I have a sense that adding MathJax to titles can interfere with questions being picked up correctly by search engines, and so the practice is discouraged when not particularly helpful.

I think I've had my question titles edited to remove mathjax in the past, and for this reason.

However I can't substantiate nor confirm any of this.

I keep wanting to edit the title of this question

Do all rigid bodies of radius $r$ have at least one stable orbit with perihelion $p$ such that $2r >p > r$?

because it would look essentially the same without MathJax:

Do all rigid bodies of radius r have at least one stable orbit with perihelion p such that 2r > p > r?

Is there some standard, convention, or consensus on the use of MathJax in titles in cases where it doesn't seem to be necessary? Would making this change be considered heavy-handed?


1 Answer 1


Such discussions happened in the past on multiple sites:

UPDATE: Physics: Is MathJax in titles OK?

Summary: if a title can be stated without using MathJax, then it should be, because

And I think that pretty much every title on this site could work without MathJax (unlike on Mathematics where some formula-rich titles can't be avoided). Certainly for the example you gave.

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, it seems your answer is well received. I've made the edit to the linked question. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Apr 24, 2018 at 13:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It also allows the question to be rendered on the Hot Network Questions feed on sites that don't have MathJax installed $\endgroup$
    – Ferrybig
    Apr 26, 2018 at 21:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks (belated). That's also mentioned in the new Physics Meta answers I've just added a link to above. $\endgroup$
    – uhoh
    Mar 2, 2020 at 5:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .