Jump to content

Template talk:Long dash

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Template talk:Long dash/doc)

Is it possible to achieve this?

[edit]

Is it actually possible to create a 3-em dash that looks OK to everyone? User:SMcCandlish thinks the kerned version looks bad in Firefox under MacOS X. If I look at his unkerned version, in either Firefox or Safari, I see three m-dashes with little spaces between them, like this: ——— (vector skin, default fonts). Is this resolvable? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can use U+2E3B (⸻) like I tried to do (in revision 589000233 you just reverted) but that depends on font support. So you trade one problem for a different one. So I think, in short, the answer is "no"—you will always be able to find some conditions under which it "doesn't look right" to someone. ⇔ ChristTrekker 20:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this, and for your attempt to improve the template (which is little used anyway). Does the template as it stands produce a "wrong" result for you (it looks good to me, MacOS 10.6.8, Safari 5.1.10)? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like one extra-long dash in the two browsers I've tried. Not quite as long as U+2E3B does, but again, that depends on the font support and the design of the characters. I always include that char in the fonts I design. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CS1

[edit]

I'm curious what the dashes look like when using CS1 templates:

  • Cook, Nicholas (1987). A Guide to Musical Analysis. Oxford University Press.
  • Cook, Nicholas (1998). Music: A Very Short Introduction'. Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authormask= ignored (|author-mask= suggested) (help)
  • Cook, Nicholas; Everist, Mark (1999). Rethinking Music. Oxford University Press. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |authormask= ignored (|author-mask= suggested) (help)

--  Gadget850 talk 15:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm dogged by the feeling that what a user sees is based on choice of fonts, browser options or whatever, rather than any usefully reproducible result. The author-mask parameter in {{cite book}} produces a bad result for me (three slightly spaced em-dashes); I think that may have been what originally caused me to create this alternative. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's ugly for me when it's this way.

[edit]

So for some viewers, it looks like ass one way, and for the other viewers it looks like ass the other way. The way I favor is the standards-compliant way. Hmmmm, I think I'm obviously right in this situation, and the people who need ugly hacks to get it to look good should just fix their systems (and/or Wikimedia should add it to their Web fonts). —{{u|Goldenshimmer}}|✝️|ze/zer|😹|T/C|☮️|John15:12|🍂 00:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the CSS hack should be obsolete now

[edit]

Noto fonts are now ubiquitous in modern versions of many operating systems. Can we switch to using the proper Unicode character now, instead of a hack that produces a bumpy rasterization? 177.249.161.44 (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]