Talk:LaTeX

Useful / Interesting LaTeX packages

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)

First sentence and paragraph lacks clarity.

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 first 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)

Please see the definition of word processor here or here. LaTeX seems to fit the scope of this definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wickedjargon (talk • contribs) 07:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. LaTeX (the program, not the language) does not let you manipulate text entered from a keyboard. It reads plain text files and outputs to several formats, like DVI and PDF. The editor is what lets you manipulate the entered text. It can be Vim, notepad, TeXworks, but not LaTeX, just like a Java IDE is not the Java compiler. CamilStaps (talk) 08:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on LaTeX. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090813120216/http://bubl.ac.uk/archive/journals/texdig/v93n1193.htm to http://bubl.ac.uk/archive/journals/texdig/v93n1193.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Related AfD

Our article on KaTeX, a javascript library of the Khan Academy for formatting LaTeX-like mathematical expressions, has been nominated for deletion, with the nominator suggesting that one potential outcome might be a merge to this article. Please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KaTeX with your opinions of this potential merge or on the proposed deletion more generally. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Diffrence between TeX and LaTeX

The article should mention the diffrence between them, and the fact that LaTeX only extends TeX and built on top of it, that means that LaTeX is compiled to TeX. Galzigler (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Accessibility

Please can someone add something about how LaTeX works for people using non-visual browsers (such as a blind people using a screen reader)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"stylized with the system as"

"LaTeX (/ˈlɑːtɛx/ LAH-tekh or /ˈleɪtɛx/ LAY-tekh), stylized within the system as LaTeX, is a software system for document preparation."

The wording here is a bit clunky. How about "stylized within itself as"? Thoughts? Will change unless anyone has objections. CampWood (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

INHO, I think "stylized within the system as LaTeX" should be taken out all together, and so the first sentence should read:

"LaTeX (/ˈlɑːtɛx/ LAH-tekh or /ˈleɪtɛx/ LAY-tekh) is a software system for document preparation."

Is there a reason to indicate this "stylization" in the first sentence of the article? Or even anywhere in the article? There is afterall an image of the LaTeX logo in the infobox of the article on right Wickedjargon (talk) 23:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

IPA error

For the pronunciation of the word LaTeX, two options are given: (/ˈlɑːtɛx/ LAH-tekh or /ˈleɪtɛx/ LAY-tekh).

However both incorrectly use x (ch in loch) as the final coda position consonant. The non IPA transcription is also wrong. A more appropriate transcription would be:

(/ˈlɑːtɛks/ LAH-tekhs or /ˈleɪtɛks/ LAY-tekhs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.243.57 (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This is not wrong; it is indeed pronounced with "ch as in loch". I've heard people say "LAH-tek", but "LAH-teks" is wrong and "LAH-tekhs" makes no sense at all. –St.nerol (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

The footnote should not say (as it currently does) "commonly mispronounced as /ˈlɑːtɛk/ or /ˈleɪtɛk/"; that is inappropriate prescriptivism. If a pronunication is commonly enough used, then it becomes correctly or at least acceptable. See also Pronunciation of GIF. 78.32.131.8 (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Both you and St.nerol are wrong. The Latex Project website as referenced in source 2 says LaTeX is pronounced "to rhyme with «blech» or «Bertolt Brecht»". This is a bit confusing, since the coda of Brecht is /çt/, but the sensible interpretation is that LaTeX is supposed to be pronounced ending in /ç/, since neither /x/ nor /ks/ come close to rhyming with Brecht. Of course /ç/ is not an english phoneme, so how people actually pronounce the word will be different and should be reflected in the article Tasimnal (talk) 10:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. The current version references a source for the pronunciation, but it's misinterpreted. Bertolt Brecht is not pronounced like "Brekt". The pronunciation currently mentioned as "also pronounced as" is the "official" one, and the others are "also pronounced as"-alternatives. The X in LaTeX is pronounced similarly to the J in the spanish Jesus or Juan. Dynolderbo (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)