Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics#Accessibility of precomposed fraction characters

The Mathematical constants are uniformly presented integers in groups of five, Golden ratio is presented in groups of three, and the Copeland-Erdős constant infinitely without spaces. Is this an artifact of citation faithfulness, or is there a convention of conventions (so to speak)? kencf0618 (talk) 01:16, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

:Per MOS:DIGITS "digits are grouped both sides of the decimal point" ... "digits are generally grouped into threes". So if you find them grouped in other ways, I think they should be regrouped to this consistent style. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If including formulae in the lede that must appear in navigation popups, one should use raw HTML, but my question is: can one use LaTeX using {{tag|math}} or not?

Is it correct to make this change then?

{{textdiff

|The lead should, as much as possible, be accessible to a general reader, so specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided. Formulas should appear in the first paragraph only if necessary, since they will not be displayed in the preview that pops up when hovering over a link. For having formulae displayed when hovering, they must be written in raw html (without templates {{tl|var}} or {{tl|math}}), or in LaTeX (inside $...$). In the latter case the LaTeX source is displayed without the tags $$ and .

|The lead should be as accessible as possible to the reader, minimizing specialized terminology and symbols. Formulas should appear in the first paragraph only if necessary, because they may not be displayed correctly in link-hover previews (e.g., Page Previews or Navigation popups). If you need formulae to display within a navigation popup, write them in raw HTML (by avoiding the {{tl|var}} or {{tl|math}} templates), or by using LaTeX inside the {{tag|math}} tag.

}} waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:Maybe this is related: [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T239357 T239357]? waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

::No, it is not correct. For a start, the sentence about being "accessible to a general reader" is an issue for WP:TECHNICAL, not for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility. It is about the level of writing, not about technical formatting issues. Speaking of level of writing, "the preview that pops up when hovering over a link" is more accessible than "link-hover previews (e.g., Page Previews or Navigation popups)". —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

:::I've reverted to the original. But more explanation would be appreciated. waddie96 ★ (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ⋯ (using centered dots) was moved to 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ... (dots no longer centered) while Help:Displaying a formula#Larger expressions suggests in examples that the correct typography is to use centered dots. So, what's the recommendation? — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:The move was motivated because the title used a centered ellipsis (a single character)instead of three dots. I suggest to request a move for replacing dots with centered dots (I did the change in the text). D.Lazard (talk) 14:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::It's probably because MOS says not to use the unicode ellipsis character for lowered dots and someone got it into their head that this meant a blanket prohibition on any other kind of ellipsis. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::: They do not appear centred on my device (Firefox on Android). They look identical to a normal ellipsis so I didn't know it was different. Since I was apparently wrong in thinking this was an uncontroversial move, it ought to be reversed. Hairy Dude (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

::::I moved it back. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks. {{Re|Hairy Dude}} With Firefox on Android on my Samsung Galaxy (Firefox Beta 135.0b8), they appear centered as expected (both with the mobile site and the desktop site); you may have unusual settings. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I saw a red link while reading this. 31.45.47.88 (talk) 05:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:I removed a duplicate paragraph.

:Same, but in HTML-5 and math $and$. 31.45.47.88 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

:It is now blue (CLOSED!) 31.45.47.88 (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article state that Wikipedia uses the modern nomenclature where fields are assumed to be commutative and uses {{qi|division ring}} for the more general case, and give guidance on whther to avoid {{qi|skew field}} and {{qi|sfield}}? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:There is a section Division rings in Field. Nevertheless, I added "skew field" in the hatnote. D.Lazard (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, but I was addressing the guidelines in MOS. Wouldn't it be appropriate to link to Field (mathematics) and Division ring as giving the nomenclature to be used? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:::As far as I understand, section {{alink|Terminology conventions}} is intended for making Wikipeida homogeneous in the cases where different conventions are common outside Wikipedia, and disputes occur frequently between editors who disagree on the convention to be used. Presently, it is no more common to use "field" instead of "division algebra", and disagreements about the convention to use are unlikely. The only problem is to avoid confusion for the (rare, I suppose) readers who are accustomed to the older terminology. This is not a subject for the manual of style, and the edits done on Field (mathematics) solve the problem completely, in my opinion, D.Lazard (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2025 (UTC)