From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Useful / Interesting LaTeX packages[edit]

Seeing as we already have a Frontends section, why not add another section for useful packages such as LaTeX-beamer? Liyang 06:52:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MizaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 60 days.--Oneiros (talk) 01:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any need for archiving at a page as little used as this one. Tkuvho (talk) 16:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, but on the other hand, it does not do any harm either. — Emil J. 11:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I object. There are still unaddressed concerns in the archived section. This page is not large enough to warrant automatic archiving. - Andrew Keenan Richardson 07:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
The bot will only kick in when there are more than ten threads. Currently there are 4.--Oneiros (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Oneiros - Wow.

1. Make a reasoned argument for any change you suggest. You failed completely to explain WHY you should remove threads from this little visited(?) page.
2. Don't make changes for change sake. I object to change without stated rationale.
3. I've been editing WP for 10 years and have no clear idea what you meant (back in 2009) by "threads". There are now 8 Sections. Who calls them "threads"? Again, if you'd bothered to write a argument about what the change is and why you felt it was appropriate, I would be a little better informed. Here is a hint: the object of Wikipedia isn't to obfuscate, nor is it to unilaterally hide information based on (apparent) whim.
4. Your last post consists of the argument that since it isn't going to do anything, its ok to add it. That's risible.
5. You allowed 17 days between your post and your implementation?? You seem to lack perspective. Here is a hint: generally a good sample size is 100. So, how many visitors (which you seem to be able to count) visited the talk page either in that time period or in an average 17 day time frame? I'm pretty sure it was nowhere near an adequate sample to actually determine consensus. Lame. (talk) 14:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Braces in example[edit]

To the editor who converted \latex{} to \latex in the example: these braces are necessary to stop TeX from ignoring the following space, but aren't necessary before a punctuation mark. For instance:

  I think \latex is the best typesetting system; there's no better typesetting system than \latex.

will come out as

I think LaTeXis the best typesetting system; there's no better typesetting system than LaTeX.

(Note the missing space between "LaTeX" and "is".) I understand your frustration that the syntax highlighting isn't right with the braces there, but this is better than pretty colors and incorrect source! If it's not possible to sort out the highlighting issue, perhaps it would be better to just turn off syntax highlighting for that example. Quietbritishjim (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

One workaround is to use an explicit space:
\LaTeX\ is a document preparation system for the \TeX{}
--Karnesky (talk) 03:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

External Links[edit]

I would like to argue for the inclusion of in the external links section. My argument lies with this being a useful resource unlike any other on the page, or any other in existence. It is not simply a link to one of many resources. I believe it sits alongside CTAN and TUG as a valuable resource for LaTeX users just starting out in LaTeX or wanting to take the hassle out of creating a new document type.

Further, as recently as the end of February another link to LaTeX templates was on the page (, which is the direct offspring of. Why is one acceptable and the other not?

Full disclosure: I am the owner of I get no financial benefit from the website, it was made to help LaTeX users in a way that, I believe, has not been done before.

VelimirNZ (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh please, I have here to reply to VerlimirNZ, I was personally in touch with VerlimirNZ when I created a CV website which I thought presented a useful resource for people who want to create their CV in Latex. Not only VerlimirNZ asked me to create a backlink for his page supposedly to cover copyright issues (For using templates he did not create and are actually free to use) but when I asked for a backlink from his page he asked me for 1000 USD per month for a backlink from his CV page, because he said "He is making more with google ad sense banner on that page". I dont mind people making money with their business but why do you lie to the Latex community? I am happy to provide you with the emails. Therefore I do not think Latex templates can stay in a list of purely informative websites about latex, I am deleting it and referring to this talk.

A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Why writing the logo with the <math> tag?[edit]

What is the benefit of writing the LaTeX logo with the code

'''&lt;math&gt;\mathbf{L\!\!^{{}_{\scriptstyle A}} \!\!\!\!\!\;\; T\!_{\displaystyle E} \! X}&lt;/math&gt;'''?

First, there is the real logo in svg format, typeset with LaTeX, which has the correct appearance; then there also is the {{LaTeX}} template which doesn't have exactly the right appearance but on the other hand produces html code that can be parsed and copied as text, so I don't see the benefit with writing it using the <math> tag (which doesn't have any of these benefits) as is done in the lead paragraph?—Kri (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why shouldn't titles be formatted?[edit]

My last edit to this article (putting the code {{displaytitle|{{LaTeX}}}} in the document) was reverted with the motivation Titles should not be formatted. So I wonder why titles shouldn't be formatted? If they really shouldn't be formatted I need to undo formatting some more titles, but I need to know why first. —Kri (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion on this either way, but did a quick Google on it. It seems the relevant guideline is at WP:ITALICTITLE. It seems a bit ambiguous on this subject to me, but I think that's all the guidance there is. Quietbritishjim (talk) 23:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Per MOS:TM, we don't use odd styling of trademarks and such, but "choose the style that most closely resembles standard English". I reverted the use of the templates {{LaTeX}} and {{TeX}} throughout that made the article so ugly in violation of this guideline. Dicklyon (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of Failed to parse (unknown function "\LaTeX"): {\displaystyle \LaTeX} instead of LaTeX[edit]

The article states the Failed to parse (unknown function "\LaTeX"): {\displaystyle \LaTeX} is used when technically possible, but then the rest of the article uses LaTeX. Shouldn't it use Failed to parse (unknown function "\LaTeX"): {\displaystyle \LaTeX} by what it itself says? asmeurer (talk | contribs) 23:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

That’s not what it states. Anyway, we’ve had this discussion before. LaTeX is a logo. We shouldn’t use the LaTeX logo in place of its textual name, just like we don’t use the Microsoft logo instead of “Microsoft”.—Emil J. 12:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about example[edit]

I note three things that aren't clear in the example (at least, to me):
1. Both math lines include numbering (ie. (1) & (2)) which doesn't seem to be explicitly commanded anywhere. Obviously, not all expressions will be numbered, so some discussion of this (at least in a note) should be made.
2. In the two equations E0 and E are NOT (quite exactly) vertically aligned (at least from the left). Are they somehow aligned on the right (of that first variable grouping (or whatever you call it))? Again, a note should be included explaining why they aren't aligned (or how they are, if they are).
3. The double back-slashes on the far right are not explained. (Do they have anything to do with either of the above issues?)(is the begin{align} an attempt at vertical alignment which doesn't work particularly well? (talk) 14:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The example is meant for illustrative purposes not teaching purposes. There is a wikibook about latex that teaches how to use it here. XFEM Skier (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

First sentence and paragraph lacks clarity.[edit]

The first sentence and paragraph lacks clarity and is therefore a bad introduction. A rewrite of some or most of it is needed. Here are some points:

  • The term 'document preparation system' is rarely used (if at all) outside the context of LaTeX, TeX or TeX-related programs/packages (Try a Google search). So only those who already know what LaTeX/TeX is will clearly/fully understand the first sentence. Terms like 'Word processor' and/or 'computer program' are better descriptors for the fist sentence. Further clarification can be made in a following sentence by comparing WYSIWYG to markup.
  • The LaTeX Project states here that 'LaTeX is not a word processor.' Apparently their definition of word processor is exclusive to those that use WYSIWYG, but the definition entries for 'word processor' and 'word processing' found in Oxford/Cambridge/Webster are broader and LaTeX (in my opinion) would fall under any of them. The LaTeX Project mentions on the same page (see link above) that LaTeX is a document preparation system. When the wiki-reader clicks on document preparation system in this article, he/she is directed to an article titled 'Word Processor'.
  • The sentence 'It is widely used for the communication and publication of scientific documents in many fields' is a little broad. Clarity can be improved here by explicitly mentioning the submission of articles to scientific journals.
  • The sentence "LaTeX is not the name of a particular editing program, but refers to the encoding or tagging conventions that are used in LaTeX documents." lacks clarity and is recursive. Think about it. Would you ever say, "HTML is not the name of a particular HTML editing program, but refers to the encoding or tagging conventions that are used in HTML documents." Wickedjargon (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I have since edited the first paragraph to improve clarity in line with most points above. Wickedjargon (talk) 21:22, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
A recent edit has changed the sentence "LaTeX is a word processor and a document markup language." to "LaTeX is not a word processor but a document markup language". I addressed the definition of a "word processor" in my second bullet (above). Despite The LateX Project's homepage's statement that LaTeX is not a word processor, the definition of word processor in Oxford/Cambridge/Webster dictionaries is in line with its usage in this article. The definition is not exclusive to WYSIWYG editors. To quote the US Oxford English dictionary, a word processor is:
"a program or machine for storing, manipulating, and formatting text entered from a keyboard and providing a printout."
Wickedjargon (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
I changed this back to "document preparation system". That people won't understand this, is not a reason to post incorrect information. CamilStaps (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Second pronunciation not in citation given[edit]

The beginning of this article says:

   commonly pronounced as /ˈlɑːtɛk/ LAH-tekh or /ˈleɪtɛks/ LAY-teks,

LAY-teks is usually considered to be an incorrect pronunciation in my experience (as TeX by itself is 'tech', not 'tex'). The citation gives the alternate pronunciation "LAY-tech", not "LAY-teks". If this latter pronunciation is truly "common," then another citation needs to be found to support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with LaTeX2HTML[edit]

lacking sources for notability and size, better merged before deleted. WP:SPINOUT Widefox; talk 15:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Crystal Clear app clock-orange.svg Started Agreed, beginning merge now. Seba5tien (talk/contribs) 10:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
 Done Merge complete, please see LaTeX#LaTeX2HTML. Seba5tien (talk/contribs) 10:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)