Talk:Upside-down question and exclamation marks/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:28, 2 November 2023

Revision as of 00:28, 2 November 2023

Line 196:

I'm editing here to say just that you have another mistake, not just in portuguese, both exclamation and interrogation marks are also not used in galician, as someone affirms at the beginning of this article. Please fix that. BTW I'm attaching here a link to the Normativa oficial do galego (galician official normative). You can also consult it to RAG (Real Academia Galega), the official institution which decides the normative. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/83.165.19.115|83.165.19.115]] ([[User talk:83.165.19.115#top|talk]]) 19:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

{{Clear}}

== ¿Why does the article not cover the inverted Interrobang? Maybe, we should add inverted Interrobang and shorten the name of the article to "Inverted Punctuation". ==

¿What is the opinion of others? <small><nowiki>[unsigned & undated comment]</nowiki></small>

*'''Disagree''': Inverted interrobang → ⸘ (it isn't used in Spanish). <small><nowiki>[unsigned & undated comment]</nowiki></small>

*'''Partially agree''': this article is '''not''' about Spanish, it is about upside-down question ''and'' exclamation marks; the interrobang is precisely a combination of upside-down question ''and'' exclamation marks, so it ''does'' merit inclusion. However, (i) only a brief mention is warranted, in a separate sub-section; and (ii) the article title should not be changed, because other inverted punctuation should ''not'' be added — otherwise we will have also inverted quotation marks added, and they should be handled separately. —DIV ([[Special:Contributions/49.179.148.244|49.179.148.244]] ([[User talk:49.179.148.244|talk]]) 07:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC))

{{od}}

"Why does the article not cover the inverted Interrobang?" My answer would be "likely because noone has added material for it". That is, [[WP:BOLD|boldly]] go ahead! The worst case is you're reverted, and the reverting editor would then have to argue why your material didn't hold up. At the very least, he or she would have to suggest another article better suited to your material. Cheers [[User:CapnZapp|CapnZapp]] ([[User talk:CapnZapp|talk]]) 09:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)