`  == Integral domain? ==  I replaced ``a zero-divisor free commutative ring with more than one element`` with ``an integral domain``. JamesBWatson reverted the change, saying ``No, if you read further down it explicitly states taht there need not be a 1. ``Ring`` is often taken as implying a 1, but not always.``  However, Wikipedia practice does currently define ``ring`` to have a multiplicative identity via monoid, so using this longer phrase doesn't make the more general applicability any clearer.    I think the best fix would be to start out discussing integral domains, and then discuss the more general case of a pseudo-ring later in the article, especially since AFAICT the field of fractions of a pseudo-ring which is not a ring doesn't necessarily contain the pseudo-ring, contrary to the assertion that it is ``the smallest field in which it can be embedded``.  Thoughts?   `