User talk:Lord Farin/Backup/Help:Editing

You do know that the links to edit individual sections don't work, right? :) --Cynic 21:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes
I do know, but not quite sure how to fix it. Haven't had the time to really sit down and figure it out yet. Any ideas?

Section editing fixed!
done --Joe 01:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion
At least in my browser, the stuff in tags inside the transclusion of House Style gets $\LaTeX$'d

Also, what was wrong with "page inclusion" or whatever? transclusion's a hideous word. Damn Ted Nelson. --Linus44 08:47, 4 March 2011 (CST)


 * Interesting. Might have to look at that. Transclusion (yeah, wo'ever) seems to do funny things: stuff in style delimiters doesn't get translated in mine, which is another reason to convert to dollar delims. --prime mover 12:11, 4 March 2011 (CST)


 * ... aw no that is just too weird. --prime mover 12:17, 4 March 2011 (CST)


 * Well, that's weird. I've removed the dollar signs from the nowiki'd parts (except for the code style stuff about where to put punctuation, where I did a bit of a work around cause it needed the dollar signs).  Not ideal but at least it doesn't completely defeat the point of giving the rendering codes.  It seems like mathjax is just a bit overzealous on what it decides to interpret for this kind of thing... --Alec  (talk) 14:05, 5 March 2011 (CST)

Suggestion
I would like to make a new suggestion for something that I only spotted just today. My suggestion (pertaining subscripts to big operators) is made most easily apparent by displaying the alternatives side by side:


 * $\displaystyle \sum_{k = 1}^n a_k \quad \text{vs.} \quad \sum_{k \mathop = 1}^n a_k$

As one sees, the second has the $=$ being treated by TeX as a proper mathematical operator (similar to how it behaves normally). I was brought to this by Definition:Limit Inferior of Sequence of Sets, where the $\bigcap$ has a really ugly subscript $i = n$. What do you think? It was not until I actually tried it out that I realised how much better it actually looks. --Lord_Farin 05:18, 13 April 2012 (EDT)


 * Sorry, I didn't notice it (been a bit preoccupied this last couple of days, been working on setting up a business opportunity). My view is, then: add the mathop as necessary, whenever it improves the look. --prime mover 15:31, 14 April 2012 (EDT)