Talk:Subscript and superscript

message: Typography websites and dictionaries both indicate that superscript and superior letter are perfect synonyms, and these two articles have a lot of overlap.  Since superscript is the more common appellation, I suggest to merge superior letter into this article.  We would certainly replace the existing article with a redirect.  Citynoise (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I desagree. Al least in Spanish (I am from Spain), superscripts and superior letters are two distinct uses of this tipographic style. Superior letters (known in Spanish as "voladitas", "little flying" letters as the Superior letters article states) are always used for abbreviations, and are always underlined (where possible). Superscripts are used in Spanish to put inline calls and notes (like the famous wikipedia's ), math powers, chemical isotopes and valences, etc, and never are underlined. So I vote to keep the separate articles. -Ricardo Cancho Niemietz (talk) 15:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a merge makes sense.  Include the info about Spanish voladitas as part of the subscript and superscript article.   Randall Bart    Talk   20:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree.  The current status with cross-linking to these related, but distinct, topics is appropriate.  It is clear from the articles that these are not "perfect synonyms", whatever some individual sources may say.  —DIV (128.250.247.158 (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. These topics are actually distinct, and few English speakers would look for Superior letter when they are thinking about a superscript or a subscript. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

text: 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. -- Beland (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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.  FreeFlow99 (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Superior Letter 

message: This is a well written article, but is mention given to the other placements (eg overscript, underscript; also pre-subscript, pre-superscript as per text of patent 5182709) elsewhere?  I couldn't find articles for the other positions, much less a meta-article discussing (or at least mentioning) all of the positions...
Examples include Mathematical notation, which commonly uses overscript and underscript (perhaps all six), and Furigana, which appears to be an instance of overscript given yokogaki (horiztonal text).
--Eibwen 19:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Script Positions 

message: Note that superscripts are usually placed too high for many typographic purposes.
The HTML section makes the vague and unsupported claim that superscripts in HTML are placed too high.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einstein9073 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks fishy, indeed.—Emil J. 09:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  HTML superscripts placed "too high" 

message: There is already more extensive information about the layout of super- and subscripts in Unicode within the present article. It seems likely to me that a user will search here before searching for a specific Unicode-related version of the article. (It took me a few days to accidentally happen upon this article, where it is revealed that there is in fact no superscript q in Unicode!) babbage (talk) 23:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Unicode subscripts and superscripts  

message: Maybe this should include a line that this may not happen in modern browsers?
I'm using Aurora 13.0a2 (2012-03-28) and the text renders with perfect kerning for me. At first I didn't understand what the example was about. 
Maybe it should be replaced with a picture of the problem in a browser with incorrect rendering, and accompanied by an explanation that it occurred like that in version X of browser Y.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.119.189.36 (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position adjustment in italic/oblique/slanted styles no longer relevant, example doesn't work out. 

message: In the section #Superscripts that typically do not extend above the ascender line, does this text look correct:
--LukasMatt (talk) 03:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in article 

message: 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.  Adgj1144 (talk) 10:29, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro section: what citation? 

message: The following references suggest that when expressions like x0 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):
* 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
* "nought" is also synonym with "zero" in British English -- Marius Alza
* 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? Ebony Jackson (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naught vs. nought 

message: 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: pC. 
I came to this page with the intention of finding out why it is written this way around rather than Cp, 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.   
FreeFlow99 (talk) 11:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information on Mathematical subscripts below the line 

message: 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)." 2600:1700:38D0:2870:5C75:EB8B:61D6:C614 (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hatnote violates [[WP:LINK]]?