Talk:Interpunct

Typography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TypographyWikipedia:WikiProject TypographyTemplate:WikiProject TypographyTypography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Writing systems Low‑importance

	Writing portal This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.Writing systemsWikipedia:WikiProject Writing systemsTemplate:WikiProject Writing systemsWriting system articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Romans, not Greeks

Ancient Romans, not Greeks, used interpuncts.

Ducky

Merge with middle dot

Re: The suggestion to merge this entry with middle dot. If the merger is undertaken, the heading should be "Interpunct", not "Middle dot", because, even if the less common term, "Interpunct" is a far more pleasingly interesting word.

User:thrash Re: I support the merger, but I think the new article should be called "Middle dot", as it is the common term used in typography, and also coincides with its character entity; the name "Interpunct" should only be cited inside the article as an alternate name, and "Interpunct" should indeed redirect to "Middle dot".

I agree. --Joanberenguer 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the title should be Interpunct, since that's its formal name. There should be a redirect from Middle dot. --Dakart 23:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google yields 300,000 hits for "middle dot", 15,000 for "centered dot", and only 11,000 for interpunct. Pleasing interestingness isn't reason enough to keep the least common name, and how exactly is interpunct this mark's "formal name"? This should be moved to middle dot.--Severinus 08:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Math

This usage has its own designated code point in Unicode, U+2219 (∙), called the "bullet operator".

Shouldn't that be the dot operator U+22C5 (⋅), or ⋅? — Omegatron 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a compatibility character for Windows-1252. See http://www.microsoft.com/typography/developers/fdsspec/maths.htm for more information. —Tokek 12:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other talk page

For convenience & reference, here is a link to the Middle dot talk page: Talk:Middle dot —Tokek 12:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to type it?

How is it typed on a computer keyboard?

I am studying Catalan and i want to type it. I can't find it on keyboards. I tried it on Windows and on Fedora. I couldn't find a "Catalan" layout in either of them, they only have "Spain".

Any help? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think i found it - Shift-3, right? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*NIX (Ubuntu)

I was able to use it in a Spanish (Latin American) layout using AltGr + 3. I haven't been able to use it in English (US, international with deady keys) --Stuardo str (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Math II

The symbol is also used to fill the space where an expression would go, when that expression cannot or shouldn't be specified. Eg., the norm function is often written ||•||. Anyone have a good wording of this to put in the article? --Kvaks (talk) 11:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there are 3 symbols used in "mathematical" math: bullet (as in unnumbered lists; a VERY rare usage); a centered dot (as used for scalar product etc), and "a fat centered dot" (as used in the example ||•|| for an "unnamed variable"). Typographically, I observe the fat dot to be smaller than the bullet, but larger than the centered dot; about the same size as ∘. In TeX it is tricky to typeset; in Unicode it is • vs ∙ vs ⋅ (BULLET vs BULLET OPERATOR vs DOT OPERATOR) — but what you see is probably not what I mean because fonts did not necessarily catch up with the intent of Unicode...

--76.218.120.86 (talk) 22:02, 3 March 2012 (UTC)ilyaz[reply]

Ambiguity in lead

The sentence "Such triangles can be found on inscriptions on buildings in the twentieth century." is rather ambiguous. This could either imply that such inscriptions are (were) still extant in the present (20^th century), or that the "triangular-interpunct" is still being used in the production of modern inscriptions. While I assume the former is nevertheless true, I would think that the original intent of the sentence was to imply that the triangular-form is still being used. Could someone who knows possibly rephrase to avoid the ambiguity?

Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 18:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Units

I think this is the symbol used to separate units such as kg•K or m•K, but this use it not mentioned. According to Unicode explained by Jukka K. Korpela [1], page 399, this is called the "half-high dot" or "raised dot" and the example given (like mine) does not allow a space before or after the middle dot. That citation also has no space before or after the dot in chemistry examples, contradicting this article. Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that be kg·K rather than kg•K? What I don't understand about your source is why it lists multiplication (of units, scalars, vectors) as a typical use of the middle dot, but then says that it is distinct from the dot operator and the bullet operator. In the maths section of this article it's also unclear which codepoint should be used: In mathematics, a small middle dot can be used to represent the product; for example, x ∙ y for the product of x and y. When dealing with scalars, it is interchangeable with the times symbol: x ⋅ y means the same thing as x × y, but × is easily confused with the letter x. However, when dealing with vectors, the dot product is distinct from the cross product. This usage has its own designated code point in Unicode, U+2219 (∙), called the "bullet operator". So the article uses a bullet in the first example (but calls it a dot), a dot in the second, then says a bullet should be used. Is it really good to use a bullet in lieu of a dot? It doesn't look right. What is the proper usage of the bullet operator vs the dot operator?--87.162.45.117 (talk) 09:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

colon-like (diamond shape) interpunct

There is a colon-like interpunct I've seen used in hebrew mysticism (hermetic-qabalah), the 'occult'-genre writings of Aleister Crowley (his book 777 for example), where there are two diamond shapes (I mean diamond as the red suit that is not hearts in common card decks; such a shape as that) that are as small as dots, and closer together (in a verticle sense) than the colon, and it is used as an interpunct very widely throughout this work and others. Does anyone know anything of this? I have seen it elsewhere too. 4.242.174.243 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Triangles as interpuncts

I suspect that an engraver would find it easier to render the interpunct as a triangle, using a common tool. Trying to carve a small circle with a straight-edged tool seems like a lot more work than it's worth. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ano teleia

Contrary to what the article claims, Unicode 6.1 says: 00B7 MIDDLE DOT is the preferred character for ano teleia. --76.218.120.86 (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)ilyaz[reply]

Well, read this about the Unicode 6.1.0 and see if it helps us: "Compatibility Punctuation: Two specific modern Greek punctuation marks are encoded in the Greek and Coptic block: U+037E “;” greek question mark and U+0387 “·” greek ano teleia. The Greek question mark (or erotimatiko) has the shape of a semicolon, but functions as a question mark in the Greek script. The ano teleia has the shape of a middle dot, but functions as a semicolon in the Greek script. These two compatibility punctuation characters have canonical equivalences to U+003B semicolon and U+00B7 middle dot, respectively; as a result, normalized Greek text will lose any distinctions between the Greek compatibility punctuation characters and the common punctuation marks. Furthermore, ISO/IEC 8859-7 and most vendor code pages for Greek simply make use of semicolon and middle dot for the punctuation in question. Therefore, use of U+037E and U+0387 is not necessary for interoperating with legacy Greek data, and their use is not generally encouraged for representation of Greek punctuation." ^[1] Reference in PDF from Unicode's official site. I ask for the operator to see if it is valuable to insert in the article. All moderators, thank you for making Wikipedia for us, simple readers! I love it! :-) 189.25.38.32 (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.1.0/ch07.pdf

Katakana interpunct (JA) on Google Translate

Since this may be a little too specific for this article, I thought I'd mention it here since I've seen many people go desperate with the interpunct on GT, i. e. not finding it for the life of them. It's pretty well hidden, since it's on the slash key. This is especially difficult if you're on a non-US keyboard layout, and hence doomed to always having to type the SHIFT key for the slash. -andy 77.190.10.187 (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British English

I'm a little surprised to read this section. Perhaps my use of the interpunct for a decimal point has been atypical, but I had lived all my life in the UK and had always used the interpunct as a decimal point; I never thought of it as a dying concept like the article indicates. In fact I only realized that not everyone did it (except when typing, of course) when I moved to the US and one of my students pointed out that I was writing it "the European way" - I'd had no idea. Is it really dying out in the UK? In which case, I'm kind of amazed that I didn't realize this before, but I guess I'll amend my view. :) 98.222.52.242 (talk) 22:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interpunct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141120120157/http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/punctuation.html to http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/unicode/punctuation.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interpunct. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150328051921/http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/info/symbols/comprehensive/symbols-a4.pdf to http://www.tex.ac.uk/tex-archive/info/symbols/comprehensive/symbols-a4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:04, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gender-neutral writing in French

In French, the interpunct is now used for gender-neutral writing, e.g. "les client·e·s" instead of "les clients et les clientes".

This is well explained on French Wikipedia. Are external references needed, or is the French Wikipedia sufficient? Are references in English needed?

Marcrr (talk) 15:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How page is seen in search engines

Page title of this page, currently: Interpunct - Wikipedia would it not be more appropriate to use: Interpunct · Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:D880:9C01:ED3F:7CE5:5EB7:F167 (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. This presentation is controlled by your search engine, not Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Search engines generally use the Page Title hence the presentation is controlled by Wikipedia. The logic is sound - one wouldn't illustrate a page on hyphens using an interpunct... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.152.17 (talk) 16:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, my mistake, but it doesn't make any difference to the outcome. The title of all Wikimedia pages, as given to search engines, is [project name] - [page name], thus Wiktionary - Parenthesis or Wikisource - The Wealth of Nations or any Wikipedia article you care to choose. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Hebrew

The interpunct was also used in Ancient Hebrew (e.g. Siloam inscription - see § Translation and look at the actual inscription). It was probably used in Aramaic inscriptions from that era (c. 8th-9th C. BCE) as well. --Eliyahu S ^Talk 16:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Mayflower Compact does not show centered dots

Currently, §English says: “In the early modern era, full stops (periods) were sometimes written as interpuncts (for example in the handwritten Mayflower Compact).” That may well be, but the illustration, showing Bradford's transcription, does not show them. Since there is no source for that claim and since the original has been lost, I suggest removing that sentence as well as the image. ◅ Sebastian 14:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see all the periods in that document drawn at a raised level and looking like interpuncts. I agree this does not fully support any such interpretation however, as there are no "non-raised" periods which would be necessary for any proof that the symbols were considered different by the writer.Spitzak (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind reply. To be honest, it took me a second read to understand what i originally meant: The displayed picture does not show the original, but a transcription. I now see that a more cautious suggestion would have been to reword the text accordingly, and i shall do so now. ◅ Sebastian Helm 🗨 10:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decimal marker

The interpunct was used as decimal marker not only in British but also in Austro-Hungarian and Ukrainian publications. 176.111.181.154 (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you dig out a citation (evidence) to support that please. It will certainly be added when you do. No need to make it look pretty, finding the source is 99% of the work and a regular editor will do the formatting task. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.1.0/ch07.pdf

[1]