Talk:Atheism/dashes

In every typographical work I've read, en rules are recommended for parenthetical use. For example:

59 (a) The en rule should be used to mark off a parenthesis which makes a notable break in the flow of a sentence:

We all – and I really mean all – are on his side.

[...]

67 (b) The em rule is used to mark an interruption or a change of thought:

Why on earth have you — but there! what's the use of arguing?

(Herbert Rees, Rules of Printed English)

There are other uses of both rules, of course, and of the rarer 2-em rule, but this distinction is key. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I really don't care what sources you cite for incorrectly using em and en dashes. I am a professional typographer. This is my business. You are obviously not a typographer. When it comes to typography, I know exactly what I'm talking about whereas you are apparently clueless. I am right. You are wrong. That's bottomline. Of course, you're free to continue believing your knowledge is infallible. [1] [2] [3]

Q. What is the difference in usage between an em dash and an en dash?

A. I will try to condense the various bits of information scattered throughout CMS. First of all, there are three lengths of what are all more or less dashes: hyphen (-), en dash (–), and em dash (—). I frame it this way because the work they do is roughly related to their length (though I don’t think CMS puts it this way outright).

The hyphen connects two things that are intimately related, usually words that function together as a single concept or work together as a joint modifier (e.g., tie-in, toll-free call, two-thirds).

The en dash connects things that are related to each other by distance, as in the May–September issue of a magazine; it’s not a May–September issue, because June, July, and August are also ostensibly included in this range. And in fact en dashes specify any kind of range, which is why they properly appear in indexes when a range of pages is cited (e.g., 147–48). En dashes are also used to connect a prefix to a proper open compound: for example, pre–World War II. In that example, “pre” is connected to the open compound “World War II” and therefore has to do a little extra work (to bridge the space between the two words it modifies—space that cannot be besmirched by hyphens because “World War II” is a proper noun). Now, that is a rather fussy use of the en dash that many people (justifiably, I suppose) ignore, preferring the hyphen.

The em dash has several uses. It allows, in a manner similar to parentheses, an additional thought to be added within a sentence by sort of breaking away from that sentence—as I’ve done here. Its use or misuse for this purpose is a matter of taste, and subject to the effect on the writer’s or reader’s “ear.” Em dashes also substitute for something missing. For example, in a bibliographic list, rather than repeating the same author over and over again, three consecutive em dashes (also known as a 3-em dash) stand in for the author’s name. In interrupted speech, one or two em dashes may be used: “I wasn’t trying to imply——” “Then just what were you trying to do?” Also, the em dash may serve as a sort of bullet point, as in this to-do list:

—wash the car

—walk the dog

—attempt to explain em and en dashes

This explanation is not intended to be exhaustive (for much more, see chapter 6 in CMS 15), but I do hope that it helps to frame the different potential of each length of dash. . . .

Source: Chicago Manual of Style

Also: STC Houston Style Guide (Society of Technical Communicators [[4]])

I can keep going, citing more and more resources, steadily rising the level of credibility with each citation, but I don't feel that's needed.

Adraeus 17:44, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nothing what you've cited above deals with the use of rules (or dashes) as parentheses — only the analogous usage dealt with in just the same way in Rees.
Even if anything above did suppost your position, all that would show was that some authorities say one thing and some another; do you consider that that justifies your edit summary accusing me of being incorrect and uninformed?
Given that I've provided a relevant citation, I shall revert the article for a third time. If you can provide an argument to show that my citation is wrong (and more than: I'm a typographer so I know best — not acceptable in Wikipedia), then please provide it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Everything I cited above supports my position.
Everything I cited above justifies my edit summary. Moreover, don't talk to me about edit summaries. I don't want to hear it, especially from you. All of your edit summaries regarding any edit of mine are abusive, arrogant, and demonstrate your ill will towards me. You're not in a good position to argue how a just edit summary is written. You are incorrect in this matter. And you are misinformed.
I will continue to re-correct your mistakes regardless of the 3RR. I am undeniably correct about this issue. You are incredibly, although unsurprisingly, wrong. Adraeus 18:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

whoa, can we export this to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dashes) maybe? It doesn't really relate to atheism per se, does it? I recommend this section in particular. dab (ᛏ) 18:02, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Even Wikipedia's Manual of Style acknowledges the correct usage of em dashes and en dashes. You don't have a case, Mel. Adraeus 18:04, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The section in question is the Talk page; the MoS is neutral between my approach and that of Adraeus.
I must admit that Adraeus' aggressive, confrontational, and arrogant approach gets my goat in a way that few others do. My apologies to other editors for that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:14, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. I think the same things about your behavior. The difference is that I'm responding to your "aggressive, confrontational, and arrogant approach". I don't respond well to people who believe their thinking is infallible and to people who think themselves gods. You happen to be both. Adraeus 18:18, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

been there, done that :-) [5] . we now return to your scheduled beautification of the Atheism article with images of atheists. dab (ᛏ) 18:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why is this a sub-page instead of a section on the talk page?
Mel, do you have any references to support the use of the en dash under these circumstances?
It seems obvious to me that the em dash is correct.

--Yath 20:50, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We may have a new nominee for Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars ever here. :) On a more serious note, though, quit it. You may be willing to disregard the 3RR, but I'm not and I'm prepared to enforce it. Bryan 00:05, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)