This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alt code article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
We could make a page called "Windows Alt keycodes list" that would contain the list, while this page just held information about it. Humphreys7 ( talk) 14:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The alt keycode numbers are just ACSII codes for the given symbol. Is this list necessary? Jaxal1 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
For those characters whose decimal equivalent number is less than 256, below process is valid for them.
If you want to use "ü" (u with diaeresis) instead of "u", for example, like in "Waldseemüller", then use these keyboard strokes / keys :
Press "W", "a", "l", "d", "s", "e", "e", "m". Then press ...
Alt + 0252 (it means, first press the "Alt" (Alternative/Alternate) key in your keyboard, and keep on pressing it (or keep on holding it) with your left hand, then press the digits 0 2 5 2 in sequence, one by one, in the right-side numeric keypad of your keyboard, then release the Alt key).
Then press "l", "l", "e", "r".
Then you will get Waldseemüller.
To make it linkable (to goto the article,) use two third brackets at the beginning and at the end of the name, like this example,
'''Waldseemüller map''', then you will get (hyper-)linkable
Waldseemüller map.
If you want to link to that (English) article through URL, then use below (hex) code ...
For example, hex code "FC" stands for "ü" (its decimal equvalent is 252, and its html (decimal numerical) equivalent is ü). Use "%" symbol before the hex code, to express the "ü" character, in a URL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%FCller_map
or,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%C3%BCller_map
~ Tarikash.
I think special characters can be typed on some systems with Windows Key + Period Qwerfjkl talk 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
For those characters whose decimal equivalent number is above 255, the Alt + Decimal_Equivalent_Number keycodes will not work, for most characters, except few characters like, for example, € (Euro Sign, Alt+0128, Html-Dec:€, Hex:20AC), Ÿ (Latin Cap Y with Diaereesis, Alt+0159, Html-Dec:Ÿ, Hex:178), etc which are re-mapped below 255.
The decimal equivalent number of Œ is 338. Html decimal equivalent is Œ. Html hexadecimal equivalent is Œ. Hex equivalent number is 152.
To obtain Œ, open or start the Microsoft Wordpad or Word in your computer.
Press "1", "5", "2". Then press ...
Alt + x (it means, first press the "Alt" (Alternative/Alternate) key in your keyboard, and keep on pressing it (or keep on holding it) with your left hand, then press the letter x, just one time, then release the Alt key).
Then you will get Œ. Now you can copy and paste this character where you want to use it.
If you press Alt+x again, then Œ will turn back to its equivalent hex code 152. This way you can get/reveal the hex code of other special characters also. In a website, if you see/find a special character that you want to use it, either copy and paste it, or, copy-paste into Wordpad, and use Alt+X to obtain/reveal its equvalent hex code. Use chart to find its equvalent decimal code, or, use the html hexadecimal numerical equivalent code to display that character.
Few other example: for Ω (Ohm Sign), type 3A9 Alt+x. For ∙ (Bullet Operator), type 2219 Alt+x. For ∞ (Infinity), type 221E Alt+x. For ≠ (Not Equal To), type 2260 Alt+x.
~ Tarikash.
How many combinations are there? And how do we find them all? hehe. I was just messing around one day and found some neat ones ALT+789 = § ALT+456 = ╚ ALT+158 = ₧ ALT+154 = µ ALT+2547 = ≤ -- 72.146.66.200 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
╔═╦═╗■┌─┬─┐ ╠═╬═╣■├─┼─┤ ╚═╩═╝■└─┴─┘
Examples of box making. Razorclaw ¦ 20070419215452
look for 227. Thats where its broken. -IP User 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the character tables in this article are completely redundant. Character tables for the obsolete code-pages can already be found in their respective articles, Code page 437, Code page 850, and Windows-1252. A character table for the complete Unicode character set would obviously be too large. If nobody objects, I will remove these tables and replace them with links to the aforementioned articles, as well as some ideas on where to get additional character charts from (e.g. Windows character map, or unicode.org). — Timwi ( talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there Alt codes for operating systems other than Windows? Otherwise, a merge of this article with Windows Alt keycodes may be considered. -- Abdull 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are, but it may still make sense to merge the pages, since the differences are small. DOS supported Alt codes; so does Linux (in console mode). -- 217.147.80.29 12:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The text currently says "The Alt key method does not work on Linux systems." However, on my Raspberry Pi running Raspbian, which is derived from Debian, Python programs using the curses library are picking up something like this. If I hold Alt and press digits on the keypad and then release Alt, I get several bytes at once, which may represent a Unicode character. If I hold Alt+Shift and do the same, I get a different result (but also several bytes). The slash, asterisk, plus, minus, and other keys also seem to change in this case (if they are the only keypad key I press). I came here looking for information on what I was getting with Alt, and Alt+Shift on the keypad. Could this be the result of my Dell keyboard alone? 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 11:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Article claims that only the second method of entering unicode works in inkscape and openoffice. In fact, on ubuntu 14.04.4 the third method works on both inkscape and libreoffice (and most other programs tried) but the second method fails and is ergonomically a nightmare and the first method fails. Holding down the shift key or pressing it during input will end unicode input. You may, however, continue to hold down the control key after you release the shift key and when you release it after typing the digits it will treat that like pressing enter in libreoffice but in inkscape, that will resort in an inkblot test if you fail to press the u button. The [control-shift-u] [0] [3] [a] [9] [enter] method seems to work in chrome, firefox, midori, gedit, bluefish, kate, scite, vim (in gnome terminal), inkscape, libreoffice, gnome terminal (locale en_us.UTF-8), rxvt-unicode, xterm, amarok, keypassxc, k3b, etc. but not in emacs which only works with its proprietary method ctrl-x 8 [return] 73.152.113.249 ( talk) 09:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it really NPOV to have a comment saying that "Quick Key ... excels at ....", written by the author of that program? Perhaps a user with experience of the program might be able to provide a less biased view :-) 192.118.76.35 08:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC) I would be very grateful if you would prodvide us with a review of the software. An unbiased review would be very welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.95.189 ( talk • contribs). 8 April 2006
I agree that that Codepoint-based Unicode input systems would be the most accurate title, and from an Encyclopedia point of view, this article should be merged to reduce repetition. However, in my opinion, the sort of people with the computer skills and vocabulary to get through the first paragraph of "Unicode Input Methods" already understand alt codes. Most computer users (sadly enough) have a very hard time comprehending the fact that computers store text in numerical format, and will faint the first time they see something like U+FFFF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.95.189 ( talk • contribs). 8 April 2006
Great work on the page. It definitely looks nicer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.95.189 ( talk • contribs) 8 April 2006
The "###" in "Alt+0###" is not a Unicode code point and therefore this is not a Unicode input method. On my US Win2K system it appears to be giving me Windows-1252 characters. For example, Alt+0128 gives me the Euro symbol, and anything above 255 is entered as if I had typed it modulo 256 (e.g., 256=000, 257=001, and so on). This misinformation about it being "Unicode" is repeated on Unicode#Input methods as well. Please research the actual behavior and fix the articles.— mjb 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
On Windows 7 (which appears to come with EnableHexNumpad predefined) I've observed that Alt Num+ followed by numeric keypad digits does not work consistently (in some apps it will work ok, in others it will return a different character than expected), while Alt Num+ followed by regular top-row digits does work consistently in all applications (provided the font supports that character). For example, if I type +0128 using the numeric keypad then I will get € in most single-line edit controls, but Ĩ in most multi-line editors (including Notepad), while Num+ and 0128 via the top row always produces the latter. -- 202.180.125.97 ( talk) 08:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what the point of a table of the first five alt codes is, espcially since they're CP437 characters... AnonMoos ( talk) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, read details about alt codes I wrote before changing the article not to write language-specific codes and such... 213.130.16.116 ( talk) 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The general external link policy places some requirements on us, as does the "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" policy. In the context of this article, alt code "tutorial" or "reference" sites are a dime a dozen, and pretty much all amount to the same thing: some random person self-publishing some knowledge they cobbled together from who knows where, sometimes not entirely correct and usually limited in scope. The majority of them apparently exist to not just be helpful, but to provide a platform for advertising. None of them are providing any official/authoritative info (e.g. from Microsoft), and they're not anything we're recommending for further reading & in-depth research. Rather, they're just cheat sheets.
However helpful some of these sites may be, I think we have a responsibility to exercise discretion in linking to them. I'm not saying we can't link to any cheat sheets, but we can't link to all of them, so we have to decide which ones are worth linking to. That is, we must have criteria by which we gauge the acceptability of an external link, above and beyond the bare minimum required by the general guidelines; otherwise, the list of sites we're linking to will just grow and grow, violating the policies against indiscriminate linking.
Here's what I consider acceptable, above and beyond the general restrictions in WP:EL (e.g. no blogs):
I have some other ideas, but I think these two criteria, if strictly enforced, will keep this article's external links few in number and high in quality. — mjb ( talk) 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I found the currently-linked alt-codes.org to be really convoluted - I just wanted a simple list since my v key stopped working. I found alt-codes.net to be much clearer. They both have ads. What do you think? goodeye ( talk) 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The recent link to a site hosted by google is just a graphic of codes, full of ads. If no objection, I'll be deleting it. goodeye ( talk) 15:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. (December 2009)"
But instructions are facts, and this content was useful and exactly what I was looking for. An implicit purpose of Wikipedia is to be useful. IMHO the facts on this page are useful because Windows is widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan8 ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To remove such simple, useful explanations to another site would be to follow mindless dogma. 192.133.129.4 ( talk) 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
is someone trolling? cuz in opera, when i press cntrl shift x, its closing... Ws04 ( talk) 12:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions "In LibreOffice, OpenOffice.org and Inkscape, for example, only the second method works. In GTK only the third method works." I'm using LibreOffice under Debian (Wheezy) here, and all three methods work just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.32.18 ( talk) 21:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The article talks about "composition exiting after the third digit without releasing Alt", but I have never managed to enter multiple characters this way. Petr Matas 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The character-set table in Code_page_437#Characters is not "Alt codes" as insisted by an editor, because any of the code-pages can be treated in this manner. The logical way forward is presumably to spam every code-page topic into the See also list TEDickey ( talk) 01:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
See for example To input characters that are not on your keyboard. TEDickey ( talk) 10:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not in dispute that, in Notepad, Alt+306 yields a '2', Alt+307 yields a '3', and Alt+6556 yields a '£'. Nor can it be denied that the decimal code points for these characters are equal, respectively, to 306, 307, and 6556 modulo 256. As I understand the requirement for reliable sources, however, these facts are not sufficient warrant for the implication that Notepad interprets all numbers ≥ 256 modulo 256. Nor does Stack Overflow, referenced in a footnote, make this claim. A second footnote links to a Wikipedia talk page, which is inadmissible as a reference.
I deleted both these references along with the unreferenced claim that "users have accidentally memorized these larger numbers for some characters." My edit was reverted, however, by a respected editor. Is there a reason why I should not restore these deletions?
Peter Brown ( talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The section History and description is confusing. It mentions the "the ANSI code page" three times in the singular, after introducing ANSI code pages in the plural. One time the reference is to "the newer ANSI code page" — maybe the author means "newest"? If so, why not say so, as well as identifying it by its number? The linked section mentions eight ANSI code pages specifically, without any indication of which is newer.
Again, "... if the if code page is not cp1252 some very common Latin accented letters cannot be entered using this approach." Really? According to Code page 437, "The set includes all printable ASCII characters, extended codes for accented letters ...".
I'm not really familiar with code pages, but I think I'm using 437 and I've had no problem producing accents. I can produce a ú, for example, using code 163. If I were using Code Page 1252, wouldn't it be a £?
Peter Brown ( talk) 21:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It's cute and shows off the potential for dynamic images, but does it really contribute to readers' knowledge? One has to read the legend to understand what it is about, and the lead paragraph, by itself, is rather more informative. In addition, doesn't the image pose a danger to readers with photosensitive epilepsy?
Peter Brown ( talk) 19:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Spitzak: As you know, you have added to the article the text:
This is hard to understand.
We need to observe the difference between codes, which in this case are nonnegative integers, and the graphics produced by the entry of codes into a computer. Line-drawing graphics are not codes, so one cannot literally attempt to type them except in the looser sense that one can type a code that corresponds to the graphic either in a code page or in Unicode.
I am not familiar with "early versions of Windows". However, it is unclear what it would be to type a line-drawing graphic "that did not exist in the Windows code page". In the looser sense defined in the previous paragraph, that would be to type a code that corresponds to the graphic, a code that was not defined in the code page. If it was not defined, however, how could it correspond?
One possible interpretation is that the attempt discussed involved entering the code corresponding to a line-drawing graphic according to one code page when a different code page was in use. Thus, code 201 corresponds to ╔ in both CP437 and CP850 but not in CP1252. The "attempt" referred to could be to enter code 201 in such a way as to yield this character in CP1252. While the attempt would fail, the claim that it would do "nothing" is false, as it would produce the character É.
"The transition to Unicode improved this," according to your added text, "as all the codes in both pages exist in Unicode, so they all work." What was the improvement? U+00C9 encodes É and U+2554 encodes ╔, but what defect does this address?
Peter Brown ( talk) 17:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The first version of Windows which was a big commercial success was 3.1, so I'm not sure that version 1.0 (used by a very small number of people) is all that relevant... AnonMoos ( talk) 06:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@ John Maynard Friedman:According to your recent edit, only "legacy" software interprets codes over 256 modulo 256. Try out some software that you don't consider legacy! Alt+419 yields ú and Alt+0419 yields £ in the Wikipedia edit box and in the password field at https://www.walgreens.com/login.jsp, whether I'm in Firefox (released 2004) or in Chrome (released 2008). These are the CP437 and CP1252 characters, respectively, for code 163, and 163 ≡ 419 modulo 256. Mod 256 lives on! Sicut erat in principio ... well, not really. Peter Brown ( talk) 22:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence, "Many Wikipedia articles on various characters will include how to type that character using Alt codes for code page 437" I acknowledged that "This is true for 'æ' but not common." Spitzak reverted my deletion, claiming that "Such 'typing the character' sections are in virtually every article on a letter or punctuation mark" but giving no examples.
Suppose that, instead of deleting the sentence I replace "Many" with "Some". Will that meet with approval?
Peter Brown ( talk) 00:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@ John Maynard Friedman: Please! I am not " actually saying that Alt+099 goes to the OEM CP but Alt+0100 goes to Windows CP." I wish I knew enough about the process to assert that anything goes anywhere. I only claimed that entry of some Alt codes produce some characters.
There is considerable overlap between code pages. I do know that Alt+99, Alt+099, and Alt+0099 each produces a c and that Alt+100 and Alt+0100 each produces a d. I know that many code pages could explain these productions; I certainly do not know which is operative in each case. If I seem to be claiming more, please edit my claims to forestall this implication.
My complaint about the previous text is that it claimed that
whereas, in fact, Alt+227 produces a π from the OEM page (CP850 or CP437) without trying to "translate" anything; π isn't even present in CP1252. Nor are three digits necessary: Alt+19 produces ‼ which, again, isn't in CP1252.
While I have your attention, I hope that you can elaborate on the final sentence in the section, "The transition to Unicode improved this, as all the codes in both pages exist in Unicode, so they all work." Sure, codes 0 –255 all exist in Unicode, as do codes 256 –200000. How does that ensure that "they all work"? Work in what application? In Notepad I cannot produce Đ at all! Just what did "the transition to Unicode" improve?
Peter Brown ( talk) 02:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor has recast the sentence quoted here. I do not find the new version less problematic than the original, however. Please see my comments in the following section. Peter Brown ( talk) 23:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The final sentence in the section Alt code § History and description reads "The transition to Unicode improved this, as all the codes in both pages exist in Unicode, so they all work."
"They" apparently refers to the OEM and Windows code pages, each of which pairs most codes 0 –255 with graphics characters. They do "work" in the sense that entry of a number less than 256 with Alt held down produces a glyph in the operative font from either the OEM or the Windows code page, depending on whether or not the number is prefixed with a zero. Larger numbers are irrelevant as they are not assigned to characters by the code pages. Just what did "the transition to Unicode" improve? Unicode does not seem relevant.
Peter Brown ( talk) 18:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
::Just to confirm: Alt+0163 (with the 0) produces the following results with the various keyboard layouts: Japanese keyboard 」 Microsoft IME 」 Microsoft Pinyin 」 Thai Kedmanee ฃ US/UK £. QED.
The section Windows contains the text
At present, the line drawing character ├ can be inserted by entering Alt+195. This uses the OEM page CP437. If one inadvertently enters Alt+0195, one obtains the "unexpected" character à from CP1252. However, this state of affairs is characterized as the situation before Unicode was introduced. What is the difference now? Every character in either code page can be inserted, just as it could be prior to the introduction of Unicode.
It is unclear how the transition to Unicode improved matters.
Peter Brown ( talk) 23:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The article currently reads "Some applications ... interpret many Alt codes larger than 255 directly as decimal Unicode code points." Spitzak has added the text "this is unrelated to whether the software can actually display those code points" and deleted my claim that these applications fail to interpret a letter in the Bamum script.
First off, it must be acknowledged that machines can be said to interpret only metaphorically, except when a process converts instructions into actions without prior compiling. The present sense differs in that the inputs are not instructions.
What meaning can be attached to the statement that an Alt code is interpreted as a Unicode code point? On a verificationist view, the meaning of a sentence is given by the conditions under which it can be verified or falsified. If software produced a Ω whatever Alt code was entered, we would say that no, it was not interpreting the codes as Unicode code points. If it produced a glyph corresponding to the code point for every Alt code 256 –2000, we would take that as evidence that the software interprets Alt codes larger than 255 as decimal Unicode code points. Perhaps Spitzak rejects all forms of verificationism; if so, his claim that whether applications interpret Alt codes as code points is unrelated to whether the software can display the associated glyphs is a personal opinion and should be flagged as such.
On my part, I should not have implied that the failure of Alt+42700 to render a
refutes the statement that the named applications interpret the Alt code as a Unicode code point. I should have qualified the claim with "perhaps" or something of the sort. It may be, after all, that the software produced a precise rendering of the character in PNG or SVG but some failure of the glyph-rendering mechanism resulted in a ⍰.
Peter Brown ( talk) 18:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
As of today, the lead(!) of the article claims that alt-codes are the best known or even only way to enter off-keyboard characters. Maybe it's because we have AltGr where I live - which limits the number off-keyboard characters ever needed - but in my experience most people use the charmap app or the Insert Symbol in MsOffice apps for anything more. Certainly that is what students are taught. No doubt in certain subject areas have frequent need for particular characters that it is worth learning their alt codes but this case is the exception rather than the norm. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 08:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The table contains many errors, in particular the 0 is missing from a lot of CP1252 codes. I think also all ASCII that is commonly available (ie the letters, digits, and period and comma and space) can be removed. Spitzak ( talk) 17:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Beland:, would you explain your edit today that deleted valid content from this article, which Spitzak and I have had to spend time to reinstate. Are you running a bot that will delete it all again tomorrow? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Alt code article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
We could make a page called "Windows Alt keycodes list" that would contain the list, while this page just held information about it. Humphreys7 ( talk) 14:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The alt keycode numbers are just ACSII codes for the given symbol. Is this list necessary? Jaxal1 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
For those characters whose decimal equivalent number is less than 256, below process is valid for them.
If you want to use "ü" (u with diaeresis) instead of "u", for example, like in "Waldseemüller", then use these keyboard strokes / keys :
Press "W", "a", "l", "d", "s", "e", "e", "m". Then press ...
Alt + 0252 (it means, first press the "Alt" (Alternative/Alternate) key in your keyboard, and keep on pressing it (or keep on holding it) with your left hand, then press the digits 0 2 5 2 in sequence, one by one, in the right-side numeric keypad of your keyboard, then release the Alt key).
Then press "l", "l", "e", "r".
Then you will get Waldseemüller.
To make it linkable (to goto the article,) use two third brackets at the beginning and at the end of the name, like this example,
'''Waldseemüller map''', then you will get (hyper-)linkable
Waldseemüller map.
If you want to link to that (English) article through URL, then use below (hex) code ...
For example, hex code "FC" stands for "ü" (its decimal equvalent is 252, and its html (decimal numerical) equivalent is ü). Use "%" symbol before the hex code, to express the "ü" character, in a URL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%FCller_map
or,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldseem%C3%BCller_map
~ Tarikash.
I think special characters can be typed on some systems with Windows Key + Period Qwerfjkl talk 21:21, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
For those characters whose decimal equivalent number is above 255, the Alt + Decimal_Equivalent_Number keycodes will not work, for most characters, except few characters like, for example, € (Euro Sign, Alt+0128, Html-Dec:€, Hex:20AC), Ÿ (Latin Cap Y with Diaereesis, Alt+0159, Html-Dec:Ÿ, Hex:178), etc which are re-mapped below 255.
The decimal equivalent number of Œ is 338. Html decimal equivalent is Œ. Html hexadecimal equivalent is Œ. Hex equivalent number is 152.
To obtain Œ, open or start the Microsoft Wordpad or Word in your computer.
Press "1", "5", "2". Then press ...
Alt + x (it means, first press the "Alt" (Alternative/Alternate) key in your keyboard, and keep on pressing it (or keep on holding it) with your left hand, then press the letter x, just one time, then release the Alt key).
Then you will get Œ. Now you can copy and paste this character where you want to use it.
If you press Alt+x again, then Œ will turn back to its equivalent hex code 152. This way you can get/reveal the hex code of other special characters also. In a website, if you see/find a special character that you want to use it, either copy and paste it, or, copy-paste into Wordpad, and use Alt+X to obtain/reveal its equvalent hex code. Use chart to find its equvalent decimal code, or, use the html hexadecimal numerical equivalent code to display that character.
Few other example: for Ω (Ohm Sign), type 3A9 Alt+x. For ∙ (Bullet Operator), type 2219 Alt+x. For ∞ (Infinity), type 221E Alt+x. For ≠ (Not Equal To), type 2260 Alt+x.
~ Tarikash.
How many combinations are there? And how do we find them all? hehe. I was just messing around one day and found some neat ones ALT+789 = § ALT+456 = ╚ ALT+158 = ₧ ALT+154 = µ ALT+2547 = ≤ -- 72.146.66.200 14:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
╔═╦═╗■┌─┬─┐ ╠═╬═╣■├─┼─┤ ╚═╩═╝■└─┴─┘
Examples of box making. Razorclaw ¦ 20070419215452
look for 227. Thats where its broken. -IP User 22:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the character tables in this article are completely redundant. Character tables for the obsolete code-pages can already be found in their respective articles, Code page 437, Code page 850, and Windows-1252. A character table for the complete Unicode character set would obviously be too large. If nobody objects, I will remove these tables and replace them with links to the aforementioned articles, as well as some ideas on where to get additional character charts from (e.g. Windows character map, or unicode.org). — Timwi ( talk) 14:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Are there Alt codes for operating systems other than Windows? Otherwise, a merge of this article with Windows Alt keycodes may be considered. -- Abdull 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there are, but it may still make sense to merge the pages, since the differences are small. DOS supported Alt codes; so does Linux (in console mode). -- 217.147.80.29 12:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
The text currently says "The Alt key method does not work on Linux systems." However, on my Raspberry Pi running Raspbian, which is derived from Debian, Python programs using the curses library are picking up something like this. If I hold Alt and press digits on the keypad and then release Alt, I get several bytes at once, which may represent a Unicode character. If I hold Alt+Shift and do the same, I get a different result (but also several bytes). The slash, asterisk, plus, minus, and other keys also seem to change in this case (if they are the only keypad key I press). I came here looking for information on what I was getting with Alt, and Alt+Shift on the keypad. Could this be the result of my Dell keyboard alone? 24.57.210.141 ( talk) 11:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Article claims that only the second method of entering unicode works in inkscape and openoffice. In fact, on ubuntu 14.04.4 the third method works on both inkscape and libreoffice (and most other programs tried) but the second method fails and is ergonomically a nightmare and the first method fails. Holding down the shift key or pressing it during input will end unicode input. You may, however, continue to hold down the control key after you release the shift key and when you release it after typing the digits it will treat that like pressing enter in libreoffice but in inkscape, that will resort in an inkblot test if you fail to press the u button. The [control-shift-u] [0] [3] [a] [9] [enter] method seems to work in chrome, firefox, midori, gedit, bluefish, kate, scite, vim (in gnome terminal), inkscape, libreoffice, gnome terminal (locale en_us.UTF-8), rxvt-unicode, xterm, amarok, keypassxc, k3b, etc. but not in emacs which only works with its proprietary method ctrl-x 8 [return] 73.152.113.249 ( talk) 09:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Is it really NPOV to have a comment saying that "Quick Key ... excels at ....", written by the author of that program? Perhaps a user with experience of the program might be able to provide a less biased view :-) 192.118.76.35 08:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC) I would be very grateful if you would prodvide us with a review of the software. An unbiased review would be very welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.95.189 ( talk • contribs). 8 April 2006
I agree that that Codepoint-based Unicode input systems would be the most accurate title, and from an Encyclopedia point of view, this article should be merged to reduce repetition. However, in my opinion, the sort of people with the computer skills and vocabulary to get through the first paragraph of "Unicode Input Methods" already understand alt codes. Most computer users (sadly enough) have a very hard time comprehending the fact that computers store text in numerical format, and will faint the first time they see something like U+FFFF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.135.95.189 ( talk • contribs). 8 April 2006
Great work on the page. It definitely looks nicer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.95.189 ( talk • contribs) 8 April 2006
The "###" in "Alt+0###" is not a Unicode code point and therefore this is not a Unicode input method. On my US Win2K system it appears to be giving me Windows-1252 characters. For example, Alt+0128 gives me the Euro symbol, and anything above 255 is entered as if I had typed it modulo 256 (e.g., 256=000, 257=001, and so on). This misinformation about it being "Unicode" is repeated on Unicode#Input methods as well. Please research the actual behavior and fix the articles.— mjb 00:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
On Windows 7 (which appears to come with EnableHexNumpad predefined) I've observed that Alt Num+ followed by numeric keypad digits does not work consistently (in some apps it will work ok, in others it will return a different character than expected), while Alt Num+ followed by regular top-row digits does work consistently in all applications (provided the font supports that character). For example, if I type +0128 using the numeric keypad then I will get € in most single-line edit controls, but Ĩ in most multi-line editors (including Notepad), while Num+ and 0128 via the top row always produces the latter. -- 202.180.125.97 ( talk) 08:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what the point of a table of the first five alt codes is, espcially since they're CP437 characters... AnonMoos ( talk) 12:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Please, read details about alt codes I wrote before changing the article not to write language-specific codes and such... 213.130.16.116 ( talk) 21:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
The general external link policy places some requirements on us, as does the "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links" policy. In the context of this article, alt code "tutorial" or "reference" sites are a dime a dozen, and pretty much all amount to the same thing: some random person self-publishing some knowledge they cobbled together from who knows where, sometimes not entirely correct and usually limited in scope. The majority of them apparently exist to not just be helpful, but to provide a platform for advertising. None of them are providing any official/authoritative info (e.g. from Microsoft), and they're not anything we're recommending for further reading & in-depth research. Rather, they're just cheat sheets.
However helpful some of these sites may be, I think we have a responsibility to exercise discretion in linking to them. I'm not saying we can't link to any cheat sheets, but we can't link to all of them, so we have to decide which ones are worth linking to. That is, we must have criteria by which we gauge the acceptability of an external link, above and beyond the bare minimum required by the general guidelines; otherwise, the list of sites we're linking to will just grow and grow, violating the policies against indiscriminate linking.
Here's what I consider acceptable, above and beyond the general restrictions in WP:EL (e.g. no blogs):
I have some other ideas, but I think these two criteria, if strictly enforced, will keep this article's external links few in number and high in quality. — mjb ( talk) 01:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I found the currently-linked alt-codes.org to be really convoluted - I just wanted a simple list since my v key stopped working. I found alt-codes.net to be much clearer. They both have ads. What do you think? goodeye ( talk) 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
The recent link to a site hosted by google is just a graphic of codes, full of ads. If no objection, I'll be deleting it. goodeye ( talk) 15:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
"This article contains instructions, advice, or how-to content. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to train. Please help improve this article either by rewriting the how-to content or by moving it to Wikiversity or Wikibooks. (December 2009)"
But instructions are facts, and this content was useful and exactly what I was looking for. An implicit purpose of Wikipedia is to be useful. IMHO the facts on this page are useful because Windows is widely used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alan8 ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To remove such simple, useful explanations to another site would be to follow mindless dogma. 192.133.129.4 ( talk) 18:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
is someone trolling? cuz in opera, when i press cntrl shift x, its closing... Ws04 ( talk) 12:52, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
The article mentions "In LibreOffice, OpenOffice.org and Inkscape, for example, only the second method works. In GTK only the third method works." I'm using LibreOffice under Debian (Wheezy) here, and all three methods work just fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.218.32.18 ( talk) 21:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The article talks about "composition exiting after the third digit without releasing Alt", but I have never managed to enter multiple characters this way. Petr Matas 10:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
The character-set table in Code_page_437#Characters is not "Alt codes" as insisted by an editor, because any of the code-pages can be treated in this manner. The logical way forward is presumably to spam every code-page topic into the See also list TEDickey ( talk) 01:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
See for example To input characters that are not on your keyboard. TEDickey ( talk) 10:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
It is not in dispute that, in Notepad, Alt+306 yields a '2', Alt+307 yields a '3', and Alt+6556 yields a '£'. Nor can it be denied that the decimal code points for these characters are equal, respectively, to 306, 307, and 6556 modulo 256. As I understand the requirement for reliable sources, however, these facts are not sufficient warrant for the implication that Notepad interprets all numbers ≥ 256 modulo 256. Nor does Stack Overflow, referenced in a footnote, make this claim. A second footnote links to a Wikipedia talk page, which is inadmissible as a reference.
I deleted both these references along with the unreferenced claim that "users have accidentally memorized these larger numbers for some characters." My edit was reverted, however, by a respected editor. Is there a reason why I should not restore these deletions?
Peter Brown ( talk) 20:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
The section History and description is confusing. It mentions the "the ANSI code page" three times in the singular, after introducing ANSI code pages in the plural. One time the reference is to "the newer ANSI code page" — maybe the author means "newest"? If so, why not say so, as well as identifying it by its number? The linked section mentions eight ANSI code pages specifically, without any indication of which is newer.
Again, "... if the if code page is not cp1252 some very common Latin accented letters cannot be entered using this approach." Really? According to Code page 437, "The set includes all printable ASCII characters, extended codes for accented letters ...".
I'm not really familiar with code pages, but I think I'm using 437 and I've had no problem producing accents. I can produce a ú, for example, using code 163. If I were using Code Page 1252, wouldn't it be a £?
Peter Brown ( talk) 21:42, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
It's cute and shows off the potential for dynamic images, but does it really contribute to readers' knowledge? One has to read the legend to understand what it is about, and the lead paragraph, by itself, is rather more informative. In addition, doesn't the image pose a danger to readers with photosensitive epilepsy?
Peter Brown ( talk) 19:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Spitzak: As you know, you have added to the article the text:
This is hard to understand.
We need to observe the difference between codes, which in this case are nonnegative integers, and the graphics produced by the entry of codes into a computer. Line-drawing graphics are not codes, so one cannot literally attempt to type them except in the looser sense that one can type a code that corresponds to the graphic either in a code page or in Unicode.
I am not familiar with "early versions of Windows". However, it is unclear what it would be to type a line-drawing graphic "that did not exist in the Windows code page". In the looser sense defined in the previous paragraph, that would be to type a code that corresponds to the graphic, a code that was not defined in the code page. If it was not defined, however, how could it correspond?
One possible interpretation is that the attempt discussed involved entering the code corresponding to a line-drawing graphic according to one code page when a different code page was in use. Thus, code 201 corresponds to ╔ in both CP437 and CP850 but not in CP1252. The "attempt" referred to could be to enter code 201 in such a way as to yield this character in CP1252. While the attempt would fail, the claim that it would do "nothing" is false, as it would produce the character É.
"The transition to Unicode improved this," according to your added text, "as all the codes in both pages exist in Unicode, so they all work." What was the improvement? U+00C9 encodes É and U+2554 encodes ╔, but what defect does this address?
Peter Brown ( talk) 17:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
The first version of Windows which was a big commercial success was 3.1, so I'm not sure that version 1.0 (used by a very small number of people) is all that relevant... AnonMoos ( talk) 06:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@ John Maynard Friedman:According to your recent edit, only "legacy" software interprets codes over 256 modulo 256. Try out some software that you don't consider legacy! Alt+419 yields ú and Alt+0419 yields £ in the Wikipedia edit box and in the password field at https://www.walgreens.com/login.jsp, whether I'm in Firefox (released 2004) or in Chrome (released 2008). These are the CP437 and CP1252 characters, respectively, for code 163, and 163 ≡ 419 modulo 256. Mod 256 lives on! Sicut erat in principio ... well, not really. Peter Brown ( talk) 22:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
I deleted the sentence, "Many Wikipedia articles on various characters will include how to type that character using Alt codes for code page 437" I acknowledged that "This is true for 'æ' but not common." Spitzak reverted my deletion, claiming that "Such 'typing the character' sections are in virtually every article on a letter or punctuation mark" but giving no examples.
Suppose that, instead of deleting the sentence I replace "Many" with "Some". Will that meet with approval?
Peter Brown ( talk) 00:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
@ John Maynard Friedman: Please! I am not " actually saying that Alt+099 goes to the OEM CP but Alt+0100 goes to Windows CP." I wish I knew enough about the process to assert that anything goes anywhere. I only claimed that entry of some Alt codes produce some characters.
There is considerable overlap between code pages. I do know that Alt+99, Alt+099, and Alt+0099 each produces a c and that Alt+100 and Alt+0100 each produces a d. I know that many code pages could explain these productions; I certainly do not know which is operative in each case. If I seem to be claiming more, please edit my claims to forestall this implication.
My complaint about the previous text is that it claimed that
whereas, in fact, Alt+227 produces a π from the OEM page (CP850 or CP437) without trying to "translate" anything; π isn't even present in CP1252. Nor are three digits necessary: Alt+19 produces ‼ which, again, isn't in CP1252.
While I have your attention, I hope that you can elaborate on the final sentence in the section, "The transition to Unicode improved this, as all the codes in both pages exist in Unicode, so they all work." Sure, codes 0 –255 all exist in Unicode, as do codes 256 –200000. How does that ensure that "they all work"? Work in what application? In Notepad I cannot produce Đ at all! Just what did "the transition to Unicode" improve?
Peter Brown ( talk) 02:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
An editor has recast the sentence quoted here. I do not find the new version less problematic than the original, however. Please see my comments in the following section. Peter Brown ( talk) 23:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The final sentence in the section Alt code § History and description reads "The transition to Unicode improved this, as all the codes in both pages exist in Unicode, so they all work."
"They" apparently refers to the OEM and Windows code pages, each of which pairs most codes 0 –255 with graphics characters. They do "work" in the sense that entry of a number less than 256 with Alt held down produces a glyph in the operative font from either the OEM or the Windows code page, depending on whether or not the number is prefixed with a zero. Larger numbers are irrelevant as they are not assigned to characters by the code pages. Just what did "the transition to Unicode" improve? Unicode does not seem relevant.
Peter Brown ( talk) 18:00, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
::Just to confirm: Alt+0163 (with the 0) produces the following results with the various keyboard layouts: Japanese keyboard 」 Microsoft IME 」 Microsoft Pinyin 」 Thai Kedmanee ฃ US/UK £. QED.
The section Windows contains the text
At present, the line drawing character ├ can be inserted by entering Alt+195. This uses the OEM page CP437. If one inadvertently enters Alt+0195, one obtains the "unexpected" character à from CP1252. However, this state of affairs is characterized as the situation before Unicode was introduced. What is the difference now? Every character in either code page can be inserted, just as it could be prior to the introduction of Unicode.
It is unclear how the transition to Unicode improved matters.
Peter Brown ( talk) 23:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
The article currently reads "Some applications ... interpret many Alt codes larger than 255 directly as decimal Unicode code points." Spitzak has added the text "this is unrelated to whether the software can actually display those code points" and deleted my claim that these applications fail to interpret a letter in the Bamum script.
First off, it must be acknowledged that machines can be said to interpret only metaphorically, except when a process converts instructions into actions without prior compiling. The present sense differs in that the inputs are not instructions.
What meaning can be attached to the statement that an Alt code is interpreted as a Unicode code point? On a verificationist view, the meaning of a sentence is given by the conditions under which it can be verified or falsified. If software produced a Ω whatever Alt code was entered, we would say that no, it was not interpreting the codes as Unicode code points. If it produced a glyph corresponding to the code point for every Alt code 256 –2000, we would take that as evidence that the software interprets Alt codes larger than 255 as decimal Unicode code points. Perhaps Spitzak rejects all forms of verificationism; if so, his claim that whether applications interpret Alt codes as code points is unrelated to whether the software can display the associated glyphs is a personal opinion and should be flagged as such.
On my part, I should not have implied that the failure of Alt+42700 to render a
refutes the statement that the named applications interpret the Alt code as a Unicode code point. I should have qualified the claim with "perhaps" or something of the sort. It may be, after all, that the software produced a precise rendering of the character in PNG or SVG but some failure of the glyph-rendering mechanism resulted in a ⍰.
Peter Brown ( talk) 18:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
As of today, the lead(!) of the article claims that alt-codes are the best known or even only way to enter off-keyboard characters. Maybe it's because we have AltGr where I live - which limits the number off-keyboard characters ever needed - but in my experience most people use the charmap app or the Insert Symbol in MsOffice apps for anything more. Certainly that is what students are taught. No doubt in certain subject areas have frequent need for particular characters that it is worth learning their alt codes but this case is the exception rather than the norm. -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 08:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
The table contains many errors, in particular the 0 is missing from a lot of CP1252 codes. I think also all ASCII that is commonly available (ie the letters, digits, and period and comma and space) can be removed. Spitzak ( talk) 17:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
@ Beland:, would you explain your edit today that deleted valid content from this article, which Spitzak and I have had to spend time to reinstate. Are you running a bot that will delete it all again tomorrow? -- John Maynard Friedman ( talk) 22:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)