Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics

Historical note: The page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics was originally obtained by moving content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics here, see the diff. As such, this page was not created from scratch on 18:39, 19 January 2005 as the page history may suggest, but is rather the product of collaborative discussion of Wikipedians since 2001 or 2002.

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 120 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 <math>...</math> or not?

Is it correct to make this change then?

waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is related: T239357? waddie96 ★ (talk) 15:48, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Thanks. @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)[reply]

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

I removed a duplicate paragraph.

Same, but in HTML-5 and math ${\displaystyle and}$. 31.45.47.88 (talk) 06:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As far as I understand, section § 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)[reply]

I see, as a mathematical notational convention, The bar notation is discouraged because it is not supported by all browsers followed by a suggestion to use the deprecated Template:Unicode which seems to exist to fix (long-EOLed) Windows XP. Is this still an active concern? Sesquilinear (talk) 17:40, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on mw:Compatibility#Browsers the only browser from before the depreciation that isn't in the "you're on your own, buddy" category is the Android WebView which I'm pretty sure did not have any Unicode issues like that. So I don't think it makes sense to have this in the MoS. Sesquilinear (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also the part about using numeric unicode escapes rather than the character itself makes no sense now. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:03, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]