Talk:Subscript and superscript: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:28, 19 May 2014

Latest revision as of 21:58, 14 March 2024

(14 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{WikiProject Typographybanner shell|class=startStart|importance=mid}}

{{WikiProject Typography|importance=mid}}

}}

== Merge with Superior Letter ==

Line 14 ⟶ 15:

There is a stark contradiction between the [[Superior letter]] article and this article. [[Superior letter]] says ''The style is distinct from superscript'', whereas here it says ''In typesetting, such types ''[i.e. super/subscript]'' are traditionally called superior and inferior letters, figures, etc., or just superiors and inferiors'' and then it goes on to say ''Superior and inferior figures on the baseline ''[what is a superior figure on the baseline?]'' are used for fractions and most other purposes, while lowered inferior figures are needed for chemical and mathematical subscripts'' which isn't at all compatible with the use of "superior" in the corresponding article that restricts the term to word abbreviations. I don't care either way, but there should be a minimum of consistency across articles, and if there are conflicting nomenclatures this should be made explicit. Typographically I think there is something to the view that superscript and superior are in fact distinct features, e.g. superscripts can contain anything, extend beyond the top of the line, have superscripts themselves etc. --[[Special:Contributions/88.73.31.231|88.73.31.231]] ([[User talk:88.73.31.231|talk]]) 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it is worth mentioning, at least, that, in relation to digital text in word processing applications, superior letters and superscript have become synonymous, and that they are both produced the same way and are identical in modern typography. Could we say that superscript and superior letters only differ in context regarding function, but that otherwise, in appearance, they are identical? --[[User:Illinois347|Illinois347]] 18:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

:Though "superior letters" doesn't include numbers, which are more commonly used in modern English writing, from what I can tell, all superior letters are correctly described as superscript letters. (The clashing intros above still haven't been harmonized.) Though there are some differences in traditional typography depending on use (e.g. math equation vs. prose ordinal) these differences are described in [[Subscript and superscript]]. The section [[Subscript and superscript#Superscripts that typically do not extend above the ascender line]] notes that this also happens for some non-letters, so it is weird to have an article only for the letters that do that, when letterness is not the distinguishing characteristic. [[Superior letter]] has only 5k of readable prose, [[Subscript and superscript]] only has 14k, so these will easily fit together without being too long, especially when redundant prose is eliminated. Right now it feels to me like each of these articles only tells two-thirds of the same story. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 05:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

::I agree. Superior Letters are a use case of Superscript, and should be merged into this article, leaving behind a redirect. Letters can be underscored before being superscripted, to give 'Superior Letters', eg in Microsoft Word 365. [[User:FreeFlow99|FreeFlow99]] ([[User talk:FreeFlow99|talk]]) 12:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

== Other Script Positions ==

Line 45 ⟶ 52:

The [[Subscript and superscript#HTML|HTML]] section makes the vague and unsupported claim that superscripts in HTML are placed ''too high.'' <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Einstein9073|Einstein9073]] ([[User talk:Einstein9073|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Einstein9073|contribs]]) 18:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:This looks fishy, indeed.—[[User:EmilJ|Emil]]&nbsp;[[User talk:EmilJ|J.]] 09:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It may be a reference to the fact that HTML/CSS superscripts are taller than the rest of the line, and therefore make the line spacing uneven if the author does not use additional workarounds (e. g., artificially reducing the line height of the superscript).

[[User:ToaKraka|ToaKraka]] ([[User talk:ToaKraka|talk]]) 20:42, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

== Merge with Unicode subscripts and superscripts ==

Line 61 ⟶ 70:

How do you form plurals of variables with subscripts? Let's say I want to form the plural of ''ε₀''. Is it ''ε₀''s? Or ''ε₀'''s? Or something else? --[[User:Polis Tyrol|Polis Tyrol]] ([[User talk:Polis Tyrol|talk]]) 14:10, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

:Why would you need a plural for ε₀ if there can be only one [[Vacuum permittivity|ε₀]]?

== Error in article ==

Line 67 ⟶ 77:

{{Quotation|Ordinal indicators are sometimes written as superscripts (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, rather than 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th)}}

--[[User:LukasMatt|LukasMatt]] ([[User talk:LukasMatt|talk]]) 03:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

== Intro section: what citation? ==

In which part of the statement "in order to get visual consistency, a typographer would make super/subscripts slightly heavier than a simple shrink in size would be" do we need citation? It's not "heavier than normal glyph", but "heavier than shrunken normal glyph". Line widths of course got lighter in the simple shrinking process, and has to be compensated for.

Just curious because to me it's like needing a citation to back up the statement "to make up for the stolen $50, Sam would earn or somehow get another $50", which is plain silly. [[User:Adgj1144|Adgj1144]] ([[User talk:Adgj1144|talk]]) 10:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

== Naught vs. nought ==

The following references suggest that when expressions like ''x''₀ are spelled out, it is preferable to write "nought" instead of "naught" (and this is not only a matter of British English vs. American English):

* [https://www.vocabulary.com/articles/wc/your-head-will-spin-naught-aught-and-ought/ As a rule of thumb, "nought" (or "aught") is preferred when dealing with numbers, while "naught" is preferred outside of math.] -- Prof. Merrill Perlman, Columbia Graduate School of Journalism

* [https://www.grammar.com/naught_vs._nought "nought" is also synonym with "zero" in British English] -- Marius Alza

* [https://grammarist.com/usage/naught-nought/ Nought is conventionally used in British English for the number zero...In both British English and American English, naught is used in nonmathematical contexts to mean nothing.] -- grammarist.com

Should we update the article accordingly? [[User:Ebony Jackson|Ebony Jackson]] ([[User talk:Ebony Jackson|talk]]) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Naught / nawt is generally only used in Northern dialects of British English, and not used in professional contexts, therefore ought not to be used in Maths. [[User:FreeFlow99|FreeFlow99]] ([[User talk:FreeFlow99|talk]]) 12:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

== Missing information on Mathematical subscripts below the line ==

If we are referring to the probability of something we may use an italic ''p'' immediately followed by a subscript to refer to the item the probability refers, eg C to look like: ''p''_C.

I came to this page with the intention of finding out why it is written this way around rather than C_''p'', in the same way as N₀ and N₉ where the something comes first and the quality is the subscript.

This is where people would come to understand the apparent contradictory notations.

[[User:FreeFlow99|FreeFlow99]] ([[User talk:FreeFlow99|talk]]) 11:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

== Hatnote violates [[WP:LINK]]? ==

Specifically the section "In articles, do not link to pages outside the article namespace, except in articles about Wikipedia itself (and even in that case with care – see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Self-references to avoid)." [[Special:Contributions/2600:1700:38D0:2870:5C75:EB8B:61D6:C614|2600:1700:38D0:2870:5C75:EB8B:61D6:C614]] ([[User talk:2600:1700:38D0:2870:5C75:EB8B:61D6:C614|talk]]) 07:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)