Talk:Caret

Caret (character)

Possibly a better title is "Caret (character)" or "(typography)" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitzak‎ (talk • contribs) 19:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Is it used as a character (disambiguation) (sic) or typographic element anywhere outside computing? Because if not, this does seem the common name. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The article says it is used in mathematics as a symbol, though this very well could be due to the math being typed on a computer. It seems likely the usage could date back to pre-computer typewriters however, and any indication of a hand-drawn one being used as a spacing character may well predate any of that.Spitzak (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Caret (proofreading) is also used in typography/typesetting. I was going to go with Caret (programming), but quickly realized the character is used in non-programming computer languages. fgnievinski (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spitzak:, the 'mathematical use' text refers to the Hat operator, where it appears to be used only as a circumflex diacritic. So not a caret in any sense. "Hat" seems to be the common name among mathematicians too. How's your LateX? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I meant the "substitute for exponentiation" part of the article.Spitzak (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Splitting articles

Fgnievinski, if you had used the WP:SPLIT procedure, these issues could have been identified beforehand rather than trying to clean up afterwards.

@John Maynard Friedman: WP:PROSPLIT states: "If an article meets the criteria for splitting and no discussion is required, editors can be bold and carry out the split." Caret was clearly a WP:CHIMERA. fgnievinski (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

How hard would it have been to have written a note here at the talk page to say something like "I propose to be bold and split this article but I don't believe that it needs a full WP:SPLIT. If anyone has any concerns, please let me know by 23:59 UTC on 14/3/22". That would have given others a chance to highlight any issues that need to be resolved. I doubt that anyone is questioning the logic of the split: the issue is the cavalier way you have done it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about the bad impression, my experience is that discussions tend to favor the status quo. fgnievinski (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

There are more than 100 links to Caret: can we assume that you will go round them all and resolve? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it does seem like "Caret" in about 99% of the links is intended to point at the "computing" version.

@John Maynard Friedman: I've retargetted the Caret redirect here and left a {{redirect-distinguish}} notice. fgnievinski (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead too short? Or just not the right lead?

I'm not sure that the issue is really that the lead is too short but more that it is still too focused on the derivation of the symbol. The lead as it stands doesn't adequately summarise its use in computing. What is really needed is a new lead rather than an expanded one. The current lead would make a good body section. IMO. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've split the lead into a new section. That makes space for the lead to be enlarged. fgnievinski (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

What's in a name?

DePiep applied the name "Spacing caret" to the infobox. This seems odd and excessively technical to me. Also, a 'real' caret is a spacing character too, so it doesn't actually disambiguate. Can we do better?

• How about Programmer's caret (though the mathematicians may complain)?
• ASCII circumflex – probably more accurate but fails WP:COMMON NAME
• or just plain Caret and just accept that life was never meant to be fair.

Thoughts? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Earlier name "Caret (computing)" is incorrect for an infobox, becasue it has a disambiguation term. Find the right name. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, agree completely. Ruled out. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been researching usage and notice that "ASCII caret" seems most popular. As far as I can find, the ASCII standard didn't (and doesn't) name the "ordinary" characters, only the control codes. So I am going to be bold and change it to that. The only real question is whether it needs scare quotes and I think not but won't argue if anyone does. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Drat, my mistake, the long version of X3.64.1967 does actually call it a circumflex. Scare quotes needed? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Since "ASCII caret" is just plain wrong, I have changed the infobox title to just plain "Caret", complete with scare-quotes. At that point, I give up! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary and unilateral page move

Steel1943 has unilaterally declared that the misuse of the word caret by programmers makes it the wp:PRIMARYTOPIC. Meanwhile in the real world, it is the common name for the insert symbol and is the first experience of most school children. I object to such arbitrary behaviour and will seek to reinstate to the status quo ante. Then let us have an adult debate and reach a consensus. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The following is a repost of this series of edits: @John Maynard Friedman: Your assumption couldn't be more wrong. Caret was a redirect towards Caret (computing) for about 6 months. I moved the page in response to a request on WP:RMTR by Kleinpecan (as seen in the very edit history you referenced) after a series of edits was performed by Fgnievinski on 7 March 2022. The move was technical in nature due to Caret being a redirect towards Caret (computing) for 6 months. All edits I did on the disambiguation page were per MOS:DABPRIMARY in regards to the current situation. In other words, next time you point a finger, make sure you are pointing it at the correct editor since the finger should be pointed at Fgnievinski ... well, that, and I agree with you, and would probably support any move request that changes the current status quo. Steel1943 (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@Steel1943: I apologise for questioning your good faith, it is just a pity that you didn't leave an explanatory note that might have saved my blushes. Obviously your procedural move was entirely reasonable in the circumstances. I don't propose to dig myself in any deeper. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: No worries though! Happens to the best of us. But hey, unless you start a discussion, I don't mind doing so: Do you believe Caret (proofreading) should be the primary topic, or could there potentially be a lack of one and Caret (disambiguation) should move to Caret? (IMO, I think the computing and proofreading articles should probably be merged, but that may be a discussion for a different day.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunatly it does seem like "Caret" in about 99% of the links in Wikipedia is intended to point at the "computing" version.Spitzak (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that tells you more about the demographic profile of Wikipedia editors over the years. Meanwhile in the real world, the OED, the CED, Merriam-Webster, Collins, Dictionary.com, Unicode Consortium, Wiktionary and many more all agree that U+2038 ‸ CARET is the primary topic. But hey-ho, this is Wikipedia. It is not a battle I would have any hope of winning so I won't waste my time trying. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)