Talk:At sign

message: Removed "definition of @-DIGGER AND LINDY WORDS ARE SWITCHED IN A SENTENCE" at the end of "Modern Uses".  If this is somehow not vandalism, perhaps it needs explanation before being reinstated ... Ixtli 14:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: I propose merging the article Commercial at into this article (@), leaving a redirect from there to here.
Reason for merge: both articles are principally about the symbol "@" in general.
Reason for using "@" as title: "Commercial" creates the false impression that the article is only for the symbol's use  as related to commerce; indeed, it looks like confusion over the term "commercial" is why the two articles branched apart to begin with. Krubo 20:35, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Commercial at]] 

message: imo the name of an article should be the name of the symbol not the symbol itself. If there are no objections i therefore propose moving this to "at sign". I cannot make the move as a normal user because the redirect there was edited in the past hence . Plugwash 29 June 2005 16:40 (UTC)
*Agree. All other articles on punctuation marks and similar symbols are listed at the symbol's name, not the symbol itself (see :Template:Punctuation marks). --Angr/ 29 June 2005 17:47 (UTC)
*Comment: Why not "at" or "at symbol"? As the article says, those are both common names for the symbol. NatusRoma 30 June 2005 05:53 (UTC)
*Oppose: The current title is simple, straightforward, and unambiguous.  People would always be bickering about which phrasing is better anyway ("at sign" versus "at symbol" etc.) —Mulad (talk) June 30, 2005 06:25 (UTC)
* Support Article titles are names of things, not the things.  At sign is unambiguous, and the most commonly-used name in my experience.  —Michael Z. 2005-06-30 18:01 Z
*Comment: The letter Þ is there, not at its English name thorn, and that isn't as easy to type on most keyboards in the English-speaking world. I am currently undecided about this. Jonathunder 2005 July 8 01:20 (UTC)
:: There's currently a discussion about moving it back to thorn (letter).  —Michael Z. 2005-07-9 23:28 Z
::: judging from the history of Thorn (linguistics) that article seems to have been moved arround quite a bit. Plugwash 23:59, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What English word ends in "gry" besides hungry and angry?  Circulating around the net in the mid-90's, but has no conventional or commonly-accepted answer... AnonMoos 02:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: AFAICT, it's a Usenet invention, possibly created in this post: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.usage.english/c/iA2K-rHSM5Q/m/yeHhxaGlep8J.  I love it but I dunno how seriously it should be taken. ;-) 71.185.206.118 (talk) 02:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: move to at sign

message: I am adding to the section of various uses that it is also used online as a representation of the circle-a anarchy sign. (see anarchist symbolism)The Ungovernable Force 06:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anarchy

message: Hi guys,
I'm quite perplexed at seeing this section. Interwiki links already cover this, don't they? --Gennaro Prota 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... I withdraw this, sorry. With interwiki links only, we wouldn't have the translation of the non-English names, of course. --Gennaro Prota 01:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing ""Commercial at" in other languages" 

message: http://www.realtechnews.com/posts/3148
Good stuff, credible source.  Look it over and amend the the designated article as is appropriate.  Sorry, I'm too lazy to do it myself. . .isn't it enough I fished up a good source on a subject with notoriously hazy reference material?
Armando Vega a.k.a. MondoManDevout 00:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guys, check this URL out- 

message: Please, someone clarify, what does the Malagasy word amin'ny mean! I'm dying of curiosity. -Oghmoir 18:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malagasy 

message: This seems a rather odd line to have at the beginning of the article. I've never heard anyone make this mistake in my life! Is it really so common? (and is this "verifiable"?) Encyclopedias should hardly be listing wrong information! :)--feline1 17:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I came to this page specifically looking for this information as I've repeatedly heard people (always in and around Bedford, UK, in case that's relevant) calling the @ symbol 'ampersand' which as far as I knew refereed specifically to & (and). I was trying to find out if perhaps the two had a common origin or if there was any explanation for calling it an ampersand. I suspect, based on this page, it's people mishearing/mispronouncing ampersat or asperand. Which is extremely confusing, especially when they're telling you a computer password or something else where there's no context to work out which character they mean. 86.54.181.194 (talk) 16:29, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: "sometimes mistakenly called an ampersand"?

message: I'd prefer if someone discussed this issue before reverting my changes. Of course Taiwanese people do speak Mandarin Chinese, but the translation for the "at sign" in the article is in Taiwanese Chinese, a separate dialect of Chinese, and so it is misleading to put it under "Mandarin Chinese" as opposed to "Chinese" in general. --82.36.97.200 13:18, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandarin Chinese in not spoken in Taiwan 

message: I am surprised the article fails to mention long before it was the "AT" sign it was called the "Each" sign. I worked in grocery stores and we always used it to mean each. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.40.152.181 (talk • contribs).
:Actually, the symbol means "at". "2 apples @ 30 cents" means "two apples at thirty cents [each]". If the symbol meant "each", it would be written as "2 apples [at] 30 cents @". Anyway, I find it hard to believe that you were working in grocery stores long before it was called the "at" sign. :D --Quuxplusone 00:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Each Sign

message: From TFA:
:The origin of @ is debated, but is most likely a cursive form of ā, or possibly à (the French word for 'at').
and
:The at sign appears to have evolved from the Norman French "à" or ā, an abbreviation of an unknown word beginning with a.
I'm inclined to remove both sentences because neither is sourced, and sourcing is omfg important, srsly. 66.92.170.227 19:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradiction 

message: Its most familiar modern use is in e-mail addresses (sent by SMTP), as in jdoe@example.com ("the user named ‘jdoe’ working at the computer named ‘example’ in the ‘com’ domain").
this isn't meant to be the computer named 'example' is it? its the user at the example.com domain...90.240.106.198 23:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect? 

message: the ampersat, the commat, the obelix. Never ever heard those. Feel free to add with cited source and appropriate conditioning - I didn't feel I could honestly even add an occasionally referred to clause to the sentence.Naim Spenny 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonly referred to? 

message: Hello. I come from Poland, I live here since 1986 and I have never heard the atka word which is mentioned as an official word for the At Sign. I mean never in radio, TV, any book, magazine or newspaper, noone of my friends and from my work have never said atka for At Sign. I work in IT, I don't think I'm wrong, am I? Anyone from Poland reading this have heard the word? Answer, I'm curious.
:I've never heard atka used anywhere too and I live in Poland too. I wonder who said it's "official". Maybe it's another "dead rule" used only in dictionaries or something like that. By the way if you're curious you can check Polish Wiki's At sign article and discussion page ( http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/%40 ). 15:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also never heard anyone use the word "bałwanek" for this sign...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.134.183.78 (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Polish word 

message: No one in Germany calls the @ sign a spider monkey or monkey's tail. Well, at least no one who is serious about computers. It's always only At or "At-Zeichen". Suggest removal of these funny names. Even if this New York Times article is correct and is based on some research, it was not properly cited. 217.234.100.110 (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The German word is also stupid 

message: The list of usages isn't very useful or relevant for this article. I suggest the list is severely culled to a handful of representative examples. Managed to do this with semicolon which has stabilised with the more notable computer language examples (with the aid of a judiciously placed comment to ask for common sense to avoid over-expanding example lists. It is not entirely perfect but such an approach has stopped the endlessly increasing list of examples. The appropriate reference about @ in computer language is the language article itself if a notable element, or the manual itself - Wiki is not a computer language reference. I will be bold, depending on feedback. Comments? Spenny 13:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Computing usage 

message: I notice there has been a minor edit skirmish regarding the current 'news' that a chinese couple have tried to name their child '@'; This is potentially not current news at all, but a rehash of old news according to one source; see here and the 2004 story here.
:Thanks for that. It wasn't a good edit and it wasn't really very encyclopedic, but it is nice to have an analysis to back that presumption up rather than just quoting Wiki policy. Spenny 10:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No news is good news. 

message: Is Reuters or The Daily Telegraph (Australia) plagiarizing Wikipedia? Look near the bottom of this article. ~ UBeR 00:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not really plagiarising if it's in the public domain but it doesn't say much for the quality of their newspapers if they just lift it off the Web. Many papers are doing that nowadays though - taking news stories from the Internet and changing the wording a little and printing it =( Sean 04:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The GFDL license requires attribution from the source you copy material from. ~ UBeR 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And actually, it may have been someone from The Daily Telegraph, because the story on the Reuters' Web page (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSPEK36827920070816) does not have the extra information. ~ UBeR 14:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Daily Telegraph / Reuters plagiarizing Wikipedia?

message: I just undid a change to the introduction changing "at sign" to "attersand", I really cannot find any other references giving "attersand" as a formal name for this, it does not appear in wikitionary or dictionary.com, and a google search shows it most in use as a Scandanavian name. 
In addition, the same section where the change was made ends with the quote "no formal English term has been officially assigned to this character.", kind of contradicting the edit made. Until this term is properly sourced we should avoid having it given as 'the name' for this symbol.
See here (earlier in this talk page) for some more discussion over names for this symbol..
EasyTarget 13:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attersand? 

message: I just tried (probably badly) to reconcile the two Spanish and one Portuguese entries in the other languages section, I've essentially combined the Spanish stuff and put the Brazilian usage note into the Portuguese section. Since I know that they are related but distinctly different languages this seemed like a more sensible layout. EasyTarget (talk) 12:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spanish/Portuguese 

message: Ok, I work at my city's archive, and am tasked with transcribing several old documents(ca. 1700) and found something which looks suspiciously much like the at sign.
I can try to get a picture of it online this weekend in case anyone would like to have a look at it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.244.128 (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible historical reference 

message: The most accurate term I have come across for this symbol is "Amphora", which literally means 'two handled'. There's no coincidence that @ has two circles. 
But the most compelling reason is that the "at symbol" was originally used in mediterranean seafaring merchants' log books to represent an amphora, an ancient unit of measurement  comprised of approximately 22.7 Liters or 6 Gallons, or what could be held in an Amphora, a clay vessel used to transport foodstuffs In ancient Greece and Rome.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2000/jul/31/internetnews.internationalnews
BETA 03:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amphora 

message: I don't want to start an edit war, but I dislike the inclusion of ampersat as a name for @. Feeling it to be a very new word that hasn't obatined general acceptance yet. Obvious there are those that fell otherwise. How do we determine whether the article should mention ampersat or not? -- SGBailey (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I worry that "general acceptance" is too conservative a test for an alternate name for a symbol of uncommon reference. A google for uncommon typographic terms, can yield a significantly greater number of hits (150,000 for "interrobang", while "ampersat" languishes at 3530). On the other hand, similar "alternate names" for punctuation tend to be included on wikipedia pages with far fewer hits. (Consider epershand, with its 1220 hits). I think it also cuts in ampersat's favor that it is etymologically accurate ("use in place of 'at'"), as comments above point out. It is currently out of the page, probably in accordance with WP:Avoid Neologisms mentioned above. I'm not going to stick it back in, but I think its inclusion is fair game for further discussion.--Thomas B♘talk 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that the article name should be Ampersat, I came to the page to find out it's proper name and when I saw that the title of the article was "at sign" I was like... really? There's nothing better?SyBerWoLff 14:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

text: As an American with lots of editing and computer experience, I would never call this symbol an "at sign", and don't know anyone who would. We call it the "at symbol". Is it commonly called a sign in other anglophone countries? Meaning no derision, I would only expect to hear "at sign" out of someone whose vocabulary doesn't yet include the word symbol, or from someone with little experience talking about keyboards and typography. I'm intrigued by ampersat, but have never encountered it before reading this page. Eric talk 15:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ampersat 

message: I second the earlier comment where this email address refers to the user 'jdoe' at the domain 'example.com'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.111.201.34 (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  jdoe@example.com 

message: Where is the @ sign located? Did it change over time?--85.176.228.86 (talk) 08:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Over the 2 key on the EN_US keyboards. It's different on most of them. ffm 11:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, for this reason, my family has always just called it a "capital 2" (like A is a capital a, etc)-- but I certainly wouldn't add that, given the rest of the debate about names! :D   Cantras (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shift-2 is a double-quote (") here.  But, I've seen the at-sign as it's own key (Japanese keyb) or ALT-GR-Q (German) 206.251.224.110 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  @ on the keyboard 

message: A disambiguation redirect template is used when an article title or redirection to an article is readily confused with multiple meanings.  @Home Network is pronounced "At Home Network", not simply "At", so it's unreasonable to think that a Wikipedia request for @ implies a desire to look for information about @Home.  After all, it's not the only business that has used or currently uses an at sign in its name.  Todd Vierling (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to @Home Network 

message: This article is really getting out of hand.  Grammar problems all over the place; almost no references at all; a huge definition list of the mark in a whole bunch of languages (all of which individually need published citeable sources!); and a bunch of only loosely associated information about programming languages and other topics.
I didn't really see much of a choice but to tag the page for multiple reasons -- it needs cleanup in a bad way.  So if you're intent on adding more to these lists of information, please make sure that any content you add has real citations!  Todd Vierling (talk) 04:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added multiple issues template 

message: This is my first contribution to wikipedia; help or guidance from others would be appreciated.
Concerning the citation for footnote 3: the source referenced is Ask Yahoo which I don't consider very reliable. Also, it states that the first email was sent in 1971. I have something from a book called 'Wired Style'. Hale, Constance, ed. (1996) Wired Style: Principles of English Usage in the Digital Age. Hardwired. . However, the book is under copyright. On page 15 they discuss the at sign and state that Kate Hafner and Matthew Lyon wrote a book entitled 'Where Wizards Stay Up Late: The Origins of the Internet' from which they quote that the first email was sent in 1972. There is some very good information about the "at" sign in this reference but I don't know if it could be reproduced here legally.
At any rate, it seems the date in question could be changed to 1972.
Chris ubach (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  footnote citation 3 

message: In Alfred Bester's 1953 novel "The Demolished Man", there's a character named "@kins" (i.e. Atkins)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-internet iconic use

message: I can't remember where I heard or read this, but I thought the original meaning of this symbol was "around" to shorten that word up.  It makes sense, because it takes longer to write out this symbol, that to write the word "at".  Also, this is an A with a circle around it.....   a-round.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.43.120.130 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A different meaning. 

message: On January 4 204.193.214.236 added "asperand" to the page. It was changed to "amperand" (sic) on January 9, then back to "asperand" on January 16 by 88.211.33.26, this time adding a reference (and making it bold). As the reference added by an unregitered user is rather weak and I find no consensus on the talk page, I am undoing the edit.  Tengilorg (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asperand again 

message: The image of a Soviet computer screen is captioned as being from circa 1984 but the screen includes a WWW address -- surely that date is incorrect? Z57N (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you check the image page, you can see that the image was taken in 2009 by "Sergei Frolov, Soviet Computers Museum". I assume the image is here to show that the machine (built in 1984) was capable of displaying the @ symbol. The address is just a print out of a BASIC program likely written recently. However, the image also serves as advertising for the museum (the address is real) and was added to the article by the site's owner Sergei Frolov, is this allowed? 128.111.43.202 (talk) 21:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

text: I think this image should be removed.  It adds virtually nothing, and is confusing by its c.1984, which must relate only to the hardware, which has nothing to do with the at sign. Ron Schnell  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviators99 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soviet computer screen image 

message: Regarding the comment about use in e-mail addresses, I've never come across it being read "located at".  In fact, it doesn't tell you anything about where a person, account or computer is located (because an e-mail address isn't an address at all, it is a name by communications definitions).  I recommend that the comment about "located at" be removed and just leave the simpler fact that it is used in e-mail addresses, with a possible example of how one would read it, but not an explanation of what each part means - that would be a subject for an article on e-mail addresses. 82.26.119.245 (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modern Usage and "located at" 

message: In MS-DOS batch files, @ is used to prevent the command itself from being echoed during the batch file's execution.
For example:
:PAUSE
Will display:
:C:\>PAUSE
:Press any key to continue . . .
But:
:@PAUSE
Will display only:
:Press any key to continue . . .
Of course, any commands sent after an ECHO OFF (or @ECHO OFF), will be treated as if they have an @ before them, even if they don't.
I think, since MS-DOS used to be the most popular Operating System of its day, it's notable enough for inclusion here, but I won't put it in, unless everyone here agrees.  - OBrasilo (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Batch 

message: The reference to the symbol as being largely obscure is pure point of view - how could it be measured? We had to work out bills of sale at primary school arithmetic lessons, so it was in common usage even by children in the early seventies, and was no more or less obscure than the plus or minus sign. Also, as the subject comes up later in the article and in these discussions, the symbol never had any sense of “each” then in what we did, as we were taught that you had to specify the quantity as an element of the price (so “6 widgets @ £5·00 per widget” or “6 widgets @ £5·00 each”, “3 gross tin tacks @ £5·00 the gross”, etc. - the latter obviously being different from, and certainly less ambiguous than “3 gross of tin tacks, £5·00 each”. Jock123 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obscure? 

message: As previous discussions have noted, the name asperand is quite dubious — at best it’s a minority usage, at worst it’s simply a typo which got propagated and given credence due to its appearance in this article.  At least some users seem keen to see it included, however, so I’m not removing it, but moving it into the “names” section, in the body of the article.  This way it’s still documented, but doesn’t appear in the lead of the article, from which it’s most likely to be propagated further.  As a further advantage, this gives a place to list more names than would be appropriate in the lead sentence.
I’d be happy to see the debate over the currency of asperand, ampersat continue; if they have been used significantly within any community, and someone can find sources, then I would agree they should be here.  However, in the meantime, it seems inappropriate to have them opening the article while they’re still highly disputed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pit-trout (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I need to comment on this.  If "asperand" is new, it's been around since at least the 70's.  I recall as a teen using it back in the 80's while typing on word processors, and I got the term from my mother, who probably heard it well before then.  Obviously this is just "me source" and not anything as documented evidence, but this isn't something that someone just misspoke back in, say, 2007.ip.address.conflict (talk) 06:21, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Asperand''', '''ampersat''', etc: moving them out of the lead para. 

message: The @ sign is the symbol for a "a human or elf" in the text based rogue like computer game nethack (http://alt.org/nethack/).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.185.32.138 (talk) 13:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  nethack 

message: Several european languages use the name "apestail" to describe this symbol (see here). With this European notability, should an apestail addition be added to the intro as an alternative unambiguous term? Pass a Method talk 18:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apestail 

message: There is no indication it was called voluted A (zavinuté A) in Czech or Slovak at any time in the history. Except for Wikipedia and one blog stating that the author thinks so (but is not confident), there are no search hits for this term. On the other hand, even the Czech Ethymological Dictionary states that the at sign was named after the rollmops. --193.29.76.37 (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voluted A in Czech/Slovak? 

message: Is there a way besides using the shift key? Can't seem to type it the regular way, but there are characters that have the alt+ code right? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 20:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type it like alt+ 

message: I feel it would possibly be beneficial if the languages were transformed into a table;  does this fit with general concensus ?--ProfPolySci45 (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  language references and formatting 

message: Commonly known as "Monkey Choad"
This seems a bit off. Also, may be considered offensive. Is this people vandalising or what?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamcreamore (talk • contribs) 12:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonly known as... 

message: If not, it should be moved to a different sub-section. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is ''modal logic'' a programming language? 

message: In the section about the names in different languages German is mentioned without any reference to Swiss German. Then Swiss German is mentioned later on, where the term is different. I think this may be confusing, and that uniting them for the benefit of those readers who're interested in some variety of German but might not be aware that they should look for Swiss German separately is preferable. Also, it would be good to write what term they use in Austria. 188.169.229.30 (talk) 13:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  German and Swiss German 

message: '!@' redirects here.  It isnt mentioned in the article or on the talk page.  Does anyone know why? John Vandenberg (chat) 04:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[!@]] 

message: The text currently states (in the historical use section) that the earliest fully-developed modern @ sign is found in a 1536 letter, but next to it is a image of a manuscript from ca. 1345 with the sign. It looks very close to the modern sign (much more so than the 1448 Aragonese @ mentioned). I think this should be looked into. Faenglor (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical discrepancy 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on At 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/20060506003539/http://openmap.bbn.com/~tomlinso/ray/firstemailframe.html to http://openmap.bbn.com/~tomlinso/ray/firstemailframe.html
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) 04:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was under the impression @ was used as general shorthand for “at,” pre-computer age. Is this right—is it part of official shorthand languages? Lynn Ami (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorthand 

message: That's it, that's the whole suggestion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teuf0rt (talk • contribs) 12:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe change the name to: At (@) sign, or At sign (@) 

message: It is said that @ is most commonly pronounced "at" especially by younger generation in France. Which is totally wrong to me. It is mostly the older generations (boomers, 60s) that tend to pronounce it "at", the youth tend to pronounce it "arobase". I cannot give any proof of that, though I am requesting other French speakers to consider rectifying this.
--Alexandre-Daubricourt (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How @ is pronounced by younger generation in France 

message: In my understanding, the @ sign is not part of the actual username, but a command to make the system tag or notify the person with the corresponding username. Am I incorrect on that? Anyway I added a "citation needed" tag rather than make the change I want since I don't have a source either. That sentence also goes on to say that this usage is commonly referred to as a "handle" but handle is just another word for username or nickname, predating social media by at least a couple of decades ;) . 2603:8081:4600:AC47:7CF0:FD2C:8387:5D2D (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Media Usage