Talk:Multiplication sign

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Bad title

message: 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)
replies: text: That was my observation too. I can only assume that the previous statement was in error or that it varies widely by font. — CharlotteWebb 17:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion

message: I've never heard this called the "into" symbol.  Can someone give a reference for this?  --Doradus (talk) 20:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Into? 

message: In mathematics, "into" is used only for division, not for multiplication. Probably this confusion came from Latin language. In Latin, "in" is used for multiplication to read multiplication sign. 
For example, "Clavis Mathematicae" written by William Oughtred in page 7 describes "4 in 6 fiet 24".
http://books.google.co.jp/books?id=Ld5EAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=ja&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cozycube (talk • contribs) 12:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of its origin, the use of the word into to denote multiplication is common enough that it is listed under the definition of the word in the Oxford English Dictionary Online, with the example, "to multiply x into y".--Joshua Issac (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the 1993 edition of OED, the definition of "into" meaning "to indicate multiplation" was marked as obsolete (as denoted by the dagger symbol and "Obs."). See screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/lCRTd6Z.png I am henceforth removing this definition from the page. 73.170.55.160 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Into is not used for multipication 

message: I was reviewing an article about a musician, and a table in the article included record sales. A few albums were noted as 2x platinum, a shorthand for "double platinum", meaning sales of 2 million units. I thought about changing it to 2× platinum and then decided I had no idea if convention made the 'x' more correct than '×'. Any one? jameslucas (" " / +) 16:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 'x' ever preferable to '×'? 

message: The article states that the multiplication symbol can be typed on a Mac using Shift+Option+.
This just gives me a a breve (˘) (UK Keyboard, OS X 10.10.4). Does this key combination generate a × on any other keyboard? Or is it from a previous version of OS X?
St3f (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Computer Software 

message: I apologize for my lack of technical expertise, but how exactly do I type the multiplication symbol (×)?   There's no "×" key on my keyboard, and while there are 254 alt codes (most of which are useless), none of them yield "×" (which would be useful).  Go figure.  :-\   So how do I type a "×" when I need it?   (For this comment, I've been copying and pasting the "×" symbol from this article itself.  But that's clumsy and shouldn't be necessary.)   Captain Quirk (talk) 17:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I type "×" ? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Multiplication sign. 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/20100109121013/http://www.apple.com/de/pro/tips/specialchar.html to http://www.apple.com/de/pro/tips/specialchar.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025090903/http://www.typografie.info/typowiki/index.php?title=Mac_Zeichenpalette to http://www.typografie.info/typowiki/index.php?title=Mac_Zeichenpalette
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: FYI, I asked that the discussion above be closed because it was clear that nobody liked my wonderful idea. By the end, even I didn't like it either. It seemed best to just shut it down so as to start again with a clean sheet. I plan to open another informal RFC, this time based on 's idea of just having an  hatnote but, as it is August, it is only fair that I wait a few weeks before doing so. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative proposal coming

message: Everything I've written in this section comes either from the Cajori source, or from Oughtred's Clavis, the relevant sentence of which I translated from Latin with the assistance of Google Translate. The prior text claimed that the sign was in use before Oughtred, but when I checked the source, I saw that those "prior uses" are mentioned only for the purpose of showing that they are mistaken. A source must not be cited to support a claim that the source specifically rejects. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but especially for checking and falsifying an invalid citation. Can you be more specific about the sources (like, where they can be found, so that someone else can repeat your investigation). Verbatim quotes would be welcome, text in Latin is fine. It is probably easier to put the material here first so that it can then be worked up into standard form. Getting it right is more important than getting it pretty. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

text: I should also have said that Wikipedia doesn't like unattributed passive voice ("it has been said") because of the risk of abuse: such phrases always need immediate citation even if it repeats a citation at the end of the sentence. As I have just done. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

text: Thank you, that is ideal. I will update the article accordingly. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: History