Talk:Dash/Archive 1

855:

examined in my career of working full-time with fonts; (2) the fact that it is standard practice enforced in all or almost all the fonts made by Adobe (certainly in my time there), and thanks to Adobe's leadership role in digital type design, many others followed their lead; (3) online discussion among type designers and typographers on Typophile.com; (4) in-person discussion among a group of type designers and typographers at an ATypI conference. I should add that I probably used the wrong wording when I said "most type designers": I should probably instead have said what was done "by most professional type designers" or "in most professional quality fonts." I'm sure that most free fonts don't follow these guidelines. Also, by "most" I don't mean an overwhelming majority, just anything over half. As an example, Microsoft's recent "ClearType fonts" are a perfect microcosm. Calibri and Corbel have irregular en dash widths, while Candara, Cambria, Constantia have en dashes that are one half the em dash. (Not counting Consolas, because it's monospaced.)

645:

font, so that 1 em equals 12 points in a 12 pt. font. Also as a generalization, en spaces and dashes are designed to be equal to the width of numerals, so that as an expedient, tables can be aligned without the use of tabs. This deserves more research, but empirically, 1 en = 2/3 em might be in the right ballpark. Philosophy of the type designer or type house seems to come into play: for instance, some em and/or en dashes appear to incorporate a small amount of white space to the left and right of the character; some don't. Some fonts do appear to use 1 en = 1/2 em, but if ever that was an inflexible rule, I doubt it extended much beyond 1900. Display faces (i.e. those designed for brief passages of text, in advertising or decorative uses), and condensed faces, tend to jettison such rules. If for instance a condensed face were to use em dashes equal to the point size, the dashes would then be the same length as that in the uncondensed version of the font, and therefore felt as disproportionate by the reader.

737:"In traditional typesetting, an em is defined as the width of the uppercase M in the current face and point size. An em-dash was traditionally the width of the capital M, an en-dash was half the width of a capital M and an em quad, a unit of spacing material usually used for paragraph indentation, was the square of a capital M. In screen representation, an em is more properly defined as simply the current point size. For example, in 12-point type, an em is a distance of 12 points. An em quad is always a square of the size of type to which it belongs. So, an em quad of 12pt type is 12pt high x 12pt wide." 797:

en are today are well known in typography and yes, an en is half an em, and yes an em is equal to the point size (just as it was in metal). Whether the em was ever truly equal to the width of letter M (or en the width of N) is dubious at best: plenty of old foundry metal typefaces have survived for centuries, and there is no such exact relationship apparent. Finally, in modern digital typefaces, most type designers make the em dash one em wide, and the en dash one en wide, but it is not universally true the way it was in metal type, when the dashes were generic and typeface-independent. -

4670:

etc. The dash by itself should suffice. If you need a double wide dash, use two dashes. Want the dash numbers to wrap around?: use the dash with spaces before and aft. What's worse is now we have bots buzzing around injecting these and other similar codes (including ' & n b s p' ) into all the pages. Is there a WP policy that says editors must use these codes in place of the dash, etc? Editors have to type seven characters just to make a dash. I realize that various control characters are sometimes used in the mark-up text but this is getting a little ridiculous. e.g.

909:?) And with this point, I think I'm just giving up on the article. There's still lots of nonsense about the em dash being related to the cap M width and the en dash to the lowercase n, which is true only indirectly if even that. It's all superstition, and I'm tired of fighting it. Maybe I'll change my mind once I have my books unpacked and can give further references, but I doubt it. Instead, I think I will be sure to give the correct definition and origins in every general typography talk I do in the next year, starting with the HOW Design Conference later this month. 1009:

the two. And when you say that you use em dashes instead of hyphens, I sure hope you mean that you use em dashes where you mean to use the mark of punctuation that is a dash, and hyphens where you mean to use the mark of punctuation that is a hyphen. They are strictly distinct marks of punctuation with different meanings, and they are not interchangeable. You will confuse readers by using them interchangeably. Don't think it matters? Check out how it's done in printed material.--

31: 79:== Can someone clarify whether the en dash consists of one or two lines, and edit the article to make this clear? At present it indicates that the en dash is half the length of the em dash, but this does not appear to be the case if the en dash consists of two lines. Instead it appears that the individual lines are half the length, but that when put together as a pair, they look a similar length to the em dash. 740:"en dash (typesetters used to call it a "nut"), which is a little longer than a hyphen, and the em dash (a "mutton"), which is the longest. Technically, an em dash is as long as the point size of the type; that is, if your type is 12 point, the em dash is 12 points long; if your type is 36 points, the em dash is 36 points long. The en dash (the "nut") is half the width of the em dash." 5201:"Em and en refer to units of typographic measurement, not to the letters M and N. In a traditional metal font, the em was the vertical distance from the top of a piece of type to the bottom. The en was half the size of the em. Originally, the width of the em and en dashes corresponded to these units. In today’s digital fonts, they run narrower." 1950:, then arguably the en dash is called for. I changed things to the form with the en dash in the subsection I edited; but the whole article should be consistent in this (especially when one considers that its topic is dashes). So which form is better? Personally, I don't care very much. I just strive for consistency – especially consistency within a whole article. 1057:

should come from it. (That is, as written it is meaningless and the only obvious interpretation is the correct one.) One might even argue that it's clearer than 50%–60%, which might be misconstrued as subtraction. Dimensionally, 50–60% can't be a subtraction. If I were using "to", I think I'd say "50% to 60%" because it is visually more united as a range. —

751:"em - A unit of measure, which is the square of a face's point size. Traditionally, the width of a face's widest letter, the capital 'M.' For instance, if the 'M' is 10 points wide, an em is equal to 10 points. By Microsoft: A unit of measurement equal to the current type size. For example, an em in 12-point type is equal to 12 points." 3299:(I have along the way here noticed that my own typeface Hypatia Sans has an en dash which is slightly off of the correct value. Either this is just an error (in which case it's entirely my fault), or... I have a faint recollection that Robert Slimbach talked me into this, but I am not entirely happy with it. Oh well.) 2358:

was no way to verify which meaning was correct, or intended. So I took it out, hoping that if someone had a verifiable point to make they would put it back with the required source. So did you find a source to back up the "some argue" or an attribution for who argues which way? If not, it doesn't belong.

5088:

I added a note in the section about using en-dashes to attach modifiers to open or compound phrases. It's not as a guide to style but rather to caution a writer that if things are getting this complicated, perhaps they should unpack the phrase instead. I couldn't find a good reference online but will

4669:

I do a lot of bibliography work and find it not only confusing but annoying having to work around and/or decipher the various codes used just to make a dash, etc. Frankly I am amazed at the amount of documentation that editors are supposed to know just to make a simple dash in between numbers, dates,

3912:

I agree, I'll tag the article as requiring copyeding. The en dash section also has problems with that e.g. "usage guidelines" follows "Ranges of values" and "Attributive compounds", but those two are exactly the main cases where most usage guidelines prescribe using an en dash. There are some clarity

3885:

According to most American sources (e.g., The Chicago Manual of Style) and to some British sources (e.g., The Oxford Guide to Style), an em dash should always be set closed (not surrounded by spaces). But the practice in some parts of the English-speaking world, including the style recommended by The

2783:

Should this entry not refer to what is, as opposed to what should be? If so, then it needs to emphasize that different states, different languages, different editors have different rules with respect to hyphens and dashes. While the article does a fine job in emphasizing this in may places, it may be

2533:

That required a soft hyphen followed by a hard hyphen. Most current word processors do not produce the correct hyphenation for portuguese and do not allow it to be produced either. Portuguese is the sixth or seventh most spoken language in the world though, when it comes to buying word processors, it

2458:

Fine. Generally, let's work constructively to improve articles for the benefit of readers, and not simply remove valuable material that has become corrupted by others' thoughtless editing. As for the policies, they are generally valuable; but they should not be invoked in a draconian fashion, or we'd

2357:

The confusion is as represented in the previous edit someone made, indicating a difference of opinion as to whether it should say spaced or unspaced. But since it was in a weasel-word sentence with "some argue" (one of the examples on the weasel words page you cite) instead of any attribution, there

2065:

This article mentions the dash being used as a method of quotation when writing conversation. It directs the reader to the "quotation dash section" of the Quotation Mark article, but such a section does not exist. How dashes are supposed to be used in the place of quotation marks remains a mystery,

963:

Now, many/most of these kinds of characters (glyphs?) appear in only a few fonts--often just the system's default (Lucida Grande) or, at best, Big Caslon and some of the CJK fonts with a gazillion characters. I'm guessing that Safari is just using whichever font it can find to display the characters,

956:

Despite all the suggestions to the contrary in the article, Safari 1.2 on 10.3.4 displays every single one of the dashes correctly. This can be verified by dragging-and-dropping each of them into the "Favorites" section of the Character Palette and then selecting them. The "Character Info" section at

823:

I'm not sure I believe you about the pair of statements "an en is half an em" and "most type designers make the em dash one em wide, and the en dash one en wide". Almost all fonts that I've looked at have an en dash that's significantly more than half the width of the em dash, like these hyphen, en,

4550:

True. It looked bad. The table "Common Dashes" was unusable as it overlapped the Template:Punctuation marks. It seemed to me the Common Dashes table had more pertinent information than did the generic punctuation template, so I made an assumption that hard info should ride higher than a link-basket.

3781:

Glad we could agree on this. I'm not seeing any space between the dashes, but also realize that this rendering will vary depending on the reader's system (browser, font preferences, etc.)... I suppose the only guaranteed way to address this would be an image of the characters, though it's less than

3355:

In the "En-dash" section, where it says "recommends that the word to be used", the underlying source code clearly shows that the word "to" should be italicised, making a clear and grammatically correct sentence. However — on my system at least (Mac OS 10.4.11) — it doesn't appear italicised, making

1287:

I agree. The problem is that this article is about many things and seems to loose focus. This article is about the various dash-like characters, about the varying semantics of these dash-like characters, and about their use on computers. The opening sentence of this article right now is incorrect in

1075:

Generally one aims to repeat as few characters as possible, but as many as necessary for clarity; thus the first of each pair would be preferable. As regards the use of 'to': unless the text is represented in a table, an online menu or button, or some other location where space is at a premium, 'to'

998:

Many people posting on the Internet ignore the basics of grammar and punctuation. Ignore those people. The em dash and en dash aren’t that formal—one’s interchangeable with parentheses, and the other’s for ranges—and most of the other dashes are specialized. I for one always use em dashes instead of

796:

I'm not sure whether "Google says" and a bunch of only semi-agreeing quotes tells us much, without naming what the sites in question were. Some sources are a lot more authoritative than others! In any case there are three separate points with differing truth values. The definitions of what an em and

788:

Yes, but paraphrase. The quotes above are literal quotes from (probably) copyrighted websites. So just condense the information from all of them into one paragraph (and maybe delete them from this page afterwards? I don't know if we need to worry about that.) And mention that "traditionally it is

500:

It seems that the em dash and the semi colon are similar to each other, in that they both are stronger than a comma, but less than a period. From the usage I have seen, the em dash seems closer to a comma, and a semicolon seems closer to a period. Am I correct in this? Should this be added to the

5026:

Nowhere does the author of the reference make this claim and is, in fact, contradictory to his own usage of the parenthetical em dashes. I'm a noobie at wiki, I just felt I should bring it up so that someone who does know what they're doing can review my statement and make the change accordingly.

4298:

May be there are some users with direct perception of Unicode code points, but they definitely do not constitute the majority. Practically, there are much confusion and incorrect use of these "similar characters" (most frequently en dashes instead of minus signs, even in Knowledge, e.g. in recently

3817:

You are right, they were accepted in principle for Unicode last February. But they are not yet in the current published version of Unicode or the Unicode charts (version 6.0 at the moment). We know these two characters will become U+2E3A and U+2E3B, but it is probably a bit early to try to use them

3310:

We also need to get rid of the silly references to capital M and lowercase n. These are apocryphal and have no support from any major authoritative source that I know of. (A good example of what I hate about concensus-based editing, btw. But then again, the wording I propose above is a good example

3304:

I would suggest that we revise the wording to say something like: "Traditionally the en dash is half the width of the em dash, and hence half the point size of the font. But not all digital typefaces follow these traditional values. Monospaced typefaces are an obvious exception, and divergence from

2303:

I've added a FACT tag to the relevant sentence in this article. I have seen the en dash used for "Foo-Bar Theorem" in one and only one place: other wikipedia articles. I assume this practice did start elsewhere but it does seem a little unlikely that the article text claiming that it is more common

1106:

Although I eliminated the self-reference, currently this article reads like "A Knowledge editor's guide to dashes", with a very strong focus on their use in web pages, rather than an overview of dashes in general. In particular, nothing of their history is mentioned. While I don't doubt the general

1008:

While you say that the em dash is interchangeable with parenthesis, that is not necessarily true. Firstly, the em dash has many uses and not all are interchangeable with parenthesis. But secondly, even with the usages that are interchangeable with parenthesis, there is usually a best choice between

644:

Both here and in linked articles (em dash, en dash) there's the frequent assertion that en = 1/2 em, which is emphatically not true, as can be demonstrated by experimentation with different fonts. As a generalization, em spaces and em dashes are usually designed to be equal to the point size of the

5054:

First, make the thing the right way. There are a few ways to do it, but generally, on a keyboard, you can do as follows: previous word/no space/two hyphens/no space/following word. Word-processing programs turn the two hyphens into an unbroken line that’s roughly the width of a capital “M” — hence

4926:

What bothers me even more though, is the way you edit the pages. The recent edit history currently includes several incredibly redundant changes by you. Instead of saving the page over and over again between edits, just to look at the result. Press show preview, and do all your edits in one single

3798:

Perhaps that's my fault. I have a font that contains the characters, so I initially added them here. Aside from the issue of font support (same as with any "obscure" character), it seemed the right thing to do. Upon further research, it seems the characters were approved by the Unicode Consortium,

2205:

That's looks like a peculiar minority opinion, or a bad choice of examples. The example of "Taft-Hartley Act" where "Taft-Hartley" is a "simple compound word" ignores the usual distinction between a simple compound noun used as an adjective and a pairing of two nouns; they give no examples of the

436:

Simplified rule: if you can replace it with parentheses, you can also use an em dash (or en dash if that is your preference). A comma does not demark a break in thought — a sudden change of topic or an inserted statement — but is used for listings, or pauses in conversation, instead. Generally you

4073:

reminded me of your tendency to see lies in things that aren't perfectly to your liking. I had removed some duplication and tried to reorganize a bit, as the Chicago recommendations were in there twice and not really explained. I trimmed back to just the non-duplicative parts, more or less, and

2348:

does not respect that definition, by the way.) If you think that the text needs a citation, then say that: don't just delete it. The sentence simply attempts to give one reason for publisher's choices, and is perfectly comprehensible. Comprehensible, but wrong! In fact the sentence was originally

776:

Great research Omegatron. From this I suspect we should go with "en dash (typesetters used to call it a "nut"), which is a little longer than a hyphen, and the em dash (a "mutton"), which is the longest. Technically, an em dash is as long as the point size of the type; that is, if your type is 12

3475:

This article gives the following as an example of the use of an em dash: "such as Darth Vader's line "I sense something, a presence I have not felt since—" in Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope." While a line from a well-known movie might be a good source for an example when talking about grammar,

1839:

Can we please not use the text itself as an example for the text itself? Set examples of typography apart from the text in their own boxes, so they can be compared, aren't changed by editors who don't understand them, are clear to people who have never encountered them before or don't speak the

1056:

I would tend towards the first, but I think it's really a style issue, so consistency is key. Most people read both "50–60%" and "50%–60%" as "fifty to sixty percent", so the prior may be easier to read. From a dimensional standpoint, 50–60% is meaningless; it isn't even a range, so no confusion

904:

The article currently says that the en dash is "is roughly the width of the letter n" which is only true in the same general sense that it is roughly the width of the minus sign, or roughly the width of the letter u, or whatever. In other words, it's misleading, not definitional and shouldn't be

854:

The first statement is simply definitionally true. I'd cite from the many typography testbooks that I keep on my bookshelf (several of which I contributed to), except they're packed in boxes because I just moved to another city. I base the second statement on four things: (1) the many fonts I've

110:

I now think that perhaps I have a font problem with my browser. I am using Firefox 2.0.0.3 for Solaris SPARC. When I visit the "Dash" page, the en dash shows up as --. Also, when I view biographies, dates of birth and death are separated by --. Can anyone tell me if they see the same thing? Many

4922:

Hey LlywelynII, in one of your more recent edits(Revision as of 11:04, 3 February 2013) you removed the visuals for keys on alt text, which by itself is no big deal and I don't really mind. But in addition to that, you forgot to add the 0 at the beginning of the codes, making it lead to ù and û

3752:

I seemed to be getting into an edit war with an anonymous user, but I realized that their point was that the dashes in question have no real Unicode value, and therefore the use of multiple em dashes was the next best thing (though it may be seen as dashes with spaces between, which isn’t quite

3044:

Agreed. I have removed it again. If someone wants to put it back, it will be have to be in the context of someone who makes the claim. If I want to make a document with inconsistent typography, then what's important is that the usage is inconsistent. It was a pointless bit of editorializing and

1960:

I was tempted to make those changes to en dash myself, but after searching books and things, e.g. on unicode, I found that it was always written with a hyphen. Since that seemed to be an offical name, I figured it was not subject to my opinion on better grammar, so I left it. If you change it,

889:

Maybe my experience is mostly with a less-recent set of fonts. Quick test shows you're right on many, but that Ariel, Helvetica, Tahoma, and Bauhaus 93 (not an exhaustive search) have en dash distinctly wider than half an em dash. Since I was using Helvetica since the 1970s, and various other

5065: 3890:

Various style guides and national varieties of languages prescribe different guidance on dashes. For example, "Dashes are treated differently in the US and UK. In the US, an em-dash with no additional spacing is used. In the UK a spaced en-dash is preferred." As an example of the US style, The

2375:

of the section, in fact, though the basic message was quite clear: practices vary, and different reasons are appealed to. I have now fixed things so that even the details are clear. If we were to apply the standard you invoke (just here), Knowledge articles would be a thicket of citations and

1980:

Wouldn't it make more sense to render that as "high-priority, high-pressure tasks"? If a task is both, say, urgent and difficult, you wouldn't call it an "urgent-difficult task", you'd call it an "urgent, difficult task". I can't think of a context where one would naturally compound the two

1510:

Well if your looking at it that way the ones without the unicode template are more correct because they are in the same font as the standard wikipedia body text. The ones with the unicode template are forced to an alternate font in IE (this is done due to IEs lack of decent code for finding a

2518:

Also, though the soft hyphen is mentioned, there is no mention to the hard hyphen, a hyphen that is present wether hyphenation occurs or not (that's not the same as the regular hyphen!), and can be combined with a soft hyphen to produce the correct hyphenation of portuguese hyphenated words

923:

Oh, hey, look at the last entries on this very Talk page. I looked this up in some of my typography manuals months ago, and found a 3-to-1 ratio in favor of the definitions I've been pushing here, including the most authoritative works. Also zero support for the cap-M and lowercase-n stuff.

3293:

In digital type, the dashes are physically font-specific, and there is nothing forcing the type designer to follow the standards. So some of them do not. That doesn't mean there isn't a standard, though. Almost all fonts from Adobe follow the traditional widths for the en dash and em dash.

451:

Can't say as I totally agree with that last bit about commas. A subordinate phrase set out with commas can be deleted without mangling the sentence. "Joe Blow, the famous poove, was seen in heavy traffic last week." You can take out "the famous poove" and all you are missing is a little

2206:

former, where hyphen are appropriate, and instead give the latter, where it is not, according to all authorities that I'm familiar with. I think they just messed up in the choice of examples. Do some more looking around before deciding if this point of view is anything but an outlier.

1566:

The text says that a math-mode command $ \sim$ should be used in LaTeX for the swung dash. However, the use of a math mode command for a text mode symbol because it 'looks right' is bad TeX. My immediate thought for the text-mode equivalent is \textasciitilde, but that's too short.

989:

Though we, and every serious written material, should make the correct usage of dashes I really don't think most people know that there are different types, let alone use them. Perhaps there should be a mention made that these rules are very formal and most people ignore them anyway?

401:

this is really strange -- I keep hitting an edit link for "Dash usage question", the last one on the page, twice now, and I get the "== The phone number ==" section, not the section I am trying to mess with. By any chance is the excess spacing between the equals causing trouble?

3561:

Yes, I agree: that would be worth mentioning. Why don't you add it? The first place to start is to look for any sources that discuss this, and base your contribution on these sources. If anyone is aware of such sources, please suggest them here (or contribute to the article).

4476:

I hope that someone can clearly separate the page into typographic properties of the dash, and semantic issues surround what its usage *means*. I don't know how much this is done for other punctuation pages, but it greatly aids the reader who is looking for one or the other..

3644:

I have little typesetting knowledge; I apologize in advance if these questions are stupid. From the article: "The figure dash (‒) is so named because it is the same width as a digit, at least in typefaces with digits of equal width (fixed width fonts)." My questions are:

2610:

I can sympathise. I tend to use em dashes myself, partly because I have grandiose Victorian-style pretensions;). And you're quite right that the font makes a difference. If you can find some good sources on this, I agree that it would be a good addition to the article.

4104:

Yeah, that section seemed mostly redundant, but I had not gotten around to preening it. Is the last paragraph in it (about spaces around en dashes) covered elsewhere? It's a minor point that's probably self-evident from all the examples, but it might be worth retaining.

4927:

save if possible. I mean you had like 5 pages, if not more, of just you repeatedly changing the same setting, over and over again. In total you did 21 edits in less than an hour of time, the great majority of them minor, if not all, which is unacceptable in any case.

1757:

The "Summary" section has a prescriptive tone - which is undesirable and at odds with the rest of the article - and is directed at the reader. It would be easy to change it to the passive voice, eg "... the figure dash is used", but I'm not sure this is best either.

2436:

Yes, you have removed the unsubstantiated "some argue" claim and replaced it with plain facts; good job. However, don't try to invoke that argument that just because a flaw with respect to policy is widespread we should not hold any particular case up the policy.

1739:

Yeah, I missed that, but there's no citation given. Who says colons are "more correct"? Dashes (as in, space + hyphen + space) seem to be extremely common, especially in 'External links' sections of Knowledge articles. I doubt colons would go over too well there.

890:

classic and hack fonts since then, I thought this was typical, and the "half" thing always appeared to be just objetively wrong. It does appear in old typography books, I know, but seems to have been used or not by type designers over the years as they saw fit.

3250:

I was wondering why we claimed the en dash is half the width of the em dash, so I did a book search, and sure enough there are quite a few books that say so; on the other hand, it is demonstrably incorrect in most modern fonts and books. What's going on here?

777:

point, the em dash is 12 points long; if your type is 36 points, the em dash is 36 points long. The en dash (the "nut") is half the width of the em dash." An "N" is usually half as wide and an "M", so an en dash is often the the width of an "N", hence the name.

2514:

Writer and have difficulty in producing em dashes (maybe just temporary ignorance); the PC keyboard combination Alt-0515 seems to produce something that looks like it, though too similar to an en dash. Some word processors do have a key combination for it.

5254:

The quoted paragraph as written at PracticalTypography.com is misleading because it is too oversimplified, to the point of misstatement. They were trying so hard to explain to a total-novice reader that they created a misapprehension that the one has

3582:

it hardly seems a novel usage given the substitution of punctuation (mixed, a series of asterisks, etc.) for profanity in modern text. Mister Dash also doesn't seem very notable, but perhaps that's just because it's intuitive? Mr. X, Mr. —, Mr. ___

2726:

The usage of the em-dash is different in different countries. In Poland we have many long dashes and they have spaces around. Some kind of long dashes, whether em-dashes or another kind of simmilar length, is also used to separate dialogs in prose:

2485:, hugely outnumbering appeals to all other authorities. The article is therefore biased against other established practice, especially practice outside of America. I may well apply a marker disputing its neutrality, for that reason. Please respect 5019:"Either version may be used to denote a break in a sentence or to set off parenthetical statements, although writers are generally cautioned to use a single form consistently within their work. In this function, en dashes are used with spaces and 3139:

The separator character is, in all cases I've seen, an ASCII "hyphen-minus", which has ambiguous semantics. I don't think there's any agreement on what sort of dash this should be considered (it's obviously not a true hyphen or a minus sign). —

3379:

In Victorian novels, a long dash is sometimes used in the same way an asterisk can be, to hide part of a taboo word, for instance 'D——' instead of 'Damn'. Also, in dates in such novels, it often says 18—— instead of, say, 1848. Why is that?

4993:) I keep forgetting that you use dashes by the bucketful in English, (so I write -- as we would in French, -- the India-Pakistan War, the employer-employee meeting, the North-South Dialogue, the 1939-1945 War, pp. 14-16, etc., etc., etc.); 1480:

both should be correct, the unicode template just forces certain fonts on IE to increase the chance that it manages to render something but thats not nessacery for dashes. Any differences you see are just font differences (just like a and

905:

there. I will also point out that the Typophile wiki—edited almost exclusively by typographers rather than lay people or whoever feels like it—defines the en dash as "A horizontal line character one en in width—-half of an em space. " (

759:"em: A measurement of linear space used by typographers in which the unit is as wide and as high as the point size being set; twice the width of an en. So named because the letter "m" in early fonts was usually cast on a square body." 335:

I'm trying to figure out the reason they got mixed up, I think U+2012 was for some reason confused with U+2212. Both are used only with numbers, and of course 2012 looks like 2212. They are now properly distinguished in the article.

4869:

The previous version of the page had the punctuation mark sidebar moved halfway down the page to accommodate an exhaustive table of programming conventions for creating various dashes. I got everything to fit by breaking up all the

3210:

I haven't managed to get the Ctrl–Numberic Hyphen or Ctrl–Alt–Numeric Hyphen to work on Windows Vista. I have to access the numpad via a function key on my laptop keyboard, so maybe that messes with it. But is anyone sure it works?

2339:

What confusion, in the section in question? For sentence-level punctuation, some publishers prefer em dashes (spaced or not), and some prefer spaced en dashes. And they have their various reasons. The words you struck out were not

3157:

While the character you see is always the woefully ambiguous "hyphen-minus", the meaning is a dash which would mean either an em-dash or a spaced en-dash. That is, either “The Beatles — Yesterday” or “The Beatles – Yesterday”.

3282:

does the same thing as your suggested edit. There are several other typography texts which I whose current editions I had input into before publication, and I'm pretty sure they all have the "half the width of the em dash"

1494:

Not really. The Comic Sans MS font is invalid because it's against Knowledge policy (unless there is some special reason to use it). I find the different dash renderings confusing because they can look like other dashes...

1577:

As a grammar junkie, I completely agree with the desire to mark what is correct as opposed to what looks right. Computer systems and programs will eventually catch up with correct usage. It behooves us to use the glyphs

2000:

Looking at the following two lines, the first clearly is using dashes, while the second clearly has hyphens. Yet if you click on "edit this article", they look exactly the same in the edit box. What's going on here?

2392:

em dash risks introducing excessive separation of words: it is already long, and the spaces increase the separation. In full justification, the adjacent spaces may be stretched, and the separation of words is further

2675:

For example in any sport, where two teams have the same amount of points in the standings, the use a dash (I'm not sure which) for the second one in place of a position number, which dash would be used in that case?

2459:

all be in trouble. Knowledge could not function as it does with either a too strict or a too lax attitude to "official" policies, which are themselves often made up on the run by editors pushing agendas of their own.

479:

was in the mall today." In the dash or parenthesis case, the marked-off section is not part of the sentence but is added in, while in the comma case the marked-off section is a part (if not an essential part) of it.

2594:) is longer than the en dash. Font differences need to be explicitly pointed out in this article--and why not everyone agrees to the use of specific dashes (en, em, figure, whatever!) related to font differences. ∞ 2194: 2760:

When it comes to aesthetics -- most people probably prefer what they are used to. It is simmilar to source code indentation wars, however, when already consistently used, some styles may be supreme to others.

221:

Unless you're using a typewriter, in which case the double hyphen is the recommended way to make a dash (for em-dash usages, that is, and use just hyphen for en dash in that case). That's why I valued the book

4988:

Oh boy! It just dawned on me this morning that I have never typed a single dash (of whatever sort) during the one year I have (now and then) been making edits on the English-language wiki. The reason being:

4574:

column is highly specific to a niche of hardware|software users and subject to change with future hardware|software revisions. It's a lovely table, but maybe we should just narrow it to the first 5 columns?

4258:

The Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) recommends that the word to be used instead of an en dash when a number range might be misconstrued as subtraction, such as a range of units.

3294:

Microsoft's core fonts have widths based on Adobe's fonts, and do the same. Most, but not all, other fonts bundled by Microsoft follow the traditional widths. Ditto most decent quality typefaces in general.

4427:

pre-situation with the colors and no tablestructure. I developed the table in a sandbox, steps are now irrelevant. Which parentheses did I remove (apart from the CSSes I removed of course)? There is still

3476:

Darth Vader spoke this line, he did not write it. Most users of this article would be interested in how to use the different dashes when writing, so a written example of an em dash should be used instead.

126:

The en dash is a single line. I've never heard this question before, so I'm doubting that it is a general problem. It may be particular to the font or browser you're using, or perhaps the combination....

4810:

It's not only wrong, it's in complete violation of Wiki's own style practices. I'll remove the (bad) source and fix the text but, if it gets restored, could other editors kindly ensure that the lede does

3288:

As for what's going on, originally in metal type, the dashes were not part of a specific typeface, but were font-independent. The em dash was the width of the type size, and the en dash was half that.

223: 3124:

Many popular media players use the “⟨Artist⟩ - ⟨Song⟩” format, as in “The Beatles - Yesterday”. Does anybody know who invented that and whether there is any agreement as to the separator character?

2166:

I was not aware this was proper usage of the en dash. As I understand it, in all five of those cases, the hyphen is appropriate. This usage should be verified and cited (if it is indeed proper).—

1076:

is always preferable. In such a case, one would also write 'per cent' rather than using a percentage sign; and 'watt' in full rather than in abbreviation.—Zoe Ocean 11:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

957:

the bottom of the palette will then tell you what Unicode character you're looking at (e.g. "horizontal bar" or "em dash"), and for all of the examples in the article it reports the correct one.

383:

movie. Most phone companies world-wide refuse to give out the number, because for the past few decades since the song appeared on air it's being called many times daily. It has been covered by

4214:

Thanks guys. Hyphenation sucks in xsltproc and fop (DocBook in general?). They have managed to take a simple concept and make it unduly complex. Jeffrey Walton 06:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

2176:

In other words, we should add a ref so that the many people who would ordinarily use a hyphen in such cases will learn the error of their ways. Just about any book on writing will do.

4689:

You're in the wrong place: This talkpage is for discussions of how to improve the article on dashes, not to improve or get clarifications on Knowledge policy. I think you probably want

598:

Which dash should be used in this case? Seems like an em dash is called for (or you could replace the dash with a simple comma), but no fitting example is given in the Dash article. --

5265:

relationship (a fuzzy historical one) between the letters M and N and the measurement units of em and en (and their names). The relationship is touched on in the linked WP section (

3733:

I replaced it with "while other consider". If Garner's "Modern Usage" is any similar to the Garner "Legal usage", then the book does not say anything like "most people use dash". --

2998:

I think that's actually a hyphen. It shows a point of connection (in this case, a covalent bond to some other part of the molecule), much like referring to a preix (like "un-"). —

4997:) in the rare instances I suspect there should be a dash, I give up -- as I never remember how to type one. Hyphens are so user-friendly! (I'll try to amend myself from now on.)-- 633:

The em dash (—) is defined as one em in width: the width of the capital M in any particular font. By definition the em dash is twice as wide as the en dash in any particular font.

1616:

I'm not familiar with this use of en dashes. It would be nice to have a reference for further reading. (What I have read recommends not using hyphens in compound adjectives.)

3266:

You and I started having an edit war on this point. You're right, there are quite a few books that have it my way, as half the em dash. From my bookshelf, notably: Bringhurst's

2963:

I wonder whether it is common in English to use a dash in the case of a non-parenthetical apposition or relative clause – which would call for an example in the article then. --

4382:

s, although… yeah, you selectively removed inverted parentheses around U+002D too. Please, re-check recent article history, read my postings again and only then post a reply.

3859:

by an IP editor without explanation. I'm going to go ahead and remove it. If there were to be a second character there, it would make much more sense for it to be an em dash.

2893:) in that sentence? My understanding is that semicolons indicate a separation of line of thought; colons indicate an expansion: consequence, description, clarification, etc. 4737:

I think it would be nice to add some type of pronunciation note at the point these two items are introduced in the introductory paragraph. If not there, then where? Thoughts?

2146:

According to the article, the en dash can be used as “a connection between two things of almost any kind….” It then goes on to list some examples that fit this definition:

1844:

I just passed on this article and was offended by that fact, so : I totally agree. For Christ's Sake, please don't use the text itself as an example of the symbols... that

1375:

is a diacritic, indicating missing letters, nasalisation etc, but computer people do use it to refer to a character used on its own at letter height, which I'd rather call

3962:

has interesting comparison of English and Russian punctuation use (from corpora), but they don't distinguish between hyphen and en dash, but only between those and dash.

974:

Safari uses a system-wide “fallback” mechanism, available to any program, in which it selects a glyph from another font if one isn't available in the requested font. —

608:

ed. 15, 6.88, "An em dash or a pair of em dashes sets off an amplifying or explanatory element." This seems to be described in the article as a parenthetical phrase. -

689:

section. However I can't edit the page because it's Move-protected and I'm not sure how to get permission to make the change (I'm a newbie to editing Knowledge pages).

2927:

I wish to suggest that we add a Cleanup request on the Dash page. The entire page seems very unorganized, and many parts can be joined together. What do you think?

2264:

McCain and Feingold. Using a hyphen suggests that Mr. or Mrs. McCain-Feingold proposed the bill. It is obvious in compounds such as 'the Kingston-Smith–Wang law'.

2402:

out, among all of Knowledge's assertions, and among the assertions in this article, as in special need of an attribution? Would you like me to go through removing

1946:, a hyphen would be used, by the criteria in the article itself; but if the entity is as much a hyphen as it is a minus, so that it could equally have been called 3897:, but with no doubt a repetition of what was already said in the previous section. That's why I propose that one of them be removed or (severely) cut down. -andy 3978: 3602:

Since dashes are a common way to create horizontal lines in ASCII/plain text (as with the hyphen and underscore), shouldn't that be mentioned in the article? --

2784:

important to expand such emphasis with respect to other languages (like Polish and German). In other words, if you know differently, please add to the article.

4141:

When describing compiler and linker switches, which dash should be used? For example, GCC has -Wall, -Wextra, -fstack-protector , and -fstack-protector-all.

768:

So traditionally em was the width of an M, and in modern digitized fonts it is the point size of the font. Whether the en is half or N sized, I don't know. -

685:

I've found a citation concerning the widths of em and en dashes and propose it replace the which appears in the last sentence of the third paragraph of the

4362:

clarity by creating the table, before that the lines were undiscernable. It didn't occur to me this was a "consensus" list, edits to be discussed first. -

2708:

What's up with that? Why are you going through and replacing en dashes in date ranges with space hyphens? Is there a source for this abberant "standard"?

1906: 1274:

It isn't. However, in ASCII it shares the same glyph. The article details this historic error, and why 0x2D should not be used to represent a proper dash.

4923:

instead of — and –. The code I'm talking about is ALT+151 and ALT+150, whereas its supposed to be ALT+0151 and ALT+0150. I'm assuming it was an accident.

2112:

From the article, "They can also be used around parenthetical statements – such as this one – in place of the em dashes preferred by some publishers..."

624:

The en dash (–) is one en in width: the width of the capital N in any particular font. The en dash is by definition exactly half the width of an em dash.

2590:). Hence, using en dashes in this font is essentially useless since it looks only barely longer than a hyphen/minus sign (-). However, the figure dash ( 2115:

That, I daresay, is the most absolutely fucking brilliant thing I think I have ever read on Knowledge. My intense respect to whoever contributed that.

1325:

Other style guides I've checked seem to agree with that. Where then does this (wrong?) use of the em dash come from? Is it confusion with another dash?

4020:

this section. I intended to cut and paste it here, but with the Knowledge system below par today, this is quite difficult without surplus minus signs.

3330:

More recent sources say that the en and em dash lengths are not standard or related to letter widths (in all typefaces, although they may be in some):

511:

I think the dash is what it is. It isn't "more or less" like a comma or full stop. I think the article should describe the uses in their own right. --

2982:

Which dash style should be used in chemical formulas? This isn't listed here or on the chemical formula page. I have text with items such as "-COOH".

323:

The figure dash U+2012 (‒) is a dash with the exact width of a number, the minus sign U+2212 (−) is reserved for math operations. I'll try a rewrite.

1556:

It's not visible here either (shows as a ? in firefox for me). I suspect the machines we are using simply don't have any appropriate font installed.

4933:

Another thing to note, please write summaries for you edits in the future, and don't forget to check the minor edit box when you do smaller edits.

4303:), and the knowledge about exact appearance of such characters may be useful to spot mistakes. In any case, it is easier to discuss something and 3687:

Not only do they exist, but they are the norm. Most proportional fonts still have fixed-width numbers (also called "tabular figures" in the biz).

524:

How formal is the passage in question? Dashes are usually considered less formal, and the semicolon may be the stuffiest punctuation of them all.

2804:

Something I'd like to see in the article is info about what kind of dashes are appropriate for sports scores and win-loss records. For example,

4930:

This makes it pretty difficult to go through the edit history as I did due to the fault, to find the specific edit in question that caused it.

960:

By the way, this is also true for all of the spaces listed in the spaces article except for the Ogham space and the medium mathematical space.

191:

Although "ugly" is POV, it is a simple fact of typography that the double-hyphen is considered an improper and poor substitute for an em dash.

5165: 3715: 3191: 3064: 4402:

s, although… yeah, you removed parentheses too. Please, re-check recent article history, read my postings again and only then post a reply.

2898:

Alone among punctuation that marks pauses or logical relations in text, the unspaced em dash disables for the words between which it falls.

734:"An “em” is a unit of measurement defined as the point size of the font—12 point type uses a 12 point “em.” An “en” is one-half of an “em.”" 655:

I would assume the "M" and "N" definitions, since they are the "em" and "en" dashes. I have only seen the double width definition on WP. -

5034: 4593:

Yes, I agree, it is a lovely table and the page appears to be much easier on the eye since your revision last night. Thank you, John. --

3841: 3125: 2648:

Maybe so, but this isn't a guideline/policy page. This is an encyclopaedic article about dashes. The relevant guideline/policy pages are

1875: 1300:

Discussion of choice of glyph to use for each meaning (e.g., semantic dash can be “—” or “ – ” or when those aren't available “ -- ”, etc.)

426:

I guess these questions are directed as regards British usage – or more particularly, Hiberno–english practice – seeing as I'm in Ireland!

4649:

True, because they're talking about unrelated uses. I've tried to make this clear, including taking out a highly misleading section head.

3537:

It was also used in other ways, such as a character in H.G.Wells who was not given a name and was referenced once in the text as "Mr. —".

437:

should be able to drop the part enclosed with em dashes or parentheses without breaking the sentence, but you cannot do that with commas.

5049:

Indeed, it's probably not the best ref for this info, but it does sort of support the point of unspaced em dash, and also the exception:

4484: 3783: 3381: 2768: 1010: 754:"em dash - One em wide, the em dash indicates missing material or a break in thought. Spaces may be added to both sides of the em dash." 525: 1702:

Dashes are very commonly used in lists to separate a term from its definition (or similarly related pieces of information), like this:

1297:

Discussion of the many meanings dash-like glyphs fill (compound adjectives, number ranges, semantic dash, subtraction, quotation, etc.)

4074:

avoided making any observations about "is used" or "should be used". Go ahead and improve it if I didn't go far enough, or too far.

3495:

I'm removing the bit about figure dashes in phone numbers from the section on figure dashes. As was determined during a discussion at

3456: 2653: 1092: 743:"em - A unit of relative measurement originally derived from the width of the letter M. Fonts are scaled so that 1 em = point size." 3898: 594:

describes the evolution of word usage - usually to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage.

3840:

Why is there an underscore at the top of the punctuation navbox? An underscore is not a dash, but merely a "dash-like character".

5055:

the official name of this punctuation mark, the em-dash. (Some publications, including this newspaper, add spaces around dashes.)

1321:"Em dashes are sometimes used in lists of definitions, but this is not considered correct usage: a colon should be used instead." 5277:

on this subject), makes clear that it exists (pp. 498, 501–502, 539). I agree that Knowledge should explain it better. Not even

5061: 4432:

in the column. Must say, I do not quite see what you are pointing at. Is there elsewhere an illustration of what you'd prefer? -

2742:

When using em-dashes for dialogs, one can not embed a pause into the characters words, but instead an ellipsis could be placed:

1305:

This approach would isolate the grammar, style, and typography debates and allow the reader to understand each aspect in turn. —

4972: 4780: 4598: 4568:

edit -- After looking at the "Common Dashes" table, I think the rightmost 5 columns are of slim value. Everything right of the

4540: 4283: 3551: 3499:, phone numbers actually use the standard keyboard hyphen, not a figure dash. Therefore the current bit is factually incorrect. 423:

When does one use the comma, and when does one use a dash (and of what type)? In fact, where are parenthesis more appropriate?

3690:

You are correct that the parenthetical use of the phrase "fixed width fonts" is inappropriate in that context. I'll go fix it.

1601:

The en dash can also be used as a hyphen in compound adjectives in which one part consists of two words or a hyphenated word:

1552:

On the public computer that I am using, the swung dash is not correctly depicted. It appears as a skinny vertical rectangle.

724:"It is, in fact, the width of a typesetter's letter "N," whereas the em dash is the width of the letter "M"—thus their names." 5109: 4230: 4157: 3769: 3714:

The figure-dash section needs an example of usage. The meaning of "when a dash must be used within numbers" is not obvious.

1819:

Of course 'in between' is two words, not one, so that hyphen doesn't belong (although the question itself is still valid).

4752:

They're just pronounced "em" and "en", which can be found in any dict. Is this really s.t. that needs to be spelled out? —

4940: 4244:

There seems to be something missing from this sentence which is in the section of our article titled "Ranges of Values".

1408:

The em-dash—which is the widest dash in common usage—can be used to set off parenthetical remarks (at least in English). —

4690: 3089:"...Chinese character which means one in both Chinese and Japanese." I suggest renaming the first "Chinese" to "Hanzi". 2345: 2335:

given the confusion, let's just omit the weasel words; if there's a source for who thinks what about this, we can add it

1288:

as much as this article is about all dash-shaped glyphs. I think this article would be more clear if it went like this:

2260:

Agree that compounds like "The McCain–Feingold bill" should have en-dash, to show that the Bill relates to two people,

159:. However, if you can find a relevant citation (for example, a well-known style manual), you can attribute it to that. 3518:

There does not seem to be any coverage of the dash in 19th-century literature. It was often used to mask profanities:

2482: 2073:

Derek (Better late than never). In some languages, e.g., French and Hungarian, conversations are often rendered thus:

2050:

Knowledge uses a fixed pitch font in the edit box, presumablly because it makes stuff like table code easier to read.

147:

I feel very strongly that the article should mention that a double-hyphen--when used as a dash--tends to look ugly. —

5140:"The most common versions of the dash are the en dash (–) and the em dash (—), named for the length of a typeface's 5151:

Then later in the article: "The widths of en and em dashes have also been specified as being equal to those of the

4966: 4853:

people who use em dashes with spaces around them — hell, I'm one of them — but I do know I'm a minority opinion. —

4774: 4594: 4536: 4279: 38: 274:

In my font at least, they are not the same height or width, and only the minus sign corresponds to the plus sign.

5294: 5169: 4499:

The problem is that several dash characters exist which are different both in intended semantics and appearance.

3360:

no longer appears to make words appear in italics in the main article. This has been the case for a few months.

2649: 2530:"entendamo-nos" is expected to be hyphenated on a line break to "entendamo- -nos" not "entendamo- nos" 2309: 4746: 4088:

Well, it is a falsehood (what implies F is itself F) - which is why I said so; the present text is much better.

2944:

Cleanup notices tend to just sit on the article gathering dust. It's usually best to do the cleanup yourself. —

4951: 4936: 3934: 3864: 3719: 3621:

Michael Quinion's World Wide Words has an article on three dash-hybrids; the commash, semi-commash, and colash

3365: 3195: 5244: 5187: 5038: 3886:

New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (because of the narrow width of newspaper columns), sets it open ...

3845: 3129: 4892:) We could simply remove the "Compose key"; "vim digraph"; & "Microsoft Word key combination" entries; or 3818:

in text. Let's check back in another six months or a year and see if common browser viewing fonts have them.

3578:

Do you have any evidence for "dash it?" It sounds like a simple substitution of a similar word. Without such,

2772: 1014: 529: 4488: 3787: 3656:

Do there even exist fonts where the letters and symbols are variable-width, but the numbers are fixed-width?

3460: 3385: 3163: 3022: 1773: 1647:

I've also seen and used this. It's equivalent to the semicolon replacing the comma in long clauses. — DIV (

1634: 605: 5117: 4276:

I have just "tweaked" that section a little. Does that help to make clearer understanding of the sentence?

3902: 404:

This unsigned msg is older than 22:35, 8 May 2005; most editors will not want to waste their time on it. --

4770:: I can hardly believe that I am reading this here. Tell us what is your natural language is, please! – 4718: 4679: 4580: 4556: 4169:

Programs always use hyphen, not dash, for flags. If you use a monospaced font they'll look more normal.

3305:

the standard, is fairly common for fonts which are noticeably condensed or extended." How does that sound?

2987: 2838: 2293: 2271: 1648: 1537: 1088: 1050: 182:

I also think that a double-hyphen--looks better than using - or something else to represent an em dash. //

156: 5240: 5183: 4757: 4504: 4407: 4387: 4345: 4312: 3738: 3235: 3094: 2524: 2118: 1342: 2983: 1084: 395: 340: 327: 5113: 2376:

attributions, or would be bloodless and uninformative affairs indeed. There is a balance to be struck.

5290: 5161: 5030: 4904: 4854: 4794: 4742: 4654: 4650: 4480: 4266: 4249: 4218: 4204: 4145: 4124: 4093: 4058: 3757: 3452: 3391: 3216: 3187: 2789: 2764: 2305: 2123: 2067: 1800: 1663: 1586: 1330: 1279: 1267: 1080: 975: 646: 98: 2196:. I'm going to rewrite the section to clarify the difference of opinion, and cite these resources.— 2177: 1772:

What sources support using an em dash in open ranges? For open ranges that are years specifically,

1409: 670:

exactly half the width of an em dash."? Presumably this is only true in proporionally spaced faces.

112: 80: 5002: 4880:

templates being used, but if the final result isn't satisfactory to other editors, the solution is

4340:

I do not insist on these colors indeed, but you just removed it without offering any compensation.

3860: 3630: 3547: 3504: 3361: 2901: 2868: 2856: 2685: 2507: 1500: 1471: 1462:

The corollary of this is that whenever you want to make an en- or em-dash in Knowledge, you should

1414: 1107:

applicability of the material to all web pages, we could do with a lot more information on dashes.

380: 116: 84: 66: 2327:

Some argue that the unspaced em dash risks introducing exaggerated spacing, in full justification.

2244: 2041: 2010: 1951: 1326: 1275: 701: 392: 337: 324: 5073: 4874: 4639: 4418: 4226: 4174: 4153: 4110: 4079: 3998: 3967: 3950: 3938: 3918: 3823: 3801: 3765: 3699: 3588: 3496: 3481: 3338: 3320: 3256: 3159: 3072: 3034: 3018: 2968: 2934: 2132: 2094: 2029: 1914: 1891: 1820: 1673: 1638: 1568: 1527: 1459:. I assume the unicode template is correct - so the article should at least use it consistently. 1306: 1058: 929: 914: 895: 860: 829: 802: 516: 231: 196: 132: 1294:

Discussion of the many dash characters (hyphen, en, em, minus, figure, three-to-em, swung, etc.)

3800: 2634: 2595: 4714: 4694: 4675: 4576: 4552: 4034:

Insofar as it is not, it repeats information from other sections, including the same examples.

2831: 2827: 2493: 2466: 2420: 2380: 1448: 1046: 705: 568: 481: 438: 5273:, third edition, one of the blue-chip references in typography (and thus one of the R-est of 4683: 3331: 467:

It's over-simplified, not meant to be fully correct. To give an example of my own: "John Doe

5136:

Image illustrating the different hyphens, en-dashes and em-dashes could be more illustrative

5094: 4753: 4500: 4451: 4437: 4403: 4383: 4367: 4341: 4327: 4308: 3734: 3659:

If the answer to #2 is "yes", then is there a better term for these than "fixed-width font"?

3440: 3231: 3145: 3090: 3021:. I'm not debating the merit of it, however the statement as it is currently written is not 3003: 2949: 2811: 2807: 2227:

To say nothing of the oddity of "simple compound word", eh Dicklyon? When I went to school,

2098: 1444: 167: 4899:) We could move this table down to the bottom of the page under the programming subsection. 155:"Ugly" is POV. Even saying "some people consider it ugly" would be POV thinly disguised by 5266: 4767: 4738: 4702: 4262: 4245: 4196: 4120: 4089: 4054: 3670: 3607: 3567: 3417: 3212: 3109: 3050: 2785: 2578: 1582: 1388: 1263: 991: 778: 671: 638: 409: 95: 5219: 1797:

So what dash do you use if a word doesn't fit on a line, and is cut in half by a dash in-

1610:

high-priority–high-pressure tasks (tasks which are both high-priority and high-pressure).

4529:

or someone else with the formatting knowledge please improve this article's appearance!

3180:

Hey the paget is currently blocked, however could someone add the latex formatting from

1511:

character from the availible fonts and should only be done where its actually required)

4998: 4358:

enclusures? The description column is there, and other descriptive elements. I think I

3986: 3753:

right). So I reverted my last edit and added a note on correct visual representation.

3626: 3622: 3541: 3540:

While such usages are obsolete today, it may be useful to mention it in the article. --

3500: 3432:

Confused* Why are there multiple kinds of dash at all? It just seems so unneccessary...

2913: 2678: 2511: 2510:, the em dash must be enclosed with spaces, unless followed by a comma. I am now using 2020: 1879: 1779:

rule 5.115 requires an en dash. I can't find any comment on other types of numbers in

1727: 1496: 1467: 1361: 1068: 1038: 790: 769: 656: 376: 351: 316: 5197:

Em and en refer to units of typographic measurement, not to the letters M and N.

5006: 2289:"New York – London". There is a risk that this is confused with the em-dash, though.) 5104:

There is currently a discussion and !vote in the Manual of Style regarding en dashes.

5069: 4635: 4222: 4170: 4149: 4106: 4075: 4028: 3992: 3963: 3946: 3914: 3819: 3761: 3695: 3584: 3477: 3334: 3316: 3252: 3068: 3030: 2964: 2930: 2757:

Because there is no narration -- a drama is simply a long dialog with some comments.

2709: 2535: 2438: 2359: 2207: 2181: 2051: 1986: 1966: 1810: 1557: 1512: 1486: 1108: 925: 910: 891: 856: 825: 798: 693: 609: 571: 560: 512: 502: 484: 453: 441: 368: 227: 192: 128: 2398:

What could be clearer? How and why would anyone dispute it? Why would anyone single

697: 5286: 5274: 4526: 4184: 3184:? basically it says that hyphen = - en dash = -- em dash = --- minus = $ -$ *** 2699: 2560: 2341: 2197: 2167: 1962: 727:"em dash (which is the same width as the letter "M," — ) and the en dash (which is 696:

titled "En Dashes and Em Dashes" I would cite which is from the tip archive at the

545: 384: 174: 5281:

explains it well enough; for example, it uses the phrase "the square of" in a non

2481:

Anomalocaris, you have now seen to it that the article has a dozen references to

1629: 637:

In a face where the "N" is not half the width of the "M", which definition wins?

5282: 5090: 4790: 4447: 4433: 4363: 4323: 3960: 3436: 3141: 2999: 2945: 2520: 2282:

Imagine a New York-London flight: it sounds as if it links New and York-London!

1910: 1617: 1159: 1129: 1000: 388: 372: 163: 160: 148: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1631: 5231:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Em_(typography)#Incorrect_and_alternative_definitions

4698: 4192: 3985:

chapter on punctuation (but with a kludgy character encoding) can be found at

3942: 3665: 3603: 3563: 3413: 3105: 3046: 2657: 2612: 2409:

Time would be better spent on conscientiously fixing the article's structure.

1985:

yes, I agree, that one is lame example. We should find a more plausible one.

1784: 1380: 429: 405: 2379:

As the sentence now stands, its content is scarcely disputable at all, since

3941:

studies on how closely those are followed? The perennial edit wars over our

2909: 2885: 2864: 2625: 2353:

em dash. I'll now restore it to say what it originally said, and expand it.

1759: 1427: 599: 183: 47: 17: 5289:(which is not accurate). Still, it makes clear that a relationship exists. 5155:

respectively, and at other times to the widths of the lower-case letters."

4300: 4119:

If you think so; looks like part of the self-help typesetting guide to me.

1905:

These examples look good. There should be better example text, but neither

999:

hyphens, partly because I have a Mac and it’s easy (shift-option-hyphen). —

3799:

but haven't been all the way through the ISO standard ratification yet. ⇔

2624:

Er, since when have references mattered on guideline/policy pages? Seems "

1627: 1466:

use the HTML entity, but instead the unicode template or a copy-paste...?

4884:

to break MOS guidelines by putting the sidebar in the wrong place again.

4446:

Right, so )( are missing in the first row. Why don't you just add them? -

3227: 2817: 1741: 1717: 1688: 1684: 1352:

Should the wave dash be listed as a dash? Thoughts and comments please.

789:

the size of an M, but in modern usage is the point size of the font". -

700:

website (whose authors' credentials appear authoritative enough). TIA. (

5298: 5248: 5191: 5173: 5122: 5098: 5077: 5042: 4977: 4944: 4909: 4859: 4799: 4784: 4761: 4722: 4706: 4658: 4643: 4602: 4584: 4560: 4544: 4508: 4492: 4455: 4441: 4411: 4391: 4371: 4349: 4331: 4316: 4287: 4270: 4253: 4207: 4188: 4178: 4161: 4128: 4114: 4097: 4083: 4062: 4005: 3971: 3954: 3922: 3906: 3868: 3849: 3827: 3805: 3791: 3773: 3742: 3723: 3703: 3676: 3634: 3611: 3592: 3571: 3555: 3508: 3485: 3464: 3444: 3421: 3395: 3369: 3342: 3324: 3260: 3239: 3220: 3199: 3167: 3148: 3133: 3113: 3098: 3076: 3054: 3038: 3006: 2991: 2972: 2952: 2938: 2917: 2860: 2842: 2820: 2793: 2776: 2712: 2702: 2688: 2660: 2643: 2629: 2615: 2604: 2538: 2496: 2469: 2441: 2423: 2362: 2313: 2296: 2274: 2247: 2210: 2200: 2184: 2170: 2135: 2102: 2070: 2054: 2044: 2032: 2023: 2013: 1989: 1969: 1954: 1938:(with a hyphen, not an en dash). There are arguments for each form: if 1917: 1894: 1882: 1823: 1813: 1803: 1787: 1762: 1744: 1730: 1720: 1691: 1676: 1666: 1651: 1641: 1620: 1590: 1571: 1560: 1540: 1530: 1515: 1503: 1489: 1474: 1430: 1421: 1391: 1309: 1154: 1061: 1018: 1003: 978: 933: 918: 899: 864: 833: 806: 709: 649: 533: 519: 505: 412: 235: 200: 186: 177: 136: 120: 103: 88: 1913:

have dashes in them. Is there any canonical example text with dashes?

1726:

Doesn't it say em dashes are sometimes used, but colons are better? —

1526:

This page needs to mention the use of long dashes in bibliographies. ―

3888:. Now let's look in the following section, "En dash versus Em dash": 1133: 3913:

issues as well (aren't prefixed adjectivals attributive compounds?)

2863:

is used: it can show an abrupt change in thought or be used where a

1341:

Thank you so much for these articles and the judicious redirects. —

2506:

In some compositional styles farther from Chicago :-) , such as in

1930:

In editing the subsection on the en dash I found one occurrence of

1067:

Or is it simply an example in which "to" should be used instead? -

99: 5230: 5179: 4400:

the table"? By (removed) colors I mean only <font color="": -->

4380:

the table"? By (removed) colors I mean only <font color="": -->

2875: 2826:

That should be endash (–) not a hyphen (-) and that is covered at

1384: 1357: 1174: 1149: 906: 3025:

since it is a prescription. It is not an encyclopedia's place to

1662:

Which dash (if any) is to be used in a date, e.g., 2006-02-23? —

2486: 2019:

Your browser's font must not have different symbols for each. —

686: 452:

disambiguation. But that's not what I came here to talk about.

4522:

There are several forms of dash, of which the most common are:

4520:

All that white space below the opening words following the TOC:

3449:

Because they're all out of their minds bro. And you love it.

3352:

I'm seeing a formatting problem, not just here but elsewhere.

2285:(Some authorities recommend spacing the en-dash in this case, 1716:

My question is, which dashes are appropriate for such lists? —

25: 5285:

way, falsely implying that an em would be (solely) a unit of

4354:

What did you have in mind? A bigger font maybe? Removing the

4307:

remove, than to restore something removed without consensus.

3534:

giving rise to the common euphemism "dash it" for "damn it".

3181: 2040:

So why is the edit page font different from the regular font?

1876:

Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_self-references#Self-referential_content

4532:

Perhaps the first table could be moved lower down the page.

3891:

Chicago Manual of Style still recommend unspaced em dashes.

3104:

Unicode consortium refers to them as Han characters, IIRC. —

2736:

In German books I read there were single quotes and commas:

2553: 1637:

rule 5.117 on page 188. I suppose a citation is in order. —

350:

Thanks. I also posted on the manual of style talk page. -

4833:) Wrongly suggest that it is standard practice to use the 4733:

How to pronounce 'en' and 'em' in 'en dash' and 'em dash'.

3598:

Dash as way to create horizontal lines in ASCII/plain text

548:

is this phrase "that century which lasted from 1501-1600"

3311:

of improvements being made from concensus-based editing.)

4918:

User LlywelynII doing faulty edits and redundant changes

3013:"the important thing is that usage should be consistent" 2814:

9-8 to finish the regular season with a record of 90-73.

1976:

If the tasks are both high-priority and high-pressure...

94:

The en dash consists of one line. It looks like this: –

5158:

The image should show lowercase n,m and uppercase N M.

4789:"If not there, then where?" I think you're looking for 4424: 4336: 4069:

Agreed, though your edit summary calling the section a

4017: 3856: 3408:

often demarcates a parenthetical thought—like this one—

2549: 1712:

Knowledge - a major contributor to no work getting done

5220:

http://practicaltypography.com/hyphens-and-dashes.html

5110:

Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Proposed_change_.282.29

4732: 4631:"...The en dash—always with spaces in running text..." 4623:"En dashes normally do not have spaces around them..." 3017:

I removed this phrase because it is not encyclopedic.

2555:'The Elements of Typographic Style' Applied to the Web 1848:! It's a shame on the objectivity of Knowledge. --EepP 5267:

Em_(typography)#Incorrect_and_alternative_definitions

1672:

I've never heard it mentioned. I just use a hyphen. —

1485:

are both perfectly valid renderings of the letter a)

1443:

The initial definitions of en- and em-dashes use the

3987:

http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nunberg/CGE.html

3063:

I agree, too, but it would be OK to attribute it to

2193:

Here's a source that corroborates my understanding:

2093:These are considered quotations from the speakers. 746:"em dash - By definition, a dash the width of an em" 475:

was in the mall today.", and compare with "John Doe

3937:style guide is not much trouble. But are there any 2489:. I'll try to find time to restore some balance. – 2159:

The Supreme Court voted 5–4 to uphold the decision.

2126:

comment was added at 07:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

1045:

I would go with the first of each pair. HTH HAND --

4525:I would not know where to begin, but would either 4322:Could you give a diff for the undesired removal? - 2131:It's an ugly sentence. What would make it better? 964:which most of the time is probably Lucida Grande. 5060:but we should add a more explicit source. Maybe 4195:, but regardless, only the hyphen-minus works. -- 2733:-- I am -- he said with some hesitation -- fine. 692:If someone else knows how to do this, here's the 5180:https://en.wikipedia.org/Em_(typography)#History 1981:adjectives "high-priority" and "high-pressure". 1890:Good point. This should definitely get changed. 731:half the width, the same as the letter "N," – )" 5259:to the other, which is false. There is in fact 5108:Interested parties are invited to participate: 5052: 1965:article, I won't complain, but somebody might. 3653:(numbers, letters, symbols) is the same width? 3649:Doesn't the term "fixed width font" mean that 2304:than the hyphen for this practice is correct. 1996:Why are they displayed the same in edit boxes? 471:was in the mall today.". Contrast to "John Doe 375:song of the same title originally recorded by 2028:That's the answer. They look different here. 1626:A quick Google search brought up some links: 75:Does the en dash consist of one or two lines? 8: 5182:has a good explanation with a good picture. 5016:I'm talking about this particular portion: 2698:Standard for years is 2001 - 03. 2001 ‐ 03. 1404:Can someone give an example of usage for —. 762:"em dash: A dash the width of an em space. " 2748:Em-dashes are acceptable in plays (drama): 2066:based on how the articles currently stand. 1907:The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog 1833:The examples could be — something like this 1633:. The last of these is kind enough to cite 1447:template, and look different (at least, in 1143: 4027:This is a how-to guide; one of the things 3356:nonsense of the sentence: that is, coding 4041:, with the rest of the article, is true; 3029:readers what "the important thing" is. – 1836:The examples could be—something like this 1132:mark, and is not to be confused with the 559:instead of a dash (of whatever variety). 4822:) Omit the very common use of en dash – 4713:Thanks!! Will check them out. H N Y -- 4611:Article is self-contradictory on spacing 3640:Width of my figure--Width of your figure 3514:Usage of dash in 19th-century literature 3182:http://en.wikibooks.org/LaTeX/Formatting 2628:" (consensorship) takes precedence! < 2564:font (which I use exclusively) en dash ( 2371:There was much that was confused in the 1141:The next thing to appear is this table: 5212: 4826:spaces around it – to set off text and 4472:Separation of Semantics and Typography 4023:In any case, I have three objections; 2855:The em dash is used in much the way a 2344:. (Look at that article's definition; 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 5012:Incorrect information in this article 4571:HTML/XML numeric character references 4137:Technical Document and Dash as a Flag 3945:suggest that's an interesting topic. 2319:Recent high-handed and biased editing 1709:B - the second letter of the alphabet 1119:The first line or the article reads: 824:em: - – — ; something is amiss here. 551:As I see it, if you are going to use 7: 4837:dash—which is nigh-universally used 3879:For instance, the section about the 2406:assertions that lack an attribution? 1706:A - the first letter of the alphabet 379:in 1966, which also appeared in the 5132:Deleted 18:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC) 4664: 4191:, it is sometimes depicted using a 3929:Descriptive accounts of dash usage? 2527:, AFAIK, never had.) For instance, 4187:. In fancy, typeset renderings of 3522:"Oh, damn it, I've lost my horse." 2867:(or "period") is too strong and a 2800:Sports scores and win-loss records 1262:So is it a hyphen, or isn't it? - 469:— you might remember him from TV — 24: 5084:Complex combinations of modifiers 4423:From the diff you gave, there is 3206:Dash Keyboard Shortcut in Windows 2671:What to use for rankings and such 2323:Dicklyon, you removed this text: 1415: 1316:em dashes in lists of definitions 1136:, which has quite different uses. 262:(−), but they are not the same. 4615:This article contradicts itself: 2730:-- How are you? -- I asked him. 2235:were as much polar opposites as 666:So should it be "The en dash is 477:(you might remember him from TV) 29: 5021:em dashes are used without them 4950:I endorse your comments above, 3530:"Oh, — it, I've lost my horse." 2754:To be -- or -- not to -- be... 907:http://typophile.com/node/40385 173:I myself think it looks better. 4659:18:28, 27 September 2012 (UTC) 4644:22:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC) 3491:Figure dashes in phone numbers 3486:19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC) 3019:Knowledge is not a style guide 2900:" Isn't that also true of the 2777:13:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC) 2413:is most muddled and confusing. 2267:The article should be changed! 2055:11:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 2045:06:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 2033:01:44, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 2024:00:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC) 2014:21:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC) 1824:19:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 1572:19:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC) 1379:(or "wave dash" if you like). 1062:18:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC) 1004:01:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC) 254:According to the article, the 1: 4723:21:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 4707:20:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 4684:19:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC) 3724:15:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC) 3445:13:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 3422:10:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 3272:Complete Manual of Typography 3268:Elements of Typographic Style 3221:04:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 3200:02:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) 2939:23:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC) 2794:04:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 2185:18:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2171:11:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2136:12:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC) 2103:00:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC) 1990:16:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 1970:16:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 1926:Hyphen-minus or hyphen–minus? 1677:02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1667:01:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 1658:Which dash (if any) in dates? 1642:13:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1621:11:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC) 1591:04:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC) 1561:18:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 979:01:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC) 710:19:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC) 650:20:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC) 567:Correct. Or drop the 'from'. 520:22:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 506:19:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 187:06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC) 178:00:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC) 5123:23:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC) 4983: 4978:12:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 4945:11:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC) 4910:11:14, 3 February 2013 (UTC) 4860:10:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC) 4800:09:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC) 4785:09:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 4762:06:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 4747:01:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC) 4456:13:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 4442:13:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 4412:13:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 4392:13:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 4372:13:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 4350:11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 4332:10:43, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 4317:08:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 4288:11:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 4208:22:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 4179:21:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 4162:21:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC) 4037:It is misleadingly phrased. 3743:04:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC) 3704:02:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC) 3677:19:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC) 3572:17:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 3556:00:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 3325:02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC) 3261:15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC) 2918:23:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC) 2843:23:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2821:23:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC) 2346:Knowledge:Avoid_weasel_words 2156:Mother–daughter relationship 2071:15:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1753:Prescriptive tone of Summary 1531:07:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC) 1516:00:59, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 1504:00:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC) 1490:12:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 1475:03:55, 27 January 2006 (UTC) 1431:14:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 1422:13:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC) 1356:Is that the same thing as a 1310:07:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC) 1250: 1235: 1219: 1203: 1188: 1170: 104:19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC) 4841:spaces—in the manner of an 4603:06:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4585:01:18, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4561:00:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC) 4396:Could you give a diff for " 4376:Could you give a diff for " 4271:02:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 4254:02:17, 5 January 2012 (UTC) 3509:23:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC) 3471:Darth Vader and the em dash 3465:12:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC) 3396:14:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC) 2534:must be far down the list. 2483:The Chicago Manual of Style 2150:Notre Dame beat Miami 31–30 1846:just doesn't make any sense 1071:20:17, July 22, 2005 (UTC) 1019:22:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC) 224:The Mac is Not a Typewriter 121:20:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 89:19:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 5315: 5299:14:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC) 5257:no relationship whatsoever 5249:13:52, 4 August 2016 (UTC) 5192:13:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC) 5153:upper-case letters N and M 5089:try to find one on paper. 5007:14:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC) 4665:Why 'em' and 'en' dashes?? 4493:17:17, 7 April 2012‎ (UTC) 3972:12:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 3955:12:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC) 3923:12:58, 23 April 2011 (UTC) 3907:23:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC) 3828:04:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 3612:07:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC) 3343:14:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC) 3045:deserved to stay removed. 2539:18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC) 2314:17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC) 1788:15:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC) 1763:23:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC) 1745:05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 1731:03:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 1721:00:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC) 1692:23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC) 1687:, you must use a hyphen. — 1607:anti–New Zealand sentiment 391:, and many other artists. 364:Copied here and expanded: 319:21:13, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC) 226:when it came out in 1989. 137:07:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC) 5099:16:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC) 4674:just to make a dash?? -- 4509:17:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC) 4006:16:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC) 3869:01:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC) 3850:16:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC) 3806:17:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC) 3792:00:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC) 3774:21:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC) 3635:09:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC) 3370:15:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC) 3240:03:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 3168:03:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 3149:19:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 3134:10:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC) 3114:13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC) 2973:15:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC) 2739:'I am', he said, 'fine'. 2713:16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2703:15:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC) 2689:22:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC) 2497:23:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC) 2470:02:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2442:01:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2424:01:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2363:00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC) 2297:02:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 2275:02:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 2248:06:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 2211:05:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 2201:00:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC) 2089:— Well, that's something. 1918:13:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1895:10:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) 1652:02:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 1541:02:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC) 1270:05:42, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC) 1111:01:48, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC) 1041:01:01, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) 994:16:52, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC) 793:13:54, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC) 772:21:49, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC) 629:Under em dash it states: 620:Under en dash it states: 612:22:29, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) 602:22:21, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) 583:To quote Knowledge's own 563:23:06, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC) 432:15:51, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) 413:21:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 398:22:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) 265:1+2−3 not equal to 1+2‒3 5174:14:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC) 5078:21:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 5043:21:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC) 4545:21:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC) 3593:23:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC) 3099:11:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 3077:23:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3055:22:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC) 3039:05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC) 3007:17:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2953:17:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 2661:12:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2644:11:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2616:11:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2605:10:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC) 2162:The McCain–Feingold bill 1955:00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC) 1883:16:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 1859:Or — something like this 1814:22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1804:21:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC) 1392:11:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC) 1364:22:35, May 8, 2005 (UTC) 1333:03:55, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1102:Article or project page? 1053:08:35, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC) 934:08:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 919:08:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC) 659:21:16, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC) 641:20:11, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC) 574:23:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) 534:12:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC) 487:23:30, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) 456:23:06, 2004 Apr 14 (UTC) 444:17:31, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC) 343:21:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) 330:21:42, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC) 236:03:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC) 170:5 July 2005 03:52 (UTC) 151:5 July 2005 03:29 (UTC) 4129:23:11, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 4115:23:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 4098:22:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 4084:21:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 4063:20:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 2992:03:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC) 2502:Em dash and hard hyphen 2083:— Oh? What did you buy? 1604:pre–World War II period 1282:13:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC) 1034:50–100 W or 50 W–100 W 900:16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 865:07:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC) 834:06:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 807:05:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 781:22:38, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) 674:19:30, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC) 419:Em/en dashes vs. Commas 258:(‒) is the same as the 201:05:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 5057: 4628:En dash versus em dash 3996: 3278:. However, Strizver's 2395: 2337: 2329: 2153:New York–London flight 2077:— Where have you been? 1871: 1869:Or—something like this 1861: 1451:) from actual uses of 1383:currently forwards to 970:--anonymous WP newbie 616:Which definition wins? 4967:Gareth Griffith-Jones 4960:takes notice of them. 4806:Lede completely wrong 4775:Gareth Griffith-Jones 4595:Gareth Griffith-Jones 4537:Gareth Griffith-Jones 4280:Gareth Griffith-Jones 3857:added back in January 3729:"while most consider" 3526:would be printed as: 2959:Non-parenthetical use 2722:Localization problems 2386: 2333: 2325: 2086:— Nothing in the end. 1961:including moving the 1867: 1857: 1683:If you are following 1596:En dashes as hyphens? 496:Em Dash vs. Semicolon 367:634‒5789 is from the 42:of past discussions. 4515:All that white space 3748:3-em and 2-em dashes 2694:Rugby League Infobox 592:Semantic progression 585:Semantic progression 555:then you should use 4952:Dux Ducis Hodiernus 4937:Dux Ducis Hodiernus 4401:s and <span: --> 4381:s and <span: --> 4183:They use the ASCII 3875:Too much repetition 3855:Good catch. It was 3065:some of these books 2849:Semicolon and slash 2331:Your edit summary: 1536:Super-long! (DIV, 1410:Felix the Cassowary 698:Get It Write Online 579:Dash usage question 501:article? Thanks, -- 381:Blues Brothers 2000 4969: 4845:dash, with spaces. 4777: 4697:. Happy new year! 4240:Something missing? 4053:, which is false. 3895:cleverly rewritten 3348:Formatting Problem 2142:Usage of en dashes 2124:signed but undated 1799:between syllables? 1522:Bibliography usage 1031:50–60% or 50%–60% 720:Google says both: 143:Double-hyphen dash 5164:comment added by 5033:comment added by 4975: 4973:The Welsh Buzzard 4965: 4783: 4781:The Welsh Buzzard 4772: 4483:comment added by 4422: 4235: 4221:comment added by 4165: 4148:comment added by 4127: 4096: 4061: 3777: 3760:comment added by 3710:Figure Dash Usage 3455:comment added by 3190:comment added by 3120:Artists and songs 2978:Chemical formulas 2883:) be replaced by 2779: 2767:comment added by 2745:-- I am... fine. 2381:res ipsa loquitur 2127: 1260: 1259: 1097: 1083:comment added by 268:Another example: 250:Figure dash/Minus 72: 71: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5306: 5233: 5228: 5222: 5217: 5176: 5121: 5045: 4984:C'est compliqué! 4971: 4907: 4879: 4873: 4857: 4797: 4779: 4672:Seven characters 4495: 4431: 4416: 4357: 4299:created article 4294:"strange layout" 4234: 4215: 4202: 4164: 4142: 4123: 4092: 4057: 4029:Knowledge is not 4012:Style guidelines 4004: 3984: 3804: 3776: 3754: 3675: 3544: 3467: 3399: 3226:See footnote in 3202: 2896:Another issue: " 2835: 2812:San Diego Padres 2808:Colorado Rockies 2762: 2687: 2682: 2593: 2589: 2585: 2581: 2576:shorter than in 2571: 2567: 2563: 2550:removed comments 2544:font differences 2492: 2465: 2419: 2121: 1934:, and elsewhere 1698:Definition lists 1484: 1458: 1454: 1420: 1417: 1343:Peter Hitchmough 1144: 1096: 1077: 985:a dash is a dash 473:, known from TV, 360:The phone number 271:−‒−‒− ‒ − ‒ − ‒ 101: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5314: 5313: 5309: 5308: 5307: 5305: 5304: 5303: 5291:Quercus solaris 5279:Words Into Type 5271:Words Into Type 5238: 5237: 5236: 5229: 5225: 5218: 5214: 5199: 5166:213.128.188.180 5159: 5148:respectively." 5138: 5130: 5112: 5106: 5086: 5028: 5014: 4986: 4958:User:LlywelynII 4920: 4905: 4877: 4871: 4867: 4855: 4808: 4795: 4735: 4667: 4613: 4517: 4478: 4474: 4429: 4355: 4296: 4242: 4216: 4200: 4143: 4139: 4121:Septentrionalis 4090:Septentrionalis 4055:Septentrionalis 4014: 4001: 3990: 3982: 3931: 3877: 3838: 3755: 3750: 3731: 3716:207.188.235.142 3712: 3673: 3664: 3642: 3619: 3600: 3542: 3516: 3493: 3473: 3450: 3429: 3405: 3389: 3377: 3350: 3248: 3208: 3192:169.232.144.109 3185: 3178: 3160:—Ben FrantzDale 3122: 3087: 3015: 2980: 2961: 2925: 2851: 2833: 2802: 2724: 2696: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2639: 2600: 2591: 2587: 2586:) and em dash ( 2583: 2579:Times New Roman 2577: 2569: 2568:) and em dash ( 2565: 2559: 2546: 2531: 2504: 2490: 2463: 2417: 2321: 2306:Quietbritishjim 2294:128.250.204.118 2272:128.250.204.118 2144: 2133:—Ben FrantzDale 2122:—The preceding 2110: 2063: 2030:—Ben FrantzDale 2007:time-of-flight 2004:time–of–flight 1998: 1978: 1928: 1915:—Ben FrantzDale 1892:—Ben FrantzDale 1872: 1866: 1856: 1840:language, etc. 1837: 1834: 1831: 1829:Self-references 1795: 1770: 1755: 1700: 1660: 1649:128.250.204.118 1598: 1550: 1538:128.250.204.118 1524: 1482: 1456: 1452: 1441: 1412: 1402: 1350: 1339: 1318: 1117: 1109:Derrick Coetzee 1104: 1078: 1029: 1027:Which is right? 987: 954: 952:Browser support 618: 581: 544:In the article 542: 498: 421: 362: 252: 145: 77: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5312: 5310: 5302: 5301: 5241:Terrel Shumway 5235: 5234: 5223: 5211: 5210: 5206: 5198: 5195: 5184:Terrel Shumway 5137: 5134: 5129: 5127: 5126: 5105: 5102: 5085: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5051: 5050: 5035:64.132.229.234 5013: 5010: 4985: 4982: 4981: 4980: 4963: 4961: 4956:Here's hoping 4955: 4919: 4916: 4914: 4901: 4900: 4893: 4866: 4863: 4847: 4846: 4827: 4807: 4804: 4803: 4802: 4787: 4771: 4764: 4734: 4731: 4730: 4729: 4728: 4727: 4726: 4725: 4666: 4663: 4662: 4661: 4632: 4630: 4624: 4622: 4616: 4612: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4588: 4587: 4564: 4563: 4516: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4473: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4464: 4463: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4459: 4458: 4394: 4338: 4295: 4292: 4291: 4290: 4277: 4241: 4238: 4237: 4236: 4211: 4210: 4181: 4138: 4135: 4134: 4133: 4132: 4131: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4066: 4065: 4035: 4032: 4013: 4010: 4009: 4008: 3997: 3974: 3930: 3927: 3926: 3925: 3876: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3861:Princess Lirin 3842:129.10.231.145 3837: 3834: 3833: 3832: 3831: 3830: 3820:Thomas Phinney 3811: 3809: 3808: 3795: 3794: 3749: 3746: 3730: 3727: 3711: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3696:Thomas Phinney 3693: 3692: 3691: 3688: 3685: 3669: 3661: 3660: 3657: 3654: 3641: 3638: 3618: 3615: 3599: 3596: 3580: 3579: 3575: 3574: 3532: 3531: 3524: 3523: 3515: 3512: 3492: 3489: 3472: 3469: 3434: 3433: 3428: 3425: 3404: 3401: 3394:comment added 3376: 3373: 3362:Paul Magnussen 3349: 3346: 3328: 3327: 3317:Thomas Phinney 3313: 3312: 3307: 3306: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3295: 3290: 3289: 3285: 3284: 3247: 3244: 3243: 3242: 3207: 3204: 3177: 3174: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3170: 3152: 3151: 3126:78.110.162.163 3121: 3118: 3117: 3116: 3086: 3083: 3082: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3058: 3057: 3014: 3011: 3010: 3009: 2979: 2976: 2960: 2957: 2956: 2955: 2924: 2921: 2850: 2847: 2846: 2845: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2796: 2723: 2720: 2718: 2716: 2715: 2695: 2692: 2672: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2664: 2663: 2637: 2619: 2618: 2598: 2545: 2542: 2529: 2512:Openoffice.org 2503: 2500: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2460: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2444: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2426: 2414: 2407: 2396: 2384: 2377: 2366: 2365: 2320: 2317: 2301: 2300: 2290: 2283: 2279: 2278: 2268: 2265: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2218: 2217: 2216: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2188: 2187: 2164: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2143: 2140: 2139: 2138: 2109: 2108:Just a Comment 2106: 2091: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2081: 2078: 2062: 2061:Quotation Dash 2059: 2058: 2057: 2038: 2037: 2036: 2035: 1997: 1994: 1993: 1992: 1977: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1927: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1900: 1899: 1898: 1897: 1862: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1849: 1835: 1832: 1830: 1827: 1817: 1816: 1798: 1794: 1791: 1769: 1766: 1754: 1751: 1750: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1734: 1733: 1714: 1713: 1710: 1707: 1699: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1680: 1679: 1659: 1656: 1645: 1644: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1608: 1605: 1597: 1594: 1580: 1579: 1564: 1563: 1549: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1440: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1401: 1398: 1397: 1396: 1395: 1394: 1366: 1365: 1349: 1346: 1338: 1335: 1323: 1322: 1317: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1298: 1295: 1292: 1284: 1283: 1258: 1257: 1255: 1252: 1249: 1243: 1242: 1240: 1237: 1234: 1232:quotation dash 1228: 1227: 1224: 1221: 1218: 1212: 1211: 1208: 1205: 1202: 1196: 1195: 1193: 1190: 1187: 1181: 1180: 1178: 1172: 1169: 1163: 1162: 1157: 1152: 1147: 1139: 1138: 1116: 1113: 1103: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1065: 1064: 1054: 1028: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 986: 983: 982: 981: 953: 950: 949: 948: 947: 946: 945: 944: 943: 942: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 926:Thomas Phinney 921: 911:Thomas Phinney 876: 875: 874: 873: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 867: 857:Thomas Phinney 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 814: 813: 812: 811: 810: 809: 799:Thomas Phinney 783: 782: 766: 765: 764: 763: 757: 756: 755: 749: 748: 747: 741: 738: 735: 732: 725: 718: 717: 716: 715: 714: 713: 690: 678: 677: 676: 675: 661: 660: 635: 634: 628: 626: 625: 617: 614: 596: 595: 580: 577: 576: 575: 541: 538: 537: 536: 522: 497: 494: 493: 492: 491: 490: 489: 488: 460: 459: 458: 457: 446: 445: 420: 417: 377:Wilson Pickett 361: 358: 357: 356: 355: 354: 345: 344: 332: 331: 314: 310: 305: 303: 298: 293: 291: 287: 285: 280: 278: 251: 248: 247: 246: 245: 244: 243: 242: 241: 240: 239: 238: 210: 209: 208: 207: 206: 205: 204: 203: 193:Thomas Phinney 144: 141: 140: 139: 129:Thomas Phinney 109: 107: 106: 76: 73: 70: 69: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5311: 5300: 5296: 5292: 5288: 5284: 5280: 5276: 5272: 5268: 5264: 5263: 5258: 5253: 5252: 5251: 5250: 5246: 5242: 5232: 5227: 5224: 5221: 5216: 5213: 5209: 5205: 5202: 5196: 5194: 5193: 5189: 5185: 5181: 5177: 5175: 5171: 5167: 5163: 5156: 5154: 5149: 5147: 5143: 5135: 5133: 5125: 5124: 5119: 5115: 5111: 5103: 5101: 5100: 5096: 5092: 5083: 5079: 5075: 5071: 5067: 5063: 5059: 5058: 5056: 5048: 5047: 5046: 5044: 5040: 5036: 5032: 5024: 5022: 5017: 5011: 5009: 5008: 5004: 5000: 4996: 4992: 4979: 4974: 4968: 4959: 4953: 4949: 4948: 4947: 4946: 4942: 4938: 4934: 4931: 4928: 4924: 4917: 4915: 4912: 4911: 4908: 4898: 4894: 4891: 4887: 4886: 4885: 4883: 4876: 4864: 4862: 4861: 4858: 4852: 4844: 4840: 4836: 4832: 4828: 4825: 4821: 4817: 4816: 4815: 4814: 4805: 4801: 4798: 4792: 4788: 4786: 4782: 4776: 4769: 4765: 4763: 4759: 4755: 4751: 4750: 4749: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4724: 4720: 4716: 4712: 4711: 4710: 4709: 4708: 4704: 4700: 4696: 4692: 4688: 4687: 4686: 4685: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4660: 4656: 4652: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4641: 4637: 4633: 4629: 4625: 4621: 4617: 4610: 4604: 4600: 4596: 4592: 4591: 4590: 4589: 4586: 4582: 4578: 4577:John Sinclair 4575: 4572: 4569: 4566: 4565: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4553:John Sinclair 4549: 4548: 4547: 4546: 4542: 4538: 4535:Regards, -- 4533: 4530: 4528: 4523: 4521: 4514: 4510: 4506: 4502: 4498: 4497: 4496: 4494: 4490: 4486: 4485:76.10.148.201 4482: 4471: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4439: 4435: 4426: 4420: 4419:edit conflict 4415: 4414: 4413: 4409: 4405: 4399: 4395: 4393: 4389: 4385: 4379: 4375: 4374: 4373: 4369: 4365: 4361: 4353: 4352: 4351: 4347: 4343: 4339: 4337: 4335: 4334: 4333: 4329: 4325: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4314: 4310: 4306: 4302: 4293: 4289: 4285: 4281: 4278: 4275: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4268: 4264: 4260: 4256: 4255: 4251: 4247: 4239: 4232: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4213: 4212: 4209: 4206: 4203: 4199: 4194: 4190: 4186: 4182: 4180: 4176: 4172: 4168: 4167: 4166: 4163: 4159: 4155: 4151: 4147: 4136: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4117: 4116: 4112: 4108: 4103: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4087: 4086: 4085: 4081: 4077: 4072: 4068: 4067: 4064: 4060: 4056: 4052: 4051:normally used 4048: 4044: 4040: 4036: 4033: 4030: 4026: 4025: 4024: 4021: 4019: 4011: 4007: 4003: 4000: 3994: 3988: 3981: 3980: 3975: 3973: 3969: 3965: 3961: 3959: 3958: 3957: 3956: 3952: 3948: 3944: 3940: 3936: 3928: 3924: 3920: 3916: 3911: 3910: 3909: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3887: 3882: 3874: 3870: 3866: 3862: 3858: 3854: 3853: 3852: 3851: 3847: 3843: 3835: 3829: 3825: 3821: 3816: 3815: 3814: 3813: 3812: 3807: 3803: 3802:ChristTrekker 3797: 3796: 3793: 3789: 3785: 3784:67.246.119.98 3780: 3779: 3778: 3775: 3771: 3767: 3763: 3759: 3747: 3745: 3744: 3740: 3736: 3728: 3726: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3709: 3705: 3701: 3697: 3694: 3689: 3686: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3680: 3679: 3678: 3674: 3672: 3667: 3658: 3655: 3652: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3639: 3637: 3636: 3632: 3628: 3624: 3616: 3614: 3613: 3609: 3605: 3597: 3595: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3577: 3576: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3560: 3559: 3558: 3557: 3553: 3549: 3545: 3538: 3535: 3529: 3528: 3527: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3513: 3511: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3490: 3488: 3487: 3483: 3479: 3470: 3468: 3466: 3462: 3458: 3454: 3447: 3446: 3442: 3438: 3431: 3430: 3426: 3424: 3423: 3419: 3415: 3412:Ha! Love it. 3410: 3409: 3403:Like This One 3402: 3400: 3397: 3393: 3387: 3383: 3382:193.128.72.68 3374: 3372: 3371: 3367: 3363: 3359: 3353: 3347: 3345: 3344: 3340: 3336: 3332: 3326: 3322: 3318: 3315: 3314: 3309: 3308: 3303: 3302: 3298: 3297: 3292: 3291: 3287: 3286: 3281: 3277: 3274:, and Binns' 3273: 3269: 3265: 3264: 3263: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3246:En-dash width 3245: 3241: 3237: 3233: 3229: 3225: 3224: 3223: 3222: 3218: 3214: 3205: 3203: 3201: 3197: 3193: 3189: 3183: 3175: 3169: 3165: 3161: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3150: 3147: 3143: 3138: 3137: 3136: 3135: 3131: 3127: 3119: 3115: 3111: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3100: 3096: 3092: 3084: 3078: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3062: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3056: 3052: 3048: 3043: 3042: 3041: 3040: 3036: 3032: 3028: 3024: 3020: 3012: 3008: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2994:Wakablogger2 2993: 2989: 2985: 2977: 2975: 2974: 2970: 2966: 2958: 2954: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2942: 2941: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2922: 2920: 2919: 2915: 2911: 2907: 2903: 2899: 2894: 2892: 2888: 2887: 2882: 2878: 2877: 2872: 2870: 2866: 2862: 2858: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2829: 2825: 2824: 2823: 2822: 2819: 2815: 2813: 2809: 2799: 2795: 2791: 2787: 2782: 2781: 2780: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2769:83.17.205.182 2766: 2758: 2755: 2752: 2749: 2746: 2743: 2740: 2737: 2734: 2731: 2728: 2721: 2719: 2714: 2711: 2707: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2701: 2693: 2691: 2690: 2686: 2684: 2683: 2670: 2662: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2647: 2646: 2645: 2642: 2641: 2631: 2627: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2617: 2614: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2603: 2602: 2580: 2575: 2562: 2557: 2556: 2551: 2548:Regarding my 2543: 2541: 2540: 2537: 2528: 2526: 2522: 2516: 2513: 2509: 2501: 2499: 2498: 2495: 2488: 2484: 2471: 2468: 2461: 2457: 2456: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2443: 2440: 2435: 2434: 2433: 2432: 2431: 2430: 2425: 2422: 2415: 2412: 2408: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2394: 2391: 2385: 2382: 2378: 2374: 2370: 2369: 2368: 2367: 2364: 2361: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2352: 2347: 2343: 2336: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2318: 2316: 2315: 2311: 2307: 2298: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2284: 2281: 2280: 2276: 2273: 2269: 2266: 2263: 2259: 2258: 2249: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2225: 2224: 2223: 2222: 2221: 2220: 2219: 2212: 2209: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2199: 2195: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2186: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2169: 2161: 2158: 2155: 2152: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2141: 2137: 2134: 2130: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2120: 2119:69.113.219.44 2116: 2113: 2107: 2105: 2104: 2100: 2096: 2088: 2085: 2082: 2079: 2076: 2075: 2074: 2072: 2069: 2060: 2056: 2053: 2049: 2048: 2047: 2046: 2043: 2034: 2031: 2027: 2026: 2025: 2022: 2018: 2017: 2016: 2015: 2012: 2008: 2005: 2002: 1995: 1991: 1988: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1975: 1971: 1968: 1964: 1959: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1953: 1949: 1945: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1925: 1919: 1916: 1912: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1896: 1893: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1886: 1885: 1884: 1881: 1877: 1870: 1865: 1860: 1855: 1847: 1843: 1842: 1841: 1828: 1826: 1825: 1822: 1815: 1812: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1802: 1792: 1790: 1789: 1786: 1782: 1778: 1776: 1767: 1765: 1764: 1761: 1752: 1746: 1743: 1738: 1737: 1736: 1735: 1732: 1729: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1722: 1719: 1711: 1708: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1697: 1693: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1681: 1678: 1675: 1674:BenFrantzDale 1671: 1670: 1669: 1668: 1665: 1657: 1655: 1653: 1650: 1643: 1640: 1639:BenFrantzDale 1636: 1632: 1630: 1628: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1619: 1609: 1606: 1603: 1602: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1593: 1592: 1588: 1584: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1573: 1570: 1562: 1559: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1547: 1542: 1539: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1529: 1528:BenFrantzDale 1521: 1517: 1514: 1509: 1505: 1502: 1498: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1488: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1460: 1450: 1446: 1438: 1432: 1429: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1418: 1411: 1407: 1406: 1405: 1399: 1393: 1390: 1386: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1347: 1345: 1344: 1336: 1334: 1332: 1328: 1320: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1308: 1307:BenFrantzDale 1304: 1299: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1289: 1286: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1269: 1265: 1256: 1253: 1248: 1245: 1244: 1241: 1238: 1233: 1230: 1229: 1225: 1222: 1217: 1214: 1213: 1209: 1206: 1201: 1198: 1197: 1194: 1191: 1186: 1183: 1182: 1179: 1176: 1173: 1168: 1167:dash (hyphen) 1165: 1164: 1161: 1158: 1156: 1153: 1151: 1148: 1146: 1145: 1142: 1137: 1135: 1131: 1127: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1114: 1112: 1110: 1101: 1094: 1090: 1086: 1082: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1070: 1063: 1060: 1059:BenFrantzDale 1055: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1040: 1035: 1032: 1026: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1011:76.124.187.93 1007: 1006: 1005: 1002: 997: 996: 995: 993: 984: 980: 977: 973: 972: 971: 968: 965: 961: 958: 951: 935: 931: 927: 922: 920: 916: 912: 908: 903: 902: 901: 897: 893: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 877: 866: 862: 858: 853: 852: 851: 850: 849: 848: 847: 846: 845: 844: 835: 831: 827: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 808: 804: 800: 795: 794: 792: 787: 786: 785: 784: 780: 775: 774: 773: 771: 761: 760: 758: 753: 752: 750: 745: 744: 742: 739: 736: 733: 730: 726: 723: 722: 721: 711: 707: 703: 699: 695: 691: 688: 684: 683: 682: 681: 680: 679: 673: 669: 665: 664: 663: 662: 658: 654: 653: 652: 651: 648: 642: 640: 632: 631: 630: 623: 622: 621: 615: 613: 611: 607: 603: 601: 593: 590: 589: 588: 586: 578: 573: 570: 566: 565: 564: 562: 558: 554: 549: 547: 540:Mixing styles 539: 535: 531: 527: 526:69.137.249.80 523: 521: 518: 514: 510: 509: 508: 507: 504: 495: 486: 483: 478: 474: 470: 466: 465: 464: 463: 462: 461: 455: 450: 449: 448: 447: 443: 440: 435: 434: 433: 431: 427: 424: 418: 416: 415: 414: 411: 407: 399: 397: 394: 390: 386: 382: 378: 374: 370: 369:Steve Cropper 365: 359: 353: 349: 348: 347: 346: 342: 339: 334: 333: 329: 326: 322: 321: 320: 318: 312: 307: 300: 295: 288: 282: 275: 272: 269: 266: 263: 261: 257: 249: 237: 233: 229: 225: 220: 219: 218: 217: 216: 215: 214: 213: 212: 211: 202: 198: 194: 190: 189: 188: 185: 181: 180: 179: 176: 172: 171: 169: 165: 161: 158: 154: 153: 152: 150: 142: 138: 134: 130: 125: 124: 123: 122: 118: 114: 105: 102: 97: 93: 92: 91: 90: 86: 82: 74: 68: 65: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5287:surface area 5283:mathematical 5278: 5270: 5261: 5260: 5256: 5239: 5226: 5215: 5207: 5203: 5200: 5178: 5160:— Preceding 5157: 5152: 5150: 5146:upper-case M 5145: 5142:lower-case n 5141: 5139: 5131: 5107: 5087: 5053: 5029:— Preceding 5025: 5020: 5018: 5015: 4994: 4990: 4987: 4957: 4935: 4932: 4929: 4925: 4921: 4913: 4902: 4896: 4889: 4881: 4868: 4850: 4848: 4842: 4838: 4834: 4830: 4823: 4819: 4812: 4809: 4736: 4715:Gwillhickers 4676:Gwillhickers 4671: 4668: 4634: 4627: 4626: 4619: 4618: 4614: 4573: 4570: 4567: 4534: 4531: 4524: 4519: 4518: 4479:— Preceding 4475: 4397: 4377: 4359: 4304: 4301:nl:Hydroxide 4297: 4261: 4257: 4243: 4217:— Preceding 4197: 4185:hyphen-minus 4144:— Preceding 4140: 4070: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4022: 4018:have removed 4015: 3977: 3935:prescriptive 3933:Finding the 3932: 3894: 3889: 3884: 3880: 3878: 3839: 3810: 3756:— Preceding 3751: 3732: 3713: 3668: 3662: 3650: 3643: 3620: 3601: 3581: 3539: 3536: 3533: 3525: 3517: 3494: 3474: 3457:134.7.236.88 3448: 3435: 3411: 3407: 3406: 3378: 3357: 3354: 3351: 3329: 3279: 3275: 3271: 3267: 3249: 3209: 3179: 3176:LaTeX Format 3123: 3088: 3026: 3016: 2984:Wakablogger2 2981: 2962: 2929: 2926: 2905: 2897: 2895: 2890: 2884: 2880: 2874: 2873:" Shouldn't 2854: 2852: 2805: 2803: 2759: 2756: 2753: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2741: 2738: 2735: 2732: 2729: 2725: 2717: 2697: 2679: 2674: 2635: 2596: 2573: 2561:Trebuchet MS 2554: 2547: 2532: 2517: 2505: 2480: 2410: 2403: 2399: 2393:exaggerated. 2389: 2387: 2372: 2350: 2342:weasel words 2338: 2334: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2302: 2286: 2261: 2240: 2236: 2232: 2228: 2165: 2145: 2117: 2114: 2111: 2092: 2064: 2039: 2009: 2006: 2003: 1999: 1979: 1963:hyphen-minus 1948:minus–hyphen 1947: 1943: 1939: 1936:hyphen-minus 1935: 1932:hyphen–minus 1931: 1929: 1873: 1868: 1863: 1858: 1853: 1845: 1838: 1818: 1796: 1780: 1774: 1771: 1756: 1715: 1701: 1661: 1646: 1615: 1581: 1565: 1551: 1525: 1463: 1461: 1442: 1403: 1376: 1372: 1351: 1340: 1324: 1291:Introduction 1261: 1246: 1231: 1226:— 1215: 1210:– 1199: 1184: 1166: 1140: 1125: 1123: 1118: 1105: 1085:Zoe Buchanan 1066: 1036: 1033: 1030: 988: 969: 966: 962: 959: 955: 767: 728: 719: 667: 643: 636: 627: 619: 604: 597: 591: 584: 582: 556: 552: 550: 546:16th century 543: 499: 476: 472: 468: 428: 425: 422: 403: 400: 385:Jon Bon Jovi 366: 363: 313: 308: 302:Figure Dash: 301: 296: 289: 283: 276: 273: 270: 267: 264: 259: 255: 253: 157:weasel words 146: 108: 78: 60: 43: 37: 5204:See also: 5114:startswithj 4954:, entirely. 4501:Incnis Mrsi 4404:Incnis Mrsi 4384:Incnis Mrsi 4342:Incnis Mrsi 4309:Incnis Mrsi 4039:Can be used 3899:217.50.60.6 3735:Enric Naval 3451:—Preceding 3390:—Preceding 3283:definition. 3276:Better Type 3270:, Felici's 3232:Fgnievinski 3186:—Preceding 3091:Benlisquare 2861:parentheses 2763:—Preceding 2521:WordPerfect 2080:— Shopping. 1911:Lorem ipsum 1768:Open ranges 1497:··gracefool 1468:··gracefool 1439:Which dash? 1371:To my mind 1185:figure dash 1130:punctuation 1079:—Preceding 992:violet/riga 389:Tina Turner 373:Eddie Floyd 290:Minus sign: 256:figure dash 36:This is an 5208:References 4962:Cheers! – 4906:LlywelynII 4856:LlywelynII 4796:LlywelynII 4791:wiktionary 4768:Hagurganus 4739:Hagurganus 4651:GeorgeTSLC 4263:Wanderer57 4246:Wanderer57 4193:minus sign 4125:PMAnderson 4094:PMAnderson 4059:PMAnderson 3976:A copy of 3943:MOS:ENDASH 3836:Underscore 3651:everything 3543:B.D.Mills 3375:Censorship 3280:Type Rules 3213:Tophtucker 3023:verifiable 2859:or set of 2828:WP:MOSDASH 2786:Svyatoslav 2552:about the 2508:Portuguese 2349:about the 2068:69.64.3.12 1801:Mrdebeuker 1664:Chris Page 1583:Svyatoslav 1578:correctly. 1548:Swung dash 1457:&mdash 1453:&ndash 1426:Thanks —— 1389:Flapdragon 1381:Swung dash 1377:swung dash 1247:swung dash 1115:On hyphens 976:Chris Page 647:Paulownia5 260:minus sign 5066:this book 4999:Lubiesque 4875:key press 4695:this page 4691:this page 4071:falsehood 3627:Palnatoke 3501:oknazevad 3358:like this 2886:semicolon 2871:too weak. 2865:full stop 2810:beat the 2681:Bsroiaadn 2626:consensus 2021:Omegatron 1942:modifies 1880:Omegatron 1874:See also 1793:Linebreak 1728:Omegatron 1416:ɑe hɪː jɐ 1362:Omegatron 1348:Wave dash 1069:Omegatron 1039:Omegatron 791:Omegatron 770:Omegatron 694:reference 687:"Em Dash" 657:Omegatron 587:article: 396:(Darkelf) 352:Omegatron 341:(Darkelf) 328:(Darkelf) 317:Omegatron 113:Christidy 81:Christidy 67:Archive 2 61:Archive 1 18:Talk:Dash 5162:unsigned 5070:Dicklyon 5062:this one 5031:unsigned 4636:Pollifax 4481:unsigned 4398:creating 4378:creating 4231:contribs 4223:Noloader 4219:unsigned 4189:manpages 4171:Dicklyon 4158:contribs 4150:Noloader 4146:unsigned 4107:Tijfo098 4076:Dicklyon 4045:implies 3993:A. di M. 3964:Tijfo098 3947:Tijfo098 3915:Tijfo098 3782:ideal. — 3770:contribs 3762:Tphinney 3758:unsigned 3585:Belg4mit 3453:unsigned 3335:Tijfo098 3253:Dicklyon 3228:Alt code 3188:unsigned 3085:Chinese? 3069:Dicklyon 3031:flamurai 2965:Quilbert 2931:Lelandrb 2923:Cleanup? 2765:unsigned 2710:Dicklyon 2536:Xyzt1234 2523:had it, 2439:Dicklyon 2360:Dicklyon 2233:compound 2208:Dicklyon 2182:Dicklyon 2178:pick one 2052:Plugwash 1987:Dicklyon 1967:Dicklyon 1864:Unspaced 1811:Dicklyon 1809:hyphen. 1685:ISO 8601 1558:Plugwash 1513:Plugwash 1487:Plugwash 1093:contribs 1081:unsigned 892:Dicklyon 826:Dicklyon 610:Nunh-huh 513:Evertype 503:Pordaria 228:Dicklyon 111:thanks. 5269:). And 4839:without 4620:Spacing 4527:Ed Brey 4047:is only 4043:is used 3881:Em dash 3617:Commash 3392:undated 2834:Georgia 2751:HAMLET 2700:Londo06 2630:eyeroll 2491:Noetica 2464:Noetica 2418:Noetica 2373:wording 2245:Noetica 2198:Kbolino 2168:Kbolino 2042:Flarity 2011:Flarity 1952:Noetica 1445:unicode 1216:em dash 1200:en dash 1177:45 0x2D 1155:Unicode 702:Martnym 277:Hyphen: 175:Atinoda 39:archive 5275:WP:RSs 5091:Monado 5064:. Or 4865:Layout 4849:There 4448:DePiep 4434:DePiep 4364:DePiep 4324:DePiep 4205:(talk) 3939:corpus 3883:says: 3497:WT:MOS 3437:Furius 3142:Gwalla 3000:Gwalla 2946:Gwalla 2572:) are 2558:, the 2390:spaced 2351:spaced 2292:—DIV ( 2270:—DIV ( 2243:are! – 2229:simple 2095:kovesp 1940:hyphen 1854:Spaced 1821:JadeNB 1635:CMS 14 1569:JadeNB 1337:Thanks 1254:U+2053 1239:U+2015 1223:U+2014 1207:U+2013 1192:U+2012 1134:hyphen 1001:Frungi 967:FWIW. 572:(Talk) 569:— Jor 485:(Talk) 482:— Jor 442:(Talk) 439:— Jor 393:— Jor 338:— Jor 325:— Jor 311:‒‒‒‒‒ 299:−−−−− 164:Gwalla 149:Frungi 5128:What' 4754:kwami 4699:garik 4360:added 4201:cobra 4198:Cyber 3893:It's 3625:. -- 3604:Cab88 3564:garik 3414:Torgo 3106:Tokek 3047:Nohat 2902:slash 2876:colon 2869:comma 2857:colon 2832:Sandy 2658:garik 2632:: --> 2613:garik 2241:green 1944:minus 1785:Naddy 1385:tilde 1373:tilde 1358:tilde 1327:Jordi 1276:Jordi 1264:Vague 1175:ASCII 1150:glyph 1128:is a 729:about 668:often 561:;Bear 454:;Bear 430:Zoney 406:Jerzy 309:===== 306:‒+‒= 297:===== 294:−+−= 286:----- 284:===== 281:-+-= 16:< 5295:talk 5245:talk 5188:talk 5170:talk 5144:and 5118:talk 5095:talk 5074:talk 5039:talk 5003:talk 4941:talk 4824:with 4793:. — 4758:talk 4743:talk 4719:talk 4703:talk 4680:talk 4655:talk 4640:talk 4599:talk 4581:talk 4557:talk 4541:talk 4505:talk 4489:talk 4452:talk 4438:talk 4425:this 4408:talk 4388:talk 4368:talk 4346:talk 4328:talk 4313:talk 4305:then 4284:talk 4267:talk 4250:talk 4227:talk 4175:talk 4154:talk 4111:talk 4080:talk 3979:CGEL 3968:talk 3951:talk 3919:talk 3903:talk 3865:talk 3846:talk 3824:talk 3788:talk 3766:talk 3739:talk 3720:talk 3700:talk 3684:Yes. 3631:talk 3623:here 3608:talk 3589:talk 3568:talk 3505:talk 3482:talk 3478:Gary 3461:talk 3441:talk 3427:Why? 3418:talk 3388:) 3386:talk 3366:talk 3339:talk 3321:talk 3257:talk 3236:talk 3217:talk 3196:talk 3164:talk 3146:Talk 3130:talk 3110:talk 3095:talk 3073:talk 3051:talk 3027:tell 3004:Talk 2988:talk 2969:talk 2950:Talk 2935:talk 2914:talk 2910:Ayla 2839:Talk 2806:The 2790:talk 2773:talk 2654:here 2652:and 2650:here 2574:much 2525:Word 2494:Talk 2487:NPOV 2467:Talk 2421:Talk 2411:That 2388:The 2310:talk 2287:i.e. 2262:viz. 2239:and 2231:and 2099:talk 1909:nor 1878:. — 1760:Nurg 1618:Eric 1587:talk 1455:and 1428:Ezeu 1360:? - 1268:Rant 1160:HTML 1126:dash 1089:talk 1051:Talk 1047:Phil 1015:talk 930:talk 915:talk 896:talk 861:talk 830:talk 803:talk 779:Jake 706:talk 672:Jake 639:Jake 600:Itai 553:from 530:talk 304:+‒=‒ 292:+−=− 279:+-=- 232:talk 197:talk 184:MrD9 168:Talk 133:talk 117:talk 85:talk 5068:. 5023::" 4882:not 4851:are 4813:not 4693:or 4430:)-( 4049:or 3999:plé 3671:xii 3666:RSL 2908:)? 2830:. 2818:mjb 2404:all 2237:red 1783:. — 1781:CMS 1775:CMS 1742:mjb 1718:mjb 1689:mjb 1464:not 606:CMS 96:Dan 5297:) 5247:) 5190:) 5172:) 5097:) 5076:) 5041:) 5005:) 4976:| 4964:– 4943:) 4903:— 4878:}} 4872:{{ 4843:en 4835:em 4773:– 4766:@ 4760:) 4745:) 4721:) 4705:) 4682:) 4657:) 4642:) 4601:) 4583:) 4559:) 4543:) 4507:) 4491:) 4454:) 4440:) 4410:) 4390:) 4370:) 4356:)( 4348:) 4330:) 4315:) 4286:) 4269:) 4252:) 4233:) 4229:• 4177:) 4160:) 4156:• 4113:) 4082:) 4016:I 3991:― 3989:. 3983:'s 3970:) 3953:) 3921:) 3905:) 3867:) 3848:) 3826:) 3790:) 3772:) 3768:• 3741:) 3722:) 3702:) 3663:-- 3633:) 3610:) 3591:) 3583:-- 3570:) 3554:) 3550:, 3507:) 3484:) 3463:) 3443:) 3420:) 3380:-- 3368:) 3341:) 3333:. 3323:) 3259:) 3238:) 3230:. 3219:) 3198:) 3166:) 3144:| 3132:) 3112:) 3097:) 3075:) 3067:. 3053:) 3037:) 3002:| 2990:) 2971:) 2948:| 2937:) 2916:) 2841:) 2792:) 2775:) 2656:. 2636:Σɛ 2597:Σɛ 2462:– 2416:– 2400:it 2312:) 2180:. 2101:) 1777:14 1654:) 1589:) 1449:IE 1387:. 1266:| 1124:A 1095:) 1091:• 1049:| 1037:- 1017:) 932:) 917:) 898:) 863:) 832:) 805:) 708:) 557:to 532:) 387:, 315:- 234:) 199:) 166:| 162:— 135:) 119:) 87:) 5293:( 5262:a 5243:( 5186:( 5168:( 5120:) 5116:( 5093:( 5072:( 5037:( 5001:( 4995:b 4991:a 4970:| 4939:( 4897:b 4895:( 4890:a 4888:( 4831:b 4829:( 4820:a 4818:( 4778:/ 4756:( 4741:( 4717:( 4701:( 4678:( 4653:( 4638:( 4597:( 4579:( 4555:( 4539:( 4503:( 4487:( 4450:( 4436:( 4421:) 4417:( 4406:( 4386:( 4366:( 4344:( 4326:( 4311:( 4282:( 4265:( 4248:( 4225:( 4173:( 4152:( 4109:( 4078:( 4031:. 4002: 3995: 3966:( 3949:( 3917:( 3901:( 3863:( 3844:( 3822:( 3786:( 3764:( 3737:( 3718:( 3698:( 3629:( 3606:( 3587:( 3566:( 3552:C 3548:T 3546:( 3503:( 3480:( 3459:( 3439:( 3416:( 3398:. 3384:( 3364:( 3337:( 3319:( 3255:( 3234:( 3215:( 3194:( 3162:( 3128:( 3108:( 3093:( 3071:( 3049:( 3035:t 3033:( 2986:( 2967:( 2933:( 2912:( 2906:/ 2904:( 2891:; 2889:( 2881:: 2879:( 2853:" 2837:( 2816:— 2788:( 2771:( 2640:² 2638:Þ 2633:∞ 2601:² 2599:Þ 2592:‒ 2588:— 2584:– 2582:( 2570:— 2566:– 2519:( 2383:: 2308:( 2299:) 2277:) 2097:( 1740:— 1585:( 1543:) 1501:☺ 1499:| 1483:a 1472:☺ 1470:| 1419:) 1413:( 1400:— 1331:✆ 1329:· 1280:✆ 1278:· 1251:⁓ 1236:― 1220:— 1204:– 1189:‒ 1171:- 1087:( 1013:( 928:( 913:( 894:( 859:( 828:( 801:( 712:) 704:( 528:( 517:✆ 515:· 410:t 408:• 371:/ 230:( 195:( 131:( 115:( 100:☺ 83:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index