Talk:Ordinal indicator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Typography (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Typography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Typography 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject Writing systems (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Writing systems, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage and content of articles relating to writing systems on Wikipedia. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project’s talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Superscript historically uncommon in English typography[edit]

I've been told by some typography folks that the superscript ordinal indicators in English are not really the historical usage, except for a specific period of time. Basically, they used to be written on the line, then for about 100 years during the Victorian era were superscripted, then the superscripts were dropped, and now with Word's auto-superscripting they're making somewhat of a resurgence, to the dismay of typographers who had hoped that particular bit of poor Victorian design was gone for good. --Delirium 06:06, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Unicode characters not deprecated[edit]

I contest the statement that the Spanish/Portugese/Italian ordinal indicators are deprecated by the Unicode consortium. The referenced note says, of superscripted characters in general (making specific reference to numbers): "Using these characters directly in markup provides an alternate representation compared to marked up text, leading to different treatment by search engines. However, when super and sub-scripts are to reflect semantic distinctions, it is easier to work with these meanings encoded in text rather than markup, for example, in phonetic or phonemic transcription." This leaves the question of which representation is more suitable specifically for ordinal indicators open. --Ahruman 09:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I've deleted the text (although I wouldn't be opposed to putting it back if there was a reference that actually deprecated them). DopefishJustin 04:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. So Unicode does not take sides on whether to use markup on a regular letter, or just use the special characters, when indicating an ordinal. But what about when not indicating an ordinal? Is the use of the characters discouraged for abbreviation situations like the numero sign in English? It seems unwise to use them so, but it's very tempting for some folks, I've noticed. —mjb 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Underlined Indicator[edit]

Is it standard to underline super-scripted ordinal indicators?

(Commando303 (talk))

It is common in handwriting. In print, underlining ordinal suffixes or anything else is abominated for three reasons: it makes the text hard to read, it spoils the appearance of the page, and in manual typesetting it is hard to underline text. Sicherman (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Sloppy Seconds?[edit]

The Irish equivalent of 2nd appears here as "2ú", though the Irish word shown does not end in "ú". Is this correct? Sicherman (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Primary, Secondary[edit]

In the French section it states "The suffix º is used for terms like primo, secundo, and tertio as 1º, 2º, and 3º" I was taught this usage at school and college for primary, secondary, tertiary in English - it isn't a solely French thing. The Yowser (talk) 14:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reversion back to functional template[edit]

I agree with this edit, restoring a prior version of a template, which doesn't misbehave. --Lexein (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)