Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dashes

message: From the article:
"The minus sign or figure dash (−) is ... supported in almost all browsers, and can be used in Wikipedia."
"The figure dash ("‒") should not be used on Wikipedia."
The reference at the end points out that they are summoned differently, so why do we call them exactly the same thing? Should one be the x2012 figure dash or similar? — Ianiceboy 06:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The minus sign and the figure dash might in practice be identical, but they have different Unicode characters. It looks like "figure dash" in the first line is meant to be an alternate name for "minus", a character which is fine, but the "figure dash" in the second line refers to the specific Unicode character called "figure dash". The question is: is the figure dash practically identical to the minus sign? —Centrx→talk • 03:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this is joke right? figure dash=figure dash is identity always true ha ha--MajorHazard 02:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's the difference between a figure dash and a figure dash? 

message: *4-songEP19:10 (Trance Syndicate, 1994)
*The Dark Ages (Trance Syndicate, 1996)
*Lepidoptera (Trance Syndicate, 1998)
*Macha Loved Bedhead (Jetset Records, 2000)
:Other possibilities for related situations are colons (for instance, in a real timeline, where the years are important) and tables.  —JerryFriedman 17:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: EPs

message: Lots of talk about what different people do (like article of how dashes are used around world), but short on guidance of what to do here at wikipedia. Specific question: leave spaces around em-dash? Yes/no? Fast answer makes good guideline.--MajorHazard 14:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking more on subject, I think em dash aught be used only rarely in wikpedia, which suppose neuter in points of view. Em dash used mainly for drama effect, and thus show writer mean particular point of view.--MajorHazard 02:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too wishy-washy for guideline

message: The guideline currently reads
:Please do not use an en dash, em dash, or any type of dash other than a standard hyphen in a content page name because such symbols prevent some software (including Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP) from saving the page as a file on a computer.
My understanding from the discussion earlier is that saving works, but loading images from the saved pages doesn't. Regardless, that's not my question. I'm wondering if someone who has software exhibiting this problem can tell me whether it applies only to dash characters, or whether it applies to any non-ASCII character that must be percent-encoded in a URL. For instance, is Poincaré–Birkhoff–Witt theorem problematic only because the name contains dashes, or would it be problematic even if renamed to Poincaré-Birkhoff-Witt theorem (as someone tried recently but was reverted)?
If any non-ASCII character triggers the policy, could we amend the policy to allow dashes in cases of titles that have good reason to contain other non-ASCII characters? Because in that case the only effect of the policy is to prevent proper typography (assuming appropriate redirects exist to allow searches etc).
If, on the other hand, dashes alone trigger this problem, I wonder whether there might be a technological solution. Currently, the wiki software automagically translates spaces to underscores both when forming a url from a title and when interpreting urls that contain spaces. How feasible would it be to add similar translation from en-dashes to double hyphens (--) and from em-dashes to triple hyphens (---), matching the TeX conventions for those characters? I'd imagine such translation happening only when forming urls from titles, not in other contexts in the wiki, and I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that this would be unambiguous due to there being very few articles already containing double or triple hyphens in their names. —David Eppstein 02:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification and possible technical solution re dashes in page title 

message: I dispute the following: "If possible, avoid typing their related codes (e.g., – for en dash) to display dashes, as this clutters up the text when editing and may not be understood by new editors."
# It conflicts with the entire rest of this guideline, which consistently tells editors they are free to use the character entity codes, and in fact generally recommends them first (and should).
# It does not "clutter up" the code; it clarifies it.  Many of us do not have good enough eyesight to 100% reliably tell which Unicode character in the dash "family" is which, and many fonts do not adequately distinguish them at all, even for people who do not need better glassess.  The only way to be reliably certain that there is in fact an en dash in the middle of that date range and not some other dash is to have the entity code in there instead of the Unicode character.
# The "may not be understood by new editors" excuse is a farce.  Virtually everthing about writing wikitext is using (initially) unfamiliar, geeky, and mostly-manual encoding to achieve the desired results; this is no different at all.  And all anyone has to do is look at the source, then look at the rendered version (or vice versa) to figure it out.  Again, just like everything else about wikitext.
— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After half a month of silence, I'm taking silence as assent and just doing it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unicode characters vs. character entities dispute

message: *Delete — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After half a month of silence, I'm taking silence as assent and just doing it. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 18:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal: Delete the disputed sentence

message: See Talk:Dash#font_differences. ∞ΣɛÞ² (τ|c) 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  font differences 

message: * Regarding "#3", the use of dashes in article titles is an accessibility issue in some configurations of modern, up-to-date operating systems. Gimmetrow 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, nobody has said they oppose #3.  If you're hinting that you oppose it, please provide the actual reason; so far, all I see is unsourced speculation that there might be a problem.  So far, it is justfiable to be dismissive. Dicklyon 20:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, and Gimmetrow, many more users are likely to see WP as "broken" when they see a hyphen in a title followed by en dashes in the main text. Tony 01:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  technical issue 

message: Proposal 1—the removal of spaced em dashes from the dash guidelines
*Oppose: SMcCandlish, Geometry guy
*Support: Noetica, Markus Kuhn, Dicklyon, Tony, Sandy 
*qp says remove the invitation to use them, but don't proscribe them. David Epstein declares no opinion.
Although most people are in favour, there's doubt or objection by a significant minority. Thus, a compromise appears to be in order, viz., to follow qp's suggestion of not explicitly inviting the use of spaced em dashes, but not proscribing their use. 
Old:
The following five dash styles are currently in use in Wikipedia:
* Tight (unspaced) em dashes—like this.
* Spaced em dashes — like this.
* Spaced en dashes – like this. (Note: an unspaced en dash is properly used to indicate a range of numbers; unspaced en dashes should not be used for the parenthetical or colon-type uses, as discussed above.)
New:
The following dash styles are used in Wikipedia:
* Em dashes, which are normally unspaced on Wikipedia—like this.
* Spaced en dashes – like this. (Note: an unspaced en dash is properly used to indicate a range of numbers; unspaced en dashes should not be used for the parenthetical or colon-type uses, as discussed above.)
Consistent with this, the MOS style draft section on em dashes (about to be implemented) has been adjusted from:
Em dashes are always unspaced on Wikipedia.
To
Em dashes are normally unspaced on Wikipedia.
-----
Proposal 2—the removal of the statement allowing double hyphens (in conflict with the current and draft new MOS sections)
*Oppose: nil
*Support: Noetica, qp, Markus Kuhn, Sandy, Dicklyon, Tony 
*SMcCandlish and David Eppstein, in essence, support, with the rider that an explanation as to why some WPians use the double hyphen, it should be replaced with an em dash.
Everyone, then, disapproves of the use of the double hyphen. I think that the explanation and replacement is best dealt with here, in this article, but not in the MOS, where the current brief proscription should remain unchanged. 
Old:
Some Wikipedians use a double hyphen ("--") to represent an em dash. This is a carryover from the typewriter, which does not have an em-dash key. The double hyphen was never used in typography because typeset fonts, like the digital fonts used on computers, include em dashes.
New:
The double hyphen ("--"), used by some writers to represent an em dash, is not used on Wikipedia. The double hyphen is a carry-over from the typewriter, which does not have an em-dash key. The double hyphen was never used in typography because typeset fonts, like the digital fonts used on computers, include em dashes. 
-----
Proposal 3—the removal of the proscription of dashes in article titles
*Oppose: nil
*Support: Noetica, qp, Markus Kuhn, Sandy, Dicklyon, Tony, SMcCandlish, David Eppstein, Carl (CBM)
Gimmetrow appears to oppose, although has not formally done so. He cites an accessibility issue in some configurations of modern, up-to-date operating systems, but has not, IMO, effectively addressed counterarguments by Carl (CBM), David Eppstein, DIcklyon and me.
I've retained the hair-space stuff, because I just don't know enough about it to change it.
Old:
For page names:
* Hyphens and dashes are used in article titles only when absolutely necessary (e.g., Piano-Rag-Music, Jack-in-the-box, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Eye–hand spand). In that case simple hyphens are preferred. Avoid hair spaces, even in the odd case of a range forming part of the title, e.g., History of the Soviet Union (1985-1991). Years of birth and death are not used in an article title to distinguish between people of the same name.
* If for greater precision another type of dash is used, always provide a redirect from the variant with simple hyphens and without hair spaces.'[Guideline change 14:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the History example so that it conforms to, and illustrates the guidelines (if I have understood correctly!) Geometry guy 10:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you propose here a wording, then, for overleaf? Tony 14:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I did strengthen the wording to require a redirect. I'll also add the talk page, which is a good point. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: For my part I am busy (offline) and still reading through and thinking about this. Will get back to this within 24hrs. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont]  ‹(-¿-)› 01:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary of feedback on proposals for the removal of three points