Talk:Hyphen

message: For the other uses section, I always thought it was em dash, not en dash. Speling12345 (talk) 1:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, en dash is correct. But the "more proper" assertion was wrong. I fixed that section and provided a cross-ref to the main discussion of that topic. "The hyphen and en dash are often used to express number ranges (see details at Dash > En dash > Ranges of values)." Quercus solaris (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  So it is en dash. What correction did you make in the page? Speling12345 (talk) 3:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the sentence (with cross-ref) quoted above. You can click this link to see the edit diff. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 03:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the other uses 

message: Do you always/normally/rarely write hyphens between abbreviations and words they are conjucted to? As in the given example (a grind for transmission electron microscopy), is it a TEM-grid or a TEM grid
?--Polis Tyrol (talk) 16:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would default to normal hyphen rules, treating the TEM as any other word.  So TEM grid used as a noun has no hyphen by in "TEM-grid holder" used as an adjective it would (though  it's often omitted if the meaning is judged to be clear enough to the intended audience).  Not "TEM grid-holder" as some do.  Dicklyon (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do you use hyphens in abbreviations? Would you, e.g. write ''TEM-grid'' or ''TEM grid''? 

message: This was removed:
I suspect it's easily sourceable, if anyone cares. I think the collation point is useful, but the Mass. one is not.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted unsourced thing probably sourceable 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Hyphen. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uhv.edu/ac/newsletters/writing/grammartip2004.11.30.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hyphen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141120120157/http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/punctuation.html to http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/punctuation.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I like reading a concise article that's not cluttered up with useless data. Some examples to see how to use these tools would be nice. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 06:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You appear to be posting to the wrong page.  This is the talk page for an article on a punctuation mark, and has nothing to do with tools or with reduction of data clutter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  11:32, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Thank you for pointing that out. I followed a link from WP:MOS that offered more info. i had assumed it was on editing, not the history of the hyphen. I'm sorry if I seemed to be whining or anything and for wasting your time. 50.64.119.38 (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all, you just didn't seem to be at the right place. I think what you want is Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, if you mean "on editing" at Wikipedia.  If you mean to ask a question about editing in general and how to use hyphens, try WP:Reference desk/Language.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  08:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examples. 

message: "Although hyphens are not to be confused with en dashes and minus signs, there are some overlaps in usage (in which either a hyphen or an en dash may be acceptable, depending on user preference; discussed below) and in character encoding (which often uses the same character, called a "hyphen-minus", to represent both the hyphen and minus sign entities; discussed below)."
Don't know about anyone else but that seems to say "don't confuse these with those, except when you do because they're the same thing." Personally, I laugh at all the distinctions people try to draw between these floating straight lines. Nobody writes them all distinctly different on a consistent basis and virtually no typeface makes them easily distinguishable. Just admit that the same character can have different usages. --Khajidha (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't confuse...except when they are 

message: this article is connected to the wrong article in the hebrew wiki. 129.69.140.138 (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  קו מפריד hebrew 

message: I propose to delete the paragraph beginning "The hyphen-minus character is also often used when  ..." from the "hyphen-minus" section in this article,  as it is too far off topic for an article about hyphen and runs into wp:Fork. Comments? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I have never heard somebody use the word "hyphen" when discussing command line options, so it is an unrelated subject to "hyphen".Spitzak (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The hyphen-minus character is also often used when specifying command-line options. 

message: In this edit,  undid some changes I had made to the section Soft and hard hyphens. I am undoing these changes, but not others made in the same edit, and not changes made in a subsequent edit.
In particular, I used single quotes around a letters to refer to the letter itself; these were changed to double quotes, and I have changed them back. I find nothing relevant in either MOS:QUOTE or WP:QUOTE. My choice of single quotes accords with the note in Use-mention distinction that 
:If quotation marks are used, it is sometimes customary to distinguish between the quotation marks used for speech and those used for mentioned words, with double quotes in one place and single in the other
though my concern is with letters mentioned, not words.  I do think that the use of single quotes scans better.
I also changed "ſ" to 'ſ ', not only replacing double quotes by single but also inserting a narrow no-break space between the character and the quote so that the top of the character does not get lost when it is followed by a quote.
Finally, instead of referring to "a round s, 's' " I enlarged the character between the single quotes slightly, so the phrase reads "a round s,  ".  I think making the quoted character a bit larger in this context reduces potential confusion. Peter Brown (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's an interesting tidbit on Use–mention distinction. MOS:DOUBLE doesn't have an exception for use-mention differentiation, but I don't think it applies here anyway, because both the letters and words are being mentioned, not used? And come to think, if "prinſesſen" and variations are in Norwegian, they should be in italics using , which would let us use italics vs. double quotes for words vs. letters. Does that make sense? I thought the Manual of Style had guidance for individual letters somewhere, but I couldn't put my finger on it. -- Beland (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to  -- Beland (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partial revert of a discussion of the soft hyphen 

message: I have copyedited the lead to de-emphasise (deemphasise? deëmphasise?) the WP:UNDUE prominence of the "Unicode hyphen". Most visitors to this article are interested in orthography, hyphenation rules (like what to do about de-emphaise ) and word-splitting at line endings. The fact that Unicode has encoded an explicit hyphen and an explicit minus as optional alternatives to the hypen-minus is really on the margins, of interest only to computer people. Likewise, the infobox should say "Hyphen" because that is the subject of the article; the article is not about the Unicode hyphenindeed it was barely mentioned it until I added a very brief sub-section (subsection?) for it. 
Which codepoint to use in the infobox is again a detail: if someone desperately wants to change the  to a hyphen-minus, go ahead as far as I am concerned 99.99% of readers will not notice, still less care. But a purist will change it back. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unicode hyphen"