Talk:List of proofreader's marks

Which standard is this list based on? ISO 5776, BS 5261, Chicago Manual of Style, something else? This page should probably mention all of them and included pictures of the signs in actual or exemplary use, and of the signs that are not specifically encoded in Unicode. — Christoph Päper 12:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Poor page

As noted above, it is unclear which standard this page is seeking to represent. It is certainly woefully short re BS5261.

Also note that the external link in the reference section is broken. Thanks—GRM (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Link to reference "Proof Correction Marks" is brocken

Link to reference "Proof Correction Marks" is brocken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.39.218.10 (talk) 11:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Does anyone have access to ISO 5776?

The source of the table of symbols is almost certainly

• "ISO 5776:2022". ISO. Retrieved 2023-02-28.

but it is not available to verify free of charge. We need someone with corporate access to do so. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

No, the table does not really show ISO 5776 symbols, neither only nor all. — Christoph Päper 11:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

So can you revise the table so that it matches ISO 5776? Because otherwise it will have to be deleted. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

This is a good question, JMF. From googling around, I found 2023 and 2016 uploaded by some third-parties. I hope this helps! Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I now think the source might be Merriam-Webster:

• "Proofreader's marks". Merriam-Webster. Archived from the original on 15 March 2015.

but only some of it, so I don't see how we can cite it. To do it properly would need someone to spend some time creating the graphics and uploading to Commons. If anyone is keen, it would be wise to check the copyright status first: is this a unique M-W creation or are they merely documenting existing practice (I guess the latter but I don't know). --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• Before everyone takes one pace backwards in the call for volunteers, I had better make it clear that I don't have the time (or, tbh, the inclination) to clean up this mess. Sorry. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a pretty good match! It is troubling that we claim things that that source doesn't have, like ¶no is a symbol that is the opposite of ¶, and also troubling that some of our other marks are slightly wrong. (Even very weird ones like U+0298 ʘ LATIN LETTER BILABIAL CLICK for a circled full stop.)

I don't think there would be a problem, citing-wise, if our table was a subset of theirs. Only if our table was a superset of theirs (which it is). Either this table was created according to some other info, or some editor just made a couple things up.

Incidentally, the Britannica website entry on proofreading has an identical list of marks and they seem to have recreated it from scratch for whatever reason (possibly just wanting a "cleaner" look) or maybe it is just common knowledge. Dingolover6969 (talk) 16:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

I have noticed that the only source that gives the em dash and en dash exactly as we give them, that I have found, is the Chicago manual of style, which we cite in the previous section. Cmos doesn't have all of the symbols our table has, at least not in that one page that we cite (maybe in the full cmos they have more?), but after looking at a bunch of sources I've come to suspect that ours is a little bit of a composite (or maybe some of them are just wrong — I've been able to find "no ¶" in examples, but not "¶no", for instance) so maybe we just cite one or two to cobble together the bunch and be on our merry way. Dingolover6969 (talk) 17:57, 29 May 2026 (UTC)