Talk:Asteriscus

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asteriscus

For the May 2005 deletion debate on this article, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Asteriscus.

Well if there's going to be a page for asteriscus, then there ought to also be pages for sagitta and lapillus, yes? Do any of these fish earbones really have that much detail to them, individually, that they all need separate pages? (Obviously I disagree with the "keep" vote; I'm in the process of editting "otolith" where to my mind they all fit perfectly fine.) NerwenGreen 07:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asteriscus, a kind of asterisk

The asteriscus is not the same as the asterism. Please do not re-edit the link to falsely claim this is so. There is no page currently in existence for the asteriscus, and it is described within the top of the page in the asterism article. As I do not have a wikipedia account, and so cannot create new articles, I have set the link to the present location of the information. If you would like to create a separate page for the asteriscus, feel free to do so, but there is a dirth of information of the little-known punctuation symbol and I fear the article would never grow to be large enough to meet the minimum page information content wikipedia aspires to. Again, ܍(the asteriscus) is obviously different from ⁂ (the asterism), and, besides their etymologies, share little. 24.23.201.234 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I misread the linked article - my apologies. However, your disambiguation entry as it stands has a number of problems. The first linked article Asterism (typography), contains the word asteriscus, but the article makes the statement that it resembles the asterism which is not mentioned in the source provided in that article; as you say it is obviously different. For this reason I believe the statement Besides originating from the same word, "the rarely used asteriscus (܍), which Isidore of Seville (p. 48) says 'is put in place of something that has been omitted so as to call attention to the omission'," also resembles the asterism should be removed from that article, which will leave nothing to link to. The second linked article, asterisk, does not mention asteriscus in connection with the specific symbol or use. Finally according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages, piping should not be used in disambiguation pages and include exactly one navigable (blue) link to guide readers to the most relevant article.--Melburnian (talk) 09:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]