Talk:Asterism (typography)

message: The article is ambiguous about whether asterisms separate subchapters, divisions smaller than subchapters, or both. — Hippietrail 17:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambiguity

message: Nowadays, which fonts contain the asterism? DaemonDivinus 23:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Asterism Usage

message: removed the following text:
:It should not be confused with the similar-looking Chinese character 森, meaning "forest", composed of three "tree" radicals 木 in the same formation.
Edit summary was (When will you ever be able to confuse this with a Chinese Character?)
After reading about the Japanese versions of Animal Crossing games, for one. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forest 

message: There's a character I see in books a century old and older that is three equal spaced dots (not asterisks) with the first two dots horizontally†
aligned and the third dot to the right of the first two and equidistant from both.
Obviously I can't draw it here because I can't find any code or character name for it.
Whatever it is, it should be mentioned on this page as a cross reference similarly to therefore and because.  ZoneAlarm5 (talk) 17:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you call an asterism rotated by -30 degrees? 

message: I think this word comes from the word αστερισμός (Asterismōs, constellation in Greek), rather than directly from αστήρ (astēr, star), for obvious reasons having to do with the number of the stars included in the symbol.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkaravel (talk • contribs) 22:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the origin of the name 

message: In the Asterism article, is says that it should not be interpreted as the therefore sign. However therefore sign states: "The therefore sign is sometimes used as a substitute for an asterism ⁂." Does anyone have an idea of how to solve this inconsistency between the the two articles?
Textaural (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistency between article:Asterism and Article:Therefore sign 

message: An image of an asterism is needed for those who don't have it in their font (eg me on chrome on android)
I know there's the book page, but there should be a single asterism early on.
md 178.167.254.169 (talk) 11:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image needed 

message: Asterisms are a type of Dinkus - so this article should be about Dinkuses, with a section inside it for Asterisms. But instead, it's currently an article about Asterisms with a section about Dinkuses. DrAnonymous (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Your logic seems inescapable. But let's see if anyone dissents. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I started to reformat the article in preparation for a swap but quickly realised that there is a problem. Yes, an asterism is a type of dinkus but it has other uses too. So 'asterism' really does need its own article. So the next question is this: does Dinkus need its own article? Will it ever amount to more than three lines? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't make sense to me for Dinkus to be a part of this article, it really should be its own article. Tadfafty (talk) 18:11, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The process is described at Wikipedia:Splitting. I had already considered doing it but concluded that it wouldn't be worth the effort for two tiny stubs. But if you are so inclined, go right ahead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  This should be an article for Dinkus.