Talk:Backspace

CRT displays?
The article currently says: "Of course, ever since moving to CRT displays, backspace composition no longer works.". Shouldn't this say something about moving to digital computers instead, because the monitor doesn't seem really related to what the article covers. The typwriter-to-computer thing is the important change. Right? Retodon8 13:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ever seen a teletypewriter? EdC 12:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"one recent usage"
I removed this bit:
 * One recent usage of the BackSpace was a disaster. A ten million record ASCII file seemed to stop early, after just a few records. It seems that people wanted to spell Munoz with the tilda over the n, but did not know that it was alt-241.  They saw that ~ was Alt-126 and probably backspaced to put it in.  Good try, but no cigar. They were sloppy and put in ALT-026 which is DOS for EOF (End-Of-File).

Specifically, I have two small issues with this: It doesn't provide any source at all ("one recent usage"...?) - we're not supposed to cover anecdotes unless they're covered in some reputable source, which might indicate this thing is a bit more well known. Dropping random anecdotes here is original research. And, the thing is not actually about backspace at all, but how DOS handles EOF character. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

backspace to type accented letters
"In typewriters, a typist would, for example, type a lowercase letter A with acute accent (á) by typing a lowercase letter A, backspace and then the acute accent key (also known as overstrike)."

Uhmm... I remember the method was to type first the accent and then the letter. You had to backspace only when you did forget to type the accent on time. Isn't it? --euyyn 20:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Ctrl- H in Wikipedia
I am one of those who still likes to use ctrl-H for backspace. Wikipedia somehow magically disables my normal keybinding and maps ctrl-h to the Wikipeida page history. Does anyone know how to disable this? Sanpitch (talk) 04:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL
That has to be the prettiest photo of a backspace key I've ever seen! :) SharkD (talk) 05:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw it and thought WTF?110.32.34.98 (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I love the photo and caption. I do hope nobody deletes it. 131.111.248.101 (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. :) --Gwern (contribs) 20:50 23 January 2011 (GMT)

Indeed. Hopefully some smug wikipedian editor with a serious power issue (and they exist by the thousands) doesn't come along this page. Avindra talk / contribs 01:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your prediction came true. =( Manocheese (talk) 21:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's frustrating. And the image is WTF in a bad way now. --79.232.120.59 (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

;) 204.234.67.18 (talk) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

\b
\b redirected here, but is not explained in the article. (Now a disambiguation page, but still.) -- Beland (talk) 01:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

ISO Symbol
It would be great if someone who knows could update the page to include the ISO symbol for the Backspace key. Pages for e.g. the Control key, Escape etc. include the ISO symbol and its Unicode. Is the symbol for Backspace U+2408 ␈, U+232B ⌫, or something else? 180.183.186.100 (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Communist Plot to Shrink
Has anyone uncovered the communist plot to shrink the Backspace Key? Recent keyboards (from China, of course) have featured a shrunken backspace key which leads to innumerable mistakes in coding. Has anyone found evidence that this is part of a far reaching communist plot to set back free world efficiency? 64.20.197.115 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Brilliant
You know what I am talking about. Please do not remove it, ever. Surtsicna (talk) 07:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The picture


Why don't we just compromise and add the previous picture below, but not as the lead image. This way they both can co-exist. I believe the image adds depth and beauty to the encyclopedia. Besides, people love the picture, as evident in this talk page. 125.160.113.232 (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Because it does not make sense, Wikipedia is not an art publication, if you want to see objects in nature, see e.g. Tree. —Mykhal (talk) 06:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, stop. That photo in nature makes absolutely no sense - keys belong on keyboards and are essentially never seen outside of that context. An image should show its relative and expected location. I can't believe I even have to write this. ɱ  (talk) 17:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Pinging, who should be joining the existing discussion rather than reverting. ɱ  (talk) 17:32, 30 April 2021 (UTC)


 * There's no policy that would require that pictures of a key must show it in place on a keyboard, and indeed plenty of precedent for the opposite: dismantling a component of a larger assembly to take a photo of it alone is a good way to make it clearly identifiable, especially if it's usually clustered together with many similar components. Central processing unit and hard disk drive both have page images that show their subjects 'unnaturally' dismantled from their usual assemblies, even though it would be perfectly possible to photograph them in situ. Indeed the hard drive article doesn't have a single image of a hard drive in situ!


 * The background of the existing image is of no encyclopaedic relevance, so long as it doesn't interfere with easy identification of the picture's subject. The out of focus trees are perfectly acceptable in this regard, and the particular choice of background is an aesthetic decision for the photographer. Wikipedia has no policy requiring that all content be as aggressively bland as possible, it just needs to do its encyclopaedic job.


 * The existing image has also been in place for 13 years and is used on over a dozen language editions, and lacking any good arguments against its suitability and a clear base of support for keeping it I see no reason at all not to leave it in place. Phantom Hoover (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

"Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." MOS:PERTINENCE. See also MOS:SHOCK. Stop pretending you know how Wikipedia works. This image needs to be removed as soon as possible - it is not appropriate for use when there are relevant files available with the proper context. Other articles' shortcomings is not an excuse, nor is the lapse in reviewing this one. ɱ (talk) 01:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe the consensus here is to go back to File:IMAG0021 Backspace.jpg. Reverting on that basis. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There’s no consensus in this conversation — I dropped it because Ɱ stopped reverting and their attempt to cite MOS:SHOCK was profoundly irrelevant if you read what that policy actually says. If you read the rest of this discussion page there is, if anything, a firm consensus in favour of my preferred image. Phantom Hoover (talk) 23:06, 7 April 2024 (UTC)