Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1213740343 by 2409:40E0:1040:65E3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) |
|||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{WikiProject
{{WikiProject Typography|importance=mid}}
}}
== Merge with Superior Letter ==
Line 16 ⟶ 17:
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 47 ⟶ 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]] [[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 76 ⟶ 83:
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''<sub>0</sub> 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''<sub>C</sub>.
I came to this page with the intention of finding out why it is written this way around rather than C<sub>''p''</sub>, in the same way as N<sub>0</sub> and N<sub>9</sub> 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)
| |||