The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. As Dicklyon says, it may make sense to separately list the remaining item here. --BDD (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

* Post-PC era → Post–PC era

• Post-Civil Rights era in African-American history → Post–Civil Rights era in the United States

* Post-Suharto era → Post–Suharto era * Post-war → Post–war – MOS:ENDASH says to use an endash "instead of a hyphen, when applying a prefix (but not a suffix) to a compound." Unless I am missing something, these, and hundreds of other articles need to be moved. I feel the Post–Civil Rights article is needlessly wordy. Maybe also consider: Post–Civil Rights era (United States). Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You are missing something. Look beyond the section you quoted and you'll see "... that includes a space." So right off the bat, this doesn't apply to post-war. I could see it going either way for the other cases, but I'm skeptical. I don't think I've seen endashes used this way outside of Wikipedia, and I'm very hesitant to encourage their use given the relative difficulty of typing an endash versus a hyphen. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see punctuation used correctly, but I think everyone might be better off if Wikipedia banned endashes altogether and just used hyphens. (Not emdashes, though—you can pry them from my cold, dead hands.) --BDD (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was to delimit articles like postmodernism where no punctuation is required. If not, what is the distinction? This isn't elaborated in the guideline. I've never liked endashes in titles very much but I suppose the proper venue would be the MOS talk page. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction is that the dash is used when the term being prefixed includes a space. So a former prime minister would be "ex–prime minister" with a dash, but a president would be "ex-president". (The hypothetical minister of former primes, however, would be "ex-prime minister" with a hyphen.) In Post-PC era it's just "PC" that is being prefixed (it's not "after the PC era" but the era "after the PC"), so the hyphen is correct. "Post–Civil Rights era" on the other hand would require a dash according to the MOS. Jafeluv (talk) 13:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah that makes more sense. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment where does that convention come from? You should use a hyphen, not an endash to attach a prefix, same as with an adjective. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most online grammar guides say use a hyphen, not an endash for this application. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose have the massive number of redirects that would take place been accounted for? People would almost always enter "Post-PC", not "Post–PC", because few people understand the difference between the two, and more importantly, know how to type an endash on their keyboards. I had to look it up just to write this keyboard, and I consider myself fairly knowledgable when it comes to what key combinations mean different things. So, people entering "Post-PC" would be redirected to "Post–PC", and not know why. There's little visual difference when inputting text, so it's a lost cause trying to teach people. One of the few instances of an endash in a article name I could find was the McCain–Feingold bill redirect page. This redirects to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act article, along with the hyphenated equivalent. The endash redirect has been used 143 times in the last 90 days, and the hyphenation 211 times. Now, the endash redirect is linked from the endash page, so it's not possible to know how many people physically typed the endash, but it shows that it's not used often. Similarly, the Lennard–Jones potential page has a redirect pointing to it that substitutes the hyphen for an endash. The endash version has been viewed 492 times in 90 days, and the hyphen version 34253 times; even removing the redirects, thats over 3300 times more visited than the endash equivalent. We need to think about real-world use, and that will almost always be a hyphen, not an endash. Our user base will still enter Post-PC era, and should still be delivered to Post-PC era, not Post–PC era. drewmunn talk 16:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to complain about the MOS guidelines. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining about MoS, I'm stating why I don't think it should have standing should it weigh in favour of an endash. drewmunn talk 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all – if there is one proposed move that has not been withdrawn, and does not fit the pattern of the original rationale, then that one should get a fresh RM proposal with proper rationale of the different proposed changed, and get away from the confusion with which this RM started. Dicklyon (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this is no longer about PCs, why is this discussion still occurring here? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.