This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Mathematics This template is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics

I find it disturbing that in the images used in this template the symbols for all the arithmetic operations except multiplication are slightly rotated. They should either all be slightly rotated or, better yet, none of them. - dcljr (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Good luck finding a mult that is slanted, looked on commons and could not find...and visa versa (the other three not slanted). 173.79.48.210 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

It also bothers me that in the image for division, the dots don't line up properly (the vertical sides should be colinear). This is easier to see at 500px. ⇌Elektron 00:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The rotation of the symbols is 1) wrong and 2) confusing. It is wrong because that is not how the operators are used in school books or magazines and books using the symbols. Nor is that the way they appear on compute print-outs. They are confusing since in common use the + and X as presented are both two line segments intersecting at their midpoints at right angles. The only difference is the rotation. In our illustration, the only differences are color (which is extraneous) and the rotation; how-ever, the rotation is not the standard rotation. A quick look at the plus sign can easily make one -- at least at first glance -- think that it is a multiplication sign. Kdammers (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have redesigned this template following the other comments on this talk page and talking with other editors in the Wikimedia Discord. Do you think that:

1. The redesign needs more work
2. The template is ready to be replaced
3. The current template is fine

Seemplez 14:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

• Comment: The original template seems to have already been replaced by the redesign soon after the RfC started. Here is the original template. — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:44, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Also the redesigned template seems to insert an extra line break at the end in articles where it is included (e.g. Multiplication). — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

  @MarkH21: Forgot to remove the tag, sorry. It seemed that no one really minded, as there was no response after one week, so I replaced it. I'll fix the line break. Seemplez ^{{{ping}} me} 14:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)Reply