Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This page is now closed. Finalising of the draught based on results here is taking place at WT:MOS. Sorry about delay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 (–, –) 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]

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).

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voting in this section has been replaced by itemised section immediately below collapse box, to better enable judging of consensus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

(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]
  • Agree. Nageh (talk) 19:48, 8 June 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]
      I think 1–3 should all be subsumed under ranges / independent elements, with various examples. It's probably not possible to come up with a single preposition that would account for all possible examples of any one section, so IMO the emphasis should be on the examples, not on the description. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I’m neutral on the merger, but agree that examples are essential however we choose to organize things. JeffConrad (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, the examples make things reasonably clear, but it's the "stand for" I object to - for me, if something stands for something, then it can be replaced by it (it doesn't just mean that it vaguely carries the same meaning). So the dash in ranges actually does stand for "to" or "thru" like we say (if you were reading it aloud, that's what you'd say); with scores and the like it's rather marginal (I suppose you could say "a four to three win", though in practice you wouldn't); and with these "between" examples it doesn't work at all. I think this is actually important, since AIUI it's examples like these that have been causing the recent controversy, and if the point of this exercise is to settle such controversial matters, then we need to get the resulting wording watertight (or at least, make it say unambiguously what it is we really mean), otherwise there will only be another round of argument over how to interpret it in particular cases.--Kotniski (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that “stand for” is not always the best wording. In some cases “sense” (used by Chicago and Butcher) may be better; OSM simply states “Note Arab–American (of Arabs and Americans, en rule)”. Whatever we choose, we need to make clear what we mean, probably by wording and examples. Spacing in dates is a good example; Butcher (2006, 151) states that “en rules may be used between groups of numbers and words to avoid implying a closer relationship between the words or numbers next to the en rule than between each of these and the rest of its group” (ex. September–January but 18 September – 19 January), but she also indicates that in most other instances, the en rule is unspaced (presumably, this would include 18–19 September). She also cautions about mixing this usage with spaced en rules used as parenthetical dashes, and suggests considering using to in place of the dash to avoid ambiguity. If we decide that we agree, in whole or in part, we need to be clear on where we agree so that we don’t go through this again next week. JeffConrad (talk) 09:25, 5 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]
      No-one's saying we should say that. "Between" is only an attempt to cover the semantics, not a suggested rewording.
      We're voting on which areas we support en dashes, not on actual wording, correct? I agree that "between" is not the best word here. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Agree with Sarek that "between" shouldn't be in the final wording. — kwami (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      My bad, I guess. I used Chicago’s wording for lack of a better term; I’m all for a better one if we can find it. For the record, it’s a use Chicago do not endorse. JeffConrad (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree, this does not appear to be commonly preferred usage in actual practice, and should not be mandated, at least not as obligatory. I am also not convinced the classification is defined by these section headings is linguistically appropriate and insightful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with reservations. The "stands for between" is not literally correct, as some note; the Cambridge grammar puts it that "X–Y" can mean "between X and Y"; perhaps we could reword to clarify. This case is not presently in our MOS (except as implied in the number and date ranges), but I would support adding it if we can come up with a better wording. The example "French–German border" appears explicitly as such in at least one style guide, meaning the border between French and German territories, I presume; many adjective forms similarly have implied nouns, as in Spanish–American War, a war between Spanish and American political or military entities. I would also support Kwami's suggestion of coalescing these into a single more general description of the usage in joining pairs of parallel, equal, or interchangeable elements, instead of trying to enumerate the relations that might be implied. What exactly is the relation in love–hate relationship anyway? And? Between? Versus? To? something else? No matter; the point is that they are parallel concepts between which there is a relationship. Dicklyon (talk) 20:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      My bad, I guess. I used Chicago’s wording for lack of a better term; I’m all for a better one if we can find it. For the record, it’s a use Chicago specifically do not endorse. JeffConrad (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very strongly oppose. Not American, as CMOS shows; an oddity in Commonwealth English.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Not American—Except, of course, for the American style guides which do recommend this. — kwami (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      All two of them; neither the actual style of the publisher concerned. One, of course, is Oxford University Press. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Certainly not an "oddity in Commonwealth English". Standard, in fact. And if we knew which two guides were referred to just above, we could add to the list of American guides. "American style" (a loose notion, to be used with caution) and what CMOS recommends are two different things – especially for the details we discuss on these pages. What CMOS actually does in its own text is a third thing; what University of Chicago Press does, as against its own style guide, is a fourth thing; and a fifth is what other American style guides recommend. Finally, all of these are to be distinguished from what selection English (not American) Wikipedia should make from current best-practice recommendations. It is also not accurate to portray Oxford (or Cambridge, or Routledge, or Penguin, and so on) as cleaving to something called "British" style, and importing it to America when they publish there. Especially, Penguin, Oxford, and Cambridge publish guides, grammars, or dictionaries that address American English, and they do a fine job of it. NoeticaTea? 04:37, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, except for changing the wording away from "stands for". Something like "to indicate commonality"? Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree --JN466 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly disagree. Contrary to popular usage, requires interpretation to apply, and as the discussion here makes clear, it's going to be impossible to phrase in any way which doesn't serve as an excuse for reopening debate. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The border between France and Germany is not the same as the border between French and German; it is the same as the French border that's also a German border.Agree with the proviso I posted at 15:21, 8 June 2011 in section “Text” above (that the dash shouldn't be treated as the only possibility). ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)20:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. — Bility (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with the first, disagree with the second. A French–German is a border between entities of "French" and of "German" which makes no damned sense. It's the France–Germany border, or the French-German border, but it is not the French–German border. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      In principle, it'd make sense to refer to the border between the French and German languages, which runs through part of Switzerland, along the border between France and Germany, and (IIRC) through a tiny bit of the easternmost part of Belgium; but I wouldn't be surprised if no-one actually used this phrase with this meaning. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 22:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Headbomb and A di M, you have both made that point more than once. Are you aware of the analyses in CGEL, at Chapter 19, 4.3.1 and Chapter 20, 8.2.2, dealing with X~Y Z constructions? (X and Y adjectives; Z a noun. I mean coordinative cases like "Swedish~Irish trade".) Those analyses contradict your own. Can you give us a citation to support yours? By the way, where punctuation is the topic (at 20:8.2.2) an en dash is used: X–Y Z. But a hyphen is used at the other location (19:4.3.1). CGEL basically accords with MOS-type usages, but it is not consistent. NoeticaTea? 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Just out of curiosity, who changed the example from France–Germany border to French–German border and why? –CWenger (^ • @) 00:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      O, that was Kwami. (It's a foible of his to do such things. ☺) I don't approve: but in fact it is just as well he did. We especially needed opinions on adjective~adjective forms, for reasons that are obvious from the history of all this in the articles. NoeticaTea? 00:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That's why I did it. We don't want to come back to this because we forgot to discuss it now. And it's the exact example used to illustrate dashes in one of our style guides. — kwami (talk) 20:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't remember reading Ch. 19, 4.3.1, and IIRC Ch. 20, 8.2.2 mentioned the long hyphen in French–German something as “also” possible, not as the only possibility. (I don't have access to CGEL now, and A Student's Introduction to English Grammar does not discuss those points.) Anyway, I agree that a monumental descriptive grammar based on a decade of research by a dozen linguists should be given more weight than the personal tastes of the authors of this or that style guide. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 15:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm just going to echo with Headbomb. He says exactly what I'm thinking. oknazevad (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Fine, Oknazevad. We can surely expect that your opinion will be responsive to evidence in major descriptive grammars, such as I have just referred to – and such as A di M might come back with. NoeticaTea? 00:12, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree for both, though for different reasons. In male–female relations the dash means between, but in French–German border it really means "the French and German border", which is discussed in 3. Nageh (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Courcelles 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, with similar reservations to Nageh over what the dash is supposed to “stand for”. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with this usage, though I too have reservations about using the word "between" to describe it. Ozob (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. The guideline is written to be concise rather than expansive. The sense "between" is of course implicated, but not as a plain substitute for the en dash. It should be reworded, since conciseness can be abused – as we have seen. The usage itself is very commonly endorsed in major style guides, and it is singled out for mention in the leading descriptive grammar of our time, CGEL (see abbreviations, at the head of this page), which calls the indicator (as a functional abstraction) "long hyphen", its marker being the en dash (I underline something about "between" and about adjectives, since these have been controversial points for us):

This is used instead of an ordinary syntactic hyphen with modifiers consisting of nouns or proper names where the semantic relation is "between X and Y" or "from X to Y":
[6]  a parent–teacher meeting  a French–English dictionary  the 1914–1918 war
It can be used with more than two components, as in the London–Paris–Bonn axis. It is also found with adjectives derived from proper names: French–German relations. There is potentially a semantic contrast between the two hyphens [that is, between en dash ("long hyphen") and hyphen] – compare, for example, the Llewelyn–Jones Company (a partnership) and the Llewelyn-Jones Company (with a single compound proper name).
(CGEL [2002], p. 1762, Chapter 20, 8.2.2, "Hard and long hyphens" subsection "The long hyphen")

For the record, CGEL is published in America by Cambridge (New York), and is a pan-anglophone grammar, with editing and contributions from several countries. The chapter just cited ("Punctuation") is written by an American, a Briton, and an Australian. Where punctuation is not the topic under examination, the text uses various conventions, not always consistently. Here is something else affecting our topic, addressing coordinative adjective+adjective compound adjectives (again I underline something that has been disputed in our discussions):

[30]  bitter-sweet  deaf-mute  shabby-genteel  Swedish-Irish  syntactic-semantic
The components here are of equal status. The last two illustrate highly productive patterns, both of which are predominantly used in attributive function: Swedish-Irish trade, a syntactic-semantic investigation. In general these can be glossed with coordinative and: "bitter and sweet"; "deaf and mute"; etc. In some, however, there is an understood "between" relation: "trade between Sweden and Ireland".
(CGEL, p. 1658, Chapter 19, 4.3.1, "Adjective-centred compound adjectives", subsection "Adjective + adjective")

[Added later; and re-signed:] Significantly, in its own usage CGEL firmly supports the en dash with the general sense "between". It overwhelmingly uses en dash in such phrases as subject–verb agreement (p. 499 et passim); I have found no "between" cases in which it uses a hyphen instead. NoeticaTea? 01:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. I personally prefer CMoS usage, being American. Although I quote CMoS 16th Ed. here, it jibes with my personal preference as well. From ¶6.80 "En dashes with compound adjectives": "An abbreviated compound is treated as a single word, so a hyphen, not an en dash, is used in such phrases as 'US-Canadian relations' (Chicago's sense of the en dash does not extend to between)." Also see the table on page 379 of the 16th edition (¶7.85), under "proper nouns and adjectives relating to geography or nationality". Where the first term is a prefix or unless between is implied, CMoS prefers an open compound; the table shows hyphens, not en dashes, for the between usage. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Discombobulated. How does male–female mean male between female? —Telpardec (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      We've been through that confusion before: it doesn't. The "between" relation is expressed as "between X and Y", as the Cambridge guide to English usage puts it. Male–female can mean "between male and female" or "male versus female" or "male and female" or "male to female" (as in male–female transexual) or something like that. The en dash just makes it clear that it doesn't mean like in "a male-female person", indicating something like a "shemale" as Jeff put it. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 14 July 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).

( 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]

To separate items in a list

superseded and split 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.

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]
  • : 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]
  • 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]
    • Disagree Should be recast in all cases, so that there are actually words on each side of the endash. (See above for "lacks lexical independence".) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      What about cases where it cannot be recast? Say a conventionalized expression. — kwami (talk) 17:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      For example? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it's problematic to say something should be recast in all cases, when we cannot anticipate what those would all be. I just discovered that we're expected to repunctuate quotations in some cases, but we certainly can't change the words. Or there could be a catch phrase that has a set wording but not a set transcription. — kwami (talk) 17:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that 5b is about whether in this case compound is the best solution. The question is, if we decide to compound, than should we use a dash or a hyphen. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 11:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, as above. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. While I am not suggesting that this practise be disallowed, the first example is a good demonstration of why this should not be encouraged. It is worth remembering that the Manual of Style is applied robotically; the worst case scenarios should be considered. —WFC— 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree – It's not "too prescriptive" and should not be applied robotically. Recall the heading of all this: "En dashes have several distinct roles". This is one of the roles, supported by almost all guides that talk about en dashes; it won't prevent people from seeking better alternatives, nor should it be allowed to justify "robotic" changes that make things awkward. Dicklyon (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. This one looks awkward and I don't think it's widely used. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral – don't mind the hyphen there. --JN466 23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly disagree. Serves no useful function whatever, I've never seen an example of case where the hyphen would be confusing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Slightly disagree. Again, always awkward, does not improve readability. – SJ + 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, since RS are divided in this usage (very roughly 50% for dash and 50% for hyphen). This usage should be allowed, but not recommended. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree on the punctuation. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be allowed but not required. As for the examples given, “World War II” and “prime minister” are such widely recognized phrases that's is nearly impossible for readers to mis-parse the sequence, whether it uses a hyphen or a dash. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Pre-World War II is perfectly clear. While I've seen endashes used for every other thing, I've never seen this usage anywhere. If this somehow causes confusion, it is much better to recast (see former prime minister, before World War II...) Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree that former prime minister is probably better, but recasting is more difficult in an adjectival context (e.g., post–Civil War era). Though the latter is not a construction one sees every day, I have seen it in print as well as in CMOS. If post-Civil War era is perfectly clear, we hardly need en dashes at all; it’s not that the reader can’t quickly sort it out, but that the reader should not need to do so. JeffConrad (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      IMO post-Civil War era is fine, since the capitalization clarifies. But people often want to capitalize the prefix, and Post-Civil War era is not so clear. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. I did not follow the discussion so I do no know how this suggestion came up, but using a dash to separate prefixes is very awkward, does not resemble the close connection to the word/compound whose meaning it changes, and does not follow most style guidelines. The style guideline I am used to suggests to use hyphens between the compound words if that is required for clarity (e.g., "ex-prime-minister") but does not mandate them. No dashes there. Nageh (talk) 17:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm fine with that myself, but I expect that people will object to hyphenating ex-prime-minister when we don't hyphenate prime minister. — kwami (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Courcelles 19:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree as an optional usage. Ozob (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree as mandatory if used in this fashion, but with the caveat that if at all possible, the usage should be rephrased to avoid the use of any dash at all (which would be consistent with CMoS 16th Ed. ¶6.80). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. (If it ain't croaked, donut choke it. :) —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Like the preceding principle, this one is almost exclusively American. By itself, that is not an important objection; but these two principles originate and belong in a more limited context than English Wikipedia, which serves the whole anglophone world. It may fit well with CMOS conventions, for example. But our other guidelines will surely continue to differ from CMOS on en dashes (and dashes generally). Moreover, when we consider cases of this sort in isolation, we find that the structure is usually clear with the standard hyphen anyway: from the capitalisation (pre-World War II technologies), or from the inclusion of more hyphens when the prefixed form is not a proper name (post + blue period + paintings: post-blue-period paintings), or from the use of a stock title or familiar pattern that is read as a coherent block (several ex-prime ministers were present; two anti-potassium cyanide agents, noting that such chemical names do not take hyphens). In rare cases there may still be uncertainty of meaning: are non-sodium chloride salts chloride salts that are not sodium chloride, or simply salts that are not sodium chloride? Such cases are rare, and can be resolved by context or by rewording. In conclusion, if we do adopt this principle, we do so for extremely few cases, against expectations for many users of the language, and with juxtapositions that are, as we say in the trade, butt~ugly (post–French Baroque pre-Revolution art), and without a clear way to extend to more complex constructions by other, more established principles (quasi-pre–French Revolution taxes??; quasi–pre–French Revolution taxes??). NoeticaTea? 05:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I somewhat take issue with the deprecation of CMOS and the purported consensus implied by we. I also suggest that “best practice” would accept (if not encourage) this usage. (Further adventures at WT:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#When prefixing an element containing a space—moved from poll page). JeffConrad (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I wrote only this about CMOS: "It may fit well with CMOS conventions, for example. But our other guidelines will surely continue to differ from CMOS on en dashes (and dashes generally)." That is not a deprecation! And the use of we as a perfectly standard expressive device is not intended to conjure up or purport anything. You "suggest"; so do I, but using different wording. See elaboration on the discussion page; and thanks for moving things there. NoeticaTea? 09:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. This is the convention in English, and it is not our role to change it. InverseHypercube 07:53, 16 July 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. I would not agree to extending this to a "proscription" against spaced hyphens, or double hyphens, since it has become clear that requiring editors to enter dashes will not be acceptable to all; those who find the spaced hyphen heinous will just have to accept that it's their job to fix it; I accept that job happily. 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]
I thought AWB fixed this automatically, but I can't get it to do it now. AFAIK spaced hyphen is simply an approximation of spaced en dash. — kwami (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I agree. I'm certainly not a linguist, but I do spend a lot of time reading American legal documents, and I'd say that spaced en dashes are used at least twice as often as unspaced em dashes in most things I read. AgnosticAphid talk 04:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To what types of legal documents do you refer? I’m hardly an expert on such things, but I can’t find any examples of spaced en dashes in the last couple of volumes of United States Reports, and don’t recall seeing them in earlier versions. And the spaced en dash finds no support in Garner’s A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage. JeffConrad (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6.1 Follow-up question. In names such as "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1", where the horizontal line is used to separate parts of the name, what kind of line should be used (spaced hyphen, spaced en dash, unspaced em dash, ...)? For discussion, see here.

  • Spaced en dash, even if em dashes are used elsewhere in the article as sentence interruptors (for me these are two distinct uses, and the em dash looks wrong in the separation function).--Kotniski (talk) 07:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Kotniski
  • Spaced en is fine. I don't recall seeing em dashes in such situations, and they don't seem quite right. But a comma or parentheses would also work. — kwami (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any of several marks should be allowed. In particular, those who never space en dashes would not space them in this context. See see discussion for my detailed comments. JeffConrad (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But Jeff, the spaced hyphen looks bad, don't you think? It would be the last on my list of allowables. Tony (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's logically a dash, so spaced en or unspaced em, as elsewhere; or colon or something else, but not hyphen. Dicklyon (talk) 06:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Tony, Dick—I have never, ever, advocated an unspaced hyphen, which looks horrid in typeset material and is the mark of a—well, I probably should not go there. Tony—has a an unspaced hyphen ever been understood as a manuscript convention for a an unspaced en dash in the Commonwealth? If so, I suppose we should tolerate it as we might a double hyphen for an em dash; with such usage, I guess the editor would be submitting manuscript copy and some of the rest of us would be the copy editors or typesetters. I would, of course, prefer that the proper symbols (including quotes) be used at the outset, but we’d be dreaming if we were to demand them. JeffConrad (talk) 07:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't advocate it, but it does happen a lot, and it's useful to have an "escape" for those who don't want to learn to enter dashes. The MOS should say what we want to get to, not who does it or how we get there. At least one guide says "Spaced n-dash should be typed as a spaced hyphen." Lots of books talk about spaced hyphens: [2]. Dicklyon (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think we really disagree—see discussion for my detailed comments. JeffConrad (talk) 21:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dash per national rules per my !vote for 6 above. Definitely should not be a hyphen. If a link to national rules is not accepted as consensus, I would prefer to see an unspaced em dash. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the original title. There is no standard usage in the outside world. Therefore, under the principle of minimal alteration of quotations, I would follow the styling of the original publication. According to the poster on the film's official website, the title of Part 2 is Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2, so would use that. If we were to decree a specific style, it is far from clear that some form of horizontal line is the preferred choice. The websites linked from our article on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1 use a colon (by analogy to a subtitle)[3][4], a comma (treating the part as a parenthetical expression; a trailing comma is required)[5], and a space (no punctuation)[6]. Amazon.com[7] and Barnes & Noble[8] use a comma. So far, we have no example that uses any form of dash for this purpose.—Finell 02:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Most book covers/movie posters/etc. I've seen show subtitles by means of a line break and a smaller font size for the subtitle, which I don't think is a viable option in running text. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spaced en dash, or follow original source. —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 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.[Who wrote that?–Noetica. It was Septentrionalis, when he first created the page. Signed, Art LaPella]
    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)
  • 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]

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

  • 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.
    • Agree for ranges of dd month yyyy; Neutral for ranges of month dd, yyyy; Disagree for most other uses. 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 dash elsewhere in the article. JeffConrad (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      At the risk of beating the drum too hard, I note that APA, CMOS, Garner’s MAU, Words into Type, M-W′s Manual for Writers and Editors, M-W’s Guide to Punctuation and Style (largely an extract of the previous), OSM, and New Hart′s Rules (an extract of the previous) all show this closed up. I think only CMOS gives the example of a range of full dates, and not all others show an example with an open compound, but they show all uses closed up nonetheless. Aside perhaps from dates, the space is at odds with quite a number of widely used guides, so proscribing closed-up usage here would seem capricious. JeffConrad (talk) 01:08, 5 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]
      • I think the logic behind both rules is to do something to signal the reader that one of the elements is spaced. In the case of ex–prime minister, the hyphen is changed to an en dash. In the case of New York – Sydney flight, it is already an en dash, so it could be converted to an em dash, or spaced. Typographers apparently went with the latter. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not all of them (see Jeff's list of style guides above). I can make an exception for the dates, but things like "South Korea – Thailand relations" look decidedly bad to me – it looks like the division is between "South Korea" and "Thailand relations". Kotniski (talk) 08:17, 5 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]
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree for dates; I'm coming to agree with other uses as I become familiar with them. — kwami (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree for dates, not for the other examples. This looks especially wrong in lists where some items are spaced and some unspaced (example). Jafeluv (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree Both this and the widely recommended (the New-York–Sydney flight with hyphen and dash attempt to make clear that New and York are more strongly linked than New York and Sydney, without leading the reader to see York–Sydney [dash] as an invented compound. Either should be permitted; if one must be chosen, it should be (the New-York–Sydney flight, which does avoid the unwanted link. As usual, this is an invented form. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Anderson, now you're inventing stuff. No-one uses hyphens within proper names. And the whole point of this convention is to avoid the York–Sydney that you're objecting to. — kwami (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The use of hyphens within proper names (such as Lennard-Jones above) is quite ccmmon; otherwise Michelson–Morley [dash] would make no difference whatever. However, Kwami does have one thing right: the purpose of this artificial convention is to avoid the deceptive York–Sydney. But it does it badly, and in a manner used and understood only by a handful of readers; therefore it should not be required. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Please reply in good faith. Of course hyphens are used in hyphenated proper names! But they are not used in unhyphenated proper names like New York when those are compounded or used attributively. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Um, pardon my ignorance, but just who recommends this and what is the guiding rule? Are you seriously suggesting that New-York is comparable to Lennard-Jones? JeffConrad (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Fowler and those who derive from him. See here. The guiding rule is that "New-York" as an adjective should be hyphenated when necessary for clairity. Actual usage here is normally to hyphenate "New York-London flight" (or use a slash); dashes are rare; spaced dashes extraordinarily rare. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Note that he doesn’t give the example New-York. The problem with any of his constructions there is that they appear to equate Lloyd-George and Winston-Churchill; the seemingly obvious solution would be Lloyd-George–Churchill or the government of Lloyd-George and Churchill.
      In the interest of full disclosure, in TKE, Fowler does suggest the London and New-York loan as the alternative to London-New York loan. But the 1st ed. of MEU was in 1926, and the 3rd ed. of TKE was in 1930, and many things have since changed with regard to the hyphen. Note that in TKE, Fowler also proposes Anglo-SouthAmericans as the alternative to Anglo-South Americans (but settles for Anglo-South-Americans). All things considered, I think Anglo–South Americans is preferable to any of the preceding three. In any event, given the dates of both works, I think the opening statement “the widely recommended” is pretty off the wall, especially given the conspicuous absence from any current guide of which I am aware. JeffConrad (talk) 23:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fine with dates. Heartily disagree with the others. I see no reason for some pairs to be spaced and others not; it's an inconsistent, distinctive formatting that provides no real distinctive meaning. There's no reason to use differing punctuation for "New York–Sydney flight" than for "Chicago–Sydney flight". Supposedly the use of spaces allows a reader to more easily parse that the passage is covering a flight from New York to Sydney, as opposed to a new flight from York to Sydney. But that illusionary at best; even actually using the preposition instead of the dash does nothing to make the meaning clearer. And such cases are very rare; "Los Angeles–Sydney flight" is not going to be confused with a Los flight from Angeles to Sydney. Bluntly put, if the reader can't glean the proper meaning from context, then they have more problems. And rewording is always a better solution in the rare occasions where genuine confusion may exist. oknazevad (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree for dates, should be left open to discretion otherwise, depending on context. In a table, for example, having "New York – Sydney flight" above "Chicago–Sydney flight" would look odd. --JN466 23:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly agree for dates, neutral about the other two examples. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree in the case of ranges (point 1 above), very strongly disagree in the case of pre-head modifiers of nominals (points 2 and 3). Spaced dashes are extremely rare in this case, and might seriously confuse readers in some cases, inter alia because they look the same as spaced en dashes used as sentence-level punctuation in lieu of em dashes. I'd propose a wording along the lines of:
      En dashes in ranges, as described by point 1 above, are spaced if and only if one or both of the endpoints of the range contains a space (1400–3000 nm, 3000 nm – 1 mm, 1879–1955, 14 March 1879 – 18 April 1955); en dashes in compound modifiers [or a less technical synonym thereof], as described by points 2 and 3 above, are not spaced.
    • ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. With the provision of 6c. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong disagree for New York – Sydney flight and the like. In these cases the construction "New York – Sydney" as used in an adjectival way to the noun "flight", so the dash should not be spaced and there is no need for exceptions like in 6c. Agree for the dates with the exception that an unspaced dash is used for Ranges as discussed under bullet 1. Nageh (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Courcelles 19:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree wholeheartedly. I do agree that when one of the endpoints in a range contains spaces, then the en dash may be spaced (10 W – 100 kW, 5 January 1919 – 21 January 1919), but I don't think it's always necessary (25–30 mm, 4:30–5:00 pm, 3–6 November). But as far as disjunctive en dashes go, I see no reason to space anything. (Also I feel that I should point out a previous RfC on this topic: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 114#RfC: Disjunctive en dashes should be unspaced.) Ozob (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Further discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#Spacing of en dashes in ranges. Ozob (talk) 10:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong disagree. The only place I've ever seen this usage is Wikipedia. It certainly runs counter to American usage (e.g., CMoS 16th Ed. ¶6.78). // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Even if it is Wikipedia's innovation, it is a good one and, at Tony has pointed out elsewhere, eliminates ambiguities.—Finell 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      If it really was a Wikipedia innovation, it wouldn't help readers in resolving ambiguity because they wouldn't be familiar with it. (It'd be like deciding to spell nail as ‹nale› when we mean a metal spike so that it doesn't get confused with a fingernail or toenail.) And as someone else once showed, it can also introduce ambiguity (with the sentence-level dash). ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Especially with dates. —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree for composite dates, composite times, composite ranges generally (like 30.5 mm – 15.75 m, where such a switch in units may be warranted).
      Disagree for other cases. I have changed my mind about this principle. I always wanted it accepted with caution, and subject to a context in which the intent would be clear; but I acknowledge from voting and discussion here that it is not likely to have stable acceptance unless it is more explicitly and narrowly restricted. It is not a "Wikipedia invention"; I know it from at least five standard style guides, and although Oxford guides do not provide for it, OUP is not averse to its use for clarity in complex headings. We can do without that, and I now agree that we should. NoeticaTea? 05:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. InverseHypercube 07:57, 16 July 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]
    Yes, but in that case we have a reason for the distinction, like unusual capitalization. Usually it's simply a matter of style. — kwami (talk) 18:47, 4 June 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]
  • Agree – 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?
  • Agree. Title must match article body, except for technical reason (like No. 1 vs #1). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
    • Agree; 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

That in most cases making a distinction is not important

This page isn't about the strength or policy status of the MOS as such as this is beyond the scope of this dispute. In answer to Erik, yes there are plenty of copyeditors and wikignomes more than happy to apply the final polish, but this is not needing restating here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is, this is all a matter of Big-endians v. Little-endians still.

Yes, this case is about the strength and policy status of MOS. At basis it is about nothing else; the conduct of the minority who would give MOS a standing it does not have would be dealt with most efficiently and summarily by quoting and enforcing WP:POLICY. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dick. No one wants to suppress any issue (whatever the hell this one is exactly; the insiders' Wiki-jargon doesn't help). But if Casliber has put it neatly in a box, it's better for it to continue in there. Better: I have asked, and I ask again, that the whole thing be moved to the discussion page. It is there anyway: more orderly for it to be carried on at a single location. NoeticaTea? 00:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How often have the two of you agreed with each other? I question your judgment on this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought the issue was “Does the distinction between the hyphen and the en dash matter?”, but I’m beginning to wonder. I have far more trouble with the pointless personal attacks, and the threat implied by “if it is silenced, I will consider what should be done with the silencer”. JeffConrad (talk) 03:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If people really thought that "making a distinction isn't important", then they probably wouldn't show up here in the first place, or if they did, they would hardly comment at great length on all the proposals. I suspect (from his continued interest in the matter) that the position of someone like PMA is not really that the distinction isn't important, but that the distinction should tend to be made on a different basis: probably that of usage found in sources rather than our own adopted style rules. (Which is a position that I would agree with up to a point - if on a particular point the usage in high-quality sources goes overwhelmingly one way, it might not serve much purpose to rigidly stick to our own rules - but on most of these points I guess usage is divided, and I don't find it particularly useful to try to follow the majority when we have our own reasons - even if only consistency, though usually it's more than that - for doing it one way rather than the other.)--Kotniski (talk) 11:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would - and have offered to - settle for letting overwhelming usage decide; but I see very few factual reasons for the present "rules" other than WP:ILIKEIT. In order to "follow our own reasons," it would be nice to first have reasons. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but that type of "solution" inevitable leads to conflict spread out over many hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. Actually, what started this all off is an attempt to resolve a dispute over a single article where people with opposing views on the issues here decided to dig in their heels (yourself included, a fact that I'm sure you're more than aware of). So, it seems to me that we're well past the point where "just let people do what they want and let the chips fall where they may" is helpful, unless you actually want people running around with AWB in an attempt to settle the questions presented here.
    — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Let people who are contributing content do what they want; hold AWB users to its rules of use": don't be controversial, don't make inconsequential edits; don't make mass edits without consensus?" Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:29, 10 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]

Proposed new draft: plenary discussion at WT:MOS

Thanks are due to Kotniski and the others who have worked on a preliminary draft. I have opened a new section at WT:MOS for continued development of new dash guidelines, as 16 July approaches and we need plenary discussion with fuller participation. See also a summary of the action up till now, in the section that precedes that one ("Dash guidelines: toward a conclusion"). NoeticaTea? 03:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this page will be closed on the 16th officially - will be comparing both pages between now and then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/dash_drafting&oldid=1082191648"