View source for Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

{{Talk header |WT:MOS |search=no }}

{{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
 |target=Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive index
 |mask=Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive <#>
 |leading_zeros=0
 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{FAQ|quickedit=no|collapsed=no}}
{{Section sizes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell |1=
{{WikiProject Manual of Style}}
{{Wikipedia Help Project|importance=Top}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
 |algo = old(30d)
 |archive = Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive %(counter)d
 |counter = 229
 |maxarchivesize = 900K
 |archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
 |minthreadsleft = 4
}}
[[File:Moshpit2.jpg|thumb|upright=0.9|Welcome to the MOS pit{{hn}}]]
__TOC__
{{clear right}}
{{stb}}

==Style discussions elsewhere==
<!-- START PIN -->{{Pin message}}<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 06:15, 18 June 2029 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1876457735}}<!-- END PIN -->
Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to ''Concluded'' when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

===Current===
(newest on top)
<!--
Don't add threads that are on the same page as this list.
Capitalization-specific entries should go in the corresponding section at the top of:
 Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters
-->
* [[Talk:Achilles' heel#Requested move 12 July 2025]] – concerns [[MOS:'s]] and "common name"
*[[Talk:Cancún#Requested move 26 June 2025]] - whether to keep the accent
*[[Talk:Carleton_S._Coon#Birth_and_death_places]] - a discussion pertaining to [[MOS:IBP]] (April 2025)
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide]] – A perennial unresolved usage debate has returned, with a variety of proposals (March 2025)
*: Summary of prior related major discussions: [[MOS:SUICIDE]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 160#Wording on articles about suicide in line with recommended best practice based on research|MOS 2014]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 7#Does "died by suicide" constitute a euphemism?|WTW 2016]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2017 archive#Usage of "Committed suicide"|MOSBIO 2017]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 197#Use of "died by suicide" at the David Reimer article|MOS 2017]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Stigmatizing language regarding suicide|VPPOL 2018]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#Change suicide references to remove criminal allusion|VPPOL 2017]], [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 8#Suicides?|WTW 2018]], [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Archive 17#RFC: Categories with committed suicide in title|CAT 2019]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language|VPPOL 2021]], [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 138#Change suicide references to remove criminal allusion|VPPOL 2023]]
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#RfC: Removal of links to "animated" on animated film articles]] – Has fairly broad [[MOS:LINK]] implications, beyond animated films (March 2025)
* [[Talk:Vasa (ship)#Informational footnotes (again)]] – a discussion pertaining to [[MOS:RETAIN]] and [[MOS:LAYOUT]] (Jan.–Feb. 2025, following on a not quite conclusive Feb. 2024 RfC)
* [[Talk:Archimedes#MOS:'S]] – on whether this subject should be exempt from [[MOS:POSS]] (Dec. 2024 – March 2025)
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO]] – to use policy-based material on "Christ" found in an essay but more useful in a guideline (Nov. 2024)
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->

{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
'''Pretty stale but not "concluded":'''
* RfC needed on issue raised at [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes]] (June–July 2004, archived without resolution). Presently, the royalty/nobility wikiprojects have imposed putting British peerage titles in place of names in biographical infoboxes, against [[MOS:BIO]], [[MOS:INFOBOX]], and the template's documentation. Either the community will accept this as a best practice and the guidelines changed to accomodate it, or it should be undone and the infobox used consistently and as-intended.
* A [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] revision RfC needs to be drafted, based on [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#JOBTITLES simplification proposal]] (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024, archived without resolution). JOBTITLES remains a point of confusion and conflict, which the guidelines are supposed to prevent not cause.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)#Use of comma and abbreviation of Incorporated]] – Involves [[MOS:TM]] (plus [[WP:COMMONNAME]], [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]], [[WP:POLICYFORK]]). Covers more than thread name implies. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Stalled without resolution; at least 3 options identified which should be put to an RfC.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Islam-related articles#NPOV usage of "the prophet Muhammad" or "the prophet"]] – Involves [[MOS:HONORIFIC]], [[MOS:DOCTCAPS]], [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:CHERRYPICKING]], etc. (Sep. 2023 –) ''Result:'' Still unresolved, though consensus seems to lean toward permitting lower-case "prophet" when needed for disambiguation, but no agreement yet on specific guideline wording.
* [[Help talk:Table/Archive 9#Indenting tables]] – Help page is conflicting with [[MOS:DLIST]] and [[MOS:ACCESS]] on a technical point. (Aug. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No objection to fixing it, and a suggestion to just do it [[WP:BOLD]]ly, but the work actually has to be done.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
}}<!-- end of block indent -->

{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
'''Capitalization-specific:'''
{{Excerpt| Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Current|subsections=no}}
}}

===Concluded===
{{collapse top|left=y|title=Extended content}}
<!--Please put newer additions at the top, by order of closure. -->
*[[Talk: Hawaii (island)#Requested move 3 July 2025]] – whether to use Hawaiian or English orthography, effecting multiple pages. ''Result'': 6 pages moved to titled with Hawaiian orthography
*[[Talk:Andy García#Requested move 5 July 2025]] – whether to keep the accent. ''Result'': Accent dropped, moved to [[Andy Garcia]]
*[[Talk:Cuauhtémoc Brooklyn Bridge collision#Requested move 18 May 2025]] - involves [[MOS:ENBETWEEN]] though this is not the primary issue discussed; also concerns a usage dispute about ''collision'' in maritime terminology (May 2025). ''Result:'' En-dash added, ''collision'' retained following discussion of several alternatives.
*[[Talk:Malung-Sälen Municipality#Requested move 22 April 2025]] – Concerns [[MOS:ENBETWEEN]] and hyphenated compound single place names and (May 2025). Multiple pages nominated for move. ''Result:'' Pages not moved, hyphens retained following low-participation RM discussion.
* [[Template talk:Infobox song#RfC: customizing infobox background colors based on album or single cover colors]] – involves [[MOS:COLOR]] concerns (Jan.–Feb. 2025) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to stylistically colorize infoboxes in this manner.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout#Use of template "further". Does it need clarification?]] – open discussion on lead placement of templates <nowiki>{{further}}, {{broader}}, etc as compared to {{main}} and {{see also}}</nowiki> (Jan. 2025) ''Result:'' Template documentation clarified.
* [[Talk:2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash#Requested move 15 January 2025]] – new discussion around the use of [[MOS:GEOCOMMA]] in article title specific to train accidents (Jan 2025). ''Result:'' Not moved to delete comma after "Virginia".
* [[Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 26 December 2024]] – involves a number of style and title questions, including capitalization, disambiguation preferences, what the most common name in RS is, etc.; reopened after move review (Dec. 2024 – Feb. 2025) ''Result:'' moved to [[1925 tri-state tornado]].
* [[Talk:United States Virgin Islands' at-large congressional district#Requested move 10 December 2024]] – plural possessive [[MOS:POSS]] question. ''Result'': Moved from "Islands's" to "Islands{{'"}} spelling.
* [[Talk:Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh#Requested move 18 December 2024]] – a [[MOS:AT]]&nbsp;/ [[WP:AT]] question, involving ambiguity, consistency, concision, and other concerns (Dec. 2024 – March 2025) ''Result:'' no consensus (so remains at the original article title).
* [[Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War#Flags in the infobox]] – a [[MOS:FLAGICONS]] matter (Nov.–Dec. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but article has been stable for a while with flag icons in the infobox, whether or not this conforms with the relevant guideline. This is the opposite of the result at "Battle of Tory Island", below.
* [[Talk:Kula–Farallon Ridge#Requested move 26 October 2024]] –&nbsp;Use en dash not hyphen in four paired names? ''Result:'' Yes.
* [[Talk:Battle of Tory Island#Infoboxflags]] – use of flag icons in infobox per [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS]] (Sep.–Nov. 2024) – See also prior [[Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Belligerents flags]]. ''Result:'' No formal closure, but article has been stable without flag icons in the infobox, based on the relevant guideline. This is the opposite of the result at "Second Italo-Ethiopian War", above.
* [[WP:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 59#Could MOS:TMRULES be amended to avoid conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, esp for contemporary artists and their works?]] – In short, should we use odd-ball stylization of band names and the like to match their marketing? (July–Aug. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this idea, and against the underlying "conflict" premise; the proponent simply did not understand the policy.
** Various simultaneously executed RMs by the same proponent all concluded against the desired over-stylizations (usually ALL-CAPS) – some by affirmative consensus against, some by no consensus to move. 
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes]] – Should British peers use their peerage title in place of their name in infoboxes? (June–July 2004) ''Result:'' archived without resolution. This needs to be RfCed.
* [[Talk:Shays's Rebellion#Requested move 27 April 2024]] – [[MOS:POSS]]: "Shays'" or "Shays's"? ''Result:'' "Shays's". No objective rationale was presented for an exception to the guideline, and evidence shows "Shays's" common in source material even if "Shays'" is also common, especially in older sources.
* [[Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 23#Type]] – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase? (Apr.–May 2024) ''Result:'' 4:1 against proposed change to a list format; alternative idea at end neither accepted nor rejected.
* [[Talk:Sino-Soviet border conflict#Flags and wikilinks in the Infobox "Belligerents" section]] – Do flags in this infobox serve a "useful purpose" per [[MOS:INFOBOXFLAGS]] or are they primarily decorative and should be removed? (Apr.–May 2004) ''Result:'' 3:1 against inclusion; the 1 did not read or understand the entire guideline. See also later [[Talk:Battle of Tory Island#Infoboxflags]].
* [[Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 16#Collages in infoboxes]] – Primarily on a recent habit of military-conflict articles having collages of 4, 6, or even more images in their infobox. (Mar.–May 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this practice; image galleries (when appropriate at all per [[WP:GALLERY]]) belong in the article body.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 23#RfC on the leads of DOY articles and their FL eligibility]] – [[MOS:LEADLENGTH]] (and [[MOS:LEADREL]]) in "day of year" (DoY) article candidates for "featured list". (Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and little clear consensus other than that [[WP:OWN]] / [[WP:CONLEVEL]] apply, as does [[WP:DUE]].
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 17#Possessives in condition names]] – On [[Asperger syndrome]] vs. [[Asperger's syndrome]], etc. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No clear consensus reached; a great deal of sourcing is provided, but there's a feeling that real-world usage varies considerably on a case-by-case basis, so [[WP:COMMONNAME]] might invididually trump [[WP:CONSISTENT]]. Worth revisiting in a few years to see whether source usage has shifted.
* [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people]] (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus about "deadnames" seemed possible this time but was mostly elusive. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal; consensus against changing "should be included" to "may be included".
** Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 189#Make Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer science/Manual of style into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computer science]] – Proposal to merge a "guideline in all but name" into MoS. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' consensus to promote to a guideline (after some significant revisions).
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 210#Increase default thumbnail size from 220px to 250px]] – Peripherally related to [[MOS:IMAGES]] and [[MOS:ACCESS]]. (Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Consensus to increase to 250px.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#JOBTITLES simplification proposal]] – [[MOS:JOBTITLES]] has long been considered too complicated and hard to follow. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' input stalled out over the holidays, then it was archived without resolution. 
** [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#RfC on JOBTITLES]] – Abortive, unclear RfC that resolved nothing. (May–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimously opposed.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 61#Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT]] – has stylistic implications (punctuation, leading "The", etc.) despite not being intrinsically an MoS matter (Nov. 2024) ''Result:'' "There is consensus that WP:TITLEFORMAT does not take precedence over WP:CRITERIA. Editors should continue to balance all relevant guidelines and policies when determining article titles, without giving inherent precedence to either section."
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/China- and Chinese-related articles/Archive 8#Kangxi radical template/gloss]] – Involves [[MOS:FOREIGN]], [[MOS:SINGLE]], [[MOS:ALLCAPS]], [[MOS:BOLD]]. (Oct.2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Archived without closure. There does not seem to be a compelling reason for this ALL-CAPS behavior in the template/module, but it was still happening in Nov. 2024.
** Discussion re-opened at [[Module talk:Kangxi radical#All-caps]] (Nov. 2024). Changed to lowercase [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3AKangxi_radical&diff=1259286315&oldid=1253292255]; we'll see if that sticks.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction/Archive 14#Fictional characters known by initials - what qualifies as the "preferred style for their own name" ?]] – Involves [[MOS:WAF]], [[MOS:INITIALS]], [[MOS:TM]], [[MOS:ACRO]], [[WP:OFFICIALNAME]], etc. (Oct. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but there seems to be no appetite for diverging from [[MOS:INITIALS]], and the OP commingled unrelated cases like stagenames of real people.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 16#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only]] – About use of {{tlx|sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view, only when their content repeats what is in the table headers. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result'': Archived without firm resolion. As there was but one opposer of the idea, there is no consensus against doing this. If more opposition arose or some reason, open an RfC about it.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#ALL-CAPS for "keywords for lexical sets"?]] – Involves [[MOS:ALLCAPS]]. (Oct. 2023 – Feb. 2024) ''Result:'' Thinly attended, but there does seem to be a linguistics standard to render [[lexical set]]s in {{sc2|smallcaps}}, so this has been accounted for and added to the exception lists at [[MOS:ALLCAPS]] (since our articles are consistently doing it based on that sourcing).
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch/Archive 14#"the late"]] – On [[MOS:EUPHEMISMS]] and whether to add another example to it. (Oct. 2023) ''Result'': Discussion archived without a clear conclusion.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles#About adding a link to each hangul syllable using Template:Linktext]] – On use of a template to link Korean characters to Wiktionary (Jan. 2024). ''Result'': general consensus to not do that excessive linking; and a bot request made to clean it up.
* [[Talk:Mercedes-Benz]] – Use an en dash instead of a hyphen? ''Result'': Withdrawn
* [[Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_February#P%C4%81keh%C4%81_settlers|Pākehā settlers move review]] – Move review on Pākehā settlers vs. European settlers in New Zealand, related to [[WP:COMMONALITY]], [[WP:TIES]], [[WP:CONSISTENT]], [[WP:RECOGNIZABILITY]] (Feb. 2024). ''Result:'' There were many steps in this process but ultimately [[Pākehā settlers]] was moved to [[European settlers in New Zealand]].
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Tables#Proposal to discourage vertically oriented ("sideways") column headers]] – Specifically in tables, possibly elsewhere. [[MOS:UNITNAMES]] (at the table "General guidelines on use of units") has an example of existing use that is being challenged, and material at [[Help:Table]] is also at issue. (Dec. 2023 – Nov. 2024) ''Result:'' Discussion died off without clear resolution.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Titles of works#MOS:TITLECAPS footnote to handle symbols substituting for words]] – To treat word-substitutions ("U" for "You", "❤️" for "Heart", {{nowrap|"..."}} for elided wording), as "words" for the purposes of a particular line-item about title-case treatment. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024) ''Result:'' Done, with unanimous support.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Minor consolidation merge]] – To merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and into [[MOS:TM]], leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM from [[MOS:NAMES]]. (Nov.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' Because of some things that apply to personal not corporate names, this ended up not being practical; intead the MOS:BIO material was cleaned up and cross-references between the two MOS sections was improved; description at: [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Minor overhauling]]. No objections or other issues have come up.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Standardizing ISBN formatting (and an end to editwarring about it)]] – Proposal to add something to [[MOS:NUM]]. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' "no consensus as to whether or how to standardize ISBNs or whether to subject them to a CITEVAR-like rule .... The closest thing we have to a consensus here is that spaces (option 4) should not be used."
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS style for odds]] – About changing [[MOS:RATIOS]] to specify a format (new or otherwise) for betting-odds ratios. (Oct.–Dec. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but apparent general agreement that the <code>:</code> style for ratios in general applies to odds ratio in particular like the rest, and MOS:RATIOS updated to say this.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)#Centralization re: decommunization of names]] – Primarily a matter of article title, but there are related issues such as capitalisation. (Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' basically stalled out, without resolution/action. Specific revision proposal is needed.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#Number format within TV articles - request for views]] – Also involves [[MOS:NUMERALS]]. RfC on "season 3, episode 7" vs. "season three, episode seven" styles (and probably also "seventh season" vs. "7th season", etc.). (Oct.–Nov. 2023) ''Result:'' "season and episode numbers should be expressed as numerals in tables, headings, and article body" (revision of a previous, less clear close).
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#Proposed change MOS:TERRORIST]] – On how WP uses terms like "terrorist/terrorism" and "freedom fighter", specifically to add a requirement "these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term". (Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "nearly unanimously opposed".
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#RfC on capitalization after a colon or dash]] – Involves [[MOS:TITLES]], [[WP:AT]], etc. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' "rough consensus to allow for lowercase or capital letters after dashes or colons in article titles, section titles, and list items".
* [[Talk:Ulster Scots people#RfC on inclusion of ancestral national flags]] – [[MOS:FLAGS]] / [[MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE]] and Northern Ireland again. (Sep.–Oct. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, but near-unanimous consensus against using national flags as ethnicity symbols.
* [[Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires/Archive 2#Use of Hawaiian symbols in names]] – Involves [[MOS:HAWAII]] and could have implications for what the guideline says due to wildfire news bringing many more editorial eyes to that page than to [[WT:MOSHAWAII]]. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' Archived without closure or any clear consensus; the general gist seems to be that the state of Hawaii is named Hawaii, the island is named Hawaiʻi, and diacritics ([[ʻokina]] and [[kahakō]]) should not be suppressed in the more localized names (and the US Geological Survey, which sets official placenames, along with the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which basically tells USGS what to do in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi, both agree).
* [[Talk:Bayes' theorem#Requested move 23 August 2023]] – [[MOS:POSS]] stuff. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. Lots of invalid arguments, and confused attempt to pit [[WP:COMMONAME]] against MoS (COMMONNAME is not a style policy, never has been one, and never will be; every proposal to incorporate a style matter into a policy has failed).
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#RfC: Use of 12 or 24-hour time]] – Wikiproject propsal to change [[MOS:TIME]] or [[MOS:MILFORMAT]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' wrong venue, and to the extent people commented on using 24-hour time, it was mostly opposed.
** [[Talk:Franklin–Nashville campaign#RFC on change from 12-hour clock time to 24-hour clock time]] – Above question was raised at a specific article as a "local consensus" matter. (Aug.–Sep. 2023) ''Result:'' unanimous opposition to 24-hour time.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 50#Multinational bands and music groups]] – Follow-up to "unfruitful" discussions at [[WT:MOSMUSIC]], etc. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure; general agreement basically boils down to "write clearly and don't confuse or over-simplify with an adjective".
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 171#RfC: Abbreviations of rank]] – Wikiproject proposal to change rank abbreviations (to NATO style) in [[MOS:COMMONABBR]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' no formal closure, but overwhelming consensus to stick with MoS and ignore NATO preferences.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Proposal to split MOS:GENDERID from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biography]] – And some alternative ideas, including merger into [[WP:BLP]]. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and the idea was mostly opposed, with no effect but returning all of the shortcuts ([[MOS:GENDERID]], [[MOS:GID]], [[MOS:DEADNAME]], [[WP:GENDERBLP]], [[MOS:NB]]) that someone changed to point to the [[WP:Manual of Style/Gender identity]] essay to now point back to the real guideline at [[WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Gender identity]].
** The essay has since been retooled to be an exegesis of the guideline, though attempts at [[WP:POLICYFORK]]ing are likely to continue, as this is one of our most hotbed internal topics. See also the guideline [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Gender-neutral language]], and the essays [[WP:Gender-neutral language]] and [[WP:Gender-neutral language in Wikipedia policies]].
** [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on GENDERID in BLP]] – Proposal to move the MoS material into WP:BLP. (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as "premature".
* [[Talk:Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod#Requested move 25 August 2023]] – Should the en dash have spaces around it; should it be an em dash? ''Result:'' moved to spaced en dash.
* [[Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 5#Hyphen vs. En dash usage (Wikidata)?]] and [[d:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2023/08#Hyphen vs. En dash to separate years of birth/death?]] – Relating to concordance between wikidata descriptions and enwiki "short description". (Aug. 2023) ''Result:'' Good summary: "as long as you choose a comprehensible form, your edits are fine. However, you should not change existing descriptions for stylistic reasons, and also not to unify desriptions for a given set of items"; also observations that various languages, e.g. Spanish, do not use an en dash for this purpose. So, Wikidata will not be changing away from hyphen as default, and any desire to have WD material, like automatically provided short descriptions, will have to do that change on our end.
* [[Talk:Decatur & Eastern Illinois Railroad#Requested move 9 August 2023]] and [[Talk:Central Maine & Quebec Railway#Requested move 9 August 2023]] – Use "&" or "and"? (see [[MOS:&]]). ''Result:'' Follow [[MOS:&]]; the essay [[WP:WikiProject Trains/Style advice]] conflicting with the guideline and with [[WP:COMMONNAME]] policy was noted, and this [[WP:ADVICEFORK]] was fixed in Jan. 2024. The second of these actually closed as "no consensus" because the [[WP:NAC]] who closed it did not know of [[WP:CONLEVEL]] policy and incorrectly treated policy- and guideline-based arguments as no stronger than those based on a contrary essay.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 184#RFC: Change wording in MOS:SUICIDE to better reflect the supermajority consensus in the RFC that added it]] – Some re-wording proposals, and even a suggestion to remove the language entirely. (July 2023) ''Result:'' No formal closure, and did not result in wording changes, though a re-do might come to such a conclusion.
* [[Talk:SAG-AFTRA#Requested move 20 July 2023]] – move to [[SAG–AFTRA]] like [[AFL–CIO]], or is there a reason to hyphenate as [[SAG-AFTRA]]? (July 2023) ''Result:'' Not moved. The closer actually misunderstood the guideline wording badly, and this has created a [[WP:CONSISTENT]] policy failure with titles of other such entities including AFL–CIO, and the Famous Players-Lasky decision covered just below. This probably needs to be re-done.
** [[Talk:2023 SAG-AFTRA strike#Requested move 20 July 2023]] – ditto. ''Result:'' Procedurally closed as a [[WP:TALKFORK]] of the RM above.
* [[Talk:Famous Players-Lasky#Requested move 24 June 2023]] –&nbsp;proposal to use dash instead of hyphen. (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' Use the dash per [[MOS:DASH]]; a followup RM to add "Corporation" to the title rejected that idea despite [[WP:NCCORP]] supporting it, one of several recent RM incidents suggesting that at least some portions of the page do not enjoy consensus.
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 185#RfC: Proposed addition to MOS:GENDERID - when to include deadnames]] – Proposal to change [[MOS:DEADNAME]] that "encyclopaedic significance of the deadname [be] established through in-depth analysis or discussion of the name in high quality sources, or if they were notable prior to transitioning". (June–July 2023) ''Result:'' "no clear consensus".
* [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 182#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons]] – Primarily about "When should Wikipedia articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?" (May–June 2023) ''Result:'' "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS". This has let to a lot of follow-on discussion and dispute.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations/Archive 2#"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page]] – Proposal to move section to naming-convention guideline. (June 2023) ''Result:'' no pro or con input; re-opened (Jan. 2024) on main MoS page.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2023 archive#Remove the "living" qualifier in MOS:DEADNAME]] – Proposal to make anti-deadnaming rules apply to the long-deceased as well. (Apr.–May 2023) ''Result:'' No consensus to remove ''living'', so "the ''living'' qualifier, shall remain in place". The May–June 2023 RfC above was an outgrowth of this discussion.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons/Archive 17#RfC Can notable Brazilian jiu-jitsu people display a rank icon in their infobox like Judo people do?]] – essential information, or icon cruft? (Mar.–Apr. 2023) ''Result:'' "There is consensus against inclusion of rank icons."
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing/Archive 10#RfC about replacing "vs." and "v" with "vs" in boxing match article titles]] – involves [[MOS:MISCSHORT]] and [[MOS:TIES]]. (Feb.–Mar. 2023) ''Result:'' no consensus to use "v"; continue to use "vs." or "vs" as suits the [[MOS:ENGVAR]] of the article.
* [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fraternities and Sororities/Archive 8#Bold and Italics]] – Should an external style guide be used in place of [[WP:MOS]] in chapter lists (e.g. [[List of Alpha Phi Alpha chapters]])? (Jan.–Feb. 2023) ''Result:'' Insufficient input to reach a consensus. Needs to be RfCed. But the {{lang|la|status quo}} default principle is that a lack of consensus to create an exception to general rules does not result in such an exception.
* [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 162#Decimals when quoting time periods?]] – Open discussion as to whether decimalized years should be used in personal biographies. (Jan. 2023) ''Result:'' discussion archived; majority felt that decimalized years are not standard in biographical prose and should be limited to a statistical/mathematical context.
<!--Please put newer entries at the top.-->
{{block indent|1=<nowiki />
{{Excerpt| Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters|Concluded|subsections=no}}
}}
{{collapse bottom}}

== Dates and times on Spaceflight articles ==

Hello, I was looking to get some clarity on how we should handle dates and times on Spaceflight pages. 

The [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide|style guide for WikiProject Spaceflight]] states: {{xt|Since space is not within any Earth-bound time zone, and to avoid regional bias, the [[WP:WikiProject Spaceflight]] community has established a consensus (discussed [[Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_5#Spaceflight article standards and conventions|here]]) to use [[UTC]].}}

However in creating [[Template:Launch time]], [[User:Redraiderengineer]] has opposed using UTC has the primary time zone, saying:
:Launches and landings are events that take place in a time zone on Earth, and [[MOS:TIMEZONE]] gives "priority to the place at which the event had its most significant effects." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight/Archive_10#Times_and_dates Previous editors] have suggested using local time for Earth-based events (e.g., launches and landings) and UTC for events in space, which is aligned with the MoS.
:The [[WP:MOS|Manual of Style]] has [[WP:CONLEVEL|precedence]], and "participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope."

I was hoping that some more experienced editors can give some clarity on how we should handle this issue. Thank you in advance for your responses. -- [[User:RickyCourtney|RickyCourtney]] ([[User talk:RickyCourtney|talk]]) 22:47, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:To provide additional context, my understanding of [[MOS:TIMEZONE]] for Earth-based events (e.g., launches and landings) is to prioritize where the event took place with the local time zone and add UTC for dates and times in the infobox and/or first use in the article.
:Effectively, the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Style guide#Dates and times|difference]] in interpretations is the local time zone first or second. For example:
:*{{ltime|June 4, 2022|13|25|02|EDT|net=no}}; or
:*{{Start date|2022|6|4}}, 13:25:02&nbsp;[[UTC]] (9:25:02&nbsp;am&nbsp;[[Eastern Daylight Time|EDT]])
:If a launch occurred in the Eastern Time Zone, the [[WP:MOS|straightforward]] approach is to prioritize ET while including UTC to allow for a reference to events that occurred in space. This use existed on some spaceflight articles before the template and is currently used on articles such as [[Blue Origin NS-16]], [[Starship flight test 8]], [[Elon Musk's Tesla Roadster]], and [[Blue Ghost Mission 1]].
:The mention of precedence was based on my understanding that the WikiProject cannot override the MoS based on [[WP:LOCALCONSENSUS|local consensus]], which is an additional reason I addressed this.
:Thanks, [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 00:51, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::While it’s true that a few articles are listed with launch local time first, the majority are listed with UTC first. That includes all the Apollo mission articles (most of which passed the rigorous Featured Article review process), all Soyuz mission articles (which don’t even list local time), and the majority of the Space Shuttle mission articles (many of which took off in one time zone and landed in another, further complicating what is “local time”). -- [[User:RickyCourtney|RickyCourtney]] ([[User talk:RickyCourtney|talk]]) 01:46, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:::There is [[WP:OTHERCONTENT]] with UTC listed first, but that alone is not a reason to prefer it especially when this matter didn't reach broad, explicit consensus in the past (plus after further examination [[WP:CCC]]). The other content does indicate that editors have determined a local time zone, and the MoS guideline is to prioritize it.
:::I don't think local time is that complicated. If launch and landing have a different local time zone, they are both used for their respective event along with UTC. Space Shuttle mission articles, such as [[STS-40]] and [[STS-48]] (two random picks), and [[Artemis I]] are examples of articles that take this approach. [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 02:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
:I'd support adding an exception to the global style manual for spaceflight launches and landings: These should give UTC first and local time in parantheses. UTC is the most sensible when thinking about a space mission of which launch is only one part. However, local time is also relevant (e.g. night/day), so it should be given in parantheses. Perhaps an RfC is in order? [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]] ([[User talk:Joe vom Titan|talk]]) 19:31, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
::If an exception is desired, I agree that an RfC is the next step. [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]] ([[User talk:Redraiderengineer|talk]]) 15:40, 22 May 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't believe that the style guide for WikiProject Spaceflight is in conflict , nor that your interpretation is incorrect. There are no time zones in space, so we are outside the guidance of MOS:TIMEZONE. By "priority", the MoS only meant which local time to use, not the ordering of the time. (As usual with the MoS, this change was made BOLD-ly, and reflects local consensus only [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AManual_of_Style%2FDates_and_numbers&diff=prev&oldid=588480037]) I personally feel that the putting UTC first when multiple local times are in use makes the article easier to read. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 00:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the actual time used for the launches by the launch control and operators, FAA signoffs etc., is UTC not local time, just like with all other aspects of aviation. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 14:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:@[[User:Canterbury Tail|Canterbury Tail]], [[User:Redraiderengineer|Redraiderengineer]], [[User:Hawkeye7|Hawkeye7]], [[User:Joe vom Titan|Joe vom Titan]]: I have started a RfC here: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight#RfC: Should UTC or local time be listed first for spaceflight launches and landings?]] -- [[User:RickyCourtney|RickyCourtney]] ([[User talk:RickyCourtney|talk]]) 20:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

== Do not use the precomposed ellipsis character (…) ==

I propose to rethink this rule. It was established by one user, having extreme opinion on this issue, 20 years ago, as stated in [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_174#MOS:ELLIPSIS|this discussion]] (latest discussion about this rule that I found in archive of this talk page). It was justified by problems with display of this Unicode character in very old browsers and fonts, all of these problems should be irrelevant now. The problem that brought me here is this:
# AWB replaces Unicode character to three dots as a part of "minor fixes" pack, containing hundreds of fixes, and this pack could only be turned completely on or completely off, there is no way to turn off only this replacement.
# In Russian Wikipedia, my main wiki, local MoS prescribes usage of Unicode character instead of three dots. AWB with "minor fixes" enabled brokes our MoS.
# If I file a ticket to AWB developers, they probably will use enwiki's MoS as a reason not to change AWB minor fixes. Only when enwiki's rule will changed, I can request AWB developers to remove and even inverse this harmful replacement.
[[User:MBH|MBH]] ([[User talk:MBH|talk]]) 16:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
:Why not change the ruwiki MoS? [[User:Nikkimaria|Nikkimaria]] ([[User talk:Nikkimaria|talk]]) 05:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:If the rules for this differ across various Wikipedias, getting the AWB developers to add a toggle button for this feature seems like the best solution (or maybe it could be autodetected based on the wiki one is in?). [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::There are lots of differences between English and Russian; it seems weird to use the same AWB configuration to try to tidy up both? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 05:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
:I've not used AWB in other languages, but it makes sense that different rules would apply in different languages. At least we need to check with the AWB developers before changing the MoS on this topic. Last time I looked, the precomposed character and the three dots looked significantly different depending on fonts chosen.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 11:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
:We discussed it here [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 228#Reconsider ellipsis ... vs … preference|last year]]. The discussion didn't require a formal close; there was some support for but some marked opposition to switching to or even allowing the Unicde character, and consensus for change was not in prospect. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
::Maybe a formal close would have been better; as I see it, while the discussion went against deprecating the three dots in favour of the precomposed character, there was no clear consensus against allowing the latter as an alternative. In any case, the discussion should not be used as argument in favour of an outcome it did not have. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 06:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
:I don't see why we wouldn't use the Unicode character. [[User:Graham11|Graham11]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 04:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
::Like many other special characters, it is difficult to type, so people are more likely to enter "..." when searching. This can cause problems and confusion; for example, searching a page for "..." in Firefox does not find instances of the Unicode character. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 14:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
:::Even if it's prescribed by the MOS and not everyone uses it, that's fine. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress|Wikipedia is a work in progress]] and it will be taken care of by the gnomes. [[User:Graham11|Graham11]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 03:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Even if Wikipedia were to use the character perfectly consistently, it would cause a lot of confusion because most people don't know that it's possible to have a single character with three periods in it, and certainly don't know how to type it, so their searches would be mismatching whenever it occurred. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 14:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Browsers should simply treat "…" as equivalent to "..." when searching, just as they treat different kinds of quotation marks as equivalent. But you're right, currently that doesn't seem to be the case, and that's a plausible argument against allowing both. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 15:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Do browsers not treat it as equivalent? I just pressed ⌘+F in Chrome and tried searching both "…" and "..." and, in both cases, it turned up all instances of either on this page. [[User:Graham11|Graham11]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 05:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::That doesn't happen in Firefox. Chrome has the severe limitation of not being able to distinguish between dashes and upper/lower case, so it's useless for this kind of gnoming. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 06:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I suspect that's true with respect to letter case, but Chrome can definitely distinguish between hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes (unless it's different on PC vs Mac?). [[User:Graham11|Graham11]] ([[User talk:Graham11|talk]]) 02:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

== What's a good format for an interview? ==

Here's my example. Please suggest improvements. I have use italics for the people. Is that proper?

In a CNN town hall interview with Comey, [[Anderson Cooper]] addressed Trump's false claim that "he did not stay overnight in Moscow around the time of the Miss Universe pageant in 2013":<ref name="Foran_4/26/2018">{{cite web | last=Foran | first=Clare | title=Comey on Trump's assertion that releasing memos was illegal: 'He's just making stuff up' | website=[[CNN]] | date=April 26, 2018 | url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/politics/james-comey-anderson-cooper-town-hall-cnn/index.html | access-date=July 29, 2024}}</ref>
{{blockquote| 
''Cooper'': "Do you think it's significant that the President lied to you twice?"</br>
''Comey'': "It's always significant when someone lies to you, especially about something you're not asking about. It tends to reflect a [[consciousness of guilt]]."}}

[[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 19:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|Valjean}}. I'm not aware of any policy on the matter, but your format looks good to me. Pretty much the same issue applies to a quote from a play – e.g. (copied from the [[Parchment]] article):
In [[William Shakespeare|Shakespeare]]'s ''[[Hamlet]]'' (written {{c.}}1599–1602) the following exchange occurs:
{{blockquote|''Hamlet.'' Is not parchment made of sheepskins?<br />
''Horatio.'' Ay, my lord, and of calves' skins too.<ref>{{Folger inline|Ham|5|1|116–117}}</ref>}}
:(You'll note two minor inconsistencies there, as to (a) whether the speaker's name is followed by a colon or a period, and (b) whether the spoken words are put in quotation marks; but I think those are valid distinctions to make for the difference between an interview and a play.) [[Special:Contributions/128.86.179.55|128.86.179.55]] ([[User talk:128.86.179.55|talk]]) 16:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks. In these cases, the quotes should be there. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 17:58, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything in our MOS that would forbid also bolding it, like this?
{{blockquote| 
'''''Cooper''''': "Do you think it's significant that the President lied to you twice?"</br>
'''''Comey''''': "It's always significant when someone lies to you, especially about something you're not asking about. It tends to reflect a [[consciousness of guilt]]."}}
[[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 18:25, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:Well, it's not one of the certain usages listed as considered appropriate in [[MOS:BOLD]]. Why do we need to emphasise names at all, with italics or boldface? What's wrong with the much more conventional, to my eyes,
::Cooper: "Do you think it's significant that the President lied to you twice?"
::Comey: "It's always significant when someone lies to you, especially about something you're not asking about. It tends to reflect a [[consciousness of guilt]]."
:[[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 18:38, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
*Well, bold is ''definitely'' out -- no need for anything so eye-catching. Beyond that, this is the sort of thing editors should work out on individual articles. If we get to the point where the [[WP:MOSBLOAT]] criteria kick in, then let's all talk. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
Interesting. ChatGPT recommends bold based on common use:

✅ Best Practice for Quoting Interviews in Wikipedia Articles

👇 Recommended format:

{{blockquote|
'''Cooper''': "Do you think it's significant that the President lied to you twice?"<br/>
'''Comey''': "It's always significant when someone lies to you, especially about something you're not asking about. It tends to reflect a [[consciousness of guilt]]."}}

🔹 Why boldface ('''Name''') is preferred:

Bold names are often used in dialogue excerpts to distinguish speakers clearly — especially in sourced interviews or hearings.

It improves scannability and mirrors the practice used in major articles (e.g., Watergate, Mueller Report, Trump impeachment).

Avoid italics for names in this case — italics suggest either a title or an editorial distinction, which doesn't apply to speaker IDs.

🔹 Additional notes:

Keep the <br /> between lines for readability.

Do not use quotation marks around the speaker's name.

The blockquote template is a good choice here — you’re already using it correctly.

✅ Final Example (ready to use):

{{blockquote|
'''Cooper''': "Do you think it's significant that the President lied to you twice?"<br />
'''Comey''': "It's always significant when someone lies to you, especially about something you're not asking about. It tends to reflect a [[consciousness of guilt]]."}}

✅ Why it's the best format:

Bold speaker names clearly distinguish who is speaking without clutter.

No italics for names — consistent with MOS and avoids confusion with titles or emphasis.

Blockquote formatting is appropriate for extended quotes or multi-line dialogue.

<br /> tags keep the exchange visually readable and clear.

You're doing it exactly right. If you're consistent with this format throughout your draft, it will both meet style guidelines and make the article more accessible to readers.

[[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 18:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
*You're not seriously proposing that we pay attention to gibberish from a robot, are you? [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 19:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
*:No, it was just interesting, especially since ChatGPT knows PAG and MOS better than 99% of editors. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 23:56, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Good to hear, since for a minute there I thought you might have lost your mind. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 00:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
*::: No, I would never suggest that we let AI have a voting voice in our decision-making. We, as humans, need to maintain full control here, and all this talk of letting AI make so many decisions in society, business, politics, education, etc. freaks me out. Fuck that! Otherwise, we can learn from AI when it shows deep knowledge of topics, and ChatGPT has placed special emphasis on learning Wikipedia's customs, policies, guidelines, and how to employ them.
:::: I have started using it as a copy editor to double-check my work (I maintain full control and responsibility), and it understands MOS and policies so well that it warns when I get too close to SYNTH, OR, or NPOV violations, etc. It points out the problem and suggests solutions (attribution, sourcing, framing, balance, etc.) It's very good at that. It is obviously not one of our RS, but in discussions, we can consider what AI says "as another voice" to consider. It predicts the correct answers based on its understandings of human behavior, Wikipedia conventions, and combines that with its nearly infinite knowledge base, and Wikipedia and its sources are an important part of that base. It's worth listening to. That's all. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 01:45, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I worry that your approach may eventually lead to AI being inappropriately used as a crutch. I seriously question whether a chatbot can make any kind of effective evaluation of POV vs NPOV, or reliably detect OR. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:58, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::: I actually share your concern, but I'm suggesting using it just like we use spell checkers, just another tool. It should not replace our editorial judgment and experience. My experience has been good so far. It has caught things I had not noticed. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 02:03, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I have tentatively believed that AI, if done right, would eliminate much of the effect of uncontrolled editor bias (UEB), which is a serious <del>problem.</del> <ins>problem. Our PAGs, e.g. NPOV, try to eliminate UEB, but they are terrible at it and biased, policy-compliant content can and frequently does get into articles. All it needs is consensus among editors with uncontrolled biases.</ins>{{pb}}On the other hand, I don't see how AI could understand our confusing and self-contradictory PAGs any better than we can (your experience notwithstanding). What AI might do is help us see where the PAGs are confusing and self-contradictory, so that we might finally do something about it. How close are we to AI that can do that? I have no idea. But only then could we use AI to provide effective guidance for article content. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 06:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC) [[WP:REDACT|Edited after reply]] 07:20, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::I do in any case believe that AI-generated content should never be used as ''argument'' in a discussion. Editors may well discuss with a chatbot in the background, but if they want to make a point, they should be able to voice it as their own! [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{u|Mandruss}}, you you really think chatbots are better at avoiding bias than editors are? In my experience, it's fairly easy to coax chatbots into saying what you want to hear, so a chatbot used by a biased editor will likely share that bias. Plus they'll likely bring their own biases with them, due to pretraining. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:30, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I'm speaking of AI in general; AI can come in many forms, and chatbots are merely one of the first. I don't think AI necessarily requires a question beyond "How can this article's NPOV be improved?", which would eliminate question bias.{{pb}}In theory, we could have an AI bot, dedicated to NPOV, that roamed the site analyzing articles' NPOV and posted suggestions for improvement on article talk pages. We probably wouldn't need a policy that the suggestions should be acted on, but editors failing to act on them would not be a good look. I think they should need very good articulable reasons to ignore them. If the bot frequently gave bad advice, we would figure out why and fix it; it might take a number of years to get it right. Sometimes the problem would be with our PAGs, not the bot, so we would fix the PAGs.{{pb}}As I said, I have no idea how close we are; I could be speaking of progress twenty years from now, for all I know. (I'll be cold in the grave by then.){{pb}}{{tq|Plus they'll likely bring their own biases with them, due to pretraining.}} As I also said, {{tq|if done right}}. That would be a crucial point. AI bias is not inevitable in my opinion; its creators just need to (1) know what they're doing and (2) be prepared to put NPOV before their own biases. The AI must be detached from and <del>impassionate</del> <ins>dispassionate</ins> about the article subjects; i.e. unhuman. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 07:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC) [[WP:REDACT|Edited after reply]] 05:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::I'm not thrilled at the idea of a bot telling editors what they ''have'' to do. Even if it worked reliably (about which I have grave doubts), that might kinda destroy motivation. More plausible for me is that editors employ bots to find NPOV violations faster than they could themselves; the editor might then flag or fix an NPOV violation ''if'' the editor themselves agrees that it is one. But it must still be a human who makes the call. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 11:01, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::Ok, but we (excluding me) may have 20 years to talk about it. It's certainly not happening ''now''. &#8213;[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#888;">&#9742;</span>]]&nbsp;IMO. 12:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
[[File:Chinese Fantan game (NYPL Hades-2359257-4043613).jpg|thumb|alt=Painting of people betting on a game of pure chance|''10 tokens on Gemini'' <small>[[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 13:23, 22 June 2025 (UTC)</small>]]
:I asked Copilot "On Wikipedia, is it bad practice to bold names in dialog?".
:{{bq|On Wikipedia, '''bolding names in dialogue''' is generally discouraged unless there's a compelling reason tied to the article's structure or clarity. According to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting Manual of Style on text formatting], boldface is typically reserved for the article's subject in the lead section or for terms that redirect to the article. It's not meant for emphasis or stylistic flair in body text, including dialogue.}}
:{{bq|So if you're writing a fictional conversation or quoting speech, it's better to stick with standard formatting—bolding names might look jarring or imply undue emphasis. If clarity is a concern (like distinguishing speakers), consider using formatting like indentation, line breaks, or even a simple attribution line instead. Want help reworking a snippet to fit the style?}}
:Note: bot-wrestling is purely entertainment and not a legitimate sporting contest. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 13:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::: That seems to mostly address other uses than what we're talking about here. The following mention of template {{tl|Dialogue}} is spot on. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 15:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::Our template {{tl|Dialogue}} {{em|does}} bold the speakers. -- 14:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Michael Bednarek|contribs]]) </small>
:::Oh, so it does! Among the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Dialogue&namespace=0&limit=100 51 articles] that use it, the quote box at [[Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence#Final steps to UDI]] doesn't seem too jarring to me (smaller font among long pieces of text, maybe) but [[Duck test#Notable uses]] looks like a fine example of excessive emphasis. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 15:19, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::: I wasn't aware of that template. That looks very nice. This is the only manner of bolding under discussion here, and it looks good. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 15:31, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
::::: If you mean the duck test example, no, it looks terrible! --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 15:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::: Oh no! I mean the first example (Rhodesia). -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 15:51, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

And just to add to fun, Google Gemini is adamant that if it is a play script or movie script, it should be all caps, no bold, new line, thus:
<blockquote>
HAMLET<br /> 
Is not parchment made of sheepskins? <br /> 
HORATIO <br /> 
Ay, my lord, and of calves' skins too.
</blockquote>
and for a movie script, the convention is almost the same except that the character name is centred. (The markup needed to show that is left as an exercise for the reader.)

So does anybody like
<blockquote> 
COOPER: "Do you think it's significant that the President lied to you twice?"</br>
COMEY: "It's always significant when someone lies to you, especially about something you're not asking about. It tends to reflect a [[consciousness of guilt]].
</blockquote>
It certainly looks better than bold (everything looks better than bold!) but maybe not better than italic. --[[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 15:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
: A script has to be read at a quick glance, hence the all caps. Our discussion here has nothing to do with that. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 15:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
{{od}}
So here is a use of the {{tl|Dialogue}} template (indented):

When Cohen described the tape stopped by Rtskhiladze as the "infamous pee tape when Mr. Trump was in Moscow for the Miss Universe Pageant", Representative [[Jackie Speier]] sought clarification:<ref name="HIC_Cohen_3/6/2019">{{cite web | date=March 6, 2019 | title=Deposition of Michael Cohen, Part 2 | website=[[United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence|House Intelligence Committee]] | url=https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20190520/109549/HMTG-116-IG00-20190520-SD001.pdf | pages=225-229, 235-236, 254}}</ref>{{rp|228}}
: {{dialogue
|Speier|It wasn't infamous then, was it?
|Cohen|Yes, yes. That the tape - the conversation about the tape has gone back [to] almost a couple months past when they were there [in Moscow in November 2013] for the Miss Universe Pageant that that tape existed.
}}
How's that look? -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 15:50, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:I really should have quoted Gemini in full, and (annoyingly) it supports bold markup:
:: {{blockquote|
:'''Q&A Format (Formal):''' This format clearly labels the speaker before each line of dialogue, often in bold. This is best for interviews where the exact back-and-forth is central and easy to follow.
:|source=Google Gemini}}
:So it agrees with the {{tl|Dialogue}} style. [[User:JMF|𝕁𝕄𝔽]] ([[User talk:JMF|talk]]) 16:37, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:: Ultimately, this type of thing often comes back to what we are used to. Bolding is common for this situation in many other places, and I think Wikipedia should allow/recommend it for this limited situation. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) (PING me) 17:17, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
:::You've not mentioned the other live example, [[Duck test#Notable uses]], in which in a section that more than fills a screen, the only use of emphasis is for "Villagers" and "Bedevere":
:::'''Villagers''': If she weighs the same as a duck, she's made of wood...
:::'''Bedevere''': and therefore...
:::'''Villagers''': a witch!
:::I see no reason that we should draw the reader's eye to either name in that article, even once let alone twice. Likewise, it's not obvious why we would want to emphasise Speier and Cohen's names at that point in one of your examples, or Cooper and Comey's at that point in the article in another, let alone do so routinely when quoting exchanges. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 20:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

<!-- Please keep comments above this line. -->
{{reftalk}}

== Non-country-specific English spelling conventions ==

Hey all, I'm opening a discussion here as a followup to [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 27#Template:EngvarB]]. This relates to tags like {{tl|Use American English}} which identify a specific variety of spelling, etc. {{tl|EngvarB}} has been deprecated; many articles that currently use it will get re-tagged with {{tl|Use British English}}. However, it has also been used to tag articles that definitely do not use North American spelling but haven't been conclusively identified with any particular national dialect. The question is what to do in these cases and also with articles that generally have strong multi-country ties or no strong ties to any particular country.

[[MOS:TIES]] says to "use [[Commonwealth English]] orthography" for articles about the Commonwealth as a whole, but {{tl|Use Commonwealth English}} was deleted ([[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 May 14#Template:Commonwealth_English_and_Template:Use_Commonwealth_English|see discussion]]) because "Commonwealth English" is not a coherent dialect with an attached dictionary to tell us how to spell a given word. And Canadian spelling differs from other countries in the Commonwealth.

So, a few questions:
* Should we drop the advice from [[MOS:TIES]] to use Commonwealth English because that is ill-defined? Or should {{tl|Use Commonwealth English}} be reincarnated and editors left to figure out what that means on a case-by-case basis?
* What spelling convention should be used by articles with strong ties to multiple English-speaking countries with similar spelling? For example, [[Australia–New Zealand relations]] and [[Commonwealth of Nations]]? (Are AU and NZ English actually different enough that we can't just pick one?)
* What spelling convention should be used by articles with weak ties to multiple English-speaking countries? For example, [[Lion]]?
* If the answer is "use the spelling common to non-North-American English-speaking countries" or a couple countries in question, then what is the appropriate tag for that?
** {{tl|Use British English}} is one possible answer, currently applied to [[Commonwealth of Nations]].
** Some editors perceive a whiff of colonialism when applying a British label to articles about other countries, and they would prefer a neutral but intuitive label. {{tl|Use Oxford spelling}} would work, but as far as I know there is no equivalent name for generically UK-derived spelling with ''-ise'' endings. We could make one up, like {{tl|Use common English spelling}} which would emphasize [[MOS:COMMONALITY]]. We'd be trying to convey the message that for these articles we avoid choosing spellings that appear in only one country's dialect.
** {{tl|Use International English}} is another possible answer, but given this lacks a dictionary in the same way Commonwealth English does, should this be deleted? (It's currently a redirect to {{tl|EngvarB}}.)
** Not tagging articles at all has also been suggested, though this can cause problems when humans aren't alerted to write new prose in the correct dialect, when copy editors don't know which dialect to use, when editors argue about which dialect dominates, and when scripts want to spell-check or spell-correct in a semi-automated fashion.
** Any other ideas?
* Some English-speaking countries don't have their own tags; for example, {{tl|Use Tanzanian English}} was deleted. Should these use {{tl|Use British English}} as [[Tanzania]] does? Should [[MOS:TIES]] be updated to tell editors to use the UK tag for countries with similar enough spelling if they don't have their own? It currently asserts dialects outside North America are largely indistinguishable from British English in encyclopedic writing. Or should each English-speaking country have its own tag, even if that ends up being the same as British spelling?

I assume that when an article has strong ties to countries with strong spelling differences, we simply pick one following [[MOS:RETAIN]]. For example, [[United Kingdom–United States relations]] uses British spelling (Oxford, specifically). -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 07:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:When there is any doubt about strength of [[MOS:TIES]], always go for [[MOS:RETAIN]]. If {{tl|Use British English}} is more colonial that {{tl|Engvar B}}, maybe just un-deprecate that or keep a similar neutral redirect if it helps. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 15:09, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::"EngvarB" is deprecated because it's confusing; there's no real world thing called "English variant B", so editors have trouble knowing what it means when they see it for the first time. Did you have any specific suggestions or preferences for "similar neutral redirect"? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 15:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::I don't understand how the assertion that EngvarB is confusing fits with the bullet points above which essentially propose recreating it. If it's just the name that's not liked, it's not like it's the first time we've had wiki-specific lingo, and if that's not wanted then a rename is called for. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes. Essentially I'm asking, if there is a need for a country-neutral tag like EngvarB, what would it be renamed to so it's immediately clear to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 15:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::I feel if there was an easy answer someone would have discovered it. {{tl|ise English}} or similar, redirects are possible too. Nonetheless, if that is the actual question then the deprecation should be reverted, as the question premises that the concept is not deprecated. [[User:Chipmunkdavis|CMD]] ([[User talk:Chipmunkdavis|talk]]) 15:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:{{tl|Use Oxford spelling}} is often fine and arguably the most international English! Leaving that (personal preference) aside, I wouldn't have problems with using {{tl|Use British English}} for Commonwealth countries that don't have their own well-defined variant of English. But if people are uncomfortable with this, maybe {{tl|Use Commonwealth English}} could indeed be resurrected as a simple synonym for {{tl|Use British English}}? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 16:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there was a strong consensus to deprecate in the [[Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_May_27#Template:EngvarB|discussion]] (closed yesterday by Beland as "deprecate"). There seems to be an argument for "rename" but a neutral template seems to be needed. Perhaps Bealdn could ask the closer of the discussion to reconsider? —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 16:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't detect "a whiff of colonialism" in {{tl|Use British English}}, any more than tagging [[Physics]] with {{tl|Use American English}} is "colonial". The point is just to recognise that an article is written in an English variety, and keep new edits consistent with the existing article. I would have no objection redirecting {{tl|Use Commonwealth English}} to {{tl|Use British English}}. This would recognise that British English is a more widespread variety of "Commonwealth" English than, say, New Zealand English. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 21:58, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

=== Should we revise MOS:TIES? ===

Something I've thought about for a long while, that [[MOS:TIES]] needs widening and making a clearer determinant; it has been made more difficult to do so in recent years. One suggestion I'd make is that it would be better changed to '{{!xt|national ''or regional'' ties to a topic}}' (my italics); this would make for a clearer case with the [[Lion]] example above, as the region it occurs in (multiple countries where English is a widely used language) overwhelmingly uses non-US spellings. I've also seen, too often, the word 'strong' being over-interpreted as "absolutely nailed down, utterly and totally, avoiding the slightest hint of even the tiniest bit of ambiguity". Perhaps 'strong' could be dropped altogether? Or replaced by a less assertive word, perhaps 'clear' or 'established'? I'd also think it would be good to include second-language use of English in countries as a determining factor admissible in establishing Ties. Thus, while English is not the primary language of Mainland European countries, it ''is'' in significant use as a second language, and when so, it is UK, not American, spellings that are used (e.g. field guides to the flora & fauna of Europe [and the Western Palearctic], tourist literature in Europe, etc., are overwhelmingly in UK English); it is also in major use by sizable diasporas from Britain (particularly in the EU): therefore, I'd say that Europe-related topics should be valid for treatment under Ties as UK, and not American, spellings. Conversely, use of First author should be (as it originally was in the early days of Wikipedia) a 'last resort' where no location-related tie exists (as at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&oldid=9009988#Usage_and_spelling end 2004]: "{{!xt|''If all else fails, consider'' following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.}}" (my italics) — i.e., last resort, and non-binding, not the be-all and end-all primary decider it seems to be now) - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 16:29, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:Let's not to this. For most articles, any variant of English is just fine and there's little reason to discuss this once a first (more or less arbitrary) choice has been made. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::@[[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] - curious, why do you say that? Having to read about e.g. your native flora and fauna in an alien dialect is a serious insult for a lot of people. It matters. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 20:00, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Hmm? I must say I consider the idea of people being insulted by reading British or American English somewhat strange. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 20:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] The implication that your own dialect is unfit for use, something that only backward savages and ignoramuses, and not real people, would use; and that you, in wanting to change it to your native dialect, are inferior, or subhuman. Ask any member of any minority group who has had their language suppressed by an oppressive power. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 21:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::But isn't English a language and we have kinda agreed to use it here already? (And usually it ''is'' the language of the oppressors, of course, which is how this Wikipedia got the biggest in the world, but let's not digress.) I mean I kinda get where you are going, but aren't there better ways to spend one's time than arguing endlessly about whether -our or -or should be used? We already have agreed, in effect, that ''all'' variants of English are welcome here, and as long as that's so I'd consider it less essential to have the perfect algorithm to find the ''one'' best variant that ''must'' be used for any given article. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 22:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] yes; and no; English and American are effectively separate languages as so many spellings differ between them (much more different than e.g. Nynorsk and Bokmål Norsk, which have separate wikipedias). Yes, agreed that all variants are welcome, but only overall; that's why we have the Consistency and Ties rules, that only one variant should be used on any one page, and that the variant used should be the most appropriate one. All I'm asking for is clearer and better ways of deciding which is the most appropriate - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 22:39, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::What you are proposing is not clearer and better. It will create a colossal mess of endless debate, to no purpose. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 02:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::"That only one variant should be used on any one page" is true and reasonable, but "that the variant used should be the most appropriate one" is your own invention. For most pages, ''any'' variant is fine and that's a good thing. Also, as someone who edits mostly in British Oxford spelling, but occasionally using American English or ''-ise'' spellings, I don't buy the claim that those "are effectively separate languages". Often even in a fairly long article, changing from one to the other will only entail a handful of changes, especially when considering Oxford spelling as middle ground. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::{{ping|Gawaon}} — "is your own invention" — no, not my invention; it is the whole point and purpose of [[MOS:TIES]]. All I am suggesting is to revise MOS:TIES to make it applicable to situations where a region, rather than a single country, uses a particular spelling type. As in the cited example [[Lion]], it is native to multiple African countries, and to India, but is not native to Britain, nor to the USA: adding any one of {{tl|Use South African English}}, {{tl|Use Ugandan English}}, {{tl|Use Kenyan English}}, {{tl|Use Indian English}}, etc., is somewhat misleading, and specifically {{tl|Use British English}} is not really appropriate (and using {{tl|Use American English}} on the grounds of a potential first editor use is definitely not appropriate), but it ''does'' need a template that specifies use of grey, colour, etc., as that applies to ''all'' of the English speaking countries where it does occur. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 17:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I have just reread [[MOS:TIES]] again, but I don't see it stating any point and purpose. What did I miss? [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::@[[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] MOS:TIES says {{xt|An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation ''should use'' the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation}} (my italics). All I'm suggesting is changing to {{xt|... nation or region ...}} so that topics (like [[Lion]]) that have clear ties to ''several'' nations with basically shared engvar (in this instance, India, Kenya, South Africa, etc.) fall within the purview of MOS:TIES, without having to be utterly unique to only one of those countries, as gets argued now. Does that help clarify? - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 19:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::No. If TIES's point and purpose was what you want it to be, then, of course, you wouldn't have any reason to want to change it. Well, you ''want'' to change it, so you should at least be honest enough to admit that you want to change, or reinterpret, its point and purpose, making it cover, according to our own comments, many articles which it currently doesn't cover. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 20:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::The guidelines states: {{tq|Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason. Edit warring over stylistic choices is unacceptable.}} So the purpose of the guideline is prevent pointless debate and edit warring over stylistic issues. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 19:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:Abso-fucking-lutely not.
:*{{tq|national ''or regional'' ties to a topic}}{{snd}}Oh great, so you want us to debate the variety of English used in (to use your example) the [[Western Palaearctic]] -- {{tq|i.e. Europe, North Africa, northern and central parts of the Arabian Peninsula, and part of temperate Asia, roughly to the Ural Mountains}}. Thus Wikipedia dies.
:*{{tq|"''If all else fails, consider'' following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor}}{{snd}}I see. So only after the absolutely maximum possible amount of editor time has been wasted, only then should we move on to the additional phase of wasting even more time on a debate ''considering'' whether the first major contributor's choice should be followed.
:The purpose of MOS's rules on national varieties of English is to make an arbitrary choice to short-circuit debate. Incalculable amounts of editor time has been saved thereby. Leave it alone. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 22:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
::*{{ping|EEng#s}} - that's extreme alarmism, and also inappropriate intemperate language for a civilised debate. Wikipedia doesn't die, it is enhanced, to make it more user-friendly regionally by having pages in the dialect of the majority of readers in the region. Note that the [[Western Palaearctic]] article already, ''and all its cited external references'', all use UK English rather than American English. All my suggestion does is to codify this as relevant in MOS:TIES. And no: it doesn't take any more time (a few seconds) than current decisions by MOS:TIES or [[MOS:CONSISTENCY]] — and it is ''a lot'' quicker that having to spend 20 minutes or more searching through 20 years of a page's history to work out the [[MOS:RETAIN]] dialect used in the 'first non-stub version' (I know, I've done that many times). - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 17:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::{{reply|MPF}} Frankly, there's no need to do that. If the language in an article is not standardized yet, you can choose whatever you consider most appropriate and add the corresponding {{tl|Use ...}} template. Very possibly you'll be challenged and if that happens it might be useful to inspect the "first non-stub version" (if you don't manage to reach consensus in some other way), but unless that happens, you won't have to. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 18:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*As it says in the template, “This tracking template adds articles to the hidden category Category:EngvarB to denote articles with non-country-specific spelling that is most similar to British English and cannot be identified as American English or Canadian English spelling”.  Therefore the default is to replace it with a Use British English, unless there is a clear and obvious link to another commonwealth country. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 20:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
:*{{ping|MapReader}} - so what do you add in the [[Lion]] example cited above? That's what my suggestion is designed to cover. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 17:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*''Wikipedia'' is supposed to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. There are many topics that have some ties to a particular country or region where English is an important second language, but there is good reason for editors from outside that region to create or edit an article with a connection to the country or region. But this editor from outside the region will probably not be familiar with English usage in the region, and requiring editors to research these kinds of details creates an unreasonable barrier to editing. [[User:Jc3s5h|Jc3s5h]] ([[User talk:Jc3s5h|talk]]) 15:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:*{{ping|Jc3s5h}} But this is all already covered in [[MOS:CONSISTENCY]] and [[MOS:TIES]]. I fear you're misunderstanding what I'm suggesting, which is merely to revise MOS:TIES to make it applicable to situations where a region, rather than a single country, uses a particular spelling type. See the [[Lion]] example a little higher up. This doesn't affect anyones' ability to edit, it merely means that edits in a different spelling version would be revised to the relevant version as per existing guidelines. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 17:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:The whole point of TIES is to apply ot only in cases where it is completely obvious. For anything else, there is RETAIN. Anything that increases potential for discussion is going to waste countless hours of editor time. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 18:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::Given you're not in favor of making TIES apply more broadly, what do you think about making it apply more narrowly by dropping the advice to use "Commonwealth English"? Or would that advice be more useful if it said to simply pick one of the countries or use spelling common among them? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::The advice to use Commonwealth English seems to be to use British spelling without saying the words "British English". Is there evidence that this is not working? —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 19:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Yes, editors have been complaining it is incongruent with the deletion of {{tl|Use Commonwealth English}}, both because there is no way to indicate it should be used, and because the template was deleted on the grounds that "Commonwealth English" isn't a coherent dialect with a dictionary one can use to look up which spellings are supposed to apply (so it wouldn't make sense to tell people to use a dialect that doesn't really exist).
::::Perhaps it would clarify things to say "British-style spelling", if that is what is actually meant, and seems to be what happens in practice? Presumably people would then tag articles with {{tl|Use British English}}? That would rule out using Canadian spellings or Australian vocabulary, if that's OK. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Sounds OK for me. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 20:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::I've boldly tweaked the wording in the hope people will generally think this is reasonable. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] because that way, you run into divide-and-rule tactics that end up creating a mockery of why we have TIES. Take something like e.g. [[Australia–New Zealand relations]]. Under the current TIES specifications, it isn't uniquely Australian, and it isn't uniquely New Zealand, so therefore (potentially) has to be in American English, under the First User principle. Which is of corse a complete nonsense, but it can happen under the current rules. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 19:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::No, anyone doing that should just be blocked for trolling. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 20:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] Why? Suppose that page had been started by an American, with American spellings? TIES, under the current specifications, doesn't apply, so First User and RETAIN would apply. I'm suggesting changing the wording of TIES so that it ''does'' apply. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 20:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::[[WP:NOTLAW]] is policy though. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 20:19, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::I've just tweaked MOS:TIES to say that articles with strong ties to multiple Commonwealth countries should use British spelling, so that would be a clear indication that an AU-NZ article should not be in American English. I could also add "or arbitrarily pick a variety of one of the included countries" if it's weird to pick "British" for Australia and New Zealand, but I'm not sure it would matter much, and I don't want people to argue about ''which'' of the included countries to pick. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 22:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The "pick one of the two and stick with it" idea is probably the best solution. It's what's already done at [[War of 1812]], where either BrEng or AmEng would be valid. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 18:49, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*I feel like I'm asking the stupidest question in the universe. But what is the "lion" example that's referred to 5 times on this page without (apparent) explanation? Who doesn't spell it l-i-o-n? (Naive Br ENGVAR speaker here) [[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] ([[User talk:DeCausa|talk]]) 18:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:The suggestion is not about the spelling of the word "lion" but about which variety of English should be used on the article [[Lion]]. The idea is that because lions are present only in Africa and South Asia, the varieties of English of the host countries should be preferred. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 19:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:@[[User:DeCausa|DeCausa]] it's not the title, but the text within the page. Which variant should it be in? British (as currently stated), or South African, or Kenyan, or Indian? All three of those would be more relevant than British to where lions occur, but none of those three local-to-lion dialects is more relevant than any of the others. In this instance, it would make minimal actual difference (all four use 'colour', grey', etc., rather than 'color', 'gray', etc.), but a say, Kenyan reader might find it odd if the specified dialect is say, South African; "why there rather than here, we have lions here too". The obvious is to say something akin to 'International English' which applies to ''all'' of the regions where lions occur. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 19:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*::I don't really see a reason to consider TIES for lions，penguins or polar bears; all have been popular zoo or circus animals all over the world. As I said, if the variety to use is not immediately obvious, don't prescribe one. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 19:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::@[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] they have ties to the countries they are native to. Zoos and circuses are irrelevant, as those animals don't occur in them naturally - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 20:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::That is exactly the type of argument why I think that TIES should not apply if it is not completely obvious that it should. —[[User:Kusma|Kusma]] ([[User talk:Kusma|talk]]) 20:29, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::If (or when) the only lions remaining in a country are in zoos, must we change the spelling in [[Lion]]? What's the appropriate variant for the [[Northern White Rhinoceros]] or the [[Zanzibar leopard]]? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 20:46, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::@[[User:NebY|NebY]] - their former native ranges, if any engvar is relevant to their areas. - [[User:MPF|MPF]] ([[User talk:MPF|talk]]) 22:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::The engvar of those who failed to protect the [[Northern White Rhinoceros]], a creature which had no idea of human boundaries and languages? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 15:12, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

* It would be better to drop TIES altogether and just go with straight RETAIN.  TIES is just an invitation for nationalists to argue about nationalist stuff, and the invitation is accepted far too often.  As for mandating British spelling in [[lion]] because it's more used in countries where lions are found, that's a non-starter. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 20:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC){{br}}<small>While it's not very important for the current discussion, just by the way, [[lion]] already uses British English.  The {{tl|British English}} tag was added by {{u|Z. Patterson}} in March, without giving a rationale; I would assume there were already British spellings in the article. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC) </small>
*:{{small|Obviously, they are [[British & Irish Lions|British Lions]] [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 08:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC) }}
*:Just like date formats (dmy or mdy), most people aren't sensitive to the English spellings used – readers tolerate language variants when reading different sources. They are most likely sensitive to when different spellings are used in any one given situation. "Favour" and "fiber" simply ought not to coexist in the same article space, for example, as these tend to leap out at the reader. I think that looking to use [[WP:TIES]] to the lion may be going a little too far, but one could easily argue that [[Nigel Lonwijk]] should indeed have British spelling applied to his biography.
*:When trying to assess which spelling variant ought to apply to any untagged article, in addition to looking at the first non-stub version (often problematic), I would typically run the Engvar script (using both American and Commonwealth buttons) and see what drops out. Anecdotally, I have found that the vast majority of untagged articles not belonging obviously to American, Canadian, British use variants more familiar to Commonwealth but the use of the [[Oxford spelling|Oxford "~ize"]] is very common. Having said that, there remain a significant number of WP articles where some element of national ties can be inferred. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 09:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*::See, that's the problem.  "Some element of national ties can be inferred" if you're looking for them.  Then you can engage in nationalistic IP-claiming for those articles.  It's really really bad form.  Just don't do it.  That's why I think it would be better to drop TIES altogether rather than adopt MPF's proposal (and in fact it might be better to drop TIES altogether than to keep the status quo). --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 17:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::It's not a problem. Don't get me wrong, I described the method I use to assess the state of an article's spelling. Call it data gathering if you will. I wouldn't usually tag an article unless I could at least find some nationalistic ties. In the absence of clear TIES, we would go with RETAIN, it is still be necessary to know which determinants spelling exist in the "first significant edit". If the first one has an <code>-ize word</code>, or if that version contains "fiber" and "neighbour", it can still be a toss-up between American spelling or Oxford (or US and British for the latter). Incidentally, this happens often enough when contemplating whether to apply dmy vs mdy dates, when both co-exist – inserted in the very same edit – in which case all bets are off. {{wink}} <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 10:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::It absolutely ''is'' a problem.  Finding "some nationalistic ties" is the wrong criterion, and invites the bad behavior I called out.  Only when the ties are absolutely plain as day should they even be taken into account whatsoever.  And because wherever you draw the line, there are going to be corner cases, I think maybe the best rule is that they should never be taken into account, and we should always go with RETAIN. --[[User:Trovatore|Trovatore]] ([[User talk:Trovatore|talk]]) 18:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::That sounds like unnecessary bother. When I standardize an article that doesn't fall under TIES, I just look which variant (whether spelling or date style) is currently most common, and standardize on that one. If there's no clear winner, I go with my own preferences (Oxford and DMY). Works very well, and takes very little effort. In theory another editor could object, but I have never seen that happening. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 10:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::::{{lol}} Pragmatic <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 10:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::::I also standardise an article that is not subject to [[WP:TIES]] based on what variant of English and what date format appears most often. [[User:Z. Patterson|Z. Patterson]] ([[User talk:Z. Patterson|talk]]) 19:54, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*:{{replyto|Trovatore}} I added the {{tl|British English}} template to [[Talk:Lion]] because the article was written in British English before I added the template, as I saw {{tl|Editnotices/Page/Lion}} when I viewed [[Lion]]'s source.  @[[User:Materialscientist|Materialscientist]] created the edit notice on 16 February 2014, in [[Special:Diff/595703452]].  On 10 June 2018, @[[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] changed the format to the edit notice by adding <code>form = editnotice</code> to the edit notice's source. In the source for [[Lion]], the text has the following line:
*:<syntaxhighlight>{{Use British English|date=December 2024}}</syntaxhighlight>
*:For this reason, in [[Special:Diff/1280356561]], I added the template to the talk page.  Because I figured people would view the source if they were interested, I did not leave an edit summary. [[User:Z. Patterson|Z. Patterson]] ([[User talk:Z. Patterson|talk]]) 19:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*::Edit summaries are always helpful! [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 20:24, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::{{replyto|Gawaon}} I realised that when I saw this mention about [[Talk:Lion]] and when I responded.  I started to use edit summaries when posting similar templates in talk pages, as I did in [[Talk:Japanese literature]] at [[Special:Diff/1297683859]]. [[User:Z. Patterson|Z. Patterson]] ([[User talk:Z. Patterson|talk]]) 20:38, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*'''Oppose proposed change'''. It would not improve these debates to add a meta-level of disagreement over what constitutes the relevant region. At least for the current system of national ties, it is usually much less ambiguous which nation has the ties. —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 04:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*Does anybody know how many angels are dancing on the head of this pin? [[User:Cinderella157|Cinderella157]] ([[User talk:Cinderella157|talk]]) 08:53, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
*:{{small|Around seven to a million, would be my best guess.}} [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 09:50, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

=== Neutral alternative ===
I like {{u|Chipmunkdavis}}'s suggestion of naming a neutral alternative to {{tl|Use British English}} after the "-ise" suffix which distinguishes this style from {{tl|Use Oxford spelling}}. {{ping|Tony1|Amakuru|Rich Farmbrough|cagliost|MPF}} How would you feel about creating {{tl|Use -ise spelling}} to mean the non-Oxford English spellings common to the UK and most of its former colonies outside North America? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:38, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

:And what neutral term do you propose we use instead of ‘American English’? [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 19:26, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::I think that this is the best way forward. [[MOS:COMMONALITY]] means that we should use <em>words</em> that most readers will understand, rather than country-specific vocabulary. I think that this is what {{tl|EngvarB}} could be changed to, which was one of the proposals at the TFD made by multiple participants. Can a basic list of "-ise spelling" words be compiled (or linked to)? Ideally, the list would contain the British forms and vocabulary that are generally used in English-speaking countries outside of the US and Canada, and without the exceptions that exist in Australia and New Zealand. If we could somehow make the heroic effort to get this template off the ground (or change {{tl|EngvarB}} to a new name), it would allow us to get rid of most of the nonsensical templates in {{tl|Use X English}} that are unable to provide useful spelling and vocabulary guidance that is different from "Use -ise spelling". – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 19:42, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Re {{tq|Can a basic list of "-ise spelling" words be compiled (or linked to)?}}, we do have some lists in [[American and British English spelling differences]]. But [[MOS:ENGVAR]] isn't just about spelling, so other articles that may be useful are [[Comparison of  American and British English]]; [[Glossary of American terms not widely  used in the United Kingdom]]; [[Glossary of British terms not widely  used in the United States]]; [[List of garments having different names  in American and British English]]; [[List of words having different meanings  in American and British English (A–L)]] and [[List of words having different meanings  in American and British English (M–Z)]]. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 20:19, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::I'm not sure a neutral alternative for American English is needed. The articles on the three [[Compact of Free Association]] just have {{tl|Use American English}} and the other countries that I could think of that import some American-style spelling (Canada, Philippines, Hong Kong) all have their own "Use X English" national templates. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 20:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:Sounds like a good idea! [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 21:15, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:I fear that many British English editors wouldn't recognise "-ise spelling" as a description of their ordinary spelling, and neither would many others who default to it, though "British spelling" would be clear to them. It's hardly neutral to use one clear term, "American English" and one obscure one, and the effect of never clearly telling British English writers when they can use British English would not only be to appear systematically prejudicial, but also to reduce the use of British English. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 21:29, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::Is there a clearer name for the style that's not clearly British or Australian or South African but is definitely not American? Would "British-style spelling" be neutral enough? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 23:21, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::At first glance yes, "British-style" and "American-style" look better. But "English", not "spelling". I see no mandate or even case being made above for suddenly narrowing our "Use XXX English" down to spelling, and would refer again to [[Comparison of  American and British English]] and all the other articles I tediously linked above. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 23:34, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
::::This may be why previous discussions have not landed on a good name for a template. "Use British-style English" is too close to "Use British English" and will be immediately and perpetually confusing. "Use Commonwealth English" recommends a type of English that does not appear to exist. I think the most significant issue here is naming a template that says what it means and is not confusing. As far as I can see, we want a template that guides people to spell words the way that British English spells words (e.g. centre v. center), and we want people to prefer British vocabulary if a choice needs to be made between British and other variants (e.g. truck v. lorry). What is the name for that template? "Use British English spelling and vocabulary"? We could have a pithy redirect that avoided having to type the whole thing. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::Hmm. If you want something shorter than "Use British English spelling and vocabulary", how about "Use British English" or "Use BrEng", thus encompassing all the other [[Comparison of  American and British English|differences between AmEng and BrEng]] that [[WP:ENGVAR]] / [[WP:RETAIN]] observes? [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 11:57, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::"Use Commonwealth English" and "EngvarB" just mean "Use British English". There is no difference; the vocabularies are identical. "Use -ise English" doesn't capture it, it is not just about words ending "ise".
::::::Personally, I think American and British English should be the dominant varieties on English Wikipedia. Other variants can be used for [[MOS:TIES]], but American and English are suitable "neutral" varieties due to their dominance in all sorts of contexts. The desire for an alternative name for "Use British English", but which means exactly the same thing, is Quixotic. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 16:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::If we can change the documentation for {{tl|Use British English}} to say what we are describing above, that would be fine with me. We could emphasize that we are not saying the topic has anything to do with Britain or imperialism or whatever; it's just about the choice of words and spellings used in the prose of the article. We could then redirect EngvarB to {{tl|Use British English}}, and we could probably get rid of half of the "Use X English" templates where the "X English" article says that the written version of that English uses British spelling. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:38, 28 June 2025 (UTC) 
::::::::Yeah, I guess something like that could work. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 15:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::I've edited that documentation. How does that look? -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 05:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Reads OK to me, though I don't know whether this will satisfy editors who consider the term "British English" as imperialistic in such cases. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 07:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
::::::::::Good job. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 04:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:::::::::::I'd be happy redirecting EngvarB to {{tl|Use British English}}. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 08:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
::How about adding {{tl|Use -ise spelling}} as a ''synonym'' (alias) for {{tl|Use British English}}? In that way, editors can choose whatever they prefer. There might be some initial confusion, but experienced editors would get used to it. (And others are unlikely to bother anyway.) [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 06:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
:::Isn't that tantamount to saying "if you don't understand this, ignore it - it doesn't matter anyway"? Also, it's not just about spelling, and the asymmetry between {{t|Use American English}} and {{t|use -ise spelling}} isn't neutral. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 11:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
::::Well, {{tl|Use Oxford spelling}} is commonly used and people seem to understand it. Plus {{tl|Use British English}} won't go away, for those who prefer it. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 17:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*I also find most of the templates in {{tl|Use X English}} nonsensical and annoying. We need a template that is neutral, and doesn't need defining. So, why not {{tl|EngvarB}}? The only real problem I see with it is that many are puzzled by what it might mean. But is it a clearly desirable trait to have meaning for the average editor when all relevant information is easily available to any who look just a bit further (at for example the edit summary, the template or script documentation)? After all, it's a maintenance template and needs only to be obvious to those who run the Engvar script. <p>Alternatively – maybe a wild suggestion – why not go back to basics and usurp {{tl|English}}, to be supplemented by {{tl|American}}, {{tl|Canadian}}? --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 10:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)</p>
*:None of the proposed (and existing) template names suggested in the previous paragraph have meanings that are clear from their names. A key guideline at [[Wikipedia:Template namespace]] is "Template function should be clear from the template name". – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:22, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*:That “only” problem being the critical problem, since the object of the tags is to guide editors as to the established style for the article.  A template that leaves the majority of people puzzled is worse than useless.
*:There’s nothing really wrong with the “British English” tag, as per the “American English” one. Yes, the Oxford Spelling tag is a variant on British English, but the -ize spelling is still very much minority usage in the UK, hence the British descriptor remains appropriate for the -ise spelling. [[User:MapReader|MapReader]] ([[User talk:MapReader|talk]]) 13:47, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
*::It's the ability of these templates to be parsed that has become a major issue, and severely conflicts with the true function, so why shouldn't we contemplate [[WP:IAR|doing without that characteristic]]? Anecdotally, the vast majority of editors pay little attention the templates and don't consciously dialectise spellings when they add new content, which is why there needs to be cycles of script runs to update spellings within tagged articles. These templates serve primarily as functional indicators for organising script runs based on dated [[:Category:EngvarB]] by if editors are so minded. As to my suggestion, don't {{tl|English}}, {{tl|American}}, {{tl|Canadian}} seem to you to be "less worse" than what we have now? {{tl|English}} is currently a redirect and can easily be usurped. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 09:45, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Those names are definitely not "less worse". They don't have an easily understandable meaning, just like "EngvarB". "Template function should be clear from the template name" is what the guideline says. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*::::I agree. The {{tl|Use ...}} names are self-documenting, {{tl|American}} alone would be totally cryptic. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 15:07, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
*:::Well, being that all three variants are English, calling only one "English" is, frankly, crap. [[User:Oknazevad|oknazevad]] ([[User talk:Oknazevad|talk]]) 15:50, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
*:I've long thought that {{tl|Use American English}}, {{tl|Use British English}} and the like should produce [[Wikipedia:Editnotice|editnotices]] in the editing view similar to what the articles [[United Kingdom]] and [[United States]] have. (Unfortunately, I can't see from the article code how those editnotices are generated.) It wouldn't matter so much then if a template had an unclear name, because the editnotice would explain things in full: {{tl|EngvarB}} could produce an editnotice beginning "{{xtn|This article is '''written in British and Commonwealth English'''}}", say. Editnotices are visible when one edits any section of an article, whereas {{tl|Use American English}}, etc., are only visible at or near the top of the article code, so the editnotices would be harder to ignore than the templates in their current form.{{pb}}The editnotices could then supersede the talk page templates {{tl|American English}}, {{tl|British English}}, etc., because those aren't in the best place to be seen by editors of articles, and they contribute to clutter and [[banner blindness]] on talk pages. That series of talk page templates could be what the editnotices for any other variations of English (e.g., with Oxford spelling) are based on. [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] ([[User talk:Ham II|talk]]) 09:21, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
*::As far as I can tell, a new template page would have to be created for every article that needs a dialect-specific editnotice, for example for [[United Kingdom]] it's generated by [[Template:Editnotices/Page/United Kingdom]]. (This just uses {{tl|British English}}, which as mentioned above is also used on talk pages.) This has to be done by an account with administrator or template-editor privileges. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 06:26, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
If a "neutral" and "meaningful" name can be agreed on for default Engvarb (which can or needn't redirect to Use British English as "close enough"), or, worst case, a selection of such, then the first (and so far only) proposal at [[Wikipedia:Engvar_workshop]] can use that.  Currently I'm working off {{Tlx|Use Commonwealth English spelling}}. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 22:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />
:Please don't use that new redirect; I have nominated it for deletion as a recreation of a deleted template. If you read the article at the target for [[Commonwealth English]], you will see the reason that this phrase should not be used in template names, and why {{tl|Use Commonwealth English}} was deleted. That phrase does not describe a variety of English that is coherent enough to guide editors in word choice and spelling. It would be helpful if you waited for consensus here before making some of the drastic changes that you have been making over the past few days. It appears to me that we are settling on converting {{tl|Use British English}} into a generic "Use British English spelling and vocabulary" guidance template, but I'd like to see the discussion settle. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 23:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
{{od}} Rich's project is an interesting starting point. If we are to find our way out of this melée, we need to brainstorm creatively and [[WP:IAR|without restraints]], however silly. Otherwise, [[the Circle Game (song)|the Circle Game]] will be the only song sung. --<small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 23:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

==== Summarizing the above section ====
{{resolved}}
It appears that there is consensus to change the documentation at {{tl|Use British English}} to explain and emphasize that the template is not saying the topic has anything to do with the UK specifically; it's just about the choice of words and spellings used in the prose of the article. This change has already been made. The next step is to redirect the deprecated {{tl|EngvarB}} to {{tl|Use British English}}. Any further comments? – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 15:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:Makes sense; I assume EngvarB instances will also continue to be changed or removed in articles as appropriate. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 16:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
::If we're redirecting EngvarB to Use British English, should we get a bot to rename the former to the latter considering how confusing "EngvarB" is? ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">[[User:Panamitsu|Panamitsu]]</span> [[User_talk:Panamitsu|(talk)]] 06:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
:::No. A bot renaming redirected templates falls well within the definitions of [[WP:COSMETICBOT|cosmetic edits]]. -- [[User:Michael Bednarek|Michael Bednarek]] ([[User talk:Michael Bednarek|talk]]) 07:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Agreed. My plan is to leave this discussion open for a week from the date stamp [[Template_talk:EngvarB#Proposed_redirection_of_this_template,_following_discussion_at_MOS|on this talk page post at Template talk:EngvarB]], which is a typical TFD discussion length, and then redirect if there is still consensus to do so. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 13:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I assumed people would do this in case a different country's variety is more appropriate. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 19:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I was thinking that if "EngvarB" was so confusing that people didn't understand it, there may be a reason to make the edit, as [[WP:COSMETICBOT]] says that consensus can be made to make cosmetic edits. However, if there's an editnotice at the top of each page saying something like "This article uses British English", then getting a bot to rename it probably wouldn't be needed. ―<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">[[User:Panamitsu|Panamitsu]]</span> [[User_talk:Panamitsu|(talk)]] 22:40, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
:Only in the case where "British English" is so broadly construed and enjoys general acceptance would this move make sense.
:I know from discussions here and elsewhere that you would ultimately want to see the various other {{tl|Use X English}} templates deprecated, and we would have only the 4 variants (US, UK, Oxford and Canada). I agree with that goal. It was my intention from the outset to have only 4 variants, until people began seeing the need to create country-specific templates (no doubt as a result of heightened sensitivity/anxiety of neocolonialism) that resulted in the unruly proliferation of these. That was when I switched over to {{tl|EngvarB}}. How easy do you think it would be to backtrack on that due to nationalistic allegiances? It would be great to be able to pull it off, but that is a big IF. What's been managed so far is to delete Commonwealth, and only for technical reasons. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 22:51, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
::We are on the same page about the other templates. However, it would be sad to see the small, reasonable step of making a deprecated template into a redirect fail due to this discussion ballooning outward with objections to changes to templates that are not currently under discussion here. I have seen that happen too many times: a straightforward discussion expands outward, and then people say "wall of text, too confusing, no consensus" and the initial simple effort falls apart. Let's agree to do one thing in this one discussion, and have later discussions later. Please. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 04:37, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:::It's exactly how I see the challenge; anti-colonial sentiment is real; everyone wants their own special case so that they feel they're not being sidelined. The templating's a mess right now, and hopefully it can be sorted with chipping away at the problem like a master sculptor, with surgical deletions on one hand, and allowing for steady attrition of minority templates on the other hand. In the meantime, we ought not to continue [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Khaya_anthotheca&diff=prev&oldid=1294603153 adding them], or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HIV/AIDS_in_Uganda&diff=prev&oldid=1293572213 sorting] or [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Christine_Finn&diff=prev&oldid=1296170859 replacing] a deprecated template. We need to have a game plan, a strategy, and be organised.  {{tl|EngvarB}} should actually be the last one to go, IMHO. It would be infinitely easier to apply a redirect on it in one fell swoop as the final ''coup de grace''. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 08:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
::::To take one example, Australian English actually does have some differences worth keeping, I wouldn't try folding that into British English for articles about Australia. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 09:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::What you want could be achieved by tagging the article's talk page with  {{tl|Australian English}}. And just like {{tl|British English}}, the script maintenance templates aimed at guiding certain spelling variants – {{tl|Use Australian English}} and {{tl|Use British English}} – serve a different function. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 13:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::I am begging all of you to please remain focused on the issue at hand. Please do not make suggestions about other Use X English templates, or a giant master plan that nobody can agree on, in this discussion. It will lead to a confused outcome instead of helping us to make progress toward the goal that we all appear to share. The only question here is: Are we ready to replace the deprecated EngvarB template with a redirect to {{tl|Use British English}}? The consensus above is that we are ready, and the documentation at the target template has already been prepared. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 14:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC) 
:I'm happy to redirect EngvarB to {{tl|Use British English}}. [[User:Cagliost|cagliost]] ([[User talk:Cagliost|talk]]) 09:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:I'm happy with {{EngvarB}} redirecting to {{Tlx|Use British English}} - and to use that in the script for the COMMONWEALTH variety.  Probably we should attempt to replace all transclusions with hand picked {{Tlx|Use Fooian English}} templates.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 22:32, 6 July 2025 (UTC).</small><br />

After waiting for one week following the posting of a link to this discussion at the template's talk page (one week is the standard TFD comment period), I have redirected the {{tl|EngvarB}} template to {{tl|Use British English}}, based on the above consensus. – [[User:Jonesey95|Jonesey95]] ([[User talk:Jonesey95|talk]]) 16:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

===Date parameter===

(This is concerning all of these "Use X English" and "EngvarX" templates.)

{{ping|Ohconfucius}} Using the month in the "date" parameter is standard for maintenance templates, but for the implied purpose of not checking older changes it seems too vague. Wouldn't we want to store the specific revision that was last checked? Otherwise suggested changes that a human has decided to ignore might be re-suggested. That revision could be recovered automatically by looking for a change to the date parameter in all the edits for one article for a given month, but that makes a lot of extra work.

But looking at [[User:Ohconfucius/script/EngvarB.js]], I'm not sure the script actually does look at diffs, in which case I'm not sure why this parameter is needed at all. The documentation says the date should be "The month and year that the template was placed", which would be wrong if the point is to document when the article was last checked for wrong-variant spellings. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 07:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

:Spelling differences rarely ever get changed deliberately from "realise" to "realize" (or vice versa), but instead arise because new content is added without the editor paying attention to the specific variant applicable. Anyway I see no need to keep a static version as a record, as Wikipedia already preserves a record of each edit that can be consulted in the article history. 
:I apologise if I failed to make it clear, but the template date is indeed meant to be changed with each passage of the script over an article. <small><span style="background-color:#ffffff;border: 1px solid;">[[User:Ohconfucius|'''<span style="color:#000000; background-color:#EEE8AA">&nbsp;Ohc&nbsp;</span>''']]</span></small>[[User talk:Ohconfucius|<sup>''revolution of our times''</sup>]] 23:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
:Can confirm this was the intended usage when the first of these templates was created.  I have proposed using a separate parameter for the script, because it focusses specifically on spelling, and on a specific subset of words.  If we run the script on something that was tagged a long time ago,  we probably don't want to be running the script  again for a while, but the article may still benefit from a human update.  See [[Wikipedia:Engvar_workshop]] for more details. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 22:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC).</small>
::I have updated the documentation of the "Use X English" templates to say the date represents the last spell-check against the declared variant. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 04:30, 11 July 2025 (UTC) <br />
:::Thank you! Still lots of work to do. All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 08:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC).</small><br />

== edit request -- the or The ==

[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Celestial bodies]] includes these capitalization examples:
:(Halley's Comet is the most famous of the comets; The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy)
Please change to
:(Halley's Comet is the most famous of the comets; the Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy)
or, if each example is meant to show a complete sentence,
:(The Andromeda Galaxy is a spiral galaxy. Halley's Comet is the most famous of the comets.)

[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Celestial bodies]] also says
:(The planet Mars is in the constellation Gemini, near the star Pollux)
which is consistent with the formatting rules it's meant to demonstrate (capitalize Mars and Pollux but not planet and not star), but is it factually incorrect or misleading? i don't think any planet is part of any constellation, and Earth's Sun is a star much nearer to Mars than Pollux. If the sentence means that one can find Mars by looking in almost the same direction as looking at Pollux, wouldn't that be temporary due to Earth's and Mars's orbits changing the planets' positions relative to each other and Pollux? Maybe the correct format should be demonstrated by statements that are less ambiguously correct:
:(The planet Mars has two moons, which are named Phobos and Deimos; the star Pollux is in the constellation Gemini)

Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --[[Special:Contributions/70.22.1.45|70.22.1.45]] ([[User talk:70.22.1.45|talk]]) 05:55, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

:{{Done}}, even though it is THE ONE AND ONLY Andromeda Galaxy. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 23:05, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
:To be "in" a constellation is "purely by looking" and for planets, yes, it's temporary, for stars less so.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 22:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC).</small><br />

== "Poem Title" or ''Poem Title''? ==

I'm seeing examples of both. This inconsistency must end in troth! [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 23:01, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
* [[MOS:TITLE]] says that long poems (e.g. ''[[Paradise Lost]]'') should be in italics whereas short poems ("[[Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening]]") should be in quotation marks. We have the same convention when it comes to prose (novels and novellas which have been published as stand-alone books italicised; novellas published only as part of collections and short stories in quotation marks) and music (long compositions: italic; short compositions: quotation marks). There's no inconsistency. [[User:Caeciliusinhorto-public|Caeciliusinhorto-public]] ([[User talk:Caeciliusinhorto-public|talk]]) 13:44, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

== [[MOS:DECOR]] vs. military flag officer "Dates of rank" / "Awards and decorations" sections ==

Hey folks, I'm curious to hear from people more familiar with [[MOS:DECOR]] on the images used in "Dates of rank" and "Awards and decorations" sections in military officer biographies. Examples include {{sectionlink|William D. Leahy|Dates of rank}} or {{sectionlink|Paul Tibbets|Awards and decorations}}. I'd be hard-pressed to see how these aren't "decorative" or "improve comprehension of the article subject", but perhaps I'm missing something. {{small|(I looked in the archives and only found [[Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Icons/Archive_16#Ribbon_bars_in_awards_and_decorations_section|this]] unanswered question from {{u|Oritsu.me}}.)}} [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 04:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:It has been discussed in the past, referred to as "fruit salad". It looks decorative to me, and in many cases isn't sourced properly, but based off photographs of the person wearing ribbons and probable OR in interpreting what medal each ribbon is associated with. IMHO generally the most appropriate way to address medal entitlements or promotions is to mention them at the point in the chronology of the biography where they were issued/awarded/promoted, see [[Arthur Blackburn]] for an example of this approach. This is generally the approach with FA mil person bios in my experience. Where there are reliable sources for someone's full medal entitlement, they could be listed in a separate section as done in [[Arthur Phleps]], but the iconography of medals and particularly ranks is purely decorative in my view. Cheers, [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]]  ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 05:02, 30 June 2025 (UTC)
:I find the "Dates of Rank" ''extremely'' useful in quickly checking what rank someone was at a particular time. [[MOS:DECOR]] has nothing to do with writing style and should be nominated for deletion. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 01:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
::{{ping|Hawkeye7}} For clarity, I didn't say anything about the content within the section. I'm primarily concerned with the images used within these sections. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 02:13, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I find the layout of dates of rank as in the Featured Article on [[William D. Leahy]] to be ''much'' easier to navigate than a simple table. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
::::And there's nothing wrong with that layout. It's the images that are the problem. [[MOS:DECOR]] is clear on that point, no matter our personal preferences. [[User:The ed17|Ed]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:The ed17|[talk]]]&nbsp;[[WP:OMT|[OMT]]]</sup> 18:42, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::I'm non-military, so the insignia of the ranks mean absolutely nothing to me. I suspect that the majority of our readers are the same. Even worse, those insignia change for different branches of the military and for different countries. As an example, at [[Lieutenant]] there is a vast array of insignia for different countries where Lieutenant is represented by 1, 2 or 3 stars, horizontal bars and/or vertical bars (see Mexico for using both directions) and different colours. Other ranks have the same problem. In short, unless the reader is in the same force in the same country, the insignia are meaningless. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">[[User:Stepho-wrs|'''&nbsp;Stepho&nbsp;''']]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">[[User Talk:Stepho-wrs|talk]]&nbsp;</span></span> 03:25, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Many of us are familiar with countries other than our own. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 07:56, 12 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Sure. As you can see from my user page, I'm also familiar with many countries (have physically worked in many of those listed). Doesn't mean that readers are going to know about the insignia of every armed force in every country. For many readers those insignia will just be pretty pictures. <span style="border:1px solid blue;border-radius:4px;color:blue;box-shadow: 3px 3px 4px grey;">[[User:Stepho-wrs|'''&nbsp;Stepho&nbsp;''']]&nbsp;<span style="font-size:xx-small; vertical-align:top">[[User Talk:Stepho-wrs|talk]]&nbsp;</span></span> 00:05, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::The readers of the articles are people seeking information about the subject. It may well be what date they were promoted. While military ranks might be obscure to many civilians, it is an important part of military biography, and informing the readers is part of our educational mission. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 00:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

== Can we banish "etc." from the encyclopedia? ==

I find "etc." to be a bane of encyclopedic writing, particularly in usages as found in [[Voluntary society]] ("an entity in which all property (including streets, parks, etc.) and all services (including courts, police, etc.) are provided"); or [[Contamination]] ("unsuitable, unfit or harmful for the physical body, natural environment, workplace, etc."). Can we banish this and require things to be spelled out in more formal language? [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 00:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

:What's even informal about it? It's used all the time in scholarly trade books and monographs, and seemingly functions like all the other abbreviated Latinate phrases used in English. It appears in State of the Union addresses given during a previous era in history that considered them to be formal oratory. I strongly contend that just about any phraseology which regularly makes it out the door of university presses should not be deemed "too informal" for Wikipedia, possibly barring an explicit appeal to dedicated style guides. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 00:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:Not everything is easily spelled out. In your second example, "body", "natural environment", and "workplace" aren't members of a single category X that would enable us to have "and other things in category X", and there isn't a specific set of items that would finish the list.
:In the first case, "etc." is unnecessary because "including" already implies the existence of additional items not explicitly mentioned. So I would edit the sentenced accordingly. But that's just effective copyediting, it doesn't rise to the level of justifying a ban. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 00:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
::Agree with the comments made, and anyway, the true banes of encyclopedic writing are: (a) references to the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22accolades+received%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 ''accolades'' bestowed on a creative work or praiseworthy endeavor]; and (b) sections or articles entitled ''response(s)'' or ''aftermath'' (or, sometimes, ''legacy''), used as dumping grounds for (respectively) anything anyone ever said about the article subject, or any random thing that happened to occur subsequent to events already described. A close runner-up is sentences of the form "He was X, despite Y", used ad nauseum to hit our readers over the head any form of apparent incongruity. Etc. [[User:EEng#s|<b style="color:red;">E</b>]][[User talk:EEng#s|<b style="color:blue;">Eng</b>]] 01:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I think you are overlooking the "In popular culture" sections. [[User:Hawkeye7|<span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span>]] [[User_talk:Hawkeye7|<span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span>]] 21:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
::::Two sides of the same coin: "in unpopular culture" sections are among the most common one can find onwiki. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
:: {{re|Largoplazo}} If the items named "aren't members of a single category X", then why use "etc.", which implies a continuation of a theme? Why not use language actually describing the scope of things susceptible to contamination? [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 22:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
:::That's exactly what I explained. I'm not sure how else to say it. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 00:22, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
:I do't see a problem here. I agree with the others that it's not terribly informal and is quite useful. It can be overused and suitable alternatives are reasonable but not always better. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 00:26, 4 July 2025 (UTC)
:I consider use of, e.g., "[[...]]", "[[et al]]", "[[et cetera]]"," "[[exempli gratia]]", and their abbreviations, to be essential in cases where an exhaustive list would be awkward or impractical. The first example above was bad, not because the wording implied partial list, but because that indication was redundant. The wording {{tqq|an entity in which all property (streets, parks, etc.) and all services (courts, police, etc.) are provided}} or {{tqq|an entity in which all property (including streets and parks) and all services (including courts and police) are provided}} would have been perfectly fine, as would variants using ellipses or "e.g.,". -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 09:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)  
:The very common error committed with this and similar constructions (as mentioned above) is to use it redundantly, as in your examples.   For example "Planets include Venus, Jupiter, etc."   "Customers like Heinz, Unilelver and others." (Like is also a good word to avoid in these contexts.)  I would prefer the leading qualifier to the trailing one, but I'm not sure it's MoS worthy.  All the best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]] [[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]''<small> 21:48, 6 July 2025 (UTC).</small>
::It really is just awareness in the copywriting area of your brain to pleonasms at-large. <span style="border-radius:2px;padding:3px;background:#1E816F">[[User:Remsense|<span style="color:#fff">'''Remsense'''</span>]]<span style="color:#fff">&nbsp;🌈&nbsp;</span>[[User talk:Remsense|<span lang="zh" style="color:#fff">'''论'''</span>]]</span> 21:50, 6 July 2025 (UTC) 
::It does seem more satisfying to say e.g. "including" instead of "etc." and I pretty much always write this way, especially since the period can be awkward. I'm not sure there's consensus to go around changing all existing instances of "etc.", though I would not object to that. I do think there's consensus not to have ''redundant'' constructions. If you want to take out some "etc." frustration, there are thousands of instances of redundancy which could be repaired, for example many of the results of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%2F%28including%7Csuch+as%7Clike%29%5B%5E%5C.%5D%2Betc%5C.%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1 this search]. -- [[User:Beland|Beland]] ([[User talk:Beland|talk]]) 18:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
::<br />
Each of us has our own "bane of the encyclopedia", and sometimes we chime in with a "who cares?" to diminish someone else's.  In that line, I don't find "etc." to be a huge problem – but I applaud those who do and work to improve the writing around it. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:40, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

== Rename proposal for early patriarchs of Alexandria ==

Broader participation requested! The proposal is to remove "pope" from article titles of [[patriarchs of Alexandria]] for the period ''before'' the 536 schism (i.e. before the present Coptic Orthodox Church was established), and replace it with "patriarch". This is meant to reconcile the contradiction between [[MOS:POPES]] and [[MOS:PATRI]], amongst other things. See discussion [[Talk:Pope_Anianus_of_Alexandria#Requested_move_28_May_2025|here]]. [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 06:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
:So, nothing to do with MOS? [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 14:48, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

== Alphabetical ordering ==

Hello,

I have tried to find a MOS convention for ordering surnames, to no avail. 

Specifically, I am wondering if we should take prefixes into account, and if so when we should consider the nationality: "de" from French, "Von" from German, "de la" from Spanish, etc. There are other difficult cases (e.g. multiple surnames), and other syntactical quirks.

I found a reference to some "AACR2" rule, but we're supposed to follow the MOS.

What does the MOS have to say on this?

Thanks! [[User:Selbsportrait|Selbsportrait]] ([[User talk:Selbsportrait|talk]]) 16:45, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

:We have an editing guideline, [[Wikipedia:Categorization/Sorting names]]. Names with particles or prefixes are addressed in the sixth bullet-point in "Other exceptions"; inclusion {{tq|can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality}} but the guideline goes into detail nonetheless, even including the 1830 switch in part of the Low Countries. [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 18:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
:{{ping |Selbsportrait}} I started on Wikipedia working on lists of names and I learned a lot. It's terribly complex and any attempt to be consistent may be in conflict with standards and traditions which vary around the world and through time. My pattern was to try to follow a consistent pattern for every page, but not to try to impose the same system on different pages. I'd often put an explanation of the sorting pattern in hidden text at the beginning of the list so other editors would understand my thinking. Good luck. I'll add a link to [https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ this essay "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names"] which teaches humility in understanding how names work.&nbsp;[[User:SchreiberBike|SchreiberBike&nbsp;]]&#124;[[User talk:SchreiberBike#top|&nbsp;⌨&nbsp;]] 20:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::This time I'm going to save that wonderful essay in a Sensible Place where I'll always find it again. Thank you! [[User:NebY|NebY]] ([[User talk:NebY|talk]]) 20:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::This is a sensible approach, and what I would have suggested: {{tq|to try to follow a consistent pattern for every page, but not to try to impose the same system on different pages}}. ''[[Chicago Manual of Style]]'' has some guidance and examples. I'm not sure it's all applicable to our purposes. They provide some language-specific guidance and note that practices vary widely. Not suggesting we adopt ''Chicago'' or any other external style guide, just that consulting an established standard seems reasonable when writing a new list or editing a list/article that doesn't follow a consistent approach. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 23:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
::Thank you all!
::In return, the story of Mr. Null, who persistently breaks databases:
::https://radiolab.org/podcast/null [[User:Selbsportrait|Selbsportrait]] ([[User talk:Selbsportrait|talk]]) 01:25, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

== Some questions on tense ==

I'm going through [[Voyager 1]], trying to get it cleaned up for a run at [[WP:FAC]].  Even after reading [[MOS:TENSE]], I'm not sure how I should treat the discussion of instruments on the spacecraft which are no longer functioning.  For example, the Imaging Science System has been disabled.  Would you say "uses a two-camera system ..." or "used a two-camera system ..."  If you look back a few revisions (say, [[Special:Permalink/1300184953]]) there's a mix of both. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 17:36, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
:
:I would suggest past tense for instruments that are no longer functioning. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 15:21, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
::
::My understanding is that (past) events are past tense. If the discussion involves using the camera, then it would be past tense. I have an SLR camera in the closet that doesn't work anymore, but I still use present tense for it. But okay, ''using'' sounds like it could be an event. So, ''has a two camera system'' and ''used a two-camera system'', the latter when describing what it actually did, when it did it. [[User:Gah4|Gah4]] ([[User talk:Gah4|talk]]) 15:36, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
:::I agree. Probably, the first of your contrasting phrases would be better stated as "has a now-disabled two-camera system" or something similar. This is comparable to the style for bios where a living person who used to be an actor "is a retired actor" while an actor who has died, whether while still acting or after having retired, "was an actor". [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 16:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

== Ranges of page numbers with hyphens ==

The rules for ranges of hyphenated page numbers{{efn|E.g., should A-2-A-5 be <code><nowiki>A-2{{mdash}}A-5</nowiki></code>?}} should be easier to find. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 15:55, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

:I think this is pretty clear in [[MOS:RANGES]]: <i><nowiki> The en dash in a range is always unspaced, except when either or both elements of the range include at least one space, hyphen, or en dash; in such cases, {{snd}} between them will provide the proper formatting.</nowiki></i> i.e. simple page ranges use an unspaced en dash; page numbers which include spaces, hyphens or dashes (e.g. A-2) require a spaced en dash. [[User:Pburka|pburka]] ([[User talk:Pburka|talk]]) 16:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
::No, because it is not clear whether the page numbers should have en dashes when used in a range. Should it be <code><nowiki>A-2{{snd}}A-5</nowiki></code>, <code><nowiki>A{{en dash}}2{{snd}}A{{en dash}}5</nowiki></code> or E. none of the above? -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 18:54, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
:::No, why should the number itself change in a range? It's in any case A-2, with a hyphen. [[User:Gawaon|Gawaon]] ([[User talk:Gawaon|talk]]) 20:34, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

<!-- Keep after last sig -->
{{notelist-talk}}

== Use common name even if officially dated ==

Look at [[Talk:Boy Scouts of America]]. There's a discussion saying that '''Wikipedia must use the most common name even if it is officially dated'''. Is the "even if officially dated" part actually mentioned in the MOS?? (The discussion reveals plenty of examples.) [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 10:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

:A relevant policy is [[WP:NAMECHANGES]]: {{tq2|If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name when discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above at § Use commonly recognizable names.}} —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 11:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
::This is correct… Wikipedia uses the most ''recognizable'' name (determined via source usage), not the “official” name.  This does not mean we ignore “official” names (they should be mentioned at an appropriate point in the article text). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 12:02, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
::[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]], what if the sources are inconsistent?? [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 13:38, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
:::We go with the most common reliably sourced usage. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 13:42, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
::::...with sources after the name change. What if it's a 50-50 tie?? [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 13:44, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps [[WP:COMMONNAME]] comes back into play.  It's up to the community how they weigh it. —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 14:07, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::Now, does anyone understand this rule as a "quantity is more important than quality" rule?? The way I view it, yes. The rule is that it's about HOW MANY (thus implying quantity) current web sites use the new name. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 12:19, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Sort of… the “how many” is really just our best way of assessing what name will be most ''recognizable'' to our readers… what name will they ''expect'' us to use as the article title. The idea is to help readers to quickly find the article when searching.
:::::::That said, it isn’t ''just'' about the numbers. ''Which'' sources are using which name is also a factor. We favor sources that are ''independent'' of the article subject over those that are tied to it. We favor secondary sources over primary sources, and academic sources over non-academic sources, Etc.  This can sometimes help when general usage is mixed (the 50/50 scenarios). [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 13:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::::Hmm. Looking at [https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Boy+Scouts+of+America%2CScouting+America&year_start=1950&year_end=2022&corpus=en&smoothing=3 this Ngram]... 100% of books use Boy Scouts of America, because of course... but for my part, ''the area under the line is important''. 

::::::::If I person is reading a book about this entity that was published between 1910 and 2022, it will say 100% use "Boy Scouts of America", and if the person wants to know more about the entity, that is the string they will search on. Yes we have redirects so it kind of doesn't matter, and in fact a person might be well served by immediately seeing the new name, but on the other hand it can be a bit confusing to come to an unexpected name which is different from what was searched on... the first sentence will point out the new name in bold text, so perhaps that is sufficient... nobody can know the answers to all this, but my guess is that "Boy Scouts of America" is the best article title at this time... I guess. [[User:Herostratus|Herostratus]] ([[User talk:Herostratus|talk]]) 03:54, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::Well, it depends. If there's a 60–40 split but the sources in the majority are overwhelmingly poor quality, the "common name" argument is much weaker. The task is really to determine the "best title" in light of all the relevant P&G and particular facts in a given case. "Boy Scouts" is probably the true common name but we've gone with a less concise and until-recently official name instead, which is reasonable. My preference for name changes is to wait a few months, which have passed in this case, to see what usage looks like outside of any coverage of the change itself. Sometimes in the case of mergers or acquisitions, or other significant changes, the older but still "common" name is deemed inaccurate and more weight is given to the change. I don't see that that is the case here, although some have argued it. Ultimately, these are case-by-case. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 19:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

== Fooians in Barland, Fooians of Barland, or Barland Fooians? ==

This is a [[WP:TITLECON]] question. I notice an inconsistency in titles of articles about minority A in country B. These can be roughly grouped into four forms: 
# Fooians in Barland
# Fooians of Barland
# Barland Fooians
# Fooian Barlanders

A good example is articles about Serbs.
* Form 1: Fooians in Barland
** [[Serbs in Austria]]
** [[Serbs in Germany]]
** [[Serbs in Hungary]]
** [[Serbs in Italy]]
** [[Serbs in North Macedonia]]
** [[Serbs in Russia]]
** [[Serbs in Sarajevo]]
** [[Serbs in Slovenia]]
** [[Serbs in the United Kingdom]]
** [[Serbs in Vojvodina]]
* Form 2: Fooians of Barland
** [[Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]
** [[Serbs of Croatia]]
** [[Serbs of Montenegro]]
** [[Serbs of Romania]]
** [[Serbs of White Carniola]]
* Form 3: Barland Fooians
** [[Kosovo Serbs]]

A similar inconsistency exists for Croats of/in Barland. In addition to Forms 1, 2 and 3, it has also a...
* Form 4: [[Croatian New Zealanders]] (Fooian Barlanders). 

Is there a guideline for title consistency in such articles? If not, should we establish one, and what should it be? Anecdotally, Form 1 seems the most common, but it might not necessarily be the most accurate. Thoughts? [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 19:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

:PS: I might add that Form 1 indeed seems to be the most common in the larger category trees [[:Category:Ethnic minorities]] and [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Europe]]. In particular, [[:Category:Romanian minorities in Europe]] and [[:Category:Hungarian minorities in Europe]] always take Form 1 {{tq|Fooians in Barland}}. [[:Category:Polish minorities]] is divided between Form 1 ({{tq|Poles in Barland}}) and Form 4 ({{tq|Polish Barlanders}}), with Form 1 being slightly more common, with two slight variations (that I'll label Form 1b and 1c):
:* 1b: [[Polish minority in Ireland]]
:* 1c: [[Polish people in Pakistan]]
:Forms 2 and 3 seem to be rather uncommon outside the Balkans. The only other examples I know of Form 3 is [[Sweden Finns]], and [[Finland Swedes]], which is a redirect to [[Swedish-speaking population of Finland]]. These two articles alone may be cited as evidence that Form 3 can be rather confusing for readers, and should be avoided wherever possible. Form 4 may be confusing for similar reasons. Form 2 seems okay to me, just much less common than Form 1. Forms 1b and 1c are also fine in my view, but not as [[WP:CONCISE]] as Form 1. [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 19:41, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
:I do see a slight semantic distinction between these options. For example, I would expect an article titled [[Serbs in Mongolia]] to have a more historical and demographic tone - outlining the story of Serbs (as an ethnic group) in the region - when they first started to emigrate in significant numbers, any patterns of discrimination they faced, their current demographics.  Meanwhile I would expect [[Mongolian Serbs]] to focus on individual Mongolian citizens of Serbian heritage.  It might even be a list.
:I suppose what I am saying is there ''might'' be a reason why these articles are titled inconsistently. And over-consistency isn’t always desirable.  [[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] ([[User talk:Blueboar|talk]]) 19:45, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::Completely agree this is an area that I would not expect title consistency if we go by reliable sources for naming. It likely depends if the group is sufficiently large to be consider part of that country's culture, or if it's just the case of people from one nation living in another. [[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 20:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
:The 'of' form is the most awkward to me. I do see subtle semantic differences between all four. The differences may be more relevant, or more reflective of common usage, in some cases than in others. In the US, the Fooian American form is standard, from relatively recent arrivals like [[Hmong Americans]] to older populations. Note that controversy around the title [[Native Americans]] has meant the name for the original inhabitants was previously a DAB page and is now (as of [[Talk:Native Americans (disambiguation)#Requested move 10 June 2025|very recently]]) a primary redirect to [[Native Americans in the United States]]. It may be possible to achieve more consistency for a particular country but I'm skeptical that we can or should enforce a standard across the board. Some of these titles probably reflect local consensus/POV but others are surely the result of reasonable discussion around the particulars for different ethnic and national groups. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 23:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
::Thanks for both of your feedback! If indeed these article titles are the result of local consensus, then I suppose it might not be a good idea to strive for consistency, particularly as ethnography in the Balkans can be a sensitive subject. What Myceteae says about Fooian American does seem to hold true for the [[Template:Croatian diaspora]] articles when it comes to the Americas and Oceania, but for Europe, there are other tendencies. For example, Form 2 {{xt|Fooians of Barland}}, seems more like a direct translation from the South Slavic Wikipedia versions, such as [[:hr:Hrvati u Španjolskoj]] and [[:hr:Hrvati u Francuskoj]] as cited in the [[Template:Croatian diaspora]]:
::;Americas
::* [[Croatian Argentines]]
::* [[Croatian Bolivians]]
::* [[Croatian Brazilians]]
::* [[Croatian Canadians]]
::* [[Croatian Chileans]] 
::* [[Croatian Ecuadorians]]
::* [[Croatian Mexicans]]
::* [[Croatian Peruvians]]
::* [[Croatian Americans]]
::* [[Croatian Uruguayans]]
::* [[Croatian Venezuelans]]
::; Oceania
::* [[Croatian Australians]]
::* [[Croatian New Zealanders]]
::;Europe
::* [[Burgenland Croats]] (Austria) - compare [[Serbs in Austria]], but a better comparison is [[Carinthian Slovenes]]
::* [[Croats of Belgium]] - compare [[Template:People of Belgium]]:
:::* [[Albanians in Belgium]], [[Armenians in Belgium]], [[Georgians in Belgium]], [[Greeks in Belgium]], [[Italian immigration to Belgium]], [[Polish diaspora#Benelux]], [[Portuguese in Belgium]], and [[Russians in Belgium]].
::* [[Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina]] (apparently removed from [[Template:Croatian diaspora]] without good reason) - compare other articles in the [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina]]:
:::* Form 1 (8x): [[Ethnic groups in Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[National minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Albanians in Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Macedonians in Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Poles in Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Romani people in Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Turks in Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Yugoslavs in Bosnia and Herzegovina]] (redirect to [[Yugoslavs]]).
:::* Form 2 (4x): [[Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Montenegrins of Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[:Category:Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina]], [[Bosniaks of Bosnia and Herzegovina]] (redirect to [[Bosniaks]]).
::* [[Croats in the Czech Republic]] - compare [[Macedonians in the Czech Republic]]
::* {{ill|Croats of France|hr|Hrvati u Francuskoj}} - the [[:Category:Ethnic groups in France]] overwhelmingly uses Form 1 {{xt|Fooians in France}} and Form 1c {{xt|Fooian people in France}}
::* [[Croatians in Germany]] - compare [[Serbs in Germany]]
::* [[Croats of Hungary]] - compare [[Serbs in Hungary]]; the [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Hungary]] favours {{xt|in Hungary}} over {{xt|of Hungary}}
::* [[Croats of Italy]] - compare [[Serbs in Italy]]; - the [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Italy]] overwhelmingly uses Form 1 {{xt|Fooians in Italy}} and Form 1c {{xt|Fooian people in Italy}}, while some subcategories and articles use Form 1b {{xt|Fooian minority in Italy}} (or actually {{xt|Fooian diaspora in Italy}}). No other articles or categories use Form 2; [[Croats of Italy]] is the odd one out.
::** [[Molise Croats]]
::* [[Janjevci]] (Kosovo) - compare [[Kosovo Serbs]]
::* [[Croats of Montenegro]] - compare [[Serbs of Montenegro]]; the [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Montenegro]] has about equal favour for {{xt|in Montenegro}} (mostly articles) and {{xt|of Montenegro}} (mostly subcategories)
::* [[Croats in North Macedonia]] - compare [[Serbs in North Macedonia]]
::* [[Croats of Romania]] - compare [[Serbs of Romania]]; the [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Romania]] favours {{xt|in Romania}} over {{xt|of Romania}}
::** [[Krashovani]]
::* [[Croats of Serbia]] - compare [[Serbs of Croatia]]; the [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Croatia]] favours {{xt|of Croatia}} over {{xt|in Croatia}}, while the [[:Category:Ethnic groups in Serbia]] favours {{xt|in Serbia}} over {{xt|of Serbia}}
::* [[Croats in Slovakia]] - compare [[Serbs of Slovakia]]
::* [[Croats of Slovenia]] - compare [[Serbs in Slovenia]]
::* [[:hr:Hrvati u Španjolskoj]]
::* [[Croats in Sweden]] - compare [[Swedish Serbs]]
::* [[Croats of Switzerland]]
::In that case, Form 2 article titles may not really reflect 'local consensus' so much as a direct translation that has arguably not been properly localised to English Wikipedia conventions. The only times the Croats and Serbs article titles seem to agree on Form 2 is for Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia, and Romania. The same seems to apply to Montenegrin minority articles: [[Montenegrins of Serbia]], [[Montenegrins of Croatia]], [[Montenegrins of Bosnia and Herzegovina]]. (But [[Montenegrins of Kosovo]], [[Montenegrins of Slovenia]] and [[Montenegrins of North Macedonia]] are not in agreement with the equivalent articles on Croats and Serbs in those countries). [[Template:Bosniak diaspora]] provides us with yet more inconsistencies:
::* Form 1
::** [[Bosniaks in North Macedonia]]
::** [[Bosniaks in Kosovo]]
::** [[Bosniaks in Turkey]] 
::* Form 2:
::** [[Bosniaks of Croatia]]
::** [[Bosniaks of Montenegro]]
::** [[Bosniaks of Serbia]]
::** [[Bosniaks of Slovenia]]
::* Form 4:
::** [[Bosnian Australians]] (Bosnia'''n''' rather than Bosnia'''k''')
::It seems to me that for the Americas and Oceania, the local consensus is Form 4 {{xt|Fooian Barlanders}}, while for Asia and Europe outside of former Yugoslavia, the consensus is Form 1 {{xt|Fooians in Barland}}. For articles and categories within the boundaries of former Yugoslavia, I would propose not to change anything for the time being. [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 15:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
:::PS: I would also propose not to change anything about article titles that evidently represent the [[WP:COMMONNAME]], such as Form 4 pages like [[Burgenland Croats]]. So in practice, I would propose to Rename [[Croats of Switzerland]] to [[Croats in Switzerland]]; <s>[[Croats of Sweden]] to [[Croats in Sweden]]</s> (edit: it's already [[Croats in Sweden]]); [[Swedish Serbs]] to [[Serbs in Sweden]], etc. On a linguistic note, {{tq|Hrvati u Švicarskoj}} probably better translates to {{xt|Croats in Switzerland}} than to {{!xt|Croats of Switzerland}} anyway. As far as I know Slavic grammar and as far as Google Translate and DeepL suggest, "in" is more correct than "of" to begin with. But whatever we decide, let's take it step by step to form a consensus. Good day, [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 16:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
::::I haven’t looked into these, but an RM or further discussion on talk for the group seems reasonable. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 20:33, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Myceteae|Myceteae]] Thanks! Where would I host a {{xt|further discussion on talk for the group}}? [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 20:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
::::::I realize that was rather vague. My default approach would be to start an [[WP:RM|RM]] on the most popular page, which is [[Swedish Serbs]] (see [https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=1&start=2015-07&end=2025-06&pages=Croats_of_Switzerland%7CCroats_in_Sweden%7CSwedish_Serbs Pageviews]) and list all three. If you think more focused pre-RM discussion were needed, I would look for an appropriate WikiProject, perhaps [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups]]. I don't think further pre-RM discussion is required, only if you think it would be helpful. Note [[Croats in Sweden]] was [[Special:Diff/810650648|moved]] from [[Croats of Sweden]] in 2017 with the reason given as "standardize". No reason this can't be revisited. I see no discussion on any of the three talk pages about prior moves. --[[User:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana; color: blue;"><b>MYCETEAE</b></span>]] 🍄‍🟫—[[User talk:Myceteae|<span style="font-family: verdana;"><i>talk</i></span>]] 21:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:Myceteae|Myceteae]] Thanks! I've placed it there now: [[Talk:Swedish Serbs#Requested move 21 July 2025]]. @[[User:Blueboar|Blueboar]] and @[[User:Masem|Masem]], you are invited to participate as well. As I've stated above, I'm going to do this step by step, and do not intend to change anything about article titles for topics inside the boundaries for former Yugoslavia for now; only to seek [[WP:TITLECON]] for the rest of Europe wherever this can easily be demonstrated. Good day, and once again thank you all for your helpful feedback! [[User:Nederlandse Leeuw|NLeeuw]] ([[User talk:Nederlandse Leeuw#top|talk]]) 23:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

== MOS:GEOCOMMA in article titles ==

For clarification purposes, I'd like to add an example to MOS:GEOCOMMA involving titles of articles on local elections, in which the geographical element often contains more than one level of subordinate divisions. The proposed addition is the third example below, in bold.

:In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g. city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by terminal punctuation or a closing parenthesis. The last element is treated as [[Wikipedia:Basic copyediting#Parenthetical comma|parenthetical]].

{| role="presentation" style="background:transparent;color: var( --color-base );"
|-
| {{Five non-breaking spaces}}
| {{em|Correct:}}
| {{xt|He traveled through North Carolina before staying in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the night.}}<!-- About a 10-hour drive if he started in Virginia Beach and passed through Winston-Salem. -->
|-
| {{Five non-breaking spaces}}
| {{em|Incorrect:}}
| {{!xt|He traveled through North Carolina before staying in Chattanooga, Tennessee for the night.}}
|}

:Also include commas when the geographical element is used as a disambiguator:

{| role="presentation" style="background:transparent;color: var( --color-base );"
|-
| {{Five non-breaking spaces}}
| {{em|Correct:}}
| {{xt|Hantratty received a PhD from the University of California, Irvine, in 1977.}}
|-
| {{Five non-breaking spaces}}
| {{em|Incorrect:}}
| {{!xt|Hantratty received a PhD from the University of California, Irvine in 1977.}}
|-
| {{Five non-breaking spaces}}
| '''{{em|Correct:}}'''
| '''{{xt|After winning the 2010 Knox County, Tennessee, mayoral election, Burchett gained national recognition as a member of the U.S. House.}}'''
|-
| {{Five non-breaking spaces}}
| '''{{em|Incorrect:}}'''
| '''{{!xt|After winning the 2010 Knox County, Tennessee mayoral election, Burchett gained national recognition as a member of the U.S. House.}}'''
|}
</li>

It has been claimed that the guideline is valid for full sentences, but not article titles. If there were exceptions, they  would have to be documented in MoS (wouldn't they?), but none are present.

While article titles rarely consist of a full sentence, I can't think of a reason why the same rules on spelling, grammar and (if present) punctuation shouldn't be valid for article titles.

===Opinions===
Some examples of comments on [[Talk:2010 Knox County, Tennessee mayoral election|a recent RM]] follow here.

====Oppose rationale====
* "Putting a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun is awkward and very unusual, while leaving out a comma after "city, state" or "mmm dd, yyyy" is common." Quoting [[User:Jruderman|Jruderman]] in that RM.

====Other comment====
On the other hand, there is this comment from [[User:Ham II|Ham II]] in the same RM:

There needs to be clarification at [[MOS:GEOCOMMA]] and [[MOS:DATECOMMA]] over whether a second comma should be used when a construction with a comma is used as a modifier. Evidence from sources like the NYT and from style guides would be helpful. [[Talk:2018_Crozet,_Virginia,_train_crash#Requested_move_15_January_2025|This]] is an example of an RM where the matching commas were kept.
*Here's a start on the evidence-gathering: ''Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style'' (1995, p. 26): "Some writers omit the comma that follows the name of a state (or province, country, etc.) when no other element of an address follows it, which usually occurs when a city name and a state name are being used in combination to modify a noun that follows. However, retaining this comma is still the more common practice.{{pb}}We visited their Enid, Oklahoma plant.<br/>{{Five non-breaking spaces}}''but more commonly''<br/>We visited their Enid, Oklahoma, plant."{{pb}}

===Some recent examples in the news===
Here are some recent examples of a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun in WP:RS:
* {{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/17/world/europe/cal-berkeley-professor-murder-suspects-arrested-greece.html |title=5 Charged in U.C. Berkeley Professor’s Killing in Greece, Including His Ex-Wife |work=The New York Times |date=July 17, 2025 |quote=Five people have been arrested by the Greek authorities in the July 4 killing of '''a well-known University of California, Berkeley, professor''', including his ex-wife and her current boyfriend, the police said.}}
* {{cite news |url=https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-judge-sentence-former-police-officer-breonna-taylor-case-2025-07-21/ |title=US judge sentences ex-police officer to 33 months for violating civil rights of Breonna Taylor |work=Reuters |date=July 22, 2025 |quote=Taylor, a Black woman, was shot and killed '''by Louisville, Kentucky, police officers''' in March 2020 after they used a no-knock warrant at her home.}}
:(emphasis mine)

I have also seen numerous examples of NYT using similar punctuation involving dates, like in "the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks", and "the January 6, 2021, storming of the Capitol". So my impression is that it's not at all unusual, and furthermore, the proposed addition is consistent with existing examples.

Media in general are very consistent with their style, and we should be too.

The absense of the proposed added example is probably the cause of the widespread inconsistency in the titles of articles covering local elections that we currently have.

[[User:HandsomeFella|HandsomeFella]] ([[User talk:HandsomeFella|talk]]) 17:49, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

===Discussion here===

====Support====
*

====Oppose====
*

====Other comments====
* For places in the US, the placement of commas on both sides in article titles is expressly called for by [[MOS:USPLACE]]. [[User:Largoplazo|Largoplazo]] ([[User talk:Largoplazo|talk]]) 18:15, 23 July 2025 (UTC)