Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:32, 23 June 2011

Hyphens in a list

"6. Spaced en dashes are sometimes used as separators, ..." Did you mean to say "but not hyphens"? Art LaPella (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I guess that's the intention; maybe it should be said explicitly.--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

General comments

• I thought there was reasonable support for eliminating mention of “typewriter approximations”. If the caveat remains, we should use the present tense, and possibly reword to something more contemporary like these are approximations used for ASCII text. If it’s mentioned, there’s a potential confusion between the two-hyphen typewriter convention for em dashes and the TeX coding of two hyphens for en dashes.
  • I've no objection to removing that whole sentence (I certainly wouldn't want to make it any longer).--Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Should the {{ndash}} template be mentioned for spaced en dashes? It handles the nonbreaking space with less effort and visual clutter.
  • Could be, though I was assuming that methods of entry would be dealt with at WP:How to make dashes, which is linked to.
• (1) Would it not make more sense to use the more common parentheses rather than round brackets, especially since parenthetical is already used.
  • Fine by me (though in Britain, "brackets" is probably more common).

    I usually say "round parentheses", "square brackets", and "curly braces" so that I can't be misunderstood on either side of the Atlantic. :-) ― A. di M.​_plé​ 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• (2) I think we should allow December 1989–March 1990 as well as December 1989 – March 1990 because there’s little chance for confusion, and every guide I’ve ever read gives it the first way. That doesn’t mean it’s the only way, but to ban a reasonable common practice seems capricious.
  • OK by me, if that's what comes out of the discussion (this draft isn't intended to pre-empt any decision).

  This could be implemented by changing “is spaced” to “may be spaced”. ― A. di M.​_plé​ 20:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• (4) I think it would help to suggest former prime minister as an alternative to ex–prime minister, which would usually not be used as an adjective, and would seem to have less justification for the en dash.
  • OK by me.
• (5) The senses should be in italics rather than quotes for consistency with (3), and so that it’s clear that they are words used as words rather than the sense of so-called.
  • Agree; done.
• (6) It’s not clear to me why the en dash is always spaced in something like Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 1; this seems like a somewhat arbitrary choice. In a title, would we not normally do a the publisher did (e.g., Henry VI, Part Two)? I think a colon, comma, unspaced en dash, parentheses, or even perhaps an unspaced em dash could work just as well; I think the application to track listings would have almost as many reasonable options. I also think that without a link to an example to the use for track listings, most readers will have no idea what we’re talking about. Though it should be obvious, perhaps it should be mentioned usage within an article should be consistent. I don′t see a problem using different symbols for connecting track numbers to track times and for connecting musicians to instruments, but obviously usage for each should be consistent.
• (6) “ut no hyphens”. Would this not be treated the same way as “typewriter approximations”, however it is decided to handle them. It would seem to me that if we intend to deprecated spaced hyphens we should do so under WP:HYPHEN, and if absolutely necessary, at the beginning of WP:DASH. JeffConrad (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I think the main reason for this point is to emphasize that we don't use hyphens here (i.e. that if we want a horizontal line, then it ought to be a dash). I don't see a problem with recommending spaced en dashes specifically, since they seem to be the ones that are already most commonly used in these positions, and recommending a single style would encourage consistency and discourage lame arguments.--Kotniski (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

A few more comments:

• I'd prefer minus sign rather than subtraction sign (but I can live with either).
• In point 4, I'd use different examples than the New York–Sydney flight etc. as these are covered by point 5 anyway. Also, I'd explicitly mention hyphen-based alternatives (pre-World-War-II technologies, ex-prime minister), which are more common in BrE. Also, for the suggestion to recast the phrase I'd use examples involving more obscure compounds, with real danger of confusion (pre–World War II technologies being nearly impossible to misunderstand as World War II is an extremely familiar ‘fixed’ phrase).
• I'd swap points 4 and 5, as point 5 is arguably more similar to point 3 than point 4 is.
• I can't see the point of mentioning image filenames in the MOS at all: they aren't normally written in normal English anyway (in today's FA there are File:Holy Thorn Reliquarywindow.jpg, File:Holy Thorn Reliquary 2407598204 8dda9afd97 o.jpg, File:Britishmuseumdunstableswanjewelsidecroppedclose.jpg among others), they are not normally ever displayed to non-editing readers, and most of the files are on Commons where the en.wiki MOS doesn't apply anyway. ― A. di M.​_plé​ 21:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

― A. di M.​_plé​ 21:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)