly, but in some cases may be the best option. I would suggest that editors consider recasting when feasible. JeffConrad (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree (and also agree that this would usually be best recast).Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, per JeffConrad, but surely we can find a better example. See my 5c comment.
  • 5b. When prefixing an element containing a space (pre–World War II technologies, ex–prime minister).
    • Agree In most cases, I think the second example is as it should be. For the first example, recasting may be better in some circumstances. JeffConrad (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree (again, often better recast). Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree – don't much like it, but this is a better example than "conscription"; see my comment to 5c. Tony (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5c. Recasting the phrase (the conscription debate, technologies prior to World War II) may be better style than compounding.
    • Agree, but on a case-by-case basis. I would recast to the first example here but would probably prefer the en dash to the second example. I recognize that not every editor would make the same decisions; Strunk and White said it better than I ever could: in some cases, one must rely on “ear”, and no two ears are the same. JeffConrad (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per JeffConrad, also reluctantly. I'd strengthen the advice to reword, and provide two options if it can't be reworded: the ungainly triple-bunger hyphenation, or the dash then space, which I think is anti-intuitive for readers unless they've become used to it, which most won't have (I have, but I did a double-take first time I saw it). Jeff, "ex–prime minister" can be reworded to "former prime-minister", can't it? Tony (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree We should word the guidance so that it is clear that recasting is the best option. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • Agree, and agree merger with em-dash may be best. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Neutral; should be merged. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, and it is there at WP:EMDASH. (See the subheading Spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes.) But this and all other organisational details can be fixed later, once larger issues have been resolved. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Pretty common and looks OK, at least a lot better than the spaced hyphen that users tend to enter for a dash. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree; and yes, the spaced hyphen looks scrappy, especially on a monitor. Tony (talk) 08:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d say the spaced hyphen looks dreadful in any medium; perhaps more to the point is that I can find no formal support for it anywhere (it does frequently appear in online versions of newspapers, but that’s usually because the article editor has restricted himself to keyboard characters, and apparently has never learned the typewriter convention of two hyphens). I think it should always be acceptable to replace a spaced single hyphen with something more appropriate—subject to consistency with the rest of the article (and assuming it’s not intended as a minus), I’d be OK with an em dash (or even two hyphens), spaced or unspaced, or a spaced en dash. Stated more succinctly: the spaced hyphen should be proscribed. JeffConrad (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing of endashes

Split out below. Apologies to those who've commented and can you please recast in each section below

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)[reply]
  • 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)
    • Only to those who will not use punctuation to show the natural flow of thought and speech; that punctuation is no more artificial than speech. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Let's agree on en-dashes before we tackle the spacing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • Disagree. My Least favorite part of the guideline, as it introduces inconsistent formatting for equivalent constructs based on a rationale that is very weak and isnt attested in the majority of usage. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's too inflexible, and needs major loosening-up; but spacing in date-ranges is widely practised in English and is universal on WP, apparently without a single complaint; this should be the firm exception. Could I suggest the following?
En dashes meaning "to", "and", "versus" or "between" are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items in a date (June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940); spaced en dashes may be used between groups of numbers and words to avoid implying a closer relationship between the words or numbers next to the en dash than between each of these and the rest of their groups c. 1450 – c. 1650, not c. 1450–c. 1650.
The last sentence is based on the authoritative Butcher's copy-editing, which has long had flexible and intelligent advice on this, and is mirrored in several other important guides. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with reservations. I've thought for a long time that this needs reining in, but the climate was not right. Now that we have a methodical process, we can adjust such things. This usage is really effective for displaying ranges of full dates, and in that capacity it has pretty good acceptance in guides (other than in America), and even more in actual use (birth and death dates in biographies, especially). For certain complex headings it is valuable too, where the items to be related are already unusually complex. But it doesn't work well in running prose, and we can work on that. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Unless we have specific proposals for changes, I'd leave it alone. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(removed - see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#Spacing of endashes

  • 6a. Disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except
  • 6b. 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.
    • Disagree, for the most part. Chicago close up in both instances. For the first example, I think this is the right approach, but do concede the benefit of spacing in 3 June 1888 – 18 August 1940, where 3 June 1888–18 August 1940 would be confusing because of the implied close association of 1888 and 18. I would like to see editors encouraged to consider (is this permissive or what?) using to or through as an alternative when a date range includes month, day, and year. I would strongly discourage (or ban) the spaced en dash in this sense if the spaced en dashe is used as an alternative to an em dashe elsewhere in the article. JeffConrad (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree, sorry, but this has always looked wrong to me. Closing up is surely consistent with the "ex–prime minister" examples above. Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree strongly for dates, which has been just about universal on Wikipedia for a long time (3 June 1816 – 18 August 1840}, avoiding the squashing of the central elements, which would often be harder to read (3 June 1816–18 August 1840). There are probably more than a million examples of the spaced en dash in full dates on WP, and it seems to be widely accepted. For en dashes between compound words, I agree it should now be optional, at editors' discretion ("New Zealand – South Africa" or "New Zealand–South Africa"). Tony (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree strongly for dates. I would prefer to retain the status quo for the others, but I don't feel too strongly about it. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Binksternet (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mixed. I agree on the dates, and have seen it this way in several usage guides. On the names, it's more common unspaced (at least in America). If we can take names and words out of 6b, and put more balance into 6c, essentially implementing what Tony suggests above, I believe it will reflect actual usage better, both in outside works and guides and in existing WP text. I will refrain from adding my Agree to all the other items, since it seems pointless. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6c. Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem).
    • Disagree (with “occasionally”). I would make this the rule rather than the exception. Guides that specifically address this usage seem to agree. JeffConrad (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with occasionally, per Jeff. Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree In line with my support of 6b. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

(removed, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#En dashes in article titles)

  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
  • 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?

(removed, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#En dashes in article titles_2)

  • To me, it is a no-brainer that usage should be consistent in an article title and the article text (except for quotations and refs, where appropriate, of course). This needs to be stated somewhere at both MoS and TITLE. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take it as a strong requirement that title and text should agree, but there may be temporary anomalies, instabilities, or other special circumstances where we cannot achieve every kind of desirable consistency at the same time. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Titles should be styled like text. The novel theory that styling introduces a conflict with WP:COMMONNAME should be retired. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. No reason to use a different style in a title than in text. Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree It is critical that we resolve these inconsistencies between our guidelines and policies. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Titles do not get different treatment than body text. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
  • I'm fine with this verbiage. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

(removed, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#From WP:HYPHEN

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)[reply]

(removed, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#From WP:HYPHEN_2

  • Makes sense to me. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. We can pretty well discount what newspaper style guides say. In other ways Wikipedia works to an academic model (references are required; many features of informal expression are strongly discouraged; facts are backed up in prescribed ways that are not journalistic). Other reference works – like Britannica, among the more populist offerings – tend against newspaper usage for punctuation, and I think we should do the same. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Unless we have specific proposals for changes, I'd leave it alone. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this the same question as 3c? Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion and continue discussion there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting&oldid=432541782"