Category talk:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites

Shouldn't it be Hyphen Luddite Wikipedians though? I know that doesnt have as good of a ring to it, but it seems like every other category in Category:Wikipedians_by_Wikipedia_editing_philosophy goes like that. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be Hyphen-Luddite Wikipedians, Hyphen–Luddite Wikipedians, or Hyphen—Luddite Wikipedians?—— Shakescene (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a major WP:DASH enforcer, so feel free to convict me of the error of my ways. I don't have a strong opinion about the details of that rule, but I have a stronger opinion about the process; that is, if it's a bad rule, then change it or remove it. Also, the clutter of – code is avoidable by using the dashes from the bottom of the edit page on the line that begins with "Insert", and there is a bot campaign to replace – with –. Art LaPella (talk) 01:53, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before more people join this dastardly hyphen cult, note that:

To enter an n-dash on a Windows system, you can type Alt-0150: –
To enter an m-dash on a Windows system, you can type Alt-0151: —

(Num lock has to be switched on.) JN 466 21:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good, but am I the only one who thinks they're basically the same? What difference does it actually make? J Milburn (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice the difference before Wikipedia, but here's what you're up against, and it isn't just Wikipedia's WP:DASH. I'm just saying that Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is a better place for such a protest. If it happened there, I'd be more likely to support such a protest than to oppose it. Of course the Manual of Style is the home of grammar Nazis, but that won't be solved by avoiding them; you should at least make your point there before looking for broader support for a revolution along the lines of "if a majority of editors don't know what you're talking about, it's Wikipedia:Instruction creep." Art LaPella (talk) 16:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, doesn't the date delinking arbitration case demonstrate it's a much better use of volunteer time to contribute content than to wade through the MOS swamp? Durova²⁷³ 19:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wade through arbitration cases as much as you do (I'd rather change hyphens and dashes – at least someone considers that productive). But I thought the date delinking case was about an edit war (or was it just a screaming argument?). Anyway, it wasn't just expressing a dissent at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. If they went to the trouble of making their WP:DASH opinion official, then don't we at least need to tell them they're wrong, whether or not we stay and argue in detail? Art LaPella (talk) 22:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on whether one views the guideline as descriptive or proscriptive. Durova²⁷³ 01:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if it's descriptive, that means that the real rule is what everybody does, and the written rule is only an attempt to explain it. Here's how I explained that for Did You Know. So? We should still make some effort to make the written description explain what's really happening, so people don't have to ask everybody before they can do anything.

Long ago when I worked for Boeing Computer Services, a more experienced co-worker told me I needed to run a program to verify my IMS databases, to avoid a crash he had experienced years ago. When I finally got it to run, it reported a bunch of computerese, and he said it meant I had to fix it, although the system was running with no apparent problems. How to fix it? He said I needed to find out how. IMS can take years of study, so the only obvious course was to ask the IMS database administrator, who said don't worry about it. But the co-worker insisted I needed to fix it. And I couldn't get him to walk 200 feet to talk to the database administrator!

Anybody who thinks that story is off-topic, hasn't thought enough about the topic. Art LaPella (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Art, that makes sense in its way. So does this: MoS really doesn't succeed on any level. We're a wiki so it isn't stable. The people who care about it (some of them professionals in related areas) care passionately about it. MOS disputes are longstanding and bitter, and horror stories have come from people who first went there with pretty much the same intentions you suggest and got sucked into its vortex. All of which sidesteps the fundamental question: do we really need an in-house manual of style? For the most part, no. There's already a precedent with national spellings to let different articles use different spelling conventions. Why not let articles use different style conventions too? Almost universally (outside of FAC) that's what already happens. You like Chicago; use Chicago. As long as you're consistent about it, use any mainstream style guide you want. It'd make sense to deprecate most of the WP MoS to essay status, keeping only the parts that are wiki-specific at guideline. I've been so turned off by MoS that only two of my 275 featured credits are articles. And my graduate training was in a writing program. Durova²⁷⁵ 20:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally make suggestions at MOS, and a few have been adopted. More often I walk away before it gets bitter; at least they know how I feel. Here's my latest attempt. On further thought, that comparison is unfair; I have also debated religious people knocking on my door, although I'm helpless in social situations. On further further thought, it is fair; you're the same person who can put up with [deleted]

OK, I didn't consider it a big deal. Thanks for making your objection plainer. Art LaPella (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame[edit]

It would have made things a lot easier if the people who came up with wiki syntax had made -- produce an en dash and --- an em dash. I guess it's too late to make such a change, though. Jafeluv (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was one of many ideas briefly mentioned here and here. Art LaPella (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphen Luddite userbox[edit]

I'm developing a Hyphen Luddite userbox which I have displayed on my userpage. If any of the Hypehn Luddites want to use it they can transclude it by cutting and pasting {{User:Trilobitealive/Userboxes/Luddite}} though I'll warn you I may adjust the colors, et cetera. It does not automatically enroll you into the category. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also wish to transclude a version which will automatically enroll you into the Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites. That version is {{User:Trilobitealive/Userboxes/Luddite plus category}}. Regards to all fellow Hyphen Luddites. Trilobitealive (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Manual proposal to end dash wars[edit]

Without passing on the merits (since I haven't read through the discussion yet myself), there's a new proposal to "end" the emdash/endash/hyphen wars at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Ending the endash/hyphen warring. In that spirit, have a good holiday season. —— Shakescene (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper Luddites[edit]

When I first saw this page I read it as 'Hyper Luddites,' and I thought, 'strange that you'd have Hyper Luddites using computers and the internet.' Turns out it's much more mundane than all that. Joe (talk) 20:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]