User:Northern Muriqui/sandbox

Symbol in lead
Minor issue, but nevertheless... I had the symbol in the lead from " ∞ " ( ∞ ) to "$$\infty$$" ( "$$\infty$$ ), as I thought it looks much better that way. The HTML rendering gives sort of a floating symbol, whereas HTML without the tag produces "∞", a symbol that is too small. The symbol was  to the floating —and i.m.o. ugly— " ∞ " by user . Thoughts anyone?


 * As it happens I had roughly the reverse experience -- the LaTeX didn't line up quite right in the lede and looked wrong, so I changed it back to the Unicode. If there's consensus for the LaTeX (well, really BlahTeX I think) version I have no problem with it. User:CRGreathouse|CRGreathouse]] (User talk:CRGreathouse|t]] | Special:Contributions/CRGreathouse|c]]) 19:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Ha... that information has triggered a few experiments here. It seems to be directly related to chosen setting in "My preferences, Appearance, Math". I use the setting "Recommended for modern browsers", which, in this case, has the same effect as "HTML if possible or else PNG" and as "MathML if possible (experimental)". When I try "Always render PNG" the symbol gets large and slighly floating indeed, although less than the HTML rendering. Strange, very strange. :-) - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 19:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Did some more tests — different system, same OP, same version of IE8, completely different behaviour. " ∞ " ( ∞ ) looks perfect here. Sigh... let's forget about this, sorry. - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 07:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There should be a very good reason for not using unicode as the mode visible representation. People want to copy and paste this symbol.  We should never choose a representation that requires non-default user preferences in order to appear optimal.  I do not mind if the Latex is put back in if the unicode symbol is also very prominent - maybe in an infobox, or weaved into the lede somehow. User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] '''(User talk:John Vandenberg 10:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's have them both, like
 * Infinity (symbol: $$\infty$$ or ∞ ) is an abstract concept...
 * That would put and end to this back and forth changing. User:DVdm|DVdm]] User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 11:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, using MathJax, there's not much difference between ∞ and ∞ . - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 11:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with the Latex being in there, but I would like it more clearly indicated which is unicode than in your example. User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] '''(User talk:John Vandenberg 12:23, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps like this?
 * Infinity (LaTeX symbol: $$\infty$$, Unicode symbol ∞ ) is an abstract concept...
 * or
 * Infinity (symbol: $$\infty$$ in LaTeX, or ∞ in Unicode) is an abstract concept...
 * I'd prefer the first. - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 12:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I took the latter and went ahead. - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 08:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thx. That works for me. User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] '''(User talk:John Vandenberg 10:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Not being aware of this discussion, I just changed the opening words of the article to "Infinity (symbol: ∞ )", which was promptly reverted with reference to this discussion. I strongly disagree with the current wording "Infinity (symbol: $$\infty$$ in LaTeX, or ∞ in Unicode)". We should always be focused on content, particularly in the lede of an article. The first sentence needs to tell the reader what the symbol for infinity is. The underlying font technology used to display that symbol on the screen is irrelevant. The article could explain somewhere further down how to make an infinity symbol in Latex, or what the Unicode code for the symbol is. These kinds of details are nowhere near important enough to be in the first sentence of the article.

Because the Unicode symbol can be copied and pasted, it should be the sole form presented in the lede sentence. --User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] (User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 18:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything in MOS:LEAD that explicitly prohibits what we have here, which, as you can see, was more or less put in place to accommodate the plethora of browser flavours out there. By the way, with my setup, a copy/paste of the Latex symbol results in insertion of the Unicode character "∞", which seems okay. I personally don't care either way, but, apart from your objection, I don't see any compelling problem in keeping both flavours in this case here. In the spirit of wp:consensus trumps MOS, what say others? - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 07:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Srleffler. Right now there's too much said about the symbol in the opening sentence.  The symbol is not very important.
 * About the only reason to have the symbol in the opening sentence at all is because people might ask questions if it weren't there. Well, that and the (minor) practical convenience of having a place you know you can copy it from.
 * So yeah, bottom line, my preference would be to use the Unicode with some sort of markup to keep it from looking so tiny. Second preference would be to defer discussion of the symbol altogether, to later in the article. --User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] (User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 14:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It would be pretty surprising if there were anything in the MOS that explicitly prohibited what we have here, but there is general advice. From WP:LEADSENTENCE there is "Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence." Giving the same symbol in both Latex and unicode forms is clearly redundant. It also says "Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information...". Telling the reader that one presentation of the symbol uses Latex to render the image and the other uses Unicode conveys no relevant information whatsoever. The font technology used to present the symbol is irrelevant to the topic of the article.--User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] (User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 05:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Srleffler and others that the emphasis on coding in the lead sentence and the graphic of typefaces at the top is redundant and gives the impression that the symbol and its possible fonts are somehow important to the topic of infinity. --User:Seberle|seberle]] (User talk:Seberle|talk]]) 16:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I also agree with Srleffler and others, that technical information on how the symbol is rendered is irrelevant and there should only be one symbol in the lead. Don't have much of opinion on which, except that user Trovatore makes a good point; if the Unicode symbol is used, it should be displayed larger. --User:Racerx11| Racer X11 ]] User talk:Racerx11|Talk to me]] Special:Contributions/Racerx11|Stalk me]] 17:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thx for the comments. Yes, the only reason why we had changed it, was to avoid an eternal switching back and forth between the (good looking) LaTeX $$\infty$$, and the (ugly little) Unicode ∞ version. Is there a way to make it larger other than with the template unichar? - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 17:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @:  yields $∞$. I'm not sure if that goes against any MoS or accessibility rules though. The sub is required because otherwise, the sign starts floating away .&mdash; Lucas  Thoms 00:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @ and @ Thanks for the brief history. I think I am guilty of one who reverted one of those changes. I'm OK with either and ∞ is fine as long it doesn't cause problems. If it boils down to simply aesthetics, I would lean towards $$\infty$$. Btw, I am no expert on markup coding, and although I have a healthy interest in math, I am by no stretch a mathematician. Just adding some input from the outside. I will step back and trust that the participants here will find a good solution. --User:Racerx11| Racer X11 ]] User talk:Racerx11|Talk to me]] Special:Contributions/Racerx11|Stalk me]] 00:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice! So we could open like this:
 * Infinity (symbol: $∞$) is an abstract concept...
 * Looks perfect to me, and is pure Unicode. - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 08:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's where we run into problems. I'd have to guess that the sub-inside-of-another-sub ( $∞$ ) looks great in your browser. In mine (Chrome for Ubuntu and Chrome for Android), one sub puts the symbol in line with the text and two subs puts it too low, halfway below the line of text. &mdash; Lucas Thoms 14:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Firefox here. Just tested in Internet Explorer 8 and 11. Totally different and both pretty bad. Yes, they all think they can design the perfect browser. Amateurism galore. Ah well, free software does come at a price.
 * The only symbol that seems to consistently render just fine is the LaTeX one, and it can be copy/pasted into a Unicode character for those who want... - User:DVdm|DVdm]] (User talk:DVdm|talk]]) 15:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Test: This is an infinity symbol: ∞. How does that look? Fundamentally, the difference between the Latex and Unicode representations has nothing to do with Latex or Unicode; it's just that they use different default fonts. We can use Unicode; we just need to specify a font or font family that render better. If the version above doesn't look good in your browser, let me know which browser and give me the name of a font on your system that has a better-looking infinity symbol.

The problem with the symbol "flying away" is because the default font used by Wikipedia on some systems has the symbol floating above the baseline. When you make that bigger, it floats up. The fix for that is not to use that font.--User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] (User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 02:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How about : $...$? That's roughly the size of the LaTeX one everyone liked: $$\infty$$ (this is a little bigger in Chrome, a little smaller in FF). I tested it in Firefox, it's different from Chrome but not necessarily bad. The undefined are definitely needed for FF, though, or else it starts flying away again. How does that look to those of you with computers that will run IE?&mdash; User:Lucas Thoms|Lucas]]  Thoms 06:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm using FireFox on Windows 8, and the  makes yours sit below the baseline of the text. Trying to make the symbol much larger than the rest of the text is just not going to work, and trying to adjust the position with   is no fix at all, since the positioning of the symbol depends on what font the user is rendering it with.


 * My default serif font is Times New Roman. What is yours? (See Menu/Options/Content/Advanced) We need to figure out which fonts work and which do not.
 * How does this look: ∞ ? This should force Times New Roman if you have it installed, and default serif otherwise.--User:Srleffler|Srleffler]] (User talk:Srleffler|talk]]) 06:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)