From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Notice of RFC[edit]


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


The previous version of the page had the punctuation mark sidebar moved halfway down the page to accommodate an exhaustive table of programming conventions for creating various dashes. I got everything to fit by breaking up all the {{key press}} templates being used, but if the final result isn't satisfactory to other editors, the solution is not to break MOS guidelines by putting the sidebar in the wrong place again.

(a) We could simply remove the "Compose key"; "vim digraph"; & "Microsoft Word key combination" entries; or
(b) We could move this table down to the bottom of the page under the programming subsection.

— LlywelynII 11:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

User LlywelynII doing faulty edits and redundant changes[edit]

Hey LlywelynII, in one of your more recent edits(Revision as of 11:04, 3 February 2013) you removed the visuals for keys on alt text, which by itself is no big deal and I don't really mind. But in addition to that, you forgot to add the 0 at the beginning of the codes, making it lead to ù and û instead of — and –. The code I'm talking about is ALT+151 and ALT+150, whereas its supposed to be ALT+0151 and ALT+0150. I'm assuming it was an accident.

What bothers me even more though, is the way you edit the pages. The recent edit history currently includes several incredibly redundant changes by you. Instead of saving the page over and over again between edits, just to look at the result. Press show preview, and do all your edits in one single save if possible. I mean you had like 5 pages, if not more, of just you repeatedly changing the same setting, over and over again. In total you did 21 edits in less than an hour of time, the great majority of them minor, if not all, which is unacceptable in any case.

This makes it pretty difficult to go through the edit history as I did due to the fault, to find the specific edit in question that caused it.

Another thing to note, please write summaries for you edits in the future, and don't forget to check the minor edit box when you do smaller edits.

Dux Ducis Hodiernus (talk) 11:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I endorse your comments above, Dux Ducis Hodiernus, entirely.
Here's hoping User:LlywelynII takes notice of them.
Cheers! –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 12:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

C'est compliqué![edit]

Oh boy! It just dawned on me this morning that I have never typed a single dash (of whatever sort) during the one year I have (now and then) been making edits on the English-language wiki. The reason being: a) I keep forgetting that you use dashes by the bucketful in English, (so I write -- as we would in French, -- the India-Pakistan War, the employer-employee meeting, the North-South Dialogue, the 1939-1945 War, pp. 14-16, etc., etc., etc.); b) in the rare instances I suspect there should be a dash, I give up -- as I never remember how to type one. Hyphens are so user-friendly! (I'll try to amend myself from now on.)--Lubiesque (talk) 14:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect information in this article[edit]

I'm talking about this particular portion:

"Either version may be used to denote a break in a sentence or to set off parenthetical statements, although writers are generally cautioned to use a single form consistently within their work. In this function, en dashes are used with spaces and em dashes are used without them:"

Nowhere does the author of the reference make this claim and is, in fact, contradictory to his own usage of the parenthetical em dashes. I'm a noobie at wiki, I just felt I should bring it up so that someone who does know what they're doing can review my statement and make the change accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, it's probably not the best ref for this info, but it does sort of support the point of unspaced em dash, and also the exception:

First, make the thing the right way. There are a few ways to do it, but generally, on a keyboard, you can do as follows: previous word/no space/two hyphens/no space/following word. Word-processing programs turn the two hyphens into an unbroken line that’s roughly the width of a capital “M” — hence the official name of this punctuation mark, the em-dash. (Some publications, including this newspaper, add spaces around dashes.)

but we should add a more explicit source. Maybe this one. Or this book. Dicklyon (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Complex combinations of modifiers[edit]

I added a note in the section about using en-dashes to attach modifiers to open or compound phrases. It's not as a guide to style but rather to caution a writer that if things are getting this complicated, perhaps they should unpack the phrase instead. I couldn't find a good reference online but will try to find one on paper. Monado (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

"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 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) has a good explanation with a good picture. Terrel Shumway (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


Deleted 18:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

"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]


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

The quoted paragraph as written at 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)

External links modified[edit]

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}}).

YesY 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

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