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]

  • I'm replacing {{xt}} with code tags for the HTML entity; hope you don't mind. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent idea; we should do the same throughout the MOS so it’s clear what′s coded and what’s rendered. JeffConrad (talk) 19:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can have be replaced with can have, so that it's clear we're not putting a blanket ban to any other way of expressing those concepts? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 15:21, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that would get the point across. I wouldn't understand it to mean that, but then I don't understand the current wording to be a ban. — kwami (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'd interpret it the same way as you; but if I understand correctly, PMA voted “Disagree” on some points where he wouldn't mind allowing dashes but is opposed to banning hyphens, so it seems that that other interpretation is not implausible. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 17:25, 12 June 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voting in this section has been replaced by itemised section immediately below collapse box, to better enable judging of consensus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).

  • Disagree. I am willing to permit this, but not to require it. #1 without this produces a useful distinction between dash and hyphen, so it is actively undesirable and a MOS which supported communication would advise against it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. (As it seems Anderson does: this is currently permitted but not required.) — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Judging from the number of articles which were moved from hyphens to dashes with no prior discussion, I'd say this rule is commonly treated as requiring rather than permitting. What about replacing have with can have in #Text above? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, but it would seem that we have at least two different classes of use here. We need to separate them if this discussion is to be meaningful. JeffConrad (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Agree. This has strong support from the style guides on both sides of the Atlantic. Yesterday, when I opened Scientific American and noticed "predator–prey relationship", and in the prestigious US-based online journal PNoS noticed "protein–protein interactions" in an article title, I didn't blink. Many scientists are too busy to bother with professional typography – that's fine, they're not professional writers; let them stay in their labs. But the good publishing houses follow the style guides and do it properly, with professional editors to tweak the manuscripts of their authors. It's commonplace in the industry. Agree with Kwami's take. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Very commonly accepted; best retained among MOS recommendations. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Pretty standard in style guides, except for Chicago. Agree on the "require/permit" distinction: no editor is required to enter en dashes (they can enter hyphens, just like they can enter misspellings); and other editors are permitted to change to en dash (like they are permitted to fix spellings); this distinction is not unique to dashes and such. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Nageh (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • 2b. To otherwise stand for to (male–female ratio).
    • Support ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree JeffConrad (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral (again not sure it really "stands for to").Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Tony (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, as in Paris–Bourges road race. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree — kwami (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very strongly oppose No actual usage outside some obscure style guide has been given; most style guides do not recommend this. Looking at a random sample of actual English suggests strongly that this is also the wrong example; the old-fashioned (male:female) and modern (male/female) symbols for a ratio are both more common than dashes; hyphens are more common than all three put together. If those who support this want permission to do this, I am still willing to accord it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree but needs a better example. As PMAnderson points out, the "ratio" expression invites the more specific punctuations often used with ratios. The en dash is sometimes found in male–female ratio, like in this Psych paper, but it's easier to find en dash in "male–female differences"—but there it doesn't mean "to". An example such as "Washington–Boston flight" would be good; but also note that "Washington–Boston corridor" needs an en dash, and there the relationship is not from "from X to Y" but "between X and Y", so a refactoring into fewer "stands for" distinctions, expressing instead as symmetric or parallel or equal relationships, might be an improvement. Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I take credit once again . . . The evil obscure style guide actually used male–female differences, but as Dick notes, this sense is not to. In rewording, I was trying to see if we found a difference between male–female relations (a sense of between or and) and male–female ratio (shorthand for “male-to-female ratio”); I thought changing only the word modified would be the clearest way to approach this. Apparently not, at least with this example.
      There are at least as many problems with the solidus as with the en dash, especially in a context that is not obviously numerical. If we are to believe CMOS, OSM, and MLA, the primary connotation is of alternatives (e.g., he/she, max/min). Perhaps upon seeing ratio, the reader will quickly recognize the intended meaning, but some backtracking is arguably involved. APA are more inclined to interpret the solidus as indicating a ratio; interestingly, they say “for simple comparisons. Use a hyphen or a short dash (en dash) instead. test–retest reliability not test/retest reliability”, as if they prefer the en dash to the solidus for indicating alternatives.
      Whatever we do, I would try to avoid getting too abstract, less reader protest that “pie are round”. JeffConrad (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Jafeluv (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree.. This proposal is worded too broadly. A "to do list" should not be a "- do list." Pine (GreenPine) t 22:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Facepalm Facepalm
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 22:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not being sarcastic. I'm trying to follow exactly what is meant here. The example is reasonable, but the general statement of the proposal, "To otherwise stand for to," is broad and vague. I'd certainly reconsider my views if the proposal was worded more specifically. I can't read the drafter's mind! Pine (GreenPine) t 07:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Would changing “to stand for” to something like “in the sense of” not address much of your objection? JeffConrad (talk) 07:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I think the problem being raised here is not with "stand for" specifically, but with the lack of context. We need to be more specific than just "otherwise" (something along the lines of "in compound modifiers when the sense is to"). The same applies to 2c and 2d and several of the other points. We know we're talking about compound modifiers, but we've forgotten to say it.--Kotniski (talk) 09:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd accept "To stand for to in a ratio," but a slash or a colon would be preferable. This would change my vote from "disagree" to something like "very reluctantly tolerate," which would largely go along with Pmanderson's views. Pine (GreenPine) t 21:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we've lost the context here. §1–3 all cover areas of hyphenation where typeset text uses a "long hyphen". If a hyphen would not be acceptable for manuscript or a manual typewriter, then an en dash would not be acceptable when typeset. And yes, §2–3 are generally for attributive (modifier) use. However, the conjoined modifier sometimes occurs on its own. For example, we'd say a Japanese–English dictionary, but also when describing dictionaries, Japanese–English. This is because in manuscript it would be hyphenated either way.
      A virgule would be used for alternatives, and so I don't think would be proper here. A colon would be, but we can cover that under the section on colons. But again, in that case it wouldn't have been hyphenated to begin with. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Regarding slashes, quoting from the Wikipedia article "slash": "The solidus is used in the display of ratios and fractions, as in constructing a fraction using superscript and subscript, e.g. “123⁄456”; the slash is used for essentially any other textual purpose." Pine (GreenPine) t 08:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The context is provided by the fact that what we're discussing here would be within the "how to use hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes" section, though. Isn't it? I don't think that anyone is proposing making these stand alone points to be used generally. Nobody should be running around changing all instances of "vs" to hyphens or dashes either.
      — V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I think I am following the context, but what I'd like to see is a more narrowly worded proposal than "To otherwise stand for to." Pine (GreenPine) t
    • Agree --JN466 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Nageh (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Courcelles 18:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Generally for more or less the same reason as Pine, and specifically because I think a colon should be used for ratios—where space doesn't permit e.g. “the ratio of males to females”. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, sort of. I understand what's trying to be expressed here, but the example given is poor. I wouldn't write, "Team X outscored team Y by a 2–1 ratio." I'd either write "2-to-1" or "2:1". Ozob (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. NoeticaTea? 05:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Consistent with CMoS 16th ed. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. It is a reasonable choice, and consistency within Wikipedia is desirable; that is the purpose of a publication having its own style manual.—Finell 01:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Male:Female or male/female, but not male–female. —Telpardec (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      We pretty much agreed that for ratios like that, the colon or slash is a good alternative. In his new draft, Noetica proposes the modified example "male–female height ratio", where the colon or slash would not work, since it's a ratio of heights, not counts of males to females; whether we want to characterize this use as an example of standing for "to" remains a good question. Anyway, I think it has been addressed in the new proposal; see if you agree. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      FWIW, our article proton-to-electron mass ratio is titled thusly. (CODATA and NIST use proton-electron mass ratio, but AFAICT they don't distinguish between hyphens and en dashes at all.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      The -to- is OK. Some sources do use the en dash, like this book (which also puts a spurious hyphen in "proton–electron mass-ratio"!), and this one. Others use the slash, when they recognize that hyphen is not quite right; but here slash seems not quite right too, since it's not a ratio of protons/electrons, but of masses. Dicklyon (talk) 17:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c. To stand for versus (Lincoln–Douglas debate).
    • Support ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree JeffConrad (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but more because it helps distinguish from a double-barrelled name.--Kotniski (talk) 10:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Tony (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Binksternet (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree — kwami (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Jafeluv (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree --JN466 23:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree – SJ + 06:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Jenks24 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not uniform usage; not particularly useful. The dash for this is occasional piece of cover art; as here, it is normal to hyphenate in running text. All these examples are subfunctional exceptions to the normal rule of English: dashes are punctuation; hyphens make compounds. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Nageh (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Courcelles 18:54, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Ozob (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bad Example in my opinion. I think that the objection above may be related to the fact that "Lincoln Douglas debate" is a debating style as well as an actual event. To be honest, I'm not sure what the right usage is for the style of debating, but I do agree that the example is right if it's referring to the debates that occurred between Lincoln and Douglas. There's got to be some other famous debate that could be used an example instead? AgnosticAphid talk 18:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      I thought about this more, and it seems to me like according to the style guide here, "Lincoln [en dash] Douglas debate" is the right term for the debating style (as distinct from the actual 1800s debate event), because it's sort of like an implied disjunctive "and" when you're talking about the debating style. (I can't imagine anyone saying they had a "Lincoln versus Douglas debate tournament" this weekend; you'd say just "Lincoln Douglas debate tournament.") But this is a bad example precisely because it mixes up the justifications behind the use of en dashes with these two different meanings of the term. That's why I think some other "versus" example should be used instead, like a historic debate that isn't also the name of a debating style. AgnosticAphid talk 04:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Apparently the example was in the spirit of the Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858, more than the style, which inherits from that; a better example might be found, like the Nixon–Kennedy debates. Dicklyon (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Disagree, atypical use of the en dash. However, I see the point for typographically distinguishing from a hyphen where a reader might reasonably infer a hyphenated name otherwise. See also my comment for 2d below. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. A debate is an expression between divided views. Lincoln/Douglas. —Telpardec (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      It's easy to find sources with space, hyphen, or en dash; but none with slash. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. This usage has very wide acceptance, and fits well with the other usages currently in WP:MOS and now endorsed for retention by this poll. We ought to consider how these usages fit together for a consistent body of guidelines, not just what we make of each in isolation. NoeticaTea? 09:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Sorry I forgot to vote on this one earlier, but my position was apparent in the comments I made. Dicklyon (talk) 13:57, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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).

  • Disagree in part. Permit, not require, although the specific use for multiple proper names is worth mentioning, because the contrast with Lennard-Jones is a real differentiation of meaning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Reworded as 'disjunctive and', as that's when it would be used. Not sure of the exception for affixes. How robust is that? — kwami (talk)
    I don't think I have seen dashes after stuff like Sino a non-negligible number of times (i.e., not significantly more often than I have seen a space after that). ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eleven hits on WP:CREDO on "Michelson–Morley" (searching with quotes and either a hyphen or a dash); 6 non-AmEng pages give the dash, and all the AmEng hits use a hyphen. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replying to no one in particular: would more examples be helpful? - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps, but would it not be simpler to list the positions of popular style guides? Absent a very large sample of published sources, Google hist, or whatever, the results would seem dubious. JeffConrad (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Works for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems to me that this might be worthwhile for every usage (properly broken out, of course). But it’s also a fairly significant undertaking; would anyone pay any attention? JeffConrad (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Again, if we have partial agreement, we need to separate the uses. JeffConrad (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree; See additional comments and reasoning above in to/vs.. Otr500 (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree: supported widely by authoritative guides in North America, the UK, and other countries. Furthermore, no WPian has ever been at risk of a negative comment – let alone a back-street mugging – for using a hyphen (or a space or a word-jamming) instead of a dash; but just as the best professional publishers do, we have editors who don't mind fixing typography. I believe this attention to detail aids readers' comprehension, even if they're not schooled in the precise usage themselves, and makes our text look good to readers.Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. This is similar to the preceding point, and the two could be made a little clearer if they were merged. I'd like us to simplify the text, but add extra examples showing concretely what MOS calls for. The ACS Style Guide, referred to at WT:MOS on these matters, supports this point; and it gives enough examples so that no one is in doubt. We should study it as a fine example of lucid exposition. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Pretty standard in style guides, except for Chicago. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

( facilitator note: if you think there may be variance in views on the two items within this section, then I strongly suggest we split this now to clarify consensus, we ok with this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested breakouts on the main Talk page; they’re not necessarily the only way to do it, but they could serve as a starting point. JeffConrad (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3a. To stand for and between independent elements that are proper names (Michelson–Morley experiment).
    • Agree It′s the only way to avoid confusion with “double-barreled names”. JeffConrad (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly agree. This is a case where it's more than just good style; it's actually informatively useful. Kotniski (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Tony (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree — kwami (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, seems to be a reasonable distinction to make. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Jafeluv (talk) 07:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree --JN466 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly disagree. Contrary to popular usage, does nothing to facilitate understanding, unless there's a sizable body out there who don't recognize that capitalization indicates proper names. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That's not the point. If there were someone called John Michelson-Morley, he would capitalize both parts of his surname too. By using a dash, we indicate to the discerning reader that we are talking about two people. (The non-discerning reader, though doubtless in the majority, doesn't matter; he won't be harmed either way.)--Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      A wise reader would be well aware that the punctuation of the title does not provide an accurate count of the number of people named, see for example Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9. Wikipedia can't stop a "discerning" reader from using faulty logic and coming to erroneous conclusions, and enforcing such a convention in opposition to the punctuation used in RS wouldn't prevent that.--Noren (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong disagree Most RS use hyphens for such names. About 80% of RS use hyphen for the Michelson-Morley experiment, see here. And +90% for Oppenheimer-Phillips process, see here. Wikipedia should not use the personal opinions of editors to go against the usage in RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per Kotniski. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per Kotniski. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. — Bility (talk) 15:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Nageh (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Courcelles 18:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Rjwilmsi 11:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Ozob (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disgree Follow the applicable reliable sources on an individual basis, don't impose an idiosyncratic method for the sake of uniformity. We don't need yet another quirky thing for new users to get "wrong" when they start editing. --Noren (talk) 03:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree In this day of more and more people (including myself) having hyphenated surnames, I believe this is far and away the best way to avoid confusion. AgnosticAphid talk 18:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree for all of the same reasons others above have stated. —Telpardec (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Very common usage. Fits naturally with other usages already accepted, and now endorsed in this poll. NoeticaTea? 09:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Pretty standard, useful distinction, widely recommended in guides. Dicklyon (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3b. 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).
  • 3c. To stand for and between other independent elements (diode–transistor logic).
    • Agree The only way to avoid confusion with compound adjectives. In most cases, the reader could probably sort it out, but the reader should not have to do so. JeffConrad (talk) 08:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, possibly with a rewording to say exactly what we mean; I'm persuaded by Jeff's argument.--Kotniski (talk) 10:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Tony (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, as in space–time continuum. Binksternet (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      That can be interpreted as the continuum of space-time (or spacetime, depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on, the phase of the moon, the price of tea in China, the sunspot number, the weather in London) as well as as the continuum of space and time, without much overall semantic difference between the two. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree — kwami (talk) 18:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Also, I think sections 2 and 3 could be merged under the banner of separating independent elements. I don't see a significant distinction. –CWenger (^ • @) 23:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but this needs better explanation, contrasting it with when the hyphen would be used. I had to read it several times before I got it. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree --JN466 23:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly disagree. Contrary to popular usage, requires interpretation to apply, has no simple, intuitively apparent meaning. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Jenks24 (talk) 08:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kind-of agree, though I'm not sure I'd ban hyphens altogether in this case. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Nageh (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Courcelles 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Odysseus1479 (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Rjwilmsi 11:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but is this really a separate usage from 2d? Ozob (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —Telpardec (talk) 09:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Has very wide acceptance; fits rationally with the other principles endorsed here. NoeticaTea? 09:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Yes, parallel items, as Cambridge puts it, as opposed to the hyphen's role in A-B where A modifies B. Dicklyon (talk) 14:02, 16 July 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.

  • Agree, although it is largely a part of 6 below. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, and agree with it being merged w 6. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundant with 6. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's understood that in list-y and tabular contexts, the rules aren't the same. - Dank (push to talk) 14:37, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you give an example? JeffConrad (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral; the main need is a better explanation and example (or link to one)Agree that it should be merged with 6. JeffConrad (talk) 19:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

facilitator note: if you think there may be variance in views on the items 4 and 6, then I strongly suggest we keep separate to clarify consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I completely understand the usage, which is why an example (or a link to one) would help. If the usage is what I think, it is just an alternative to a unspaced em dash—I’ve seen many examples of the latter. Again, we need to understand what we’re discussing before we can discuss it effectively. JeffConrad (talk) 23:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Jeff's comment suggests it should be clarified: "in a bulleted or numbered list". Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. But this is a fairly arbitrary matter of choice for the styling of lists; there are no strong precedents to follow or to care about. The intention should be made clearer, that's all. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Just an em dash style alternative; merge with 6 would be fine. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • : To separate items in a list—for example, in articles about music albums, en dashes are used
(please clarify acceptance of each section, and style below)
  • 4a. Between track titles and durations (Kind of Blue#Track listing).
    • Neutral This approach is at least as good as any I can think of. I would like to see a link such as the one above, and perhaps links to other examples if there are such things. JeffConrad (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but it doesn't have to be the only method. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Tony (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I'd prefer colons, but could live with it this way. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partial agree. Per Sarek, we shouldn't suggest dashes need to be used, only that they are a common and acceptable convention. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral leaning oppose. Instruction creep. Of course such a list can be formatted like this, but I see no reason why such a parochial matter should be micromanaged by the MOS. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partial agree per Dabomb87. —WFC— 19:48, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with reservations – it's just an application of the more general use as stylistic alternative to em dash; so I'd support merging it, making it just an example of that em dash alternative. Same goes for 4b. Dicklyon (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. It should be allowed, but this wording sounds like using a dash is the only option here. The same could just as well be achieved using parentheses in the case of track listings. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but make sure the wording is changed to indicate that there are other ways of presenting this information. A dash can be used -- and if it is, it should be spaced -- but it doesn't have to be used. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree --JN466 23:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very strongly disagree. We have a simple alternative that uses only characters on the standard keyboard, and it should be uniformly used. Track Name (3:14) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Reword so that it's allowed but not required. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but with the caveat that many above have about it not being the only method available. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with using dashes this way, but I think that mentioning that explicitly in the MoS is instruction creep. It's just a sub-case of spaced en dashes in lieu of em dashes; also, colons, parentheses, etc. are also possible. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but with the reservation that this is just one of many options. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed as one possible option. Nageh (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Courcelles 19:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but only as an optional usage. Ozob (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. I don't have strong objections, but I think it looks ugly more often than not. In general, I'd prefer to see a table, or commas and semicolons if prose. Definitely this usage should not be mandatory. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. This is just a fragment sentence, omitting verb. Editorial decision among other alternatives. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Should be parentheses. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :) —Telpardec (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4b. Between musicians and their instruments (Kind of Blue#Musicians).
    • Neutral I see this as an alternative to an unspaced em dash or a comma, and would permit either alternative. JeffConrad (talk) 08:23, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Per my comment at 4a. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Tony (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral I'd prefer colons, but could live with it this way. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partial agree, as above. — kwami (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral as per the above; instruction creep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above. Dicklyon (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral per above. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, with caveats, per 4a. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree --JN466 23:22, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very strongly disagree. We have a simple alternative that uses only characters on the standard keyboard, and it should be uniformly used. Miles Davis (trumpet, flugelhorn, organ) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per my comment in 4a. Jenks24 (talk) 08:54, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with using dashes this way, but I think that mentioning that explicitly in the MoS is instruction creep. It's just a sub-case of spaced en dashes in lieu of em dashes; also, colons, parentheses, etc. are also possible. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 13:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. But this is the same as above. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed as one possible option. Nageh (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed in that it is an acceptable option, but not mandatory Courcelles 19:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but again only as an optional usage. Ozob (talk) 12:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak disagree: As per my comments to 4a, but I see even less call for an alternative to the widely accepted standard for such lists in normal English prose—namely, commas and semicolons. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. This is just a fragment sentence, omitting verb. Editorial decision among other alternatives. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Should be parentheses. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :) —Telpardec (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4c: In this role, en dashes are always spaced.
    Did you mean to post this under 6b? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope; it's a comment on the "in this role, en dashes are always spaced" 4c. But yes, it's the same reasoning as my objection to 6b. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:45, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. If they are to used, then spaced. Alternatively, unspaced em-dash. Editorial decision. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Should be parentheses. (If it ain't broke, don't fix it. :) —Telpardec (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces

split out below. please comment in each section

5. In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens or spaces (the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate) and when prefixing an element containing a space (pre–World War II technologies, ex–prime minister) – but usually not when prefixing an element containing a hyphen (non-government-owned corporations, semi-labor-intensive industries). However, recasting the phrase (the conscription debate, technologies prior to World War II) may be better style than compounding.

  • Agree in small part. (the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate is valid usage; ex–prime minister is eccentric, and ambiguous with 2 and 3; if it is doesn't need to be done before a hyphen it doesn't need to be done at all. The last sentence really ought to be closer to don't do this if you can avoid it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Disagree with Anderson's understanding: this is not ambiguous w 2–3 if those do not apply to affixes, as we currently have it. The reason not to apply to non-government-owned corporations is simply that it's not visually intuitive and it seldom disambiguates. (Several style guides recommend the dash in such cases; others comment that such a convention is largely pointless.) — kwami (talk)
  • Chicago says, "... only when a more elegant solution is unavailable" (rarely), and Chicago is the most pro-dash of the popular American style guides. - Dank (push to talk) 14:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, we have more than one type of use. Chicago’s long-standing example of quasi-public–quasi-judicial body is indeed much better given as quasi-public, quasi-judicial body. But post–Civil War is perfectly OK, and is consistent with many other US style guides. JeffConrad (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not okay with Chicago, which advises that we work around it when possible, and it's possible here ... "postwar", "after the Civil War". I'm not sure if we're talking about the same US style guides; I'm talking about guides that writers are told they have to follow whether they like it or not if they want to get their book or article published in the US. I covered AP Stylebook, NYTM, Chicago, APA Style and MLA Style here, which more or less covers the landscape, but there are other US guides that are compulsory for specific segments of writers, and if anyone wants to throw them into the mix, please do. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It depends on what the meaning of it is . . . The problem here is that we have at least two types of usage; if we judge by the examples, Chicago appear to deprecate only the combination of hyphens and dashes (OSM doesn’t even allow the combination). Perhaps we should separate the two uses.
    As for style guides, add Garner’s Modern American Usage and Merriam-Webster’s Manual for Writers and Editors as endorsing this usage; Words into Type and the APA style guide are silent.
    I question the applicability of the AP and NYT guides here—this isn’t a newspaper. And as I mention elsewhere, I′m leery of anyone who suggests using an en dash for a minus—the two characters clearly are not the same (– −), though the difference may matter less in a newspaper than in a technical book. JeffConrad (talk) 23:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Pmanderson′s characterization of ex–prime minister as “eccentric” strikes me as eccentric. JeffConrad (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Agree. [Could someone put the blowout above under a collapsible banner?] It's been around in US style for a long time, and Dank, I don't see much difference between the MoS wording and that of Chicago MoS and other US style guides: it's typical to find "reword where possible", although you can't always do it. Less common, but still used, outside North America. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, with reservations. This usage is definitely American, as New Hart's simply notes without recommending it for use. But American guides disagree sharply over the details; and like the contested spacing of en dashes below, if it is employed mechanically it may distract or mislead the reader. We should eventually insert some sort of proviso or caution, for this point and the later point about spacing. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. As an American, I'm not used to the spaced version, but I see it's in other guides, and it does make logical sense. I don't think it should always be used, e.g. probably not in "New York–London flight", and that rewritng to avoid it is often a good idea. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 5a. In compounds whose elements themselves contain hyphens (the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate).
    • Agree (somewhat reluctantly) This construction strikes me as ugly, but in some cases may be the best option. I would suggest that editors consider recasting when feasible. JeffConrad (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree (and also agree that this would usually be best recast).Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, per JeffConrad, but surely we can find a better example. See my 5c comment.
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree on the punctuation itself, given that we note below that this will not always be good writing style. — kwami (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree —WFC— 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Jafeluv (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, with 'recasting' caveat. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree --JN466 23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. Always awkward. It seems better style to me to advise recasting such phrases at any cost. – SJ + 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per Kwami. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be allowed but not required. In the example given I'd use a dash, but I think Proto–Indo-European is much weirder than Proto-Indo-European. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • BTW, I'd also mention that pre–World War II is a typically American usage whereas Britons would use pre-World War II, if that's actually the case. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 17:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A di M, the particular guideline voted on here concerns cases with a hyphen in each of two components, not cases like Proto–Indo-European. This fits with the CMOS rule, which distinguishes these from cases with at least one space (just one space in one component will trigger an en dash; see the separate voting point below). NoeticaTea? 03:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If so, I suggest that both is added before contain in the proposed wording for clarity. (And I'm not sure we need a rule for such a vanishingly rare occurrence.) ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 20:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. But this is the same as 2/3.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but there is no need to address this separately, this is no different than 2 and 3 with the difference that the words have prefixes. Nageh (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but why would we be using such clunky phrasing? Courcelles 19:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, though we should recommend rephrasing. Ozob (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with the caveat that rephrasing is often a better alternative. Consistent with CMoS 16th Ed. ¶6.80. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. This usage principle (with the next one below) is as exclusively American as they get; and it is not universal in American anyway. It generally makes sense only on a background assumption that the en dash with sense "between" or "versus" is not allowed. That is why it belongs in CMOS, for example, but not in our MOS. In the current example the en dash is already justified on those other grounds. If we would write the radical–conservative debate, we should write the anti-conscription–pro-conscription debate, hyphens or no hyphens. I struggle to find plausible examples that work differently. "A Mon-Khmer–native-speaking woman"? "A long-established–anti-intellectualism problem", to distinguish from "A long-established anti-intellectualism problem"? [Added later: The en dash introduces a new possible reading, so the ambiguity is still as great: "A long-established versus or and anti-intellectualism problem".] "Little-known–anti-inflammatory contraindications", to distinguish from "Little-known anti-inflammatory contraindications"? This guideline was added late, and was not well considered or well drafted. It fits ill with the more settled guidelines. NoeticaTea? 00:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      “hyphens or no hyphens”: The latter isn’t covered by this section. JeffConrad (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC) (Further adventures at WT:Manual of Style/dash drafting/discussion#In compounds whose elements contain hyphens—moved from poll page).[reply]
    • Agree.—Finell 01:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Totally worthless. In fonts like 10pt Courier New, the hyphen and endash are identical. Debates are divided views and should be slashed: the anti-conscription/pro-conscription debate —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Courier is a "fixed-pitch" (monospaced) font, essentially a typewriter emulation, so of course it makes no difference there. Dicklyon (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It’s risky to base a judgment on any particular typeface, sometimes even if it’s proportionally spaced—there are some surprising variations in dashes (such as em dashes that apparently don’t form a continuous rule when placed together). JeffConrad (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree if we find a better example. But maybe we don't need this, since the example A–B debate needs an en dash whether A and B include hyphens or not. Dicklyon (talk) 14:04, 16 July 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]
  • 5c. Recasting the phrase (the conscription debate, technologies prior to World War II) may be better style than compounding.
    • Agree, but on a case-by-case basis. I would recast to the first example here but would probably prefer the en dash to the second example. I recognize that not every editor would make the same decisions; Strunk and White said it better than I ever could: in some cases, one must rely on “ear”, and no two ears are the same. JeffConrad (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Kotniski (talk) 10:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 13:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per JeffConrad, also reluctantly. I'd strengthen the advice to reword, and provide two options if it can't be reworded: the ungainly triple-bunger hyphenation, or the dash then space, which I think is anti-intuitive for readers unless they've become used to it, which most won't have (I have, but I did a double-take first time I saw it). Jeff, "ex–prime minister" can be reworded to "former prime-minister", can't it? Tony (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree We should word the guidance so that it is clear that recasting is the best option. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree — kwami (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree as a rule of thumb, with emphasis on the word "may". —WFC— 19:55, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Jafeluv (talk) 07:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral – don't mind pre-World War I --JN466 23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with the second example, and suspect that most of the other situations where this would apply are simply inferior phrasing to begin with, making the dash dispute a pretext. "The conscription debate" is just better writing, regardless of punctuation rules. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per JeffConrad. – SJ + 06:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Jenks24 (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In some cases that's true, but “The old "you could rephrase it completely" nonsense is surely the last resort of the idiot prescriptivist caught in a position of having needlessly banned the best way to express a particular thought.” (Geoff Pullum[1]) As for the examples given, pre–World War II technologies looks OK to me, but technologies prior to World War II looks too stilted; what's wrong with technologies before World War II? Anyway, if 5a, 5b and 5c are to be all included in the MoS, it's better for 5a and 5b to use examples where the dash would be OK, and for 5c to use different examples where hyphens/dashes would look really awkward (ones involving a more obscure compound than World War II or prime minister), along with a suggested rewording. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. With emphasis on "may". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree as long as it is described as an alternative, only, and neither mandated nor recommended. Nageh (talk) 19:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, either way is fine, but this is smoother writing. Courcelles 19:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree very much. Ozob (talk) 12:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree cautiously so long as it is very carefully phrased to be clear that in many or even most situations rephrasing is preferable... but that editors should not create torturous language merely to avoid using a dash. It should make clear that clarity and ease of reading (good flow) trumps our caution against overuse, and that mechanical changes "just because the rule says so" won't be tolerated. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Overuse of dashes leads to diagramatic writing. I would prefer a stronger admonition, such as "... is often preferable to compounding because ..."—Finell 01:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but paraphrasing is a talent very few editors manifest. —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree generally, if these principles are retained (which I think they should not be). Note also: it is not always possible or even desirable to recast; and "before" rather than "prior to", please! NoeticaTea? 05:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that rephrasing is sometimes good, but the construction is not bad enough to make this a strong suggestion. Dicklyon (talk) 14:08, 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]
  • Agree. Kotniski (talk) 10:41, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Binksternet (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, including the bit about not using the spaced hyphen. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I would think the spaced-hyphen proscription would be obvious, but maybe we should make it explicit. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: I would rather we just always used unspaced em dashes for consistency but spaced en dashes are quite common and there is clear consensus for allowing them. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; I do not understand the point of this--do we mean it is always acceptable to use this instead of a em dash? Otherwise, what do we mean by "stylistic alternative" If so, we aren't solving any problems but leaving this open to inconsistency. I can see the advantages of letting things be inconsistent, but that would be an argument against having this entire section and saying merely than hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes are mere stylistic alternatives and editors may use whatever they please and we no longer care about consistency in this respect.. DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree; yes, spaced en-dashes and unspaced em-dashes must remain allowable alternatives of each other. I'd be strongly opposed to any attempt at imposing uniformity between these. No opinion on what section to place this in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Jafeluv (talk) 07:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 12:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. Each dash has its own role, allowing stylistic alternatives just makes for a mish-mash of styles. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Seems to create a loophole ripe for edit-warring ("I think it looks better even though other parts of the MOS recommend different") over all the same points and personal positions that this whole discussion is trying to quench. If this is designed to hit situations not otherwise addressed (vs non-specific exception to other existing MOS items), say so. If not, what is a situation where it is useful? DMacks (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found a large number of WP articles where spaced em dashes are used. Some people seem to be uncomfortable with not spacing them, and for those people a spaced en dash might be be appropriate. Some typographers prefer spaced en dashes over unspaced em dashes as less jarring, which is in general desired for punctuation. I find it hard to believe that anyone would edit war over this, but if they do, we can always take the line that whichever convention was used first has precedence, since there is no difference apart from the esthetic. — kwami (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree --JN466 23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree more or less per Powers. If we're going to allow "stylistic alternatives," this whole debate is beneath pointlessness and uselessness. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, and either way limit to a single section (either at WP:EMDASH or here but not both). – SJ + 06:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree – I hate em-dashes. En-dashes look a lot better and this usage of them is used in reliable sources etc. etc. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW, I'm under the impression that the spaced en dash is more common in Britain whereas the unspaced em dash is more common in America; can anyone confirm this, and if so, is it worth to point that out in the MOS? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 17:25, 12 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]
  • Agree. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. Nageh (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree En and em dashes have distinct uses. Courcelles 19:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree "Stylistic alternative" seems ambiguous and per Courcelles. Moray An Par (talk) 12:15, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. In reply to the previous vote: Perhaps there's a better phrasing than "stylistic alternative"? To my mind, the choice of an unspaced em dash versus a spaced en dash is purely visual, and I believe that's what's meant by "stylistic alternative". Ozob (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree but modify. I think it should be clarified that this is primarily a MOS:ENGVAR issue, and dash usage within the article should follow the same national usage as the article's spelling. That is, US English articles should use the unspaced em dash, and British English articles, the spaced en dash. Heck, make the whole thing parallel to ENGVAR, including MOS:TIES and MOS:RETAIN. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disgree. There is no reason for "a stylistic alternative to em dashes"; there is nothing wrong or undesirable about correctly used em dashes. There is no reason why individual editors, in individual articles, should choose "a stylistic alternative to em dashes". It is just another source of unnecessary conflict and of unnecessary inconsistency within Wikipedia. —Finell 02:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree for sentence structure, fragmented sentences, and certain lists (probably other cases it would be fine too). Should be clarified though to avoid ambiguity. In the end--ENGVAR; both are fine as long as consistent within the article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:59, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 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)
    • Only to those who will not use punctuation to show the natural flow of thought and speech; that punctuation is no more artificial than speech. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:00, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. The spaces in such situations are very rare in the literature, and hence unfamiliar to readers and potentially confusing, especially in articles which also use spaced en dashes as em dashes substitutes. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 12:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's agree on en-dashes before we tackle the spacing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time? This would seem a simple example. JeffConrad (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree on the exception. This usage is rare in published works (at least any that I′ve seen), and is at odds with every style guide that I’ve read. JeffConrad (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. My Least favorite part of the guideline, as it introduces inconsistent formatting for equivalent constructs based on a rationale that is very weak and isnt attested in the majority of usage. oknazevad (talk) 17:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's too inflexible, and needs major loosening-up; but spacing in date-ranges is widely practised in English and is universal on WP, apparently without a single complaint; this should be the firm exception. Could I suggest the following?
En dashes meaning "to", "and", "versus" or "between" are unspaced, except when there is a space within either one or both of the items in a date (June 3, 1888 – August 18, 1940, but June–August 1940); spaced en dashes may be used between groups of numbers and words to avoid implying a closer relationship between the words or numbers next to the en dash than between each of these and the rest of their groups c. 1450 – c. 1650, not c. 1450–c. 1650.
The last sentence is based on the authoritative Butcher's copy-editing, which has long had flexible and intelligent advice on this, and is mirrored in several other important guides. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 19:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with reservations. I've thought for a long time that this needs reining in, but the climate was not right. Now that we have a methodical process, we can adjust such things. This usage is really effective for displaying ranges of full dates, and in that capacity it has pretty good acceptance in guides (other than in America), and even more in actual use (birth and death dates in biographies, especially). For certain complex headings it is valuable too, where the items to be related are already unusually complex. But it doesn't work well in running prose, and we can work on that. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(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]
  • 6c. Exceptions are occasionally made where the item involves a spaced surname (Seifert–van Kampen theorem).
    • Disagree (with “occasionally”). I would make this the rule rather than the exception. Guides that specifically address this usage seem to agree. JeffConrad (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with occasionally, per Jeff. Kotniski (talk) 10:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree In line with my support of 6b. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partial agree. Not sure about 'occasionally'. Change to "often"? Imagine Seifert–van Kampen theorem with a third name added: Seifert–van Kampen–Leroy theorem vs Seifert – van Kampen – Leroy theorem. I think the point is that no-one would misread the unspaced version, while the spaced version becomes unwieldy. It would be different if full names were used: George Schlatter–Ed Friendly Productions, or George Schlatter – Ed Friendly Productions? A Georges Henri Issa–Nader El-Bizri building or a Georges Henri Issa – Nader El-Bizri building? (Though maybe better to shorten where possible.) — kwami (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree minus "occasionally" as discussed above. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, per above recommended changes. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree --JN466 23:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree and also agree that "occasionally" should be removed/reworded. Jenks24 (talk) 09:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would never space an en dash in a pre-head modifier of a nominal anyway, whether they're surnames or not. I'd agree to keep this as a compromise if people do want spaces in Chicago – Los Angeles flight, but please take the occasionally out of it. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Although this is not "occasionally". Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need for exceptions, see my comment at 6b. Nageh (talk) 20:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with the proviso that this be mandatory, not occasional. Ozob (talk) 12:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need/Disagree with "occasionally": This should be moot as a modifier to a rule that we shouldn't adopt... but if we do adopt it, "occasionally" should not appear. It should be "always". // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, but not with the wording. It should be an express, mandatory exception to the spacing of the en dash were one element has a space.—Finell 03:30, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Lose the word "occasionally". —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 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)

  • To me, it is a no-brainer that usage should be consistent in an article title and the article text (except for quotations and refs, where appropriate, of course). This needs to be stated somewhere at both MoS and TITLE. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree.I take it as a strong requirement that title and text should agree, but there may be temporary anomalies, instabilities, or other special circumstances where we cannot achieve every kind of desirable consistency at the same time. If the title is inconsistent with similar articles that accord well with MOS (and therefore with general Wikipedia consensus!), the text of the article may reasonably be kept in accord with MOS, and not in accord with the title. The inconsistency should be discussed toward resolution; and if general issues arise, the matter should be brought for centralised treatment to WT:MOS, or to whichever general forum may be appropriate. WP:TITLE has policy that determines much about the detailing of titles; but every title is part of an article, and for good practice and consistency MOS guidelines apply to any punctuation it includes, as much or as little as they apply to any other part of the article. [Modified and re-signed.] NoeticaTea? 05:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Titles should be styled like text. The novel theory that styling introduces a conflict with WP:COMMONNAME should be retired. Dicklyon (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. No reason to use a different style in a title than in text. Kotniski (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree It is critical that we resolve these inconsistencies between our guidelines and policies. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Titles do not get different treatment than body text. Binksternet (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Titles and article text should agree. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. The implication that we should treat dash usage in titles differently to dash usage in prose is absurd. Incorrectly titling an article color (from my perspective) isn't great. But given that we have it, "colour" should not be used thereafter, except to demonstrate the alternative spelling. —WFC— 20:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree: Different punctuation for article title versus content looks unprofessional. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. --JN466 23:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree, especially as written. I can just see the messages posted on the talk pages of inexperienced users who fall afoul of this. Not everybody notices the difference between the two dashes -- I suspect most of the users who do are participating in this debate -- and even fewer people understand how to insert non-keyboard characters into text. Not without a mandatory one-week block for officious enforcement, applied liberally. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No one's suggesting chastisement for any users who use a hyphen where a dash is more appropriate. A simple move operation brings just about any such new article into compliance easily. Powers T 02:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, article title and text should be written the same way. Anyone else finds that it lacks an "and viceversa"? --Enric Naval (talk) 06:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree per CWenger. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I can see no valid reason for an article titled Eye–hand span (with a dash) to use the phrase eye-hans span (with a hyphen; or hand–eye span or hand-eye span, for that matter) to refer to its topic, or vice versa. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. — Bility (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Titles and articles need to match.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Nageh (talk) 20:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree; goose, gander. Courcelles 19:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Ozob (talk) 12:42, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Daniel Case (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. -- Avanu (talk) 04:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per Headbomb and Tony. I would extend this guideline to typeface conventions as well.—Finell 03:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? The typefaces depend on the Wikipedia skin and the browser settings, not on the individual articles. (AFAICT the default skin uses the browser's default sans-serif font for both headings and article body.) Or am I missing something? ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 21:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree Won't the use of ndashes in titles create problems for people searching? You can create a redirect, but what is the point of creating typeface redirects all over the place? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Several people have hypothesized problems, but I don't think any such problems have been identified. What do you have in mind? Hundreds or thousands of articles already do have en dash in title. Yes, you do need the redirects for the convenience of easy typing with hyphens; these are usually made automatically by first creating the article with a hyphen and later moving to en dash. Dicklyon (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, for consistency with article text and English. InverseHypercube 07:59, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:HYPHEN

*In some cases, like diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements requires an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes below.
    • Very strongly disagree. The example is not consistently dashed in actual English, and the use of require is utterly unacceptable. This also affects the point above to which this refers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • 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
    • Makes sense to me. Tony (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. We can pretty well discount what newspaper style guides say. In other ways Wikipedia works to an academic model (references are required; many features of informal expression are strongly discouraged; facts are backed up in prescribed ways that are not journalistic). Other reference works – like Britannica, among the more populist offerings – tend against newspaper usage for punctuation, and I think we should do the same. NoeticaTea? 10:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't this the same question as 3c? Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, but it's in a different part of the MOS, alerting readers to the en-dash section. — kwami (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 10:47pm • 12:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Binksternet (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree — kwami (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree – en-dash should not be mandated as obligatory here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The MoS is a guideline, not policy, so nobody is required to follow it (and even then there is WP:IAR). But if somebody changes a hyphen to an en dash, I don't think it should be changed back. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The use of "requires" implies otherwise, and is therefore problematic. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • This suggestion would lead to the whole MoS being written in a sort of wishy-washy way. MoS pages have a box at the top that explains that they are only a guideline and what exactly that means, so I think this is sufficient. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That ought to be sufficient; but we have both seen this page which demonstrates that it is not; in any case, if the boiler-plate at the top of the guideline is going to be effective, the text should not contradict it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral, but ensure that the outcome here is not at odds with the outcome at 3c. —WFC— 20:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree or change it to In cases like diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements can be indicated by an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes below if "required" is too strong. Dicklyon (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. Powers T 13:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. --JN466 23:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Prefer Dicklyon's wording. oknazevad (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree per PMA, Future Perfect, Oknazevad. I like Dicklyon's wording, but would replace 'like' with 'such as'. SJ + 06:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      ''In cases such as diode–transistor logic, the independent status of the linked elements can be indicated by an en dash instead of a hyphen. See En dashes below.
    • Disagree, because the wording forces editors to use a dash. SJ's wording is better. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I thought the the point of this page was to end the ridiculous discussions at WP:RM, the use of "can" will just open up more ridiculous debates. Jenks24 (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where there are two ways to do something, and MOS actually says "do it either way", there are no debates; we do it either way in peace. The ridiculous debate has been spawned by a few editors saying "There's only one true way" - against usage and against a majority in the actual discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd support it if requires were replaced with can justify. ― A. di M.​plé​dréachtaí 14:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree/neutral. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree/neutral. Consequently, this should be required to be a dash but I won't whine about people staying with a hyphen. Nageh (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, this should be consistently using the endash. Courcelles 20:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree, yes, even with making this required. If we prescribe en dashes for such constructions in the en dash section of the MoS, then we should prescribe them in the hyphen section of the MoS. Ozob (talk) 12:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree as phrased. I get where this is going, but it makes a hash of it. It sounds like it tries to sum up CMoS ¶6.78 and ¶6.81, but introduces bad logic to it. It should be consistent with the other rules. If the dash is legitimately replacing "to", as in "transistor to transistor logic", the en dash is appropriate. It might also say that certain scientific disciplines may use an en dash where one would otherwise use a comma, and that editors should do so consistent with a project-specific manual of style where appropriate; and that some organizations may use en dashes in their names in ways not otherwise consistent with our other rules, and that we should honor that (e.g., "the University of Wisconson–Madison"). Definitely shouldn't use an en dash (–) as a minus sign (−); they're two very different glyphs. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Actually, a minus is (−); note how it aligns with a plus (−+). The em dash, en dash, minus, and hyphen are all distinct. And there are other similar marks.. JeffConrad (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right; I am embarrassed to admit I accidentally hit HYPHEN-MINUS instead of MINUS SIGN in my Unicode palette. I have corrected my statement to use the correct glyph. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree. This cannot be a guideline because it gives no guidance on how to employ it. I am not aware of a precedent for this idea, as an exception to the use of hyphens, in the outside world.—Finell 03:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, but needs to be worded differently as others have noted. —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. InverseHypercube 08:00, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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]
  • Disagree. In most cases, making a difference is counterproductive, time-wasting, and discourages contributions to Wikipedia. We ought to adopt the simplest possible standards, which pretty much requires the use of keyboard characters in almost all cases. We can make an exception for editors who contribute via linotyping. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No idea what this is about. But if it's about something like Gell-Mann–Nishijima formula vs Gell-Mann-Nishijima formula the former is always better than the later. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This is about the position collapsed above. Collect (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right; it should all be moved inside, or to the corresponding /discussion page section. Dicklyon (talk) 18:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is, as far as I can tell, about whether this entire discussion is about a triviality. That is certainly an arguable position; if it is silenced, I will consider what should be done with the silencer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:41, 7 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]
  • Disagree, and I agree with Headbomb's comment. Whatever this supposed to mean, it will be used by the anti-MOS nihilists.—Finell 03:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yawn. —Telpardec (talk) 18:28, 11 July 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"