Community Wishlist Survey 2022/Editing/Missing LaTeX capabilities for math rendering

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Random proposal◄ Editing  The survey has concluded. Here are the results!

Missing LaTeX capabilities for math rendering

  • Problem: Some of the basic LaTeX features required for writing esthetic math formulae seem to be unavailable, like the \phantom and its variants to adjust horizontal / vertical spaces. For instance the enumeration (from this page) exhibits a badly shaped square root, where one expects a formula like , which one would normally write using a \vphantom{p'} in the first square root to adjust its vertical size to that of the second square root. And how complex would be the possible usage of some additional LaTeX packages like bigint for large integrals, in order to display properly formulae like integrals on this page?
  • Proposed solution: I'm wondering why some of the basic LaTeX features, like the \phantom mentioned above, or raisebox, can't be used?
  • Who would benefit: Readers of scientific articles on Wikipedia or scientific books on scientific texts on Wikisource.
  • More comments: The display of math formulae is also not always satisfactory, see the Improve LaTeX rendering proposal
  • Phabricator tickets:
  • Proposer: F0x1 (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Totally agree. We could even continue the list : \hfill, \hdots, \substack, \smash and many environments (e.g. multline, split) from amsmath. — ElioPrrl (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This seems like a consensus needed kind of request, not per community but with the math community (which is generally available on Phabricator already). --Izno (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]