Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 82

Hyphens and dashes in the MoS
The current entry is pitifully inadequate, IMO:

________

Dashes

The hyphen (-) is used to form compound words. The en dash (–) is used to specify numeric ranges, such as “open 9–5”. The em dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence—like this one—as can the spaced en dash ( – ). Other dashes, notably the double-hyphen (--), should be avoided.

________

Apart from the problem that, strictly speaking, hyphens aren't dashes, the use of these three significant puncuation marks is a major source of confusion among WPians—this much is clear to reviewers at FAC. It's very difficult to write good English without knowing about hyphens and dashes. For this reason, I suggest that they be given much more weight in the MoS (as much, for example, as capital letters).

The main article on "Dashes" appears to be much concerned with the computer-code aspects, and is poorly written.

Thus, I'd appreciate feedback on this draft for inclusion in the MoS. Tony 06:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Noetica for valuable assistance. Tony 11:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Where hyphens are not used, values and units are always separated by a space. (they should be separated by a non-breaking hard space nbsp, see WP:UNITS)
 * Great idea.


 * En dashes (please mention sports scores, as they are often not used in sports articles that discuss scores)
 * One of the examples is a sports score (3–2 win), but perhaps something more explicit is required?
 * Court decisions? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I think they're more likely to have "versus" or "v". Tony 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually meant, say, majorities in Supreme Court decisions, in analogy to sports scores :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * On en dashes, To convey and, or a relationship in certain compound expressions ... can you give the classic exmaple of date ranges, e.g.; 1978–1982, and why do some have spaces before and after the dash, others not?
 * You're asking why some date ranges are spaced and some unspaced? The latter have internal spaces, since they're full dates, so it looks odd to squeeze the en dash in the middle.
 * Have you covered this in the new version? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The main article shows common keystrokes for en dashes on Macintosh and Windows (Wikilink?) I've never been able to make those keystrokes work; in fact, they send me into something weird.  Also, mention they are available below the edit window?
 * Done. Sandy, can you have a look at the top of the Main article, where I've put the keystrokes; others have added riders for Windows.
 * You've got it; this is what happens to me. On the Windows platform, some web browsers, these key sequences will reduce/enlarge the font size, and will not output a dash. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sandy, have you tried the Alt–number sequence (0–1–5–0?) that is explained further down in the main article? And should we add (in the main article at the top) that failing all else, key in the html sequences &mdash, etc. or cut and paste from elsewhere in an article? Tony 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ah, ha. The alt-number sequence works on my regular computer, but of course, not on my laptop which has no numeric keypad.  Glad that info is included.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mention what to do in section headings and article titles, where endashes are often left off of date ranges.
 * Is this worth pointing out separately? Tony 14:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC) I presume that you can have dashes in titles. Tony 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The main dash article currently says to use hyphens only in article titles; is that correct? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, that has to change, IMO. There's absolutely no reason an en dash should be used in a title (I've done so a few times). I find it disturbing to see the number of hyphens wrongly used for en dashes in titles. Tony 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Much improved ! Sandy Georgia (Talk) 13:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm hoping that it'll be uncontroversial to add clarity to what's currently there (until it's replaced) by adding "unspaced" before the em-dash; thus:
 * The unspaced em dash (—) can be used to link clauses of a sentence—like this one—as can the spaced en dash ( – ).
 * Would it be? ;) – Kieran T  (' talk ') 13:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Sure, but it will soon be superseded. Tony 22:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Tony et al, I think this is a needed improvement, and it is clearly written. I am unsure if there should also be a mention of the en dash as "a dividing horizontal punctuation mark" (what a phrase!) in track listings in articles about albums; see WP:ALBUM. Thoughts? --Paul Erik 22:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember that exactly what dash and spacing should be used was the subject of vigorous debate only a week ago. What was decided? Is practice clear on WP? Tony 22:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it wasn't decided, IMO. I think the final conclusion was that a spaced endash could be used for punctuation as long as the article was consistent.  But, albums are using emdashes for some punctuation and endashes for others, so their use of endashes for album track listings is inconsistent.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Albums use spaced en dashes for both the track listing and credits sections, per WP:ALBUM, a part of that guideline which is adhered to quite well. What would be the alternative? Unspaced em dashes seems like the only other option, since spaced em dashes are no longer acceptable in this draft. Unspaced em dashes doesn't seem like an improvement. If this really is a separate use case ("a dividing horizontal punctuation mark") why can't that use case use spaced en dashes, since it so consistently does so now? --PEJL 21:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So, is consistency required? Already, as interrupters, WP seems to allow spaced en dashes in place of em dashes (seems reasonable). What do you think? I suppose I prefer space en dashes, but I'm open. Tony 13:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Very nice (comment was removed?) &mdash; Deckiller 05:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw your comment before; not sure why it's gone. (Is there a Wiki glitch again?  I've seen this twice in two days.)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we sold on those symbols in the draft and in the MoS? Seems kind of gimmicky and distracting to me. Quadzilla99 05:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking of these incidentally:[[Image:Pictogram voting delete.svg|20px|Incorrect]] [[Image:Pictogram voting keep.svg|20px|Correct]] Quadzilla99 12:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, someone added them a while back. I don't care if they go. What do other people think? Tony 13:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * En dashes in titles: I've proposed at the main article on dashes that this sentence be deleted:

"Please do not use an en dash, em dash, or any type of dash other than a standard hyphen in a content page name because such symbols prevent some software (including Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP) from saving the page as a file on a computer. The non-hyphen dashes can be used in redirect pages if an enhanced precision for the page name is desired for use in wikilinks elsewhere."

Is this still the case? Just how much software still suffers from this problem? Why would someone want to save a page as a file? Who cares? En dashes are important enough to drop this rule, IMV. " Tony 13:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Matters still to be decided

 * 1) Whether we can explicitly say to use en dashes in article titles (main article currently says no).
 * 2) Whether spaced em dashes are a no-no (I inserted this new rule).
 * 3) Whether to force the issue on separating album titles from those of tracks (presumably with spaced en dashes).
 * 4) Whether the red and blue ticks and crosses should be replaced with "Correct" and "Incorrect" for the examples, as suggested above by Quadzilla.
 * 5) Whether the true "minus sign" ( &amp;minus;) should be allowed for minus signs and operators. Crissov says: "Actually the true minus sign, &minus;, is used often on Wikipedia. It probably should be preferred [for those functions]."

Any other issues—please add. Opinions welcome below. Tony 05:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My comments: (1) Windows users, IMV, should just use another browser than IE 6.0 if they want to create files out of articles with en dashes in their titles; I say use them. (2) I think to space em dashes is too space hungry in the run of text and is stretching it WRT line overhang. (3) Don't care, as long as it's consistent within an article. (4) Don't care. Tony 05:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Noetica's comments:
 * 1) We're never going to achieve anything by suggesting that people shift from the most-used browser, Tony. To be realistic, I think we should call for no en dashes (and of course no em dashes) in titles just for now, but then lobby hard for a fix to be implemented, so that a search for a string with one style of dash or hyphen included would find equivalent strings with any style of dash (or hyphen). Not hard to code, and there are virtually no drawbacks.
 * 2) I support making spaced em dashes a no-no. I'm for en dashes only, myself: but that one is unwinnable, as is em dashes only. Therefore, at least reduce the chaos brought about by so many alternatives.
 * 3) I'm indifferent, so long as a uniform style of dash is called for (preferably en dash).
 * 4) I will happily acquiesce in any consensus on the ticks and crosses. Have we considered some Unicode entity, as a middle position that may find wide support – and compliance? (✔ and ✖ ?)
 * Noetica's other issues:
 * I have done quite a bit myself on the refinement of the section on dashes and hyphens (at Tony's dash-and-hyphen sandpit). There are still a couple of simple things to resolve there, including whether compounds like Sino–Soviet, where the first element cannot exist on its own, need a hyphen or an en dash. The majority of style manuals seem to endorse a hyphen, explicitly or implicitly. (Chicago makes no specific ruling, but happens to include the example Sino-Soviet with a hyphen – twice.) Myself, I don't care; there are good reasons on both sides. But let's have discussion of this point towards a robust conclusion that people will comply with.
 * WP:MOSDASH is a train-wreck, and not worth struggling to fix. I don't think we need it, anyway. There is not much that will need to be added to the elegant new section on dashes and hyphens here at WP:MOS. Keep it simple! We could merge Hyphen and Dash (punctuation) to make Dash and hyphen, and load that article with well-marshalled detail to which WP:MOS can refer. It is irrelevant that hyphens and dashes are distinct entities. So are en dashes and hyphens, and en dashes and em dashes; but for good practical reasons we should consider them all together. At the moment we have four locations to edit and coordinate for dashes and hyphens. We would be far better off with just two locations: a section at WP:MOS, and Dash and hyphen.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 06:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you wrote, except that my solution for the dash-in-title issue is not to mention it (as is the case now in the sandbox); and, likewise, I'd rather remove the Sino–Soviet example than deal with the mixed perspectives on it. Tony 07:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * O, don't have mixed perspectives in the final product! Let's just have some discussion here, to settle on a ruling that people will respect. Then have that ruling quite definitively in WP:MOS.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 07:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PS I note that the previous and existing versions of Manual_of_Style are absolutely silent WRT to proscribing the use of dashes. You'd think that any serious policy would have been expressed there before anywhere else. The statement on the main page for dashes is buried down at the bottom, recently cooked up (Jan 07, I think), and gained highly questionable consensus. I've placed an inline comment disputing it. Given the chaotic nature of that page (frankly, it's an embarrassment), I really wonder whether I'm prepared to bring it all to a head and do battle with the IE Version 6.0 people who can't find another browser with which to make files out of articles. Who does that, anyway? So I'm all for doing nothing, in which case I'll be informally advising people to use dashes in article titles, as I've been doing for some time. It's so odd to see a hyphen in the title and the proper en dash everywhere else in the article. Tony 01:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * PPS On the basis of this recent advice at the main page talk, I'm adding a "use dashes in titles" point to the draft, worded, I hope, to make a mass conversion of existing titles unnecessary (i.e., newly created titles only). Tony 02:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * SG Comments (1) Explicitly say to use en dashes in titles; the developers will follow (but don't force change to all old articles). (2) No spaced emdashes.  (3) The inconsistency in the album articles bugs me every time; whatever they do, it needs to be consistent.  Why they alone should use endashes—when most of Wiki uses emdashes—makes no sense to me, but as long as they're consistent throughout their articles, I guess I can't object.  Now, they mix en and emdashes in ways that doesn't make sense to me. (4) Hate the ticks.  (5) Don't know; uninformed on this one.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * May I? (1) Per Sandy. (2) Ditto. Please. (3) Spaced en dashes have been the WP:ALBUM standard for quite a while. Has this been brought up there? (4) [ticks] Don't really care. (5) Minus signs are indeed quite frequently used, at least on chemistry articles; don't know elsewhere. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:21, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been bold and implemented 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the draft. Tony 15:31, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This draft? Are we keeping the tick marks? (I like Noetica's tick suggestions better than what's there.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused on en dashes being used "To separate the titles of albums from those of tracks, where they are always spaced (see WP:ALBUM)." AFAIK they are used to separate tracks from track lengths, aren't they? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and also to separate a musician from his or her instruments in a Credits list. It seems that the endash has been the preferred punctuation for a long time in album articles. Was this up for debate recently? I have searched but have not found those discussions; I'd be grateful if someone would provide a link. This use of an endash appears to be unique to album articles; other guidelines (e.g. WP:LIST) recommend emdashes. I have no strong opinion, other than a concern about the work involved in changing all the endashes to emdashes if that becomes the consensus. --Paul Erik 16:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Paul, it took me a while to find the old discussion (I couldn't remember where we had it), and it turned out to be right under my nose, on my own talk page. My concern then and now is that the Albums Project seems to be the only Project using this unique convention.  Not sure we've ever resolved this.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link, SG. I stepped away from this discussion for a few days, but in the meantime I have been looking at other lists and list guidelines. What shall we use as a "horizontal dividing punctuation mark"? I have found that this issue is not one only for the Albums Project. Many lists use either a hyphen (as in this example) or a spaced endash (as in this example). Guidelines also are guiding inconsistently: WP:LIST recommends spaced emdashes while WP:LOW appears to recommend a hyphen. At this point, I'm tempted to say let's just ignore the whole issue in the new guidelines, but a part of me would like to see consistency across the encyclopedia. Change all these uses to the colon and be done with it? :) --Paul Erik 05:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've implemented all of these suggestions, and done more housecleaning; Noetica has now clarified the subtlest distinction between hyphens and en dashes (I understand it at last). Specifically, I've:
 * reworded the album bit, although I guess I'm not entirely comfortable in singling out such a specific genre of article—but it's been a sore point, so maybe that's reason to include it;
 * changed the coloured ticks and crosses to Noetica's suggestion above—see if you prefer them;
 * added "now" to "When creating an article, a hyphen is now not used as a substitute for an en dash in the title.", to clarify that existing titles where this was done do not have to be recast. Tony 00:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Important: I've brought four three matters to a head at the talk page of the MOS (Dashes) page. These matters concern contradictions between information on that (rather chaotic) page, and both the current and drafted new MOS guidelines on en and em dashes. Your input there would be appreciated. Tony 02:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments from Jimp
 * Re: User:Tony1/Hyphens and dashes

1) Might it not read better if sentence fragments were treated as such? Rather than this

Hyphens (-) indicate conjunction. There are three main uses.
 * To distinguish between homographs (re-dress = dress again, but redress = remedy or set right).
 * To link some prefixes with their main word (non-linear, sub-section); but a clear tendency is emerging simply to join both elements in all varieties of English, particularly in North America. The hyphen is ...
 * To link related terms in compound adjectives.
 * Sometimes the hyphen is ...
 * Many compound adjectives ...
 * Hyphens are not used after -ly words ...
 * A hanging hyphen is ...
 * Values and SI units ...

how about this?

Hyphens (-) indicate conjunction. There are three main uses.
 * to distinguish between homographs
 * For example, re-dress means "dress again", but redress means "remedy" or "set right".
 * to link some prefixes with their main word
 * For expmple, non-linear and sub-section. Note, however, that a clear tendency is emerging simply to join both elements in all varieties of English, particularly in North America. The hyphen is ...
 * to link related terms in compound adjectives
 * Sometimes the hyphen is ...
 * Many compound adjectives ...
 * Hyphens are not used after -ly words ...
 * A hanging hyphen is ...
 * Values and SI units ...


 * Done.

2) Hyphens are used to distinguish between what would otherwise be homographs, however, we're not free to apply them arbitarily for this purpose: there are rules. Should we not point this out?
 * Can you provide an example of where we don't distinguish between homographs?
 * No, but that doesn't mean that there isn't such an instance. What I mean, though, is, more or less, you should feel free to throw a hyphen in if that is not the done thing. Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

3) "To link some prefixes with their main word ..." there's just something about the flow of this phrase that is rubbing me up the wrong way.
 * I changed "some" to "certain". Can you be more explicit?
 * I'd have liked to more have been explicite ... I'd wanted to be better than this & offer an alternative but my mind had been a blank. The issue is resolved now, though, with certain instead of some all is well. Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

4) "when the union brings vowels into contact" or "to avoid two consonants"—Should we explicitely note the fact that we're refering to orthographic (as opposed to phonological/phonetic) vowels & consonants here?
 * I think this is splitting hairs; sure, it's true, but I can't imagine that it will be taken the wrong way, and we're trying to keep the section as short as possible. Can you provide an example where the guideline is misleading?
 * You're probably right. I guess readers will be well able to work it out.  Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

5) "Hyphens are not used after -ly words ..." Is this really about hyphens? -ly words are adverbs and as such act not on nouns but on verbs or adjectives.  Perhaps the point is best kept but it would make more sense if the logic behind it were explained.
 * The logic is that the grammatical connection between adverb and noun/adjective ensures that the construction is unambigious and reads easily without a hyphen. This is too wordy to insert, given its obviousness. But I have fixed a problem: we're not saying a hyphen can't follow "folly", so I changed "words" to "adverbs"; I also added a point about the mandatory hyphen for connecting well- with many common adjectives (even attributively, even in North America); I see many instances on WP that lack a hyphen.
 * I think it's working better now: gone is the bepuzzlement of "-ly words what's so special about -ly words?" Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

6) You mention SI units ... why not extend this to all metric units (or even all units in general? We don't, for example, want to be treating millilitres and kilometres differently.
 * Excellent idea; I'm implementing this in the expectation that no one will object (but please do, contributors—soon—if you feel it's undesirable). It makes the point shorter and neater, too.
 * Beauty. Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

7) "on Wikipedia, they are often wrongly used to mark disjunction" Are we prescribing or proscribing this? Calling it wrong is discouragement but saying that it's used on Wikipedia could be seen as an endorsement.
 * Surely "wrongly" says it all. Trying to keep the tone away from the imperative and instructional; ultimately, the indicative is no less effective.
 * To me it does but the sentence still may be open for misinterpretation. Specifically, it could possibly be read as "Although the practice is incorrect this is how we do things here (i.e. it's okay on Wikipedia)."  Compare this to the opening paragraph of WP:PRON: "Pronunciation in Wikipedia is indicated using the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA). For ease of understanding, fairly broad IPA transcriptions are usually used."  Note the wording is in the form "It is done this way here."  Of course, the current wording replaces "are" with "have been" which is far better but do we need to mention this at all?  There is a lot of stuff on Wikipedia that shouldn't be here.  Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

8) Since we have a minus sign, why use the endash in its place? However, the software doesn't recognise the minus sign as a minus sign.  The endash does no better.  It seems only to recognise the hyphen.
 * 5 hyphen 2 i.e.  gives
 * 5 endash 2 i.e.  gives
 * 5 emdash 2 i.e.  gives
 * 5 minus 2 i.e.   gives


 * ''I've discussed this "software" issue with Jimp, and it is apparently not central to the matter. I've added to the point, to make it thus:


 * To represent minus signs (–8 ºC), always unspaced, and operators (42 – 4 = 38), always spaced. In these roles, the slightly shorter hyphen-minus signs ( &amp;minus; ) may be used instead; many scientists consider the hyphen-minus sign to be mandatory for minus signs and operators.

9) "Spaced en dashes as an alternative to em dashes": "Style manuals more often prefer unspaced em dashes." Why not just go one way or the other—less confusion? Let's not bother about style manuals but the style manual.
 * I can't quite bite the bullet on proscribing the use of en dashes here. That would cause a lot of trouble, because it's so common already.
 * See my point below. Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be chaotic, since both are much used in this role already. Supporters of each style represent strong factions (I'm in one; Noetica's in the other), and there would be a war. In the real world, the most authoritative and presitigious publishers and styleguides cannot agree on it. There seems no problem in allowing both as alternatives (but, importantly, not the spaced em dash—see consensus elsewhere).
 * Fair enough, if there's not likely to be consensus to go one way or the other, allow both. Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Jimp—thank you so much for this feedback. My rejoinders are interpolated above in italics. Tony 01:30, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I have written relies doubly indented above. See also below in regard to the minus sign. Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Jɪmp 08:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Further to my comments from earlier today (look up... way up): I agree with Tony in that I am not entirely comfortable with the singling out of album articles, and I think it would be desirable to have more consistency across lists on WP. I would propose a recommendation that in any list, a spaced endash may be used as an interruptor. A change could then be made to WP:LIST (oops) and to WP:LOW accordingly, bringing them into line with WP:ALBUM. (Contrary to SandyGeorgia's experience I have not found, in my perusal of album articles, that endashes and emdashes are being used inconsistently. Also, on most other types of lists, it has appeared to me that the spaced endash is being used rather than an emdash.) Just my thoughts at the moment --Paul Erik 19:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
 * From the older discussion on my talk page, my understanding (perhaps incorrect?) was that if spaced endashes were used to punctuate the article (that is, for album track listings), then they should also be used consistently throughout the article, meaning that emdashes wouldn't be used to punctuate the article at all. So, if we do that, we then have Album (and possibly other) articles punctuated differently than the rest of Wikipedia.  That's what I thought the unresolved problem was; perhaps I'm misunderstanding.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:25, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It was suggested that the use of en dashes in lists such as track listings is a separate type of use from using en dashes or em dashes to punctuate text in sentences. The term "dividing horizontal punctuation mark" was mentioned. I previously asked what the alternative to spaced en dashes for this use would be for track listings (given that spaced em dashes are no longer allowed per the draft). Unspaced em dashes? IMO that would look "odd". By contrast, unspaced em dashes look fine for punctuation purposes. (This is very subjective of course.) That hints that we may want to treat these uses differently. --PEJL 21:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, my understanding from Tony's comments previously on this page, and what he writes in User:Tony1/Hyphens and dashes is that a spaced endash has been used on WP as an acceptable alternative to the unspaced emdash, so album articles are not the only ones using the spaced endash as an interruptor. (I don't think we need to get into spaced emdashes.) --Paul Erik 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Either I'm not understanding, or not making myself clear, or both. From the earlier discussion, I thought that different styles all agreed that "house consistency" was a concern, and that if an article uses spaced endashes in place of emdashes, dash usage should be consistent throughout the article.  Some of the Album articles aren't consistent; they use emdashes for normal punctuation and endashes for track listings.  That's what I understood the problem to be.  I thought if we accept spaced endashes to punctuate track listings, the article in question should only use spaced endashes and no emdashes.  I'm not saying if that's the right or wrong approach—I defer to Tony and the grammarians on that—just what I thought the conclusion was. It seems like PEJL might be saying it's OK to mix styles within one article or alternately, we should find another solution for separating track listings.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I understand what your concern was, Sandy. I have no problem at all where (unspaced) ems are used in running prose and spaced ens as separators in lists. Otherwise, we'd be saying "Include a list in your article and you'll have to use spaces ens in the body of the text, too"; that would be like saying "use year ranges in your article, anywhere, and you can't use ems anywhere". Lists are visually and conceptually such different situations from running prose that it doesn't jar with me, although I'm interested in other opinions. I'd always thought your concern was that ens and ems are inconsistently used just in the lists, or perhaps in the lists of related articles on albums.
 * How's this, then?


 * PREVIOUS: "In lists in articles on musical albums, to separate the track titles and durations, and musicians and their instruments; here, en dashes are always spaced (see WP:ALBUM).
 * NEW: "In lists, to separate distinct information within points—particularly track titles and durations, and musicians and their instruments, in articles on music albums. In this role, en dashes are always spaced."


 * Can't see how to make do with fewer commas in the first sentence. Tony 23:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. --PEJL 00:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am happy. It addresses my concern that the guidelines would single out lists within album articles, when there is a need for more consistency across other lists in WP also. (I would now have some back-up for getting rid of those pesky hyphens in List of Canadian musicians.) With the new version, the album articles are being used more as an example. --Paul Erik 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Major new sections implemented
Dear friends

Noetica and I have been climbing up and down the ladder to that huge chandelier for eight days now—107 edits. It took so long and required so much effort because the subject is large and full of subtleties, several changes of policy needed to gain consensus, and there had to be a modicum of coordination with the chaotic main page, an article that remains, in our view, most unsatisfactory. There are plans to propose a merging of the several articles on WP that concern hyphens and dashes, which are currently an uncoordinated mish-mash. My thanks to you all for valuable feedback, and especially to Noetica, from whom I've learned a lot. Tony 09:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Blimey, well done folks. That's looking really good. Sorry to come to this so very late, but I have one question, regarding en dashes and em dashes. We currently have this: "One style should be used consistently in an article." It makes it clear that one should not combine the two styles when using them as parentheses. But it doesn't make it clear whether it's permissible to use spaced en dashes in this way whilst also, in the same article, using lone em dashes for a sharp break. This occurs quite often in articles I've seen. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 09:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tony. It's been a pleasure working with you on the new material, and I learned things too.
 * Kieran, there is one minority school of thought that calls for spaced en dashes in the parenthetic role, alongside em dashes for a sharp break. I know one editor who insists on this practice absolutely. But it is extremely rare in printed matter, and I think we should not give it our blessing here.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 09:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Noetica on that. Tony

I have a question about the hyphenation of compound adjectives used attributively; it's in the list of bullets under item 3 in the hyphens section. I believe that this form of hyphenation is predominantly a North American usage; it is much less common in British English. If I'm not mistaken about that, would it be worth mentioning, so that it would be clear that in that case the national varieties guideline would also come into play? Or would it be preferable in this case for the hyphenation rule to apply regardless of national variety? Mike Christie (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * North Amercicans tend to hyphenate less, not more than other English speakers. Yes, once a national variety is established and justified in an article, hyphenation is part of that mix. But hyphenation practice is much more fluid than spelling when it comes to differences between the varieties of English. Tony 11:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work. It should be merged into Manual of Style (dashes), replacing much of the content that is there, to eliminate the redundancy between that page and this page. Or, that page could be marked historical and this could be the only guideline on dashes. But the redundancy will be a maintenance nightmare. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That page probably needs to be merged with Hyphens and Dashes (punctuation). There are compelling advantages in treating all three marks together. Thanks. Tony 14:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The only problem with that is the part about page naming, which must be in a style guide somewhere, probably WP:NC. I would be glad to do the merging if there is consensus for it. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 15:34, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Which dash applies when talking about rail station names like Coney Island-Stillwell Avenue? --NE2 15:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a hard one. A hyphen is normally used to link double-barrelled names, and the impulse is to space it when there are internal spaces in either or both items, as here. But a spaced hyphen? I'd be inclined to use a spaced en dash, but I'm unsure. Tony 03:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging WP:DASH here
After the major changes to the dash sections here, almost everything at WP:DASH is redundant or belongs in mainspace. Any objections to me splitting that subarticle up, merging the MOS content here, and moving the other content to mainspace? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 21:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

A similar proposal

 * Carl, I object – but only because I have prefigured a more radical proposal. See above:
 * "WP:MOSDASH is a train-wreck, and not worth struggling to fix. I don't think we need it, anyway. There is not much that will need to be added to the elegant new section on dashes and hyphens here at WP:MOS. Keep it simple! We could merge Hyphen and Dash (punctuation) to make Dash and hyphen, and load that article with well-marshalled detail to which WP:MOS can refer. It is irrelevant that hyphens and dashes are distinct entities. So are en dashes and hyphens, and en dashes and em dashes; but for good practical reasons we should consider them all together. At the moment we have four locations to edit and coordinate for dashes and hyphens. We would be far better off with just two locations: a section at WP:MOS, and Dash and hyphen."
 * As I understand it, Tony, who has been heavily involved with reforms here, endorses these changes.
 * So, Carl and others, please consider joining forces to bring about a truly useful reform, in the best interests of all users and editors, and to enhance Wikipedia's coverage of some of the more difficult and important topics in punctuation.
 * We will put forward a full statement of the proposal later this week, when the current round of changes have had more chance to be absorbed.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 22:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Carl, I do agree entirely with Noetica on this. We definitely need two locations: MOS and a related article that is not MOS (like the current Hyphen, which has no guideline status). The MOS sections need to be kept as taut and brief as possible (they're quite long enough already). What is worth saving from the current MOSDASH is the stuff on how to key in the dashes, and perhaps stuff on Unicode, etc. Once the new article settles, coordination between it and the MOS will need to be watched, but should be a relatively minor task. BTW, if you were the one to recast the key-in section down the bottom, well done, it's better. Tony 00:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I must be bad at explaining. That's exactly what I proposed to do: split up MOSDASH, moving some of it here (MOS) and some of it to mainspace (Dash most likely). I would then make MOSDASH redirect to the appropriate section here. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, Carl, it is not exactly what you proposed. You said nothing about a new merged article Dash and hyphen; and our proposal will have nothing about moving extra content to this main MoS (which must be kept lean), but yours clearly does. Please let's think this through, with its implications; and then let's work together. Tony and I will give more details later. Meanwhile, perhaps there should be time for bedding in the recent changes here. These may be supplemented a little; and eventually the sections on hyphens and dashes here will have a proper substantive article as a support.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The main thing that needs to merge into the MOS is the part about article titles. That could go to another MOS subpage if so desired. As far as I can tell the rest of the MOSDASH stuff is already rewritten here or belongs in mainspace. I thought the mainspace editing would be easy enough to deal with; whether Hyphen merges with Dash is a different issue that can't be decided on this talk page. I agree that a good implementation plan would clarify things. I was volunteering some of my time (the most valuable commodity here) towards this page, that's the main thing. I'll be glad to take detailed input about the changes. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's all fine, Carl. Glad you can be involved with this. In fact, I think some decisions about substantive articles might legitimately be discussed right here – at least in the first instance. The issues are closely bound with Wikipedia's suite of MoS pages, after all.
 * More soon.
 * –&thinsp; Noetica ♬♩&thinsp;Talk 02:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Minus signs
Currently the MoS lists the following as one of the four distinct roles of the en dash.

"To represent minus signs (“–8 ºC”), always unspaced, and operators (“42 – 4 = 38”), always spaced. In these roles, the slightly shorter hyphen-minus signs (&minus;) may be used instead (input with &amp;minus;); many scientists consider this to be mandatory for minus signs and operators."

Note the wording "the ... hyphen-minus signs ... may be used instead" (emphasis added). This reads as if the en dash were the primary minus sign to be used on Wikipedia with the actual minus sign's being no more than an alternative. Compare this to the wording at Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

"The minus sign may be represented by a hyphen ('-') or by ('&minus;')."

"Since we have a minus sign, why use the endash in its place?" I've asked Tony. He has replied "I can't quite bite the bullet on proscribing the use of en dashes here. That would cause a lot of trouble, because it's so common already."

Fair enough, let's not risk causing trouble. Let's avoid proscribing the use of en dashes as minus signs. However, let's reconsider our wording here. I say that there are two points to consider.


 * 1) Which of the following do we prefer?
 * 2) wording which implies that the &amp;minus;/hyphen is an acceptable alternative to the en dash as a minus sign
 * 3) wording which implies that the en dash is an acceptable alternative to the &amp;minus;/hyphen as a minus sign
 * 4) Do we need even to mention the use of the en dash as a minus sign?

Here's my take on it. We don't need to mention the use of the en dash as a minus sign at all. We would not be proscribing it, we'd simply not be mentioning it. Let editors use the en dash if they want and let editors convert them to &amp;minus; (or hyphens). If, however, we are to be mentioning it after all let's use wording which implies a preference to &amp;minus; (or the hyphen) over the en dash rather than the other way around (which is how I read the current wording).

Note: I mention the use of the hyphen as a minus sign. There is an advantage to the use of the hyphen over either the &amp;minus; or the en dash (the latter don't work in calculations). This, however, is a different issue. Jɪmp 07:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Three points: (1) Whatever the wording, it needs to discourage the use of hyphens in this role; (2) en dashes are much easier to enter for most users (hyphen-minus signs require one of those awkward multi-character codes to be keyed in, don't they?); and (3) it's a very subtle difference between the en dash and the hyphen-minus. I have to enlarge the display significantly to distinguish them.
 * However, I'm not in principle against a slanting of the guideline towards hyphen-minuses. Noetica and others, what is your perspective? Tony 05:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My perspective ...
 * I can see how you'd want to discourage the use of hyphens as minus signs. Yeah, they're often too short.  However, as I'd mentioned, it's only the hyphen which the software seems to recognise for the purpose of calculation.  Of course, this is by no means an insurmountable problem: code can be written to use the hyphen behind the scenes so to speak but display only the hyphen-minus sign (or en dash) ... e.g. a template along the lines of  ... but I'm getting ahead of myself ...
 * Speaking for myself, entering the en dash & entering the hyphen-minus sign are just as easy as each other. When entering either of these I go to the character box at the bottom of the edit page & click on the desired symbol.  That's pretty easy.  Another method would be to type either " " or " ".  Multi-character codes, sure, but easy enough to remember, not too hard to type & neither significantly more or less so than the other.
 * Well, this is true. I can't imagine anyone's getting confused by the use of an en dash as a minus sign.
 * Well, we might as well slant it in favour of the actual symbol rather than a symbol that happens to look almost the same. Jɪmp 09:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

On your Point 2, Jimp, nothing's as easy as option-hyphen (Mac) and option-alt-minus (Windows): one slightly extended action versus a hunt and peck for the very keys a lot of people haven't memorised, the ampersand then m–i–n–u–s then the semicolon.

One slight issue related to the structure of the MOS on dashes is that the minus sign is currently treated within the en dash section. To shift the guideline to the hyphen-minus plus en dash if you really want to use it instead means that we'll need a separate section on the hyphen-minus, possibly beneath the em dash section. I guess the minus sign will need to be treated as is in the en dash section too. Possible, but not simple. And what's the upshot of your Point 3? Your feeling is still that we should lead people to observe the subtle distinction? Tony 11:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see that option on my keybaord but I think we're comparing pretty bloody easy to not too hard. I don't see our needing any separate section on this page—it can be ... or rather is ... dealt with on Manual of Style (dates and numbers).  All I've got in mind is the revision of the following.


 * "To represent minus signs (“–8 ºC”), always unspaced, and operators (“42 – 4 = 38”), always spaced. In these roles, the slightly shorter hyphen-minus signs (&minus;) may be used instead (input with &amp;minus;); many scientists consider this to be mandatory for minus signs and operators."


 * We could p'haps either slant it as follows ...


 * "As an alternative to the slightly shorter hyphen-minus sign, '&minus;' (input with &amp;minus;), for negative signs and subtraction operators. Many scientists, however, consider the hyphen-minus sign to be mandatory in these roles. Note: to represent a negative sign (“–8 ºC”) it is always unspaced whereas to represent subtraction (“42 – 4 = 38”) it is always spaced."


 * ... or even just delete it & let users figure out what to do (or go to MoS (dates & no)). Also the note on the spacing of the minus sign could be moved to MoS (dates & no)  Jɪmp 21:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm going ahead and doing this unless there be any objection. Jɪmp 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See also: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) Jɪmp 15:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

By "this", you mean the alternative text just above? Here's an edited version:


 * "As an alternative to the slightly shorter hyphen-minus sign, '&minus;' (input with &amp;minus;), for negative signs and subtraction operators. However, many scientists consider the hyphen-minus sign to be mandatory in these roles. Negative signs (“–8 ºC”) are unspaced; subtraction signs (“42 – 4 = 38”) are unspaced."

Will that do? Tony 01:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Much better. Let's stick it in. Jɪmp 02:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I took out the sentence "However, many scientists consider the hyphen-minus sign to be mandatory in these roles" for two reasons; first, there's no attribution for "many scientists", so it's just weasel words; second, it seems to contradict the general consensus of using the minus, rather than the hyphen. I think I still need to do some editing about that...  Dicklyon 05:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

More comments?
I'd like to move forward with this. Are there any more comments on the part above called "a similar proposal"? &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 22:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)