Timeline for How to typeset a missing word correctly?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:44 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| May 19, 2019 at 20:48 | history | edited | Mensch | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
better visable separated underscores
|
| Apr 10, 2016 at 19:41 | comment | added | Mensch | @LukasSchmelzeisen Do you write in German or English? Has your university puplished rules you have to follow? Are the word(s) left out inside a citing? Then you should use [] to mark place you left words out. To give you a better answer we need more information ... | |
| Apr 10, 2016 at 18:15 | comment | added | Lukas Schmelzeisen | Yes, if the intend is for the reader to fill in the missing word, I think underscores (or some vertical line under the "invisible" word) works best. But I am looking to use this in a scientific paper, I just want to denote a missing word, the actual content/word missing is not important for me. | |
| Apr 9, 2016 at 12:30 | history | edited | Zach Saucier | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Minor English corrections
|
| Apr 9, 2016 at 0:39 | comment | added | Mensch | @ZachSaucier My English is not good and my spelling could always be wrong ... And of course it depends on the situation how many underscores one use to simulate one letter. Another possibility could be to add a small space after one underscore to be sure the reader can see how many letters are needed. In my examples above the reader could it not see. | |
| Apr 9, 2016 at 0:19 | comment | added | Zach Saucier | If they're hand writing the words I'd usually leave slightly more than one space for each letter (while hinting). People's letters are usually larger than typed letters | |
| Apr 8, 2016 at 21:19 | history | answered | Mensch | CC BY-SA 3.0 |