Talk:Multiplication sign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Bad title

i think this should be moved to Multiplcation symbolVincent.premysler 00:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)vincent

But this page is not only about the multiplication symbol. The cross product is a totally different operation for which the × notation is also used. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

well then this article should be moved to times sign and cross. dicklyon said so onis number sign ok Vincent.premysler 12:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)vincent

Well, the more accurate title should be Notation for the cross product, multiplication, and Cartesian product. I think × is the best name for the article, since the article is about the × symbol and its uses. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

but i think it would be hard to type it in with no redirect links and also i had a conflict with dicklyon about the title of number sign. i wanted to change the title of number sign to #. i dont like this. just move × to Notation for the cross product multiplication, and Cartesain product Vincent.premysler 15:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent

Vincent, did you see the movie Because I Said So with Diane Keaton? It's really terrible, but should clarify that "dicklyon said so" is not a sensible reason for anything. If I were you, I'd make the argument like I made on the number sign page that we usually name articles by the name of their subject, not by the subject itself. You can look up the preferred unicode name for ×, which I believe is multiplication sign, and you can look for examples of the names of other articles on punctuation and symbols, and try to make a case for what you are proposing. If it comes down to just a disagreement between you and one other editor, you can call for a third opinion using WP:3O. Welcome to wikipedia; not invest some energy in figuring out how it works. Dicklyon 17:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

it actually was with two other editors. Vincent.premysler 17:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent

we usally name articles by the name of the subject. Vincent.premysler 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC) vincent

Oleg, if I read his user page right, Vincent is a toddler, so we should perhaps give him some slack. Anyway, you can probably see my position, that using the character's name would be preferable to using the character itself as an article title. We can still discuss its various meanings, and have redirects from alternative names. But it's one character, and I don't see any precedent for naming articles on characters by the character itself. What do you think? Dicklyon 21:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in general using characters that can't be typed as article title is not good. However, as far as this particular article is concerned, I have yet to see a good name for it (again, multiplication sign won't work, as one can use &midot; for multiplication, and × for things which are not multiplication). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it has much to do with whether the character can be typed. Look at number sign, which is easy to type; it has a myriad of names and uses, yet the article uses the preferred unicode name, which is not a bad convention. All of its names and meanings are nevertheless discussed. That precedent says your argument has not held sway in similar situations. Dicklyon 04:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Also note that +, -, –, %, ~, ^, $, @, =, `, \, ;, *, !, etc. are all redirects to names of the characters; so is / but it does't work as a wikilink. So, let's do it, OK? Or do we need a third opinion? Dicklyon 05:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the hybrid name article refers to it as a "multiplication sign", and all of the listed mathematical uses are forms of multiplication or product computation (the monadic APL operator being the exception). Dicklyon 06:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you want to move it, fine with me. But then the double redirects need to be fixed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem; there's a bot that usually fixes them within a day if I don't get them all myself. Dicklyon 16:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusion

There are remarks about a similar glyph in Unicode for the vector or cross product, which say that this appears bigger than the normal times symbol. However, with the font my browser displays the page with, the vector product symbol is smaller than the times symbol. For comparison: U+00D7 = × (times), U+2A2F = ⨯ (vector product) I can't really confirm this now. If this can't be verified, should the size be mentioned at all? smiler (talk) 14:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)