Talk:Number sign/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

---

Number sign → Hash symbol – According to the article, "The term number sign is popular only in Canada". In that case, with due respect to Canada, it does not seem sensible to use this as the article title when other terms, in particular "hash", are more widely known and used. 86.169.36.54 (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC) NOTE: (added later due to comments). Please include other suitable forms, such as "Hash (symbol)", in your consideration. The important point of the proposal is that the word hash should be used. 86.129.17.12 (talk) 18:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Notifed WikiProject: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Typography#.27Hash.27_or_.27number_sign.27.3F -DePiep (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – there are so many common names that it makes more sense here to stick to the official name in UNICODE. And "number sign" is certainly not an uncommon term in the US. Dicklyon (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter for these purposes what Unicode call it; almost nobody knows or cares. What matters is common usage. 86.169.36.54 (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment, about Unicode naming. Unicode has defined the U+0023 # NUMBER SIGN name. But Unicode also explicitly mentions these aliases: pound sign, hash, crosshatch, octothorpe (pg 3 of 6), [1]. An 'alias' in Unicode is an equally identifying name (unique over all names+alias names, guaranteed). It's just that Unicode can have & must have exactly one 'name' for a character, and it picked 'number sign' over the others. One should not assume an Unicode cultural or other preference from that. IMO, this means that the Unicode name is not very decisive in this topic. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

It's also "Number sign" in the AMERICAN Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII), and well known as such in America for many decades. See this 1985 book. Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

If it is so well known in the US, then could you or someone else please amend the text "The term number sign is popular only in Canada"? This is a significant part of the reason why I proposed the rename. 86.129.17.12 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Did that already. Dicklyon (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. 19:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.2.41 (talk)

Thanks for fixing this. I know for a fact from growing up that the term "number sign" is used in New England and New York State. Also the alternative is not "hash" but "pound". The term "hash" until recently was European only. However all attempts I made to correct this text get reverted. It is probably best to not mention any area at all.Spitzak (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dicklyon. Hash symbol is not used here the U.S., but number sign is. Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose it's been called number sign since 2002, and is the term used in unicode. Before that in 2002 it was called octothrop when it was a stub. So WP:ENGVAR and WP:RETAIN. Considering the multitude of names for this thing "hash symbol" isn't the all that more likely than many other names for it. And you didn't ask for it to be called "hash". -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME this usage is for Canada only, a lot of users would think Numero sign was intended №. Hash passes WP:AT criteria, why not use it. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

We need more sourced statements on usage. That would be more convincing that (well based, well intended) editors experiences. Also, the third alternative pound sign must be taken into view too. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose proposed new name. As the nominator indicated themselves, the actual word used is "hash", not "hash symbol". One can propose to call (name, title) it hash on Wikipedia, for being the true common name. From there, for WP:DISAMBIGUATION reasons, the page should be wiki-disambiguated with a bracketed addition: hash (symbol) (most likely). So, no way the actually used real live name "hash" should have a different title name to explain or disambiguate. No way.

To be clear: I do not express support for changing to hash (symbol) or anything, I do say the proposed name is wrong for guideline reasons. -DePiep (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for many reasons, all found above. Red Slash 00:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
• Hash (symbol) looks good. Don’t rely on the Unicode official data: Unicode people are renown for their typographic ignorance. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean that "number sign" is not a name at all for this symbol? How is Unicode wrong in this? Please explain. See also my comment above, about Unicode naming. -DePiep (talk) 10:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I mean “#” is a number sign, but is not the number sign, similarly to U+000A line feed that is an end-of-line character, but may not be called the end-of-line character for several reasons. Read above and that article about the Unicode ignorance: all things are already said. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I see your point! Simple & clear point about the "a number sign". Though Google did show few or none other "number signs" graphs for me. I guess U+2116 № NUMERO SIGN (№) would be another "a number sign". If this move goes ahead, we'd need a disambiguation page: number sign (disambiguation), or a page number sign ;-) that describes all (two so far) typographical number signs. Need to chew on this.

Me too do not want to let Unicode to decide in this at all (whichever way), because their motivation is not a source in itself (for example, they might have followed legacy ASCII), and their aliases make it a close finish. This being the English language wiki, we'd best go for the primary English word (worldwide). -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Dicklyon. We determine common usage by looking at usage in reliable sources. In this case an appropriate reliable source is UNICODE. --B2C 07:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
• Sources. We need sources for actual name. Above, it is made clear the Unicode is not a good source. Template:Dictionaries of English.

[2] The Guardian 2010. Curious quote: 'In the UK it's generally known as "hash". In America they call it a pound sign'.

Merriam-Webster: [3] does not seem to mention "hash" as the symbol we are talking

OED: [4] not available online (subscription).

-DePiep (talk) 13:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Edit wars have lead to the incorrect "canada only" statement. I grew up in New England and can confirm that this was called a "number sign" there, and in fact you can see the term "number sign" used in plenty of computer documentation from the 80's, including stuff from Stanford indicating it was used on the west coast as well. I believe the area that used "number sign" is a lot larger than Canada. In addition the alternative was "pound sign" so this is not an argument for using "hash" at all. A further problem is that it is not called a "hash sign" but just "hash" and that name is already taken by a food.Spitzak (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Detail: if a word is used by another definition, we do disambiguate (e.g., hash (symbol). It will not ever force us to change the word or deny us to choose the right word, as defined by the domain (typography here, I guess). -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per the reference in the section above, it's been used in the U.S. in business at least since before 1918, as a number symbol (when it goes before a numeral, as in #1) and as pound symbol (when it occurs after, as in "18# sack of wheat"). Either one is acceptable for an article name, but "hash" has never been US or Canadian standard. The sign itself could have been called number or pound for the last century, although most of us who lived in the US during the 60's remember it called "tic-tack-toe sign" or "crosshatch." I don't see either of these being used as an article name. "Hash" is from crosshatch (the engraving term, doublet of hatchet). The use as "number" is probably as a corruption of the 5 mark tally mark that we all know, and finally the use as "pound" may indeed have been a US vs Brit typewriter thing as detailed elsewhere (in the US, the # is used where UK typewriters use the pound sterling symbol £). SBHarris 00:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

• It's either "number" or "pound". Hash is something to be eaten or smoked. —  AjaxSmack  02:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Coming from California, IME this symbol in a general context is called the "number sign", while № is not considered a distinct symbol at all, just a fancy way of printing "No.", just like how ℡ and ℻ are not usually considered anything but sequences of Latin letters (Unicode gives it its own code point for use with Cyrillic and Asian typography). It's called "pound" or "the pound sign" in the context of telephony—e.g. "enter the extention followed by the pound sign", "press pound for more options"—but not much outside of that (I've never seen it used for weight, and wondered for years why it was called "pound" on phones). "Hash" is mostly from computer programmer slang, along with "bang" for exclamation point and "splat" for asterisk, and has only recently become common among nonprogrammers mostly due to hashtags, and even then its use is mostly restricted to computing contexts. — Gwalla | Talk 17:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is another America-centric article

Fact - # only has meaning in the US and probably Canada as Number sign.

Fact - the rest of the world doesn't recognise it as a number sign.

Therefore - this page is wrongly named and should instead be called That funny sign they use in a minority of the English speaking world but thinks it's the whole of the English speaking world aka the USA which is used there and only there to denote number . Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 08:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This article should be merged with the Hashtag page, as a section that states that some minoriities use it to symbolise the word number. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 08:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See below. The sign has been used in the US at least since 1918 as both a number sign (#1) and a pound sign as in pounds of weight (a 100# bag of cement). In the first use it goes before the number, and in the last use, after the number).SBHarris 02:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

George Orwell's 1984 & the Vocabulary Police

It is certainly the practice among all DICTIONARIES I know to include a term as long as it has had a recorded use - and a listing in a dictionary, like Merriam-Webster's, establishes its legitimacy! Accordingly, the following is conclusive for the term to be included at the top of the article as one of the words whose meaning is '#'. Here's the conclusive proof:

    octothorp \ak-te-thorp, -to-\ noun [octo- + thorp, of unknown origin; fr. the eight points
    on its circumference] (1971) : the symbol #
    (C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated

User:Dicklyon thinks otherwise, and has repeatedly REVERTED my inclusion of octothorp at the top of the article.

Accordingly, I request the intervention of an WP Administrator TO ARBITRATE.--Ludvikus 19:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

---

You really think your little tiff requires arbitration already? Why not ask others here to comment? Or try putting info into the article in a more sensible way, rather than as the incorrect statement that octothorp is the preferred unicode name? There no need to resort to personal attacks, which is the only way I can interpret your heading above. I am not in fact against you referring to the symbol in question an as octothorp, and that name is already discussed in the article; it's kind of cute; so if something more needs to be said about it, please do add it, and stop being a crybaby. Dicklyon 19:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, the status of "octothorp" can be estimated by searching a large number of dictionaries. Compare octothorp to a lookup of a more official word like crybaby. Dicklyon 20:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

---

"...octothorp is the preferred unicode name?" That's not my position. I'm saying that millions of American users have been exposed to this sign/symbol, #, and Unicode conventions are not particularly relevant to that usage. Perhaps you should have your Unicode usage THERE. But regarding the oridany person, who comes accross the number sign, he will pick up the dictionary, and perhaps in a game of scrabble spell/write out OCTOTHOPR. But the article, though a search by typing in "octothorp", will not have it at the TOP.

And why does the ARTICLE begin with UNICODE usage! Why not ASCII? ASCII is older and better entrenched in the cultures of the West and those that use the Roman alphabet?

Yours truly,Ludvikus 20:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I just call it a tic-tac-toe board sign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.84.231.3 (talk) 16:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Direction usage is going?

While I know an earlier proposal, just under a year ago, failed, I wonder if we should at least be watching usage closely. I'm a relatively younger person to many here, who spends most of my time on a university campus in the US, and I can say that the predominant usage is definitely "hash" - this is a fairly recent development in the US (no doubt fuelled by social media), and I'd say it has almost totally replaced any usage of "number sign" or "pound" around my area and in my peer group.

At this point, obviously, there's still going to be too much dissension to make the switch - but at what point do we try to look at where usage is going instead of where it was? StarlitGlitter (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good question. I would say that we look at usage in recent publications to obtain evidence of the trend. Dbfirs 08:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Usage in the UK

A very persistent anonymous editor (possibly located near Edinburgh in Scotland if the internet location is accurate) repeatedly insists that the symbol # has been in use in the UK for a hundred years and has been called the number sign. I can find no evidence of this. In fact, early British typewriters had this sign replaced with the £ sign for British usage. The anon editor refuses to bring the matter for discussion here, but there has been some discussion on one talk page (also see User talk:94.9.208.194). I've tried to compromise by modifying the article so that it does not claim so strongly that the sign is unknown in the UK, since usage has obviously spread from America in recent years, but I first met the sign about forty years ago when it was certainly not, to my knowledge, in regular British usage. Does anyone have any evidence of early usage in the UK? The OED says that the symbol was called "hash" in the UK (with earliest cite from 1961), commenting "In North America the symbol is more often referred to as the number or pound sign". Dbfirs 15:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

"A very persistent anonymous editor (possibly located near Edinburgh in Scotland if the internet location is accurate, but currently editing as IP 2.223.1.14) repeatedly insists that the symbol # has been in use in the UK for a hundred years and has been called the number sign. "

I am indeed near Edinburgh (what that has to do with anything gawd only knows !!!)

The "#" symbol or "Numeric Sign" or "Number Sign" as it as know as (depends on whom you speak to as to what they prefer to call it or pronounce it as) has indeed been in use in the UK for as long as I have been alive (50 years) and more. My mother whom was a secretary in the 1940's was taught and used the "#" sign almost everyday in her secretarial work (for British companies) as an abbreviation for the word "Number". My father whom was a manual worker also in the 1940's used the "#" sign to denote the word "Number" on packaging cases for goods being shipped from the warehouse where he worked and on the official British customs & excise forms that accompanied some of those goods being shipped.

Myself, I was taught in my first few years of primary school (as was everyone else in the Scottish education system of my era) 1970/71 that the "#" sign was used as an abbreviation for number.

Those are simple facts that just because you obviously have no experience of those facts doesn't mean you and the other people whom are ignorant on this subject can make absurd and false claims such as "Most British and Irish people refer to the "#" sign as "Hash".

I've spoken recently to many British & Irish people on this subject of ages ranging from 15 to 87 and all understand without fail that the Numeric/ Number sign "#" is used as an abbreviation for the word "Number". I will not have you or others here based on nothing more than your lack of experience, lack of knowledge and let's be honest plain ignorance on this matter try and foist what are nothing more than opinions onto the public and you trying to present those opinions wrongly as fact.

"I can find no evidence of this."

Speak to REAL UK educated citizens then and find out for yourself.

"In fact, early British typewriters had this sign replaced with the £ sign for British usage. "

It has nothing to do with "Typewriters". My father didn't use a typewriter in his work in the 1940's and he used the "#" sign as I have mentioned above. I didn't use a typewriter at School and yet I was taught and have always used the "#" sign as the abbreviation for "Number". You don't have to use a typewriter to use the "#" sign.

"The anon editor refuses to bring the matter for discussion here."

Considering the absurd way one has to attempt to try an communicate here with others (all this crazy "editing" of text already there) is it any wonder people don't want to go to these so called "talk pages" where trying to reply to anyone is about as straight forward as trying to solve a Rubiks cube blindfolded...

" I've tried to compromise by modifying the article so that it does not claim so strongly that the sign is unknown in the UK,"

You didn't try hard enough then because you left in too many opinions that were clearly biased to making it look like no one in the UK uses the "#" sign as an abbreviation for "Number".

"since usage has obviously spread from America in recent years,"

What on earth and where on earth do you come up with such an absurd claim like that from. ???

Such an absurd claim clearly proves my point about certain folk here having a complete lack of knowledge on the subject in hand. I suggest you go ask some grown ups to put you right on your glaring lack of knowledge and incorrect guesswork and you will then realise what a ludicrous statement that is you just made there.

"but I first met the sign about forty years ago when it was certainly not, to my knowledge, in regular British usage."

Like I say I personally "first met" the "#" sign way back around 1970/ 71 in primary school and my parents "first" met it a good 30 to 40 years before that. Just because you have little personal knowledge or use of the "#" sign please stop thinking everyone else has as limited knowledge and use of it as you.

I honestly can't even begin to tell how absurd and indeed sad all the people I've spoken to about this subject recently have found the arrogance and ignorance of people like yourself and certain others here have over your uncontrollable need to be right at the cost of fact you have displayed on this subject. Just because you don't know any better please stop trying to pass on as fact to others what are nothing more than your opinions clearly based on ignorance and a lack of experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.223.1.14 (talk • contribs)

Normally one would just post a reply, like this, typically prefixed with colon(s) for indentation, rather than editing or "refactoring" another editor's talk comments. If you want to get your point into wikipedia, you'll need to find published sources that back up your point. That's how it works. See WP:V and WP:RS. Dicklyon (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind on this argument which started between two anon editors: 67.240.161.139 and 94.0.228.87

I took the trouble to add a few references to the article, and they seemed to support the content of the article before our Edinburgh friend started adding opinion. If there is any evidence of general Scottish use (other than "my mother says"), then perhaps we could have some references for the Scottish viewpoint? Dbfirs 20:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Google's "Ngrams" (you might have to click the search button) on the American corpus indicates that the use of # for number became suddenly popular in America in the late 1920s. If Google's British corpus is a reliable indicator, then the usage never crossed the Atlantic for printed material, though I accept that some business usage might not be recorded by Google. Dbfirs 20:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Our Scottish friend has, so far, found only a Californian company as evidence of British usage. Clearly the usage is becoming more familiar in the UK because of American influences. In another Google search, I thought I'd found some British books using # for number, but on further investigation they all turned out to be published in America. I'm happy to look at any evidence that past usage was common in the UK, but my research indicates the contrary. I don't doubt that business and educational contacts with the USA are making the usage better-known on this side of the pond, but I'm struggling to find evidence. Can anyone find a link to the text of the LeapFrog books? Are they used by British schools? I did find one isolated usage in a heading by the Oldham Symphony Orchestra, but on most of their website they use "No." so I wonder if it was just a Google artefact. I've found some usage in music reviews on British websites, but, on investigation, many of these are by American reviewers. I think we might find some evidence for informal usage in the UK. Dbfirs 00:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Scottish friend originally came here after an arguement on the Amiga forum Moobunny, to change a definition so he could win an arguement. He figured that if Wikipedia agreed with him, that he'd have more proof of his claims than "my Mom and Dad say so". I reverted his edits because that's an abuse of wikipedia. The thread is at http://moobunny.dreamhosters.com/cgi/mbthread.pl/general/expand/46687 and his username is "Only Me", and you can match his IP to the public Amiga section, which shows the IP "Only Me" posts from. His IP is now 2.223.1.14, as can also be seen from the public Amiga section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.161.139 (talk) 18:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I wondered why he was being so persistent in the face of clear evidence. Fortunately, Wikipedia is fairly robust because it relies on external references, and he has succeeded in getting better references into the article. Dbfirs 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

This wordy and reiterating article is redundant and verbose (and it repeats itself)

This article is redundant. It repeats itself, it does. It's rather verbose. Besides that, it's wordy and reiterating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.157.76 (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could explain specifically where the repetition occurs. Also, if you could identify the passages where something is unnecessarily restated, that would be useful. Perhaps you might additionally be able to provide details of instances where the same information is unnecessarily included more than once. 86.152.161.192 (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This Sign vs. the Musical Sharp Sign

If you look carefully at the number/hashtag/pound sign as well as the sharp sign in music, you should find a difference. The sharp sign is actually a mirror image of the number/hashtag/pound sign.Cbsteffen (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Not quite a mirror image, but certainly different, as explained in the article. Dbfirs 07:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Etymology of the "number sign"?

I think the article is missing something rather important: Why is the "number sign" used to denote a number? Where does this usage originate? --- Henrypijames 20:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Why it is used to denote a number is a fairly nebulous concept, as that has been the symbol's original and primary function, which likely predates the etymology of the verbal manifestation itself.

Relating to naming issues raised above: a case could be made, from a descriptivist point-of-view, for the symbol's designation as a "pound sign" as observed from common usage in America. However, the current naming scheme on Wikipedia, where # is identified as a "number sign" and £ is identified as a "pound sign", is one that I wholeheartedly endorse, in small part for its descriptive accuracy in a non-America-centric perspective, but also due to its logical prescriptivist foundation and avail in deterring the asterixification suffered by another of our ill-fated symbol friends. -=( Alexis (talk) 12:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC) )=-

---

I have a theory about why the # came to be the symbolic abbreviation associated with the idea "Number." In old German current script, a scrawled "N" looks a LOT like a #. The enumerators of the 18th century Czech parish records that I'm dealing with wrote, "N 162" - meaning, "House Number 162." On the page, it looks a LOT like, "# 162" - too much so to be ignored. I wrote about this theory on my blog :::shrug::: I don't think it's possible to know exactly why this shift occurred. Changes in language are slow and subtle, and aren't necessarily attributed to one single event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kchallis (talk • contribs) 20:00, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Answer for citation needed

I don't know how to edit things in WikiPedia, but I have a citation for one that is flagged as "citation needed" regarding the use of the Number sign in Canada. Nortel's Norstar phone switch is now owned by Avaya. Their user manual that explains the noted change is at https://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100141949. The reference should be changed from Nortel to Avaya to keep it current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.77.181 (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I made this change. Thanks. Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hashtag again

I'd like to see a source that says "#" is called "hashtag". A hashtag is a "#" followed, with no space, by a word. I can see how, by extension, people could start calling the symbol itself "hashtag," but I'd like to see some evidence before we put this in the lead sentence. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:03, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. I've found a source from Twitter.com. I am going to add it momentarily. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2016 (UTC) EDIT: I've additionally found another source, re-used from the bottom references: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-ancient-roots-of-punctuation "Keith Houston reveals the stories behind esoteric punctuation marks, from the pilcrow (¶) to the manicule (☞) to the octothorpe, a.k.a. the hashtag." EggsInMyPockets (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

however, I've additionally found a website not from Twitter that defines a hashtag as the # symbol followed by some word or phrase. (https://www.hashtags.org/featured/what-characters-can-a-hashtag-include/) "A hashtag is simply a phrase or keyword that is preceded by a pound (#) symbol and used by the micro-blogging community to create a thread of conversations around a specific theme or topic." I'd like to know your opinion if I should keep this word or not. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 17:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Twitter does seem to agree with you. Your second source agrees with me that it refers to the word, not the symbol. I still wouldn't put this in the first sentence. This symbol goes by many names, and the first sentence should only give the most common. Also Twitter is not a reliable secondary source. Houston seems like a good source, but it's not clear to me from the New Yorker quote that he uses the term "hastag" to refer to this symbol. In fact on his blog it sounds like he does not use the term this way: "...‘hasht­ags’, terms which al­low tweets to be grouped to­gether ac­cord­ing to com­mon themes..." Can you find any other reliable secondary sources? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 check out this source: http://time.com/2870942/hashtag-oed-oxford-english-dictionary/ "The word hashtag denotes the symbol deployed in front of a word or phrase on social media to loop the post into a wider conversation on the topic" Additionally http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/11/07/good-question-how-did-the-pound-sign-become-a-hashtag/ "A viewer named Valerie asked: How did the pound sign become a hashtag?" http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2014/11/origin-hashtag-symbol/ "If you’re wondering why the symbol was called “hashtag” in the first place..." http://www.copypress.com/blog/the-hashtag-a-history-deeper-than-twitter/ "The hashtag has become one of the most recognizable symbols of the last decade." EggsInMyPockets (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll accept the OED as a source. It does make me wonder what we'll call hashtags now. I still don't think this belongs in the lead sentence. Can you also fix the first item under "Other uses"? I would put the source there. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The actual entry in the OED Third Edition (June 2014) reads: "hashtag n. (on social media websites and applications) a word or phrase preceded by a hash and used to identify messages relating to a specific topic; (also) the hash symbol itself, when used in this way.". Dbfirs 08:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 I think the first item under "Other Uses" summarizes the predicament very well. "Hashtag" now refers both to the symbol # and the entire phrase "#example". I actually went around asking some undergraduates at my college and they all consider the word "hashtag" to refer to the symbol itself. Their reasoning, when I prompted them further? "#example" is pronounced "hashtag: example" Therefore they associate the word hashtag with the symbol itself. I agree with you though--we are helping the problem rather than fixing it when we put it in the first line of the article. Perhaps a restructuring of the entire first paragraph would help. I don't know. Just throwing out some ideas. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 check out my rewording of the first paragraph. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty bizarre that even Twitter misunderstands what their users meant when they came up with hashtags. Dicklyon (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleting the last sentence in the Octothorpe subcategory

The last sentence in this subcategory deals with asterisks rather than the number sign, but it is also related to the subcategory because it details some history on Bell Labs. thoughts on deleting this last sentence? EggsInMyPockets (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Lede

The intro paragraph has obviously been edited, somewhat unsuccessfully. I will attempt cleanup, but I would appreciate help, if you have any idea what was intended. I am not certain. rags (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have made an attempt, but will refrain from further changes, as I suspect that I see blanks where symbols should be due to limits in the character fonts of my device. I will try again at the library. rags (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, on a public computer, I can see the ligatured archaeic "lb" symbol, and the mathematical 'parallel & equal' symbol, which are represented by blanks on my device. I may have to leave further cleanup to other editors. rags (talk) 22:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Change the title from Number sign to Octothorpe

The use of # as a number sign is just one of many uses of this wonderful character. It can in fact represent pounds (as in currency) and also is a hashtag. Number sign is just one use of this character and it shouldn't be the title of the article. Scholars in typography believe that the official name is Octothorpe.

For this reason I suggest a renaming of this page to Octothorpe, and have searches like Numbe Sign, Pound (symbol) redirect to here. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 05:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

It's my impression that at least in the US, "number sign" is used as the name of the character regardless of how it's used, and "octothorpe" is relatively unknown. Google n-gram shows far more hits on "number sign"; "octothorpe" doesn't even show up until 1980. Kendall-K1 (talk) 11:57, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking at the Talk archives and I understand you. Dicklyon has made very good arguments to oppose the name change. ASCII and Unicode both call this symbol the Number sign and the evidence in U.S. patents deeming it the "number sign." I'm in the U.S. right now and this symbol is also known as the pound sign (from telephones) and the names with the word hash in it are starting to catch on. You should change the bolding of the first sentence as you please. Dang. I always forget to sign the comments. EggsInMyPockets (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeaarghh! But I don't know. Octothorpe seems like a joke invited at Bell Labs, but to quote Incnis Mrsi, "I mean “#” is a number sign, but is not the number sign, similarly to U+000A line feed that is an end-of-line character, but may not be called the end-of-line character for several reasons." EggsInMyPockets (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The first time I saw octothorpe it was no joke. I had just started working on Northern Telecom PBX's (early 80's) and the manuals had numerous references to "type XXX followed by the octothorpe key". 67.249.5.222 (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

The title needs to be such that it lends itself to search by the largest number of users (pun unintended), and unfortunately, "octothorpe" doesn't serve.

(Please help w/Lede, see below) rags (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"It can in fact represent pounds (as in currency)": really? None of the countries that actually use pounds use this symbol to mean pounds, as this article makes quite clear. Could you provide some references of this usage?108.171.129.164 (talk) 14:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)