This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
When I read Wiki policy and guidance pages, I sometimes find shall used instead of will to indicate what must be done — for example, in the Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The more signs that are present, the more likely sockpuppetry is occurring, though no accusations shall be made unless, beyond a reasonable doubt, one is really certain."
Granted that shall is often used this way in government and judicial documents, I think it sounds somewhat at odds with the more user-friendly ambience Wikipedia has tried to create for editors. Besides, shall is not consistently applied throughout the policy and guidance pages — for example, in the same Signs of Sockpuppetry article, we find: "The closing administrator will be required to follow the consensus, even if they personally disagree."
— For the above reasons, wouldn't it be in Wikipedia's best interests to avoid using the conversationally archaic shall in these articles and replace it with will?? I doubt that this would make editors with wrongdoing on their minds less likely to behave as desired.
— But if the decision is made to continue "shalling," then for the sake of consistency couldn't a search-and-replace be done throughout the policy and guidance articles to replace will with shall where the word needs to indicate what must be done? Augnablik (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
It's fine, really. This is one of those things the MOS exists to obliquely neutralize—i.e. this is a pretty conjectural position and not worth getting into all-in or all-out discussions over. Remsense ‥ 论17:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
“Obliquely neutralize” — there’s a new one for me! 😅
I just thought it would help lighten the bureaucratic tone of these articles to dial down the legalese, as many editors feel increasingly on edge with all the rules and regulations they discover the more they wade into Wikipedia. Augnablik (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Genuinely, I apologize that I can't talk normal when the situation would benefit from it. Take that how you will. Remsense ‥ 论17:32, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
The classic rule is that, in the first person (I/we) the unmarked form is "shall", whereas "will" connotes a deliberate choice, but in the second and third person, the unmarked form is "will", whereas "shall" connotes a demand based on the speaker's authority.
There are two good ways to remember this. The classic one is the English canard about the Irishman in trouble in the lake, who said "I will drown and no one shall save me", so to respect his wishes, they let him drown.
Just be aware that you’ve entered the purview of a global encyclopedia, and that means you will encounter forms of English that aren’t necessarily common locally to wherever you live. MapReader (talk) 17:57, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
@MapReader, Although I’m aware of different styles of English in different parts of the world, the shall/will issue I’ve raised here is more about how Wikipedia wants to show officially expected actions in particular situations.
Not like , “Today I shall go to the beach” … but like, “Administrators shall hold discussions on the matter for one week before reaching a decision.” Augnablik (talk) 12:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
Nevertheless, ‘shall’ is still reasonably common usage in formal, official or legal written texts, in the UK, in a way that I don’t think you can say for the US (but willing to be corrected…), and is not considered particularly user-unfriendly. Your observation to the contrary above is therefore pitched from the perspective of a particular Engvar, which was my original point. MapReader (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
@MapReader, you're probably right about "how official" shall sounds to UK and US readers of official documents. And frankly, that word is still used from time to time in official documents in the US, even though much more rarely these days. Even so, here's a thought: if will would work equally well as shall in Wikipedia policy and guidance documents, why not use it consistently here so as to make "official stuff" sound a bit less bureaucratic but at the same time affirming of expected behavior?
Though I'm American, I doubt that any of our UK cousins across the pond would feel affronted if Wikipedia consciously adopted will in its policy and guidelines. Wouldn't it simply be one more example of Wikipedia's intentions of providing as welcoming and user-friendly environment as possible in which to work, while in no way demeaning other varieties of writing?
Alternatively, to avoid the whole shall/will issue, there are still other ways wording could be done. For example, instead of "Administrators shall hold discussions...,” we could say, "Administrators are to hold discussions ....” Augnablik (talk) 11:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Onbiously, you're free to edit how you want, but as a general rule, surely it isn't WP's object, nor that of the MoS, to try and enforce general language preferences on our editors? MapReader (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Well, @MapReader, I think it’s time for me to gracefully bow out of the discussion now. My only Intent in making my suggestion was far from an attempt to enforce, though I see how it might be interpreted that way.
Instead, I was trying to make a case for a slight change in wording that seemed to me could help Wikipedia accomplish its very positive goal of creating an open, light, friendly ambience — just as seniors helping in the Teahouse and elsewhere are asked to do with those who ask questions. I know that as some editors get involved with Wikipedia, they come to feel weighed down by many rules and regulations and even become fearful they might make a slip and face serious consequences.
Honestly I think we should use "persons" as the unmarked plural of "person" Wikipedia-wide. Encyclopedic writing is a very formal register, and "people" has other baggage, often not intended.
There has been no negative intent on my part when using 'people', but so it goes.
These articles have been on various communities and I have made such changes for years, but till now have never had any editor state that grammar is immaterial. Hushpuckena (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Some section headings are either by guideline, like WP:ELORDER for "External links" or MOS:NOTES for "Notes" and "References" etc., or by tradition and common usage, like "Notable people", "Awards", "Published works", written as plurals, even if there's only one entry. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed; keep it plural, also like "Languages" in the sidebar (even for only one language) and like "Media" in the Commons template (even for only one file there). Doremo (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Order of explanation for placing ref as per MOS:REFPUNCT
Hi
I am finding an increased number of refs in the middle of text, and I wondered if it could be confusion to the current wording. If the editor/reader deos not read more/further than the first sentence of this section of the paragraph, they may well put the ref in the middle of a sentence and not after punctuation as it appears to first suggest that:
"All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, with no intervening space. Apart from the exceptions listed below, references are placed after adjacent punctuation, not before."
Can we consider rewording this to:
"All reference tags should immediately follow the text to which the footnote applies, and should be placed after the next adjacent punctuation with no intervening space. The exceptions to this are listed below."
This would then read as a two-part instruction rather than the current which appears to be one instruction to place it directly after the text.
No, it's saying that if there is adjacent punctuation, the ref goes after, but it does not preclude placing a ref immediately after the relevant text when there is no adjacent punctuation. Schazjmd(talk)14:12, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I've always understood the part about punctuation to mean only that if the text to which the footnote applies ends in a punctuation mark, treat that mark as part of the text you're footnoting and put the footnote after it. There's no implication that you have to defer placement of the footnote to the next punctuation mark that appears. And certainly not to the end of the sentence: the guideline covers commas as well. Largoplazo (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Oxford spelling and commas
As far as I'm aware, serial comma inclusion/omission is always treated separately from spelling conventions; MOS:SERIAL doesn't say anything related to MOS:TIES. However, when an article employs Oxford spelling ({{British English Oxford spelling}}), would it be reasonable to require the serial comma? (Of course, this wouldn't prohibit removing it to avoid local ambiguity.) On one hand, it seems a bit odd that editors of a specific article must follow one prominent component of a specific style guide's instructions while being free to ignore another component, and because en-gb-oxondic is a narrow group of articles and compliance requires a little training, these articles are already having their spelling/grammar watched by editors who are familiar with everyone else not being aware of the standards. But on the other hand, I can imagine it being awkward to require serial commas on a small portion of the encyclopedia, while the rest of the encyclopedia merely requires internal consistency; it might lead to confusion because a small set of articles has rules different from the rest. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The serial comma and Oxford spelling are not related to one another save from the fact that Hart's Rules and the Oxford English Dictionary share the same publishing house on the River Isis, and they are not intended to complement one another in any particular way. As you've noticed, this is conflating apples with oranges stylistically. More concretely, our guidance on serial commas is not dependent at all on what variety of English is being used—instead, it should be consistent, and possibly depend on what is best for eliminating ambiguity in each article on an individual basis. Remsense ‥ 论22:23, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
So Hart's Rules doesn't demand the use of Oxford spelling? My thought process:
Oxford spelling says that Hart's Rules follows Oxford spelling
Style guides are created to be prescriptive on this kind of thing, so Hart's Rules will require a specific spelling system
Hence, it's highly likely that Hart's Rules will require the spelling system that it uses
Oxford spelling is just that—spelling. As an ENGVAR, it is merely British English with etymologically-minded spelling conventions. Remsense ‥ 论22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I remember reading a while ago that Wikipedia does not use honorific titles in referring to people, e.g. Albert Einstein or Einstein instead of Dr. Albert Einstein or Dr. Einstein. I can't find anything like that today. Did I imagine that? Is there any style guidance on use of titles such as Doctor? MOS:HONORIFIC is just about using special honorifics associated with a person who is the subject of a biography. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
As a general rule, we also don't use even less specific honorifics or courtesy titles (I'm not super-sure of the distinction between the two), like Mr, except in quotes. See MOS:MR. --Trovatore (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
ENGVAR question
Based on a dispute at Bicolor cat. Does the fact that the article has, and has always had, a clear ENGVAR title control what variety the body uses? Seems obvious to me, but the guideline doesn't actually state what to do.
In this particular case, the article was created as the stubbiest of stubs in 2002, with the creator using "bicolor" in the title (and the article has never been moved, I double checked) while using "bicolour" in the one-paragraph body. Over the next few years contributions included both spellings, and both appeared in the body at the same time. However, noting the inconsistency, a wikignome edited the body in 2008 to consistently use "color" and that ENGVAR was used consistently and continuously for 16 years until last September when, citing the ancient stub in Theo edit summary, someone changed the body ENGVAR to use "colour" making it inconsistent with the title. I changed it and was promptly reverted. I argue that there was no consistent variety at all until 2008, and that having a variety consistent with the title (which again, has never changed) is the only logical and valid ENGVAR. oknazevad (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Flip a coin if you want, but pragmatically a move is a "more substantial" alteration, so I would go with the title form. Remsense ‥ 论23:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
A quick spot check of the article's early history confirms that it started as "bicolor". Since there are no close ties to any country for this term, there is no reason for it to prefer either British or US spelling, so we fall back to the spelling used when the article was created. The use within in the article should match the articles name, so "bicolor" is the correct spelling for this article. As said above, this is all following WP:ENGVAR. Note: I say this as an Australian who would naturally use "bicolour". Stepho talk23:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with oknazevad that it never had a consistent style until oknazevad's change to make the body consistent with the title. The previous change to use "colour" throughout the body does not count because the title remained inconsistent. I agree with the comments above that going with the original title is a smaller change and therefore better, but we can reach the same outcome by a different argument: oknazevad's version was the first consistent version so we should go with that. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, I was not the editor who made it consistent in 2008 (which was done with this edit. In fact, I had never edited the article until today, after I noticed the obvious clash between the title and the body. A quick look at the history showed that it had been changed last September. I was just changing it back to the consistent ENGVAR the article had for over a decade and a half. oknazevad (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Please stop making this claim. It was inconsistent before I edited it: [1]. I noticed the inconsistency and looked at the oldest revisions to decide on which variety to change to. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Your implied claim that it was never consistent until you edited it is clearly false: the 2008 version that oknazevad links to is consistent. And your implied claim that your edit (I assume in this version) made it consistent is also false: there is no consistent spelling even if one ignores the obvious inconsistency between article and text. One could interpret your comment here as meaning merely that the version immediately prior to yours had inconsistencies (as did the version after your edit) but that is not a valid reason to choose one spelling over another; one has to look at the history. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Exactly. The version before the one you just linked to has one errant ENGVAR use. The alternate spelling in the first sentence is not only typical but expected. The only other use is in the title of a reference, and that should not be altered. oknazevad (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Query about use of subsections
I understand that there is generally something of a taboo about breaking the entirety of a section into subsections without leaving any "independent" content; i.e., having all of the information under a given level two heading further located under level three subsections. I can see the appeal of having a separate paragraph at the beginning of the section as a sort of mini-lead, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing in the MOS requiring this. Is there truly anything wrong with having part of an article formatted like this, even if it isn't the most popular? — Anonymous00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
No, there's nothing wrong with this. I've done this in multiple Good Articles including Antiparallelogram, Binary logarithm, and BIT predicate. I don't recall seeing any complaints about this from the GA reviewers. As long as the section title is self-explanatory enough and its subsections independent enough, one doesn't need a section summary paragraph first. In all of these cases, one could add a paragraph briefly summarizing each subsection, but it wouldn't add much useful content to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Per above, there are obvious cases when it is advantageous versus when it is not. It depends on which structure feels more or less natural for discussing the subject at hand, as obvious as that may sound.
(Someone tell me if I'm wrong here, but iirc German academia actually has particular preference for perfect cover by the subsections within monographs etc. A bit different than ordinary technical writing esp. since it's doing something very particular, but the infamous Tractatus comes to mind as the total reverse.)Remsense ‥ 论03:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Executive orders: quotation marks or not?
Just to be clear, executive order titles do not have quotations, correct? Across such articles, I have seen some with and some without, and MOS:NEITHER is not too explicit. I am asking due to the influx of executive order pages being created. Why? I Ask (talk) 10:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I'd say that yes, quotation marks should be used around them. We generally use quotation marks around titles of the kinds of works that are typically short and rarely published stand-alone (newspaper and journal articles, short stories, poems etc.), and use italics for long, stand-alone works (novels and other books, films and TV series etc.). Executive orders seem to fall into the short category and so get quotation marks. Gawaon (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I find capitalization sufficient for executive orders, laws, acts, etc. I don't see them in quotes in sources. I've noticed that Australian acts, etc. seem to be italicized, but I've never made the effort to investigate it. If something is capitalized on Wikipedia, that identifies it as a proper noun, a specific thing. That's enough. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 12:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
According to the government style guides of both Australia and Canada, laws go into italics. But it seems like the United States and the United Kingdom do not use either quotes or italics. This is probably a case of WP:ENGVAR that the MOS on law or title of works should cover. Why? I Ask (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
When are words being used as-words?
It seems to be required by MOS:WAW that any statement that uses constructions like:
This concept is called Example, ... (also termed, known as, referred to as, etc.)
italicize the term. However, this is almost never consistently done even in many of our FAs (see Introduction to general relativity, used as an example in the MoS), and many other publications are unbothered. Am I worrying about something that doesn't make a difference in the clarity of many passages?
The mainstream script's slow, gradual evolution continued during the Zhou dynasty until assuming the form now known as small seal script within the state of Qin. Other scripts in use during the late Zhou include the bird-worm seal script, as well as the regional forms used in non-Qin states. Historically, these forms were collectively known as large seal script, a term which has fallen out of favour due to its lack of precision.
”
It just looks weird that maintaining a natural flow in more jargon-y passages requires two terms to be italicized and one not to be. It looks arbitrary, and might even confuse readers if they notice? Remsense ‥ 论01:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that either of the phrases in the example qualify as words as words. WAW, I think, applies to things like, "Of all the nouns, birdcage is the best." Or, "...some egghead discovered a misprint of the book, with relative misspelled." I would use quotation marks in the example you provided.
If I diagram the sentence This is known as Example. out, it is clear to me that Example must be analyzed as representing the word Example, not the referent Example in itself.
Maybe the wording needs to be relaxed or massaged a bit—something like, when a word is being invoked as the topic of discussion, as opposed to its merely functioning "as a word" to accomplish an identical task within a sentence (e.g. introducing vocabulary) that many other constructions would. Remsense ‥ 论17:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Your initial example is definitely a "words as words" usage: as you say, we're calling out the name of a thing, not the thing itself.
Note that this is accepted style outside of Wikipedia (see the Chicago Manual of Style FAQ entry). Even if it's not applied consistently throughout the encyclopedia, it should be fixed when its absence is encountered like any other brokenness.
Personally, I find the "Chinese characters" example to be more readable with the WAW examples set off in italics, for the reasons given in the Chicago FAQ entry.
"But it's broken in a lot of places" is not a reason to avoid fixing it or to soften the guideline language. (See MOS:THISISALIST as another example of "boy, sure is broken a lot".)--NapoliRoma (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes and no: of course a rule going unfollowed isn't itself reason to throw it out, but it's also the case that guidelines are meant to reflect consensus, and if no one understands this to be the guideline, then there's a disconnect that has to be bridged one way or t' other. The question is whether a softer position like the one I tossed out above is both logically consistent and in line with consensus.
Two more points: firstly, what isn't illustrated in the example passage is that the frequent use of italics in prose is tiring on the eyes. Secondly, prose gets unwieldy fast when other uses of italics (non-English, emphasis indicating contrastive stress) also appear with some frequency—it's strictly correct that italics for non-English terms is also just a WAW usage, but I think the reader tackles the patterns differently enough that they can then be conflated and confused. Remsense ‥ 论19:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree that it's less than clear. My mental shortcut is: If I could mentally add the "the word" before the word which might be italicized, it should be italicized, otherwise no. So, I wouldn't italicize "This concept is called the wordExample, ...". But I would italicize in "Of all the nouns, the wordbirdcage is the best." SchreiberBike | ⌨ 22:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
n-th versus nth
Is n-th or nth supposed to be used? If you do know, please add it to the dash/hyphen section of the page as that's where people will probably look for it, (idk if a hyphen or en dash is supposed to fall between "n" and "th") and if there is not a standard set for Wikipedia I think that it should be set to be "n-th" with a hyphen to match the OEIS, as n-th is typically referring to a sequence and the OEIS is probably the organization to look to when handling sequences. Apersoma (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
The OEIS, great as it is, is not eminently viable as a style guide, since its choices seem to be made toward facilitating plaintext representations. Since we're typically meant to italicise variables, wouldn't nth be correct? Remsense ‥ 论19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
My preference would actually be nth, as a specific exception to the rule about not using superscripts here, because it extends better to (n+1)st and so on. I think (n+1)st is kind of confusing. --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Reasonable minds may differ here I think. Given variables are theoretically italicized, I think I prefer the other method as more parsimonious. Remsense ‥ 论21:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I strongly prefer nth, not n-th. The OEIS choice is not standard elsewhere and appears to be a hack to allow them to continue to use plain-text ASCII formatting and still distinguish the formula part from the text part. Because we do not limit our content to plain-text ASCII we do not need and should not use this hack. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Understanding perfectly well orthography need not adhere to phonology when semantics is what matters—is it common to pronounce it "n plus first"? Remsense ‥ 论21:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sure you can hear it pronounced that way but I think it is incorrect. We are using the numerical value of 1 in the expression, not using 1 in the positional sense, so it is "one" not "first", and then the suffix "th" applies to the whole expression. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't agree with David about it being incorrect. Both forms are found in the wild, but in my experience "first" is more usual, and I prefer it because it just sounds better. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Only until you think about it some more. It is a type error. "First" is grammatically ordinal, but the 1 in the subexpression is not mathematically ordinal. The meaning of the expression is ordinal(plus(n,1)), not plus(n,ordinal(1)). There are natural-language ways of combining ordinals (by which I mean positions, not mathematical ordinals): "second best" or "second from last") but the operation they represent is not quite addition. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I mean, I understand what you're saying. But you could make the same argument about twenty-first. In Italian (for example) you'd say ventunesimo, not *ventiprimo, but in English the suffix "agrees", so to speak, with the last numeral in the expression, which I think makes (n+1)-st or however you want to handle hyphen/superscript/etc more natural for English. --Trovatore (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think we need any guidance about this in MOS:DASH. We needn't list all the cases where dashes/hyphens aren't used, and I imagine anyone pondering whether to use one would end up at nth, which has an example of correct formatting. pburka (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
MOS:ELLIPSIS says: "Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots (...); do not use the precomposed ellipsis character (…) or three dots separated by spaces (. . .)".
Do this cover only the U+2026 character …, or also the U+22EF midline horizontal ellipsis ⋯ (a.k.a. centered dots), in which case this should be mentioned?
It definitely only covers lowered dots, U+2026. The other kinds of ellipsis are used primarily in mathematical formulas and replacing them by individual dots would break the formatting of those formulas. Hairy Dude has stated in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics that the supposed "uncontroversial technical request" (which per that discussion turned out to be controversial and was reversed) was based on a misunderstanding: they incorrectly believed that the dots in the article in question were lowered dots, U+2026, possibly because of technical limitations of their browser. Centered dots are typographically correct for this formula, and uncentered dots are incorrect. (The meaning is still conveyed but the formatting is not good, kind of like writing the name Lefèvre without using the grave accent.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I read that to be Wikipedia's style for an ellipsis is three unspaced dots (...) prohibits all other types of ellipses; the other things after the semicolon appear to be "including but not limited to". The purpose of MoS is consistency.
The centering can easily be done with {{DISPLAYTITLE:1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + <spanstyle="position:relative;bottom:0.3em">...</span>}}. In fact with this CSS, the dots render more centered on my computer. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
More input wanted at Talk:IMEC regarding the brand's capitalisation
Hi, I would like some more input at Talk:IMEC § Spelling, regarding whether the name should be capitalised in all-upper-case to comply with MOS:TMRULES point number 3, or capitalised in all-lower-case which is the company's official way of writing their name. That point number 3 says, "as long as this is a style already in widespread use", however an issue here is that there are just as many secondary sources that spell the company name as "imec" as there are sources spelling it "IMEC".
There just isn't enough watchers of the article to form a proper consensus, so more opinions from the people who know the MoS well would be appreciated! — AP 499D25(talk)05:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
When applied to linked titles appearing between <ref>...</ref> tags, title parameters in citation templates, or similar text that is linked, the syntax of the template may be adjusted to {{sic|nolink=y}} (producing [sic] in the resulting linked text).
Should the abovementioned MOS:SIC text not rather be changed to:
When applied to text that is linked, the syntax of the template may be adjusted to {{sic|nolink=y}} (producing [sic] in the resulting linked text; for example in the link: [sic] template).
I think it's quite strange that Wikipedia has existed for 24 years, yet there still isn't a policy section about this. Input is appreciated. Cheers, Manifestation (talk)19:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Generally, we avoid having policy restricting editors if we don't have to. On Zhuangzi (book), I have parentheses for the number of each chapter being discussed, etc. etc. This seems totally reasonable and uncontroversial, as do the examples you present. Remsense ‥ 论07:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Just for the record, I detest and/or, which the MOS backs me on, but (besides ... instead of the clearer [...] in quotations) I also detest Archimedes's. Can't we just use the Latinate genitive Archimedis? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
As someone who does not particularly despise Archimedes's, I would cast my even less ramified ;vote for that. Remsense ‥ 论05:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Me also. It’s a straightforward grammatical rule that ‘s indicates a possessive singular and ‘ ,following on from an s, indicates a possessive plural. That is clear to both casual and expert readers alike, and the large majority of our readership nowadays wont have any familiarity with the archaic or traditional forms used for a handful of mostly ancient historical figures. MapReader (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Couldn't find any mention of this in the MOS but I'm wondering what the procedure is for cause of death in an infobox. Specific example here is Mark Rothko - an editor just added the artist's cause of death to the infobox (suicide by overdose), but I'm really not sure that feels appropriate. While Rothko's death and its cause are certainly notable, the mention in the infobox just feels a bit odd for some reason. Maybe I'm overthinking this, but if there is any solid guidance on this topic I'd appreciate the insight. Thanks! 19h00s (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
At first blush I can't imagine how Rothko's suicide is such an important element it needs to be in the infobox; it's not even included in the lead. It's not basic biographical information and it's not directly germane to his output, which is what an infobox should be focusing on (the high-level important stuff.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk19:49, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Agreed with both of the above: If it's not important enough for the lead, it's not important enough for the i-box, and doing what was done at the Rothko article is against the documentation of the i-box template parameter, since Rothko isn't notable for his manner of death; very few people are (generally murder victims and other WP:BLP1E cases, who were not otherwise notable at all). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:41, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
I.e., Japanese uses 「 」 and 『 』 among other symbols for quotation. I assume similar conventions exist in other non-Latin languages. Alxeedo ゐ talk04:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm curious when this would ever matter. The only case I can think of is if the marks are contained within quoted non-English text, in which case I imagine this guidance would apply:
Do not use accent marks, backticks (`text´), low-high („ “) or guillemet (« ») marks as quotation marks (except when such marks are internal to quoted non-English text – see § Typographic conformity).
Yep. In normal WP prose, use the same "..." quotation-marking regardless of the originating language. If you have a block-quote that includes its own internal quotation marks around something, and they are French guillemets or these Japanese characters, then they should likely be preserved. But we have little reason to be quoting large and nestedly complex blocks of non-English material in the first place, and should instead be presenting translations of the quoted material. The would be except in a special context, like a linguistics examination of some source text (maybe followed by a gloss in another block), or when providing the non-English original of something the English translations of which are variable/disputed in the source material (e.g. two English-language sources providing sharply conflicting attempts at translating a Japanese or French original passage). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
RSK language code
Hello, I am not sure if this is the most appropriate place for my question. I noticed that the language code RSK in infobox templates leads to Ruthenian language instead of Pannonian Rusyn language (see Novi Sad for example). Do we maybe have some different language code for Pannonian Rusyn or the fact was simply not updated since the language received it's code recently? MirkoS18 (talk) 11:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
This is determined by the ISO 639 standard.[2] The two relevant codes afaik: Type: language Subtag: rsk Description: Ruthenian Description: Rusnak Added: 2022-02-25
Type: language Subtag: rue Description: Rusyn Added: 2009-07-29
I see! Thanks for clarifying. Maybe we actually need disambiguation page for Ruthenian language page in a sense where it is related to historical/wider language, and the term when it is used to name Pannonian Rusyn. I think the code RSK in fact relates to Pannonian Rusyn and not to the wider concept used in academia. RUE would not be the right choice as it is northern version of the language which is more closely related to Ukrainian.--MirkoS18 (talk) 10:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
The code rsk refers to Pannonian Rusyn. The code rue refers to Carpatho-Rusyn. There is no such code for Ruthenian language (which is no longer spoken). But all of these languages have been designated by various names. Carpatho-Russian for Rusyn, West Russian/Old Belarusian for Ruthenian etc. For the Ruthenian language page, I think a hatnote would be more appropriate, this is probably the primary topic. Mellk (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. @MirkoS18: If templated use of the rsk ISO code is resulting in links to Ruthenian language and it would better direct to Pannonian Rusyn, then I would suggest bringing this up at Template talk:Lang, which seems to be the centralization point of all this lang-code handling. If this is only affecting output from a particular infobox, not other language-handling templates, then the infobox template's talk page is the right venue. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The table below provides an overview of various apostrophes used in transliteration and romanization of languages into Latin script. While not exhaustive, it highlights common conventions particularly relating to Arabic on Wikipedia.
Strict transliteration (used mainly for etymology) includes accents, underscores, and underdots, typically alongside the original Arabic script.
Other forms of romanization, such as basic transcription (used in most cases), follows the same system but excludes accents, underscores, and underdots, with some exceptions.
For more details, refer to:
MOS:ARABIC – Wikipedia’s guideline on Arabic romanization.
MOS:APOSTROPHE – Guidelines on apostrophe use in transliteration.
Most commonly the Wikipedia strict transliteration of Arabic Hamzahﺀ (glottal stop), marking a shift in vowel, as in the middle of the colloquial uh-oh.
Transliteration of letter aleph in Semitic language alphabets
Amongst various other glottal sounds in other languages.
^For example, ayn is preferred to 'ayn, or amr in Arabic: ع م ر (lit.'command') and not 'amr.
^For example, ayn is preferred to 'ayn, or amr in Arabic: ع م ر. Both {{left half ring}} and {{ayin}} allowed for strict transcription, per MOS:ARABIC.
^ʿayn is not the same as ʻOkina, however the same Unicode character (U+02BBʻMODIFIER LETTER TURNED COMMA), which {{okina}} outputs, is used in UTC L2/00-220 transliteration and some romanizations, such as ALA-LC romanization, of the Semitic letter ayin, also known as ayn.
According to MOS:AR, Arabic ayin is represented by straight apostrophe ' in basic transcription and by letter half ring ʿor reversed comma ʽ in strict transliteration. The actual practice of strict transliteration in WP articles, however, is to follow the great majority of usage in RS, which rarely if ever still use the Hans Wehr-style reversed comma ʽ (so MOS:AR allows it but actual practice is to use letter half ring). Basic transcription, which is a system peculiar to Wikipedia, just started to use straight apostrophe instead of the reversed comma at some point, perhaps because it can also be used in article titles, and/or because it simpler and more 'basic'.
With all this in mind, the template docs should not say that {{ayin}} is preferred over {{Left half ring}}, because both are allowed, though only in technical transliterations (as an aside, since MOS:AR calls this 'strict transliteration', it's probably better to use that term). It should probably also say something about straight apostrophe being preferred in basic transcription, and perhaps also that in basic transcription it is omitted at the beginning of words. ☿ Apaugasma (talk☉)15:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Implemented: Changes noted, and changes implemented. Please let me know what you think? The {{tqb}} above is a transclusion so you can just purge the page if it hasn't updated. waddie96 ★ (talk)00:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I would have expected {{ayn}} and {{ayin}} to result in the same output, i.e. one redirecting to the other. If anything, the distinction would be ayn for Arabic and ayin for Hebrew (following the use in Ayin). --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The {ayn} redirect keeps flipping between {ayin} and {okina}, which means the articles using it change from one week to the next. Hardly ideal. It was originally a rd to {okina} so that that template could have an arabic name, but maybe we should do a bot-replacement and retire it. No reason we can't use {okina} on Arabic-language articles
I don't like the idea of ever using the ASCII apostrophe as a letter. It's ambiguous between the hamza and ayin, being commonly used for both, and we owe our readers better than that. It's used here because it's easy to type, but WP is about the reader, not the editor. The character boxes below the edit window, plus the templates, are enough for us to be able to easily use the correct symbols. — kwami (talk) 03:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Understood. So you mean instead of doing ', you mean one should be using {{ayn}} for even basic transliteration?
Or do you mean in strict transliteration only: for hamza we should use {{hamza}}, and for ayn we should use either {{ayn}} or {{ayin}} (doesn't matter)? Because if the latter, then I ask: Why {{ayn}} when the {{okina}} character is not preferred per MOS:ARABIC for Arabic ayn; {{lhr}} and {{ayin}} are... waddie96 ★ (talk)07:22, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I think letters should be used for letters and punctuation marks for punctuation in professional typesetting, including all WP articles. I would only expect lazy substitutes like the ASCII apostrophe on talk pages where we're not writing for our reader audience.
I would only expect the half circles for strict transliteration, and would expect the comma-like letters for normal romanization. But whether you use the 6-shape or the reversed 9-shape for ayin is a matter of preference. I can't see that it really matters. I use the reversed 9 myself because I use the 6 as the Wade-Giles/Armenian-type aspiration mark. — kwami (talk) 08:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I have no useful contribution to make as it is way beyond my ken, except to observe that I only got involved in this question when I saw the template for Hawaiian being used with Arabic and thought it must be a mistake. As maybe others will stumble there too, it seems sensible to have distinct templates even if they resolve to the same physical character. (Compare with diaeresis (diacritic) and umlaut (diacritic) – same mark used for two very different pronunciations.) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:30, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Totally get your point, and it makes total sense to me. Will carry this point forward to whatever resolution we may come to. waddie96 ★ (talk)21:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
So for now is what I put in these templates fine as is? Since I would not know where to begin with the suggestion you made. Unless you were to give me a list of transliteration types and languages, I’ll implement it. But I would only know how to make a template for Arabic and its transliteration schemes, based on the table I’ve made pretty much. Help appreciated. waddie96 ★ (talk)13:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking of types like ALA and STRICT, but we really need a subject matter expert or someone familiar with Wikipedia standards. All I can really say is that while U+05D0אHEBREW LETTER ALEF and U+05E2עHEBREW LETTER AYIN are silent in Israeli Hebrew, they are pronounced differently in Yemeni Hebrew. I don't have a clue about their pronunciation in Aramaic. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 18:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
We've been using an ASCII apostrophe for Hebrew under the argument that it's just a punctuation mark, marking a syllable boundary [like Xi'an in Mandarin], not a consonant, but if that means we're incorrect for Yemeni Hebrew, we should either [a] change from punctuation to proper letters, or [b] label the transcription as specifically Israeli Hebrew. — kwami (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
We should not be permitting much less encouraging multiple (up to three?!) different transliterations for the same thing, e.g. hamza, but settle on a single representation. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:56, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
I strongly support the use of the quote parameter when adding a citation to an article. I recently noticed that some of the citation templates have a field:
|quote-page=
I am intrigued by this option, and thought I would begin using it.
In my typical usage I often cite a single page as support for the claim, so the cited page(s) will be identical to the page number for the quote, but I can imagine a situation where I want to cite a source for the claim as a range of pages, then identify the single specific page for the specific quote.
Rabinowitz, Harold; Vogel, Suzanne (2009). The manual of scientific style: a guide for authors, editors, and researchers (1st ed.). Amsterdam Burlington, MA: Elsevier/Academic Press. p. 363. ISBN 978-0-12-373980-3. p. 363: The primary designation system for bright stars, called Bayer designations… The Greek letters are assigned in order (α,ß,γ,δ etc.) according to brightness.
Simply has "p. 363" in two different places. If I saw this in another article I think it was a malformed citation. I don't know exactly what I was expecting but I thought there would be some indication that one of the page ranges would be related to the overall reference in the other would be related to the specific quote.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can we add Manual of Style: as an alias for the namespace MOS:?
Or more likely the other way around. I do agree a single namespace for all manual of style pages is useful for consistency, searching, etc. It should not just be used for shortcuts but also for actual manual of style pages (and proposals). Aasim (話す) 15:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
Support. The MOS is already gargantuan enough to warrant its own namespace, and sometimes I'm left scratching my head trying to find a particular section that has a WP: shortcut aliased to it instead of an MOS: one. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Are we just talking about creating a Manual of Style alias namespace or actually moving the Manual of Style pages into that namespace? I'd support creating that namespace if we are actually moving the pages there. If not, that seems pointless as no one is going to use the longer name over "MOS". Gonnym (talk) 19:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
We can move all MOS pages into their own namespace. It would also help with a lot of manual of style pages that are not part of the formal MoS but are followed by a lot of users anyway. [3] seems like enough to fill a namespace. Aasim (話す) 19:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
That it's not actually an MoS page is made clear by "(failed proposal)" and is why that label was added (and similar at some other pages). There are also various /subpages that are data-providing adjuncts to MoS pages
This seems unnecessary complexity. There is zero advantage in having yet another namespace alias. Subpages work perfectly and scale nicely even for truly gargantuan things like WP:AN and subpages. If we do not want pages that behave differently, we do not need a new namespace. —Kusma (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. This is a solution in search of a problem, and would have negative consequences. The one time we've done something like this, the creation of the "Help:" namespace, it has proven badly unhelpful, with all sorts of internal subjects split between increasingly contradictory WP:-namespace pages and Help:-namespace ones for no good reason. We actually need to merge the "Help:" namespace back into "Wikiipedia:" (AKA "WP:"), and merge the specific topical pages as needed (or make some "Help:" ones be /subpages, e.g. "Help:Pictures" → "WP:Images/Help". With regard to MoS, forking off a new "Manual of Style:" namespace would have negative effects in multiple ways, even aside from namespace profusion. Firstly, it would give ammunition to anti-MoS "activists" who want to see these guidelines demoted to something akin to WP:PROJPAGE essays of a wikiproject, by MoS basically becoming a big wikiproject. Second, it would give additional imprimatur to the idea that MoS has lost guideline status, because the guidelines and policies are in the "WP:" namespace (without a single exception I can find), not in other namespaces. Third, it would just make it more difficult for anyone (especially newer editors) to find what they are looking for (a problem already with the "Help:" namespace). As a side point, if there were actually a community perception that the "WP:" namespace had grown too large and contained too many disparate sorts of things (there is not), then the really, really obvious actual step toward resolving that would be moving of opinional essay material to a new namespace, leaving only policies, guidelines, and objective how-to instructional material in "WP:"/"Wikipedia:". The essay stuff is at least an order of magnitude more pages and more total content than all the MoS material combined. And the community is not going to tolerate the creation of a "Manual of Style: " pseudo-namespace prefix in all likelihood, unless it is hardcoded like "WP:" and "WT:" to redirect automatically. If it resulted in redirect pages being created in mainspace, then this would be rejected. All the "MOS:" shortcuts used to exist as such a mainspace mess, and this produced waves of complaint, such that "MOS:" has been converted into a "WT:"-style namespace redir (to "Wikipedia:Manual of Style ...)", also because of a language-code issue that arose, the straw that broke that camel's back. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:43, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
RfC: Gentilic form of Botswana
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Though there was no clear consensus on whether or not options C or D should be taken, there was a general consensus against Option A and B in articles. Note that the only !vote for option B has a strong argument against it. Note that I am involved and a non-administrator closing this after the discussion became stale, so I am not prejudiced to restarting the RFC. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
How should the gentilic (adjective and noun) form of the country Botswana be written on Wikipedia articles?
A: Botswanan (pl. Botswanans) in all cases, without exception
B: Motswana (pl. Batswana) in all cases, without exception
C: Motswana in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa, otherwise Botswanan
D: Retain whichever word is used first in the article, either Botswanan or Motswana
Comment: I am opening this RfC because I believe a decision here will affect many articles over Wikipedia. Articles are inconsistent with usage, with many using Botswanan and many using Motswana. There was a previous discussion on the matter, but it went for a week without agreement, so I hope by inviting more people we can come to a conclusion. I am inexperienced when it comes to opening RfCs so I apologize if this was malformed or unnecesary. ―Howard • 🌽3312:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
C: Considering that the Dictionary of South African English lists Motswana but not Botswanan as the gentilic of Botswana and the Historical Dictionary of Botswana (page xiii) uses MoTswana (alternate capitalization), it can be established that common usage within the countries of Botswana and South Africa is Motswana. This word is included in some foreign English dictionaries (OED, CALD) and by the CIA World Factbook, but the OED and CALD do also include Botswanan and two dictionaries (MW, AUH) include Botswanan but not Motswana. Therefore the only resolution, as far as I see it, is to use Motswana as the gentilic in articles with strong national ties to Botswana or South Africa and otherwise using Botswanan. ―Howard • 🌽3312:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
C or D - Per MOS:TIES - however, mention both in the article text at least once. It will be helpful to readers (especially those not from Southern Africa) to explain that people from Botswana are called “Botswanans” externally, but use “Motswana” internally. Once this is explained, the reader will understand whichever usage is used in the rest of the article. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Gentilic is the proper word for it, no? Otherwise it would have to be something longer like "the adjectival and demonymic form." ―Howard • 🌽3300:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
C or D per Blueboar's rationale, it would help readers to explain the above and thus the usage in the article. It may also help to treat the usage similarly to MOS:ENGVAR, retaining it unless there is broad consensus against it, MOS:TIES, etc. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Didn't we just have this discussion already? Use option A. Use plain English, not terms that are familiar to nearly no one who is not from the area. I would grudgingly accept C as a compromise, but only barely. We need to get away from the idea that, e.g., articles about India are written only for Indians, that articles about Texas are intended specifically for (and to appease the preferences of) Texans, etc. That's not what Wikipedia is about or is for. But C would produce a bit less inconsistency than D (the "do nothing" option), and would impose fewer (than opt. B) instances of unfamiliar terms (arguably non-English at all, using a pluralization scheme that doesn't pertain to this language) on our readers. So C is slightly better than nothing. But A is clearly the proper course of action at this site, even if Motswana/Batswana might make more sense in a blog written in southern Africa with a Batswana audience in mind. This case isn't really any different from Navajo; the fact that their own endonym is Diné, and this term can be found sometimes in English-language sources (mostly specialist or activist literature), does not impose on Wikipedia a requirement to use it broadly (and we have good reasons not to, starting with intelligibility to the average reader). Some occurrence of it will be sensible in an ethnological context, such as the Navajo article itself. But we should not and generally do not use it in more general articles, e.g. on the history of the American Southwest or on the present demographics of New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah. The same logic applies to Botswanan vs. Motswana/Batswana. What next? Shall we start writing about Ireland as Éire and the Irish as Éireannaigh? — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 02:07, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Are you sure that these terms don't just fall under MOS:ENGVAR? I don't think that the concept of it not being Plain English applies here as readers can presumably infer that "Motswana" or "Batswana" refers to "Botswanan" in articles involving Botswana in some way, regardless if readers are familiar with the term. There are some cases where it is inappropriate, such as in articles that only briefly mention Botswanans (e.g."He later met the Motswana president" where this is the only mention of it in the article) and "Botswanan" should be used instead, but most readers can infer the meaning of it as a denonym of Botswana easily. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 02:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Elaborating on this, I don't think the terms differ significantly from English enough to justify using Botswanan in place of it. While foreign-language terms such as "à la" are generally avoided on Wikipedia per Plain English, descriptive terms that do not differ enough from English such as "jeepney" in Philippine English (see Template:Philippine English) seem to be an exception of this, which I believe these terms fall under; but this is ultimately up to an editor's judgement to decide. The question is whether or not these terms are covered by ENGVAR or not. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 02:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I've yet to see any indication this is an obscure word considering the various sources which I have listed above, which come from both in and outside Botswana. Likewise, Google Scholar hits for Botswanan (5,170 results) are not drastically higher than for Motswana (3,050 results). I want to be clear I do not intend on promoting endonyms above exonyms in all cases. But what I do want to ensure is a consistency across all Wikipedia articles while conforming to the correct variety of English. By looking at the vocabularies of South African and Motswana English, I have found that Botswanan is nonstandard and Motswana is the standard and commonly used form. ―Howard • 🌽3322:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I get it, I think I've done that before too. But I think you can just say "A per SMcCandlish because (insert reason / add-on here, e.g. 'they make a good point')", as it helps people identify your rationale. Thanks for asking. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 23:52, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
D because RETAIN is a better rule than TIES in general. I understand (and feel) the impulse to avoid weird words that are not understood by most English speakers, but I have to admit that my sense of "weird" here is likely specifically Western; it's not a good look to allow (say) Irish-origin terms (e.g. Taoiseach) but not African. --Trovatore (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Question: I wasn't familiar with these terms prior to this discussion, but, as a westerner and a native English speaker, I don't find them surprising or difficult to understand. However, I do have some questions about nuance. According to Wiktionary, "Batswana" means "A member of the Tswana tribe of southern Africa, especially an inhabitant of Botswana; a Botswanan". Is it accurate that everyone from Botswana is Matswana, even members of minority ethnic groups? What about inanimate or abstract nouns? Is it correct to write the "Batswana economy" or "Matswana lakes"? pburka (talk) 23:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Great question! The demonyms for Botswana are:
1. Motswana (singular)
2. Batswana (plural)
For example, 'He is a Motswana' and 'They are Batswana'.
In contrast, Setswana refers to the language spoken in Botswana and can also describe something originating from or related to Botswana, such as 'a Setswana lake' or the 'Setswana economy' it's akin to saying 'the French economy'. However, the use of "Botswana" in this regard is still okay and more widespread e.g., 'the Botswana economy'.
C: In Botswana, as well as in neighbouring countries with shared cultural and linguistic ties, the terms "Motswana" and "Batswana" are the standard and authoritative ways to refer to people from here. We do not use any other terms as they are nonstandard and foreign.
I am inclined to vote in favour of Option C, because of MOS:TIES and for feasability's sake as juxtaposed to, say, options A & B.
I also agree with the thoughtful point raised by @Sparkle & Fade, who rightly notes that readers are unlikely to encounter difficulty understanding these terms to begin with. They do not appear in isolation and are almost always accompanied by contextual clues that make their meaning apparent, even to those unfamiliar with Setswana.
In the same vein, @Trovatore’s observation about the usage of “Irish-origin terms” on the Wiki (such as Taoiseach or Teachta Dála) that may confuse non-Irish speakers is a good one. Unlike such esoteric terms, "Motswana" and "Batswana" fit within a clear linguisti framework that allows for intuitive understanding. Through context, even readers encountering these words for the first time can readily grasp their meaning.
Considering these factors—strong ties to national identity, the ease of comprehension and feasability—Option C stands out as the most fair, logical and respectful choice. Aficionado538 (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
" "Motswana" and "Batswana" fit within a clear linguisti framework that allows for intuitive understanding. Through context, even readers encountering these words for the first time can readily grasp their meaning." Would they, though? If I hadn't come across a discussion about this a few years ago, I would probably see these words and think that someone had vandalized the page in a manner similar to an old children's song ("Billy, Billy, bo-billy / Banana-fana fo-filly / Me my mo milly.") --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, readers encountering "Motswana" and "Batswana" for the first time can indeed understand their meanings intuitively.
Even if someone has never seen the terms before, they are almost always introduced in a way that makes their meaning clear. For example, an article or discussion might say, "A Motswana is a citizen of Botswana," or "The Batswana people have a rich cultural heritage." These contextual cues make it pretty much easy to infer that "Motswana" is singular and "Batswana" is plural. Even in languages that don't use prefixes like "Mo-" and "Ba-" for singular and plural distinctions, people naturally pick up on patterns. If "Motswana" or "Batswana" appear a sentence, it doesn’t take much effort to deduce that they follow a singular/plural structure—just as English speakers recognize "goose/geese" despite these being irregular.
English speakers frequently encounter non-English words and intuitively grasp them through context. Consider "alumnus/alumni" from Latin or "samurai" (which remains the same in singular and plural). Even unfamiliar terms like shiitake are understood quickly through how they are used in sentences. Wikipedia consistently uses the term Taoiseach to refer to the head of government of Ireland, despite it being unfamiliar to many English speakers at first glance. While an alternative, more immediately recognizable title such as "Prime Minister" could be used, Wikipedia prioritizes the official terminology used by the country itself. Readers encountering"Taoiseach" for the first time may not immediately grasp its meaning, as it does not resemble any commonly known English words, yet its use remains.
These terms are directly related to Botswana, making them far more intuitive than "Taoiseach". Even if a reader is unfamiliar with them initially, their similarity to the country’s name provides a clear linguistic link, making their meaning easy to deduce. Given that Wikipedia does not replace (for the sake of example) "Taoiseach" with "Prime Minister", there is no justification for replacing "Motswana" and "Batswana" with Botswanan, a term that lacks local legitimacy. If Wikipedia trusts readers to understand "Taoiseach", a term with no obvious cognates, then it should certainly extend the same respect to the authentic demonyms of Botswana.
Oh, and the claim that "Motswana" and "Batswana" might look like random syllables strung together (as in a children’s rhyme) simply overlooks the way humans process language. Vandalism typically consists of outright gibberish without clear meaning, whereas "Motswana" and "Batswana" consistently appear in contexts i.e., in articles with strong national ties to Botswana where their meanings are evident. Unless a reader completely disregards context clues, they are unlikely to mistake these terms for non-sense. Aficionado538 (talk) 16:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
We should stop trying to argue from personal experience and restrict our arguments to based on what reliable sources say. ―Howard • 🌽3318:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Option C. In articles without strong ties to the country/ies, where the word is presumably not very important to comprehension of the article, we would be confusing more people than we are educating. In articles with strong ties, we want to be correct. --GRuban (talk) 17:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Meh. We should not use what (in English) amount to regional colloquialisms when they are not intelligible to the majority of our readers; ENGVAR is not license to confuse just to try to make a sociopolitical point. To revisit a point above more clearly: We do not use Diné (outside narrow contexts in the article on the subject) to refer to the Navajo, despite the fact that it's their name in their own language, some of them prefer it in English, and plenty of people in the Four Corners region are aware of it. We don't because hardly anyone else is. These are directly parallel cases. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 15:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
You seem to forget that:
these aren't "colloquialisms". These are formal words used in countries to describe people from a country/ethnic group and not some slang terms;
these terms are in fact English terms as said countries have their own form of English i.e., South African English and as pointed out earlier by a user on this RfC, the Dictionary of South African English (as well as other foreign dictionaries) lists Motswana and nothing else as the terminology used;
the point you make about Diné doesn't really hold the same weight with "Motswana" and "Batswana" as the suffix "-tswana" will easily give readers a hint that these are the gentilic terms to refer to citizens of Botswana or people of Tswana ancestry as these words are virtually always used in the context of someone or people from Botswana.
Question (for my own education): is “Motswana” restricted to a particular ethinic group within Botswana… or is it applied to any citizen of that nation. For example, would someone of European ancestry who emigrated to Botswana be a Motswana? Blueboar (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
According to the Historical Dictionary of Botswana and the DSAE, Motswana refers to "a citizen of Botswana," and OED says it can refer to "a native or inhabitant of Botswana." ―Howard • 🌽3318:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
B per MOS:TIES. Botswanan is simply wrong and as jarring to those familiar with the subject as Switzerlandish or Walesian would be. That some sources use the incorrect form merely points up that they do not have a properly constructed MoS like we do, but luckily we have MOS:TIES. We also have many discussions of this over the years at Talk:Botswana and eg at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa/Archive 1#Botswanan. John (talk) 18:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Why should MOS:TIES be used to justify using Motswana exclusively across all articles? American English dictionaries only include Botswanan (MW, AHD, NOAD) so this appears to be an Engvar issue. The only American English source I could find which recommends Motswana is the CIA World Factbook. ―Howard • 🌽3319:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, Encyclopaedia Britannica (which is owned by the same company who owns MW) says "country’s whole population is characterized as Batswana (singular Motswana) whatever their ethnic origin." ―Howard • 🌽3319:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I definitely agree. The only reason why "Botswanan" exists is because of people using the wrong demonym over and over again. That doesn't change the fact that it is the incorrect way of addressing someone from here. Aficionado538 (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
No, it means that English is forming its own demonym and is not constrained by Botswanan linguistic norms. It is no more wrong than is the English word :French", which aso differs from the form used in the French language. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
These terms are English terms though—they appear in multiple English dictionaries and both South Africa and Botswana have English as their official language, meaning they have their own recognized variants. So no, this argument doesn’t hold up at all.
Botswanan is also an English term that appears in multiple English dictionaries and variants worldwide. Commonality would seem to indicate that Botswanan would be the preferred term here, just as we use Ganges and not Ganga. -User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
If we are considering commonality here, then Motswana should be the logical choice, no? American (CIA, Britannica), British (Cambridge, OED), South African (DSAE), and Motswana (Historical Dictionary) publications have all included the word. Botswanan appears to only be included in publications specifically outside Southern Africa. ―Howard • 🌽3320:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Post-close comment (uninvolved): I think there's consensus against B as well, since only a single person supported it – less than for A. Everybody else, and thus a clear majority, spoke in favour of C, D, or both. From counting, I'd consider C the favourite option, since four people spoke out for C alone, just one for D alone, with two supporting either C or D and one "Anything except A". Gawaon (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
I suppose the only thing I can take from the inconclusive result of this RfC is that, if I am the first one writing, then I should adhere to MOS:TIES, but if someone else has written it first, then I should follow MOS:RETAIN. ―Howard • 🌽3312:31, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
As I suggested elsewhere, this entire discussion was kind of pointless, when there's an obvious simple answer. There appears to be no PoV or other problem with any of these terms (no objectively demonstrable one, despite various fist-pumping assertions), and we did not reach a consensus in favor of mandating a particular term. So, as with any other language that might be too specialized for the majority of our readers, if you feel a need to use Batswana or Motswana in a particular article, simply explain it (either in situ or by linking to an explanation) at first occurrence. As with most style squabbles, the solution is to write around the problem or perceived problem. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Conciseness & succinctness: efficiency, not size
Apparently WP:BECONCISE, WP:SUCCINCT redirect to WP:TLDR, a stupid term with bad redirects. One of my professors is on a team editing the world's (maybe formerly) largest science/mathematics book--on abstract algebra--which was 20,000 pages (multi-volume). It was made more efficient (saying more with fewer words) while describing same, so they reduced to maybe 5,000 pages (or in range of 10% to 1/3). Isn't that what conciseness/succintness is, though for most people, still too long to read? Redirects should be to more (less unintellectual) details here (or WP:CONCISE), not a crass Internet meme term mostly used by Millennials, Zoomers who grew up reading few books; there's an article how even freshmen at USA's elite colleges feel they can't read books, because they never got in the habit. I'm not deletionist, but I'd say delete WP:TLDR, because people saying that about one full-length standard (not extended) Twitter/X statement (increasingly common) may not want knowledge.--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 06:18, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Yes, well people are throwing many of these around maybe implying they should be followed, and 'WP' could look official. What about the redirects?--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib)
If you want others to read your posts? Then comply with their requests to shorten them. You can't force others to read'em. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah but TLDR is an insult. "I didn't read your whole paper, it was [not succinct enough, not concise enough, too prolix, whatever] might sting but is not an insult and is constructive criticism. "Here's your paper back, TLDR" is just dismissive. Herostratus (talk) 01:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Good; thanks. I don't consider 'TL;DR' an insult, but indeed dismissive, anti-intellectual, and not conducive to discussion: if they won't read what others say, why should anyone read what they say, and why say it at all? It's often a waste of others' time just like many people only replying 'me too' when Eternal September started on Usenet and then early world wide web (WWW) forums--dchmelik☀️🦉🐝🐍(talk|contrib) 18:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
To the extent that WP:BECONCISE, WP:SUCCINCT, and some other redirects might be better targeted to advice about writing encyclopedic content rather than to the WP:TL;DR essay about inter-editor communication (the attempted RM of which did not meet with consensus), the place to propose that would be at WP:RFD. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 22:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Legislation.gov's guidance for ministers and staff writing them states: "The title should begin with 'The…' and end with the year in which it is made. The only exception to using ‘The’ in SI titles is when they start with '[His] Majesty's…'".
Our MOS says (emphasis mine) "Do not place definite or indefinite articles at the beginning of titles unless they are part of a proper name..."
I think that would be a multi-entry WP:RM. While the WP:RFC process can technically be used for anything, if moves are handled via RfC instead of RM then a certain camp of editors likes to raise a great deal of hell, including dogged pursuit of the matter to WP:AN (where the result was that they were again told than the community can use whatever decision-making processes it likes to arrive at a decision – there is no means of process-wonkery by which the community making up its mind can be WP:WIKILAWYERed into invalidity). We don't need a repeat performance of that fiasco. So the RfC route is probably better avoided unless there's a real reason to go there. The WP:DRAMA cost will be higher than is probably warranted.
As for whether these moves are actually a good idea or not is an open question. There is a tension between MOS:THETITLE and WP:THE, the latter being the default approach, and the former being something applied only to titles of published works as such. A law or piece of legislation is on the cusp between being a published work and being something else. I would suggest that as an encyclopedia subject, such a legal instrument is more in the "something else" category. We are writing about their effects on society, about debates surrounding them, about their enactment and sometimes repeal, about the politicians and parties behind them, and so on, not about their nature as documents and the processes of publishing them. They are not reviewed as literature, or otherwise generally treated as publications in the usual sense, they simply happen to have been printed out on paper (and now e-paper) for various purposes like public examination and lawyerly reference. WP avoids tacking on a leading "The", when feasible to avoid it, for good reasons. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:38, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Is this not WP:OFFICIALNAME v WP:COMMONNAME? In running text, it's atypical in law books to see capital 'T' in an SI name. And "The" is never included, for obvious reasons, in law book SI indexes. Surely, that would need to be the case if the "The" is to be part of the article name? DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
My understanding of this section is that for most articles, a person should be referred to by their full name on first mention and then by their surname on subsequent mention, with an exception for instances where there might be multiple people with the same surname. Does this apply to all people mentioned in an article, or only the subjects of biographical articles?
Also, while it's generally not that difficult to adhere to this for shorter articles, for longer ones with many sections, it gets a bit unwieldy. I think where I struggle most is instances where the person has a relatively common surname and is mentioned much earlier in the article (so it wouldn't be immediately clear to me as a reader that this is referring to the same person). I've seen some people advise that you essentially "re-introduce" people in every new section, but that also gets unwieldy in short sections (so you might introduce someone in one paragraph and re-introduce them in the next).
Because of my confusion on this point, I've generally just been approaching instances like these intuitively (and inconsistently). Sometimes I will use the surname and add a short adjective clause to clarify who is being discussed (ex. "Steele, co-founder of the Rosa and Raymond Parks Institute"), but I'm not sure if this is right. It's possible that these are circumstances that we should be approaching intuitively, but I'm not sure. I guess, does anyone have any advice for this? Spookyaki (talk) 19:39, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
"intuitively (and inconsistently)" seems like the perfect advice. If you are a good writer, trying to follow a simple rule will make you worse. If you are a bad writer and you try to force other people to follow a simple rule, that will make it worse. Our MoS has a lot of rules, but the main thing is to write clearly and well. Keep up the good work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 20:27, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
As you noted, sometimes surname-only it's unclear if the original mention is distant but full name where not needed can get unwieldy. It's a good place for exercising editorial judgment. Largoplazo (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
I've noticed some editors have been unnecessarily using apositives and adjective phrases about people, entities, and organizations that are so notable that they have WP articles already that can simply be linked.
Apositives and adjective phrases generally create clunky and complex sentences. That's a risk we can take when the apositive or adjective phrase is needed to explain something. But when we have an existing article, I sort-of feel we should adopt a best-practice of deferring to simplicity. My sense is that the artificial use of apositives and adjective phrases is sometimes done to create an "aura of disreputability" around a subject, which is anathema to our purposes.
Here are a couple of invented examples:
On July 12, Rurritanian troops captured the leader of the Popular Front, a designated terrorist organization.
If Popular Front does not have a WP article, the apositive ("a designated terrorist organization") seems appropriate. But if it's so notable that it has a Wikipedia article that can simply be linked, is the apositive -- even assuming it's adequately sourced -- still appropriate?
John Doe is on the board of the Rurritanian Legal Aid Society, an extremist group that supports the Popular Front.
If Rurritanian Legal Aid Society does not have a WP article, the apositive ("an extremist group that supports the Popular Front") seems appropriate. But if it's so notable that it has a Wikipedia article that can simply be linked, is the apositive -- even assuming it's adequately sourced -- still appropriate?
The Rurritanian Patriotic League claims John Doe distributed flyers for the Popular Front, a designated terrorist organization.
As editors continue to cram redundant apositives into text, our most popular articles become less and less readable and more clumsily composed. While this may touch on NPOV, my concern is not coming from that vector. Rather, I approach this as a question of readability and good writing.
I'm not necessarily proposing any MOS additions right now, I'm just curious if there are any thoughts about this? Chetsford (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Austere minimalism isn't good writing. Whether the thing referred to is notable or not, or linked or not, doesn't matter. If a bit of description serves the reader's understanding of what's being described, then include it; otherwise don't. Of course, as with all choices of what to include or not include, one must strive to avoid potential POV issues. But forcing editors to click to another article, just so they can learn something we ought to be telling them in whatever article they were originally reading, makes no sense.
Also, invented examples are rarely helpful, and they're not helpful here. Why don't you come back when you've got an actual issue in an actual article (complete with an editor who takes a different position than you do)? Then maybe there'd be something to discuss.
Having said all that, here's something else: this is a matter of what constitutes good writing in general. And MOS doesn't try to teach such principles, unless experience shows there's a recurring problem -- see WP:MOSBLOAT. EEng04:17, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
The MOS does try to go beyond style issues. MOS:NOFORCELINK: Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links. Users may print articles or read offline, and Wikipedia content may be encountered in republished form, often without links.Hawkeye7(discuss)06:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't think I've ever read NOFORCELINK before. The explanation makes perfect sense, though, and assuages my concerns! Chetsford (talk) 06:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I was trying to figure out why you were writing "apositive" ("not positive") instead of "negative", as though "negative" was a taboo word for you. Then I looked it up and found that it's "appositive", a word I didn't know despite knowing the construction that it refers to, where one noun or noun phrase is apposed (positioned adjacent to) to another. Largoplazo (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
These don't read to me as crammed at all. Editorial judgement is called for in assessing when a reader has a good chance of not knowing what some referrent is or why it's relevant to the current passage and providing the necessary context to enable smooth reading and sufficient comprehension. That doesn't change just because this is Wikipedia and such information can be found in linked articles. Requiring readers to flip back and forth constantly between the current article and other articles just to have a basic understanding of what the current article is telling them isn't a good idea. Largoplazo (talk) 13:16, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
WP:COMMONALITY: "the most commonly used spelling variant within a national variety of English should be preferred"
Would it be possible to soften the wording here? WP:COMMONALITY says:
within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred
I've recently observed this verbiage, reasonably and straightforwardly applied, to change towards → toward because the latter is more common in AmE (and according to some other style guides, preferred). This seems counterproductive—unless I'm all out of whack, while and whilst may be a different story, but surely editors shouldn't have to fret about pairs like toward and towards when both are totally acceptable in both American and British English?
"Preferred" is a softening of the intent (ie, this advice is not written in stone on pain of death but keep to it as often as possible), so "should usually" and "often" are not needed at all. I suggest should usually be preferred → is preferred . Stepho talk05:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
But crucially, I don't think it is preferred as a matter of course. Again, it seems pointless and against the spirit of WP:COMMONALITY generally to essentially engender a new ENGVAR distinction for vocabulary where really, none actually exists—based on an overbroad frequency criterion clearly meant for other cases subject to an actual distinction. Remsense ‥ 论05:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should just remove the bullet point altogether? If a preference in the MoS isn't doing any actual good, it should be removed. --Trovatore (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree. "usually be preferred" is already very soft. It's "preferred", not "required", and it's "usually", not "always". pburka (talk) 03:40, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with the suggestion "is preferred"; it's a good recommendation that steers language away from fringe spellings/variants and encourages mainstream language use, thus allowing users to focus on article content rather than oddities in the text. Doremo (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Again, that works much of the time but blanket application also compels cases of the polar opposite dynamic, where totally normative, natural language choices are artificially subject to lexicographic sidebars. Remsense ‥ 论06:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
A blanket application would be encouraged by phrasing such as "is required" or "is mandatory" rather than "is preferred". Doremo (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
To be blunt, I don't agree that preferred plus the context that the MOS is merely a guideline adequately communicates this. It is simply a wrong statement. Commonly used, perfectly acceptable language should not be deemed non-preferred due to accidents of the MOS's diction. Remsense ‥ 论03:52, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
And have you seen actual evidence that the bullet point has been effective in discouraging such spellings? If this is just something that could happen, I'm not convinced it's worth the space in the MoS. Generally, the fewer rules the MoS has, the better. --Trovatore (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
It can be a useful point to refer editors to when they use uncommon spellings (such as here). Uncommon spellings are not simply a hypothetical possibility. Doremo (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Commonality also directs towards using forms common to multiple ENGVARs, over ENGVAR-specific ones, where possible. MapReader (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
There must be a lot of WP editors out of step then. Nearly three times as many articles contain towards than have toward - 315,526:111,876 - and 36,988 contain both. This is a crude metric, no doubt affected by citations as well as editors' own language choices, but it does show that towards is neither uncommon nor archaic - and should not be interfered with. I do, however, agree with Doremo that there are indeed variations which have become demonstrably fringe - it would be better for MOS to focus on directly recommending editors to avoid those. - Davidships (talk) 20:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I believe that's already what the current recommendation ("prefer the most commonly used current variant") succinctly does. It's better than listing thousands of fringe variations to avoid. If a zealous editor modifies a few cases of towards or toward based on the same principle, it really does no harm to WP's language quality. Doremo (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, I would immediately revert "toward" to "towards" under WP:ENGVAR. The more critical issue is how do we know what the preferred form is in something like America English? I usually just switch off the spell checker and rely on the few American editors to tell me if something sounds wrong to them but there are regional differences. Hawkeye7(discuss)04:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
This seems to be not exactly an ENGVAR issue, which is choosing between national standards, but to a more general question of prescriptive grammar rules, which can be debated within English variations as well as between them. It may be worth stating that ENGVAR should not be used as a cudgel to enforce a much more specific grammatical preference, but I'm not sure the issue raised is that directly linked to COMMONALITY. CMD (talk) 08:51, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
How about within a national variety of English, when it is clear that one variant predominates, it should receive preference? Remove the "usually"; indicate that the preference always exists when there's a markedly dominant usage; and leave unspoken that in other cases, we should leave what's already been written and each other alone?
This formulation was inspired by my reaction to reading about "towards" and "toward" above. I'm from the US; I think I usually say and write "towards"; it's crossed my mind a number of times across the years that maybe I ought to be using "toward"; but then I've decided not to worry about it. It seems to me a case of free variation, which is a thing, and, whichever form appears in an article in US English, a "no nitpicking" standard should apply. If there are varieties of English where "towards" is as out of the ordinary in elevated writing as "ain't" or "all y'all", then nitpick in articles written in those varieties. Largoplazo (talk) 23:17, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
The background of the addition of the bullet point is here and here for those of you that are interested. I've no particular preference or opinion on preferred vs usually preferred or other variants, nor a general objection to softening the language, but as a general principle we should be using the most common spelling variant of words. Also, this bullet is solely addressing spelling variants of a single word, I wouldn't see personally see "toward" being a different way of spelling the word "towards". Scribolt (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Nevertheless, since British and Commonwealth English uses ‘towards’, and (as is suggested) American English might have split usage between both ‘towards’ and ‘toward’, using ‘towards’ meets the requirements of commonality - i.e. not using a minority usage when a more commonly used and understood form of English is available. MapReader (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Again, we are conflating "most frequent lexicographically" with "most commonly understood" in instances where there is no justification, i.e. where there are multiple universally understood and accepted forms. This encourages hysterical tinkering with prose that is fine across many articles because someone got a bee in their bonnet—that is an outcome the MOS should avoid. Remsense ‥ 论18:55, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
What if we add what you just wrote? ie
Do not conflate "most frequent lexicographically" with "most commonly understood" and make changes in instances where there are multiple universally understood and accepted forms.
I would fine with that in principle, but naturally I am also sympathetic with those who want to keep the guidance as brief as possible. If that isn't a concern for anyone here, then sure. Remsense ‥ 论20:30, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
It could be shortened to just "Do not...make changes in instances where there are multiple universally understood and accepted forms". I don't think we need to mandate the most common spelling variants, if it varies in real life it'll vary within our editor base. Changing one common variant to another by itself feels almost a cosmetic edit. CMD (talk) 03:49, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps we should step back a bit and look at the goal. We want to use words that can be read by the majority of English readers and avoid words that are only understood by a small subset. We don't care if synonyms are used as long as they are understood by our readers from multiple countries. I suggest:
use words that are commonly understood by international readers and avoid words used only smaller groups.
In particular, I don't care if an article uses "towards" or "toward" because the majority of our readers will understand both forms. We should of course avoid archaisms like "whilst" and localisms like "acrost" because these will confuse many of our readers who have only a basic grasp of English. Stepho talk04:27, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Technically true. But I can't remember the last time I heard it in natural speech and its increasingly uncommon in the written word too. For non-native speakers (and for many native speakers too) it belongs with thou/thee/thy speech. Regardless - it's just an example that can be changed if it's a sticking point.
Our objective is to minimise editor conflict over English usage. If a reader has to look up a word, that is fine, it is in line with our educational mission. Hawkeye7(discuss)18:51, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Can you please show me where WP's objective is to teach English. Occasionally it is necessary to use a new or complicated word but if a well-known and/or simpler word does the same job then why make the reader spend brain power thinking about the language when they could be using that same brain power to think about the topic that they were actually interested in?
The problem is that last bullet point runs counter to the spirit of the rest of WP:COMMONALITY. It should just be deleted - it's not relevant to ENGVAR or reducing ENGVAR conflict and is unclear what happens if that bullet conflicts with the bullets above it. DeCausa (talk) 19:02, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see any particular issue with the last dot-point being discussed. Guidance is usually written in a way that is less than emphatic - eg preferring should over must. If anything, we might amend to say the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred in that usually is somewhat redundant and the rest of the dot-point identifies the exception without a need for usually. There is good reason for the dot-point. In a corpus of British sources, one will see usage of what are acknowledged as American spellings and vice versa - see [4][5][6]. While there are many reasonable explanations for this, the simplest is that British publishers accept international manuscripts without demanding a change to Br English and the same for American publishers. The dot-point resolves a potential point of dispute when we can see, for example, both colour and color in a corpus of British sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
I do not agree with softening this language, especially in the way proposed above, which would basically resolve to "There is no actual rule here, so just do whatever the hell you feel like." Part of the problem here is that the intent and meaning of this material has perhaps gotten obscured semi-recently by clumsy editing. The idea "within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred" doesn't address the purpose of this section. It is to choose, when possible, wording that makes sense across dialects, not just within one. I guess the "within a national ..." wording isn't wrong on its face; e.g., connexion and mediaeval/mediæval survived longer in BrEng than AmEng, but connection and medieval now dominate even in BrEng, so should be preferred even in a BrEng article. (Years ago, I got kind of yelled at for converting medieval to mediaeval in a BrEng article, and after doing some n-gram research learned that the complainant was correct: the ae spelling has been moribund even in BrEng books for a very long time [7].)
But this "within a dialect" material is entirely a side point, not the main point of MOS:COMMONALITY. That main point, rather, is telling us we should use buck and doe in reference to deer (these terms being universally understood), not hart and hind (obsolete except in some narrow dialects). The sentiment "use words that are commonly understood by international readers and avoid words used only [by] smaller groups" is at root correct, and it wouldn't hurt to integrate language like this (though clearer; what is an "international reader"? Someone who is who has dual citizenships?). E.g., the Scottish English and occasionally Northern England English word outwith should never appear in our articles except in a direct quotation (and even then probably with a Wiktionary link) because it is not understood by much of anyone outside its native region, and to most readers will look like a weird typo. (It's an inversion of without, in the nearing-obsolescence sense 'outside of, beyond the boundary or limits of'. In nearly every instance, it can be replaced with outside, and if not then with beyond, as in "outwith the city limits of Aberdeen"). Same goes for various American South peculiarities like ornery and recalcitrant; there probably is no circumstance in which such material can't be rewritten to make sense to everyone.
Next, any time words are encountered with excrescent suffixes (forwards, towards, backwards, whilst, amongst, amidst, etc.), they should be shortened, because the short versions are universally understood, the long versions are less concise for no gain, and the excrescent suffixing serves no actual purpose. Informal American English uses a bunch of this crap, too (sometimes in a tongue-in-cheek way, sometimes an urban, regional, or subcultural dialect way), and we would not tolerate it here, so BrEng doesn't magically get a free pass on essentially the same sort of poor writing. (Such cleanup obviously doesn't apply to -s and -st words that cannot be shortened without a meaning change ("I have two cat who love to rub up again people's legs" obviously doesn't work, but anyone competent to work on this project already understands that.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:54, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Let's see. Crucially, I cannot accept on faith that toward is meaningfully more concise than towards. I understand concision to be clarity achieved via efficiency in syntax and word choice, such that readers have to exert the least mental effort possible to understand a passage. Data measuring any difference on average would have the final word here, but humans do not read words letter by letter. I'll assert categorically that one lexeme being one letter longer than another is not—and moreover, cannot be—the underlying cause for one requiring more effort to read. That is not how we read, so efficiency must always merely correlate with byte differential. (It is worth pointing out that overly terse prose is not concise in this way, as it lacks a level of redundancy and familiarity that is generally helpful for readers, and thus becomes stilted and more difficult to read.) Anecdotally, the lexemes toward and towards read as exactly the same word to me. The suffixing serves no purpose, but neither does removing or fretting about the suffixing. Remsense ‥ 论16:34, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Non-useful side query
why does this site even need multiple varieties of english... why cant there just be one? hint: look the name of the language, where it originated. it isnt called american its called ENGlish ZacharyFDS (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
If you actually wanted an answer and didn't just post this to annoy others: to reduce fighting, as previously stated. Remsense ‥ 论23:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)
"didn't just post this to annoy others" Ok
i would change the spellings on the rest of non usa related pages but id get reverted and banned so i refrained from doing the rest
the "non usa related pages" i quoted? theres many around here, for starters there are japanese exclusive video game pages that use the so called "american english" despite the subject in question having zero relation to the usa ZacharyFDS (talk) 11:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
ZacharyFDS, do you recall wasting your time and several other editors' time over a four-day period recently, in a discussion that ended with you confessing im dumb can you forgive me[8]? This is shaping up the same way. You've been editing four months and have made 47 edits -- of which maybe four are useful. The rest are you displaying your ignorance, and your inability to write literate English, even while pontificating about the English language. Cut it out. EEng12:05, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
My prediction, if events continue to play out as they are currently, is that Americanisms will become somewhat less popular in English variants outside the US, and British/Commonwealth ENGVAR and use of dmy rather more popular. As just one small sideshow from the current geopolitical s***show that the US is laying on for the rest of the world. MapReader (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Some non-dispositive side commentary: Socio-politically, MapReader's predictive analysis might turn out correct, but it's already the case that non-US spellings and non-US date formatting mostly dominate in English on a global level anyway. There are some vagaries in this, though. E.g., "program" and "analog" tend to dominate in computing and related contexts (and "dialog" versus "dialogue" have taken on distinct meanings in the context of video games and their coding; dialogue is text and/or voice-acting of a character's speech, while a dialog is the user-interface elements presenting such text (which might be dialogue or might be something else, such as scenic description or a choice selector). Conversely, "theatre" is increasingly common even in American English in reference to live productions and venues for them, versus "movie theater", and metaphoric uses like "operating theater", "theater of war", etc., where the theater/theatre split remains firmly dialect-bound. The various a[e] and o[e] words ultimately deriving from Greek seem to be in inconsistent flux; aesthetic[s] has come to universally dominate, including in AmEng (with the specialized exception esthetician, i.e. someone who's job it is to remove body hair), while foetus/fetus and such seem to remain very split in usage. One that might move over time is loss of the ped- version of paed- (in reference to children) because ped- has at least 3 other meanings from other (all Latin, I think) roots: foot/feet, soil and by analogy flat surfaces, and something else I'm misremembering); only time will tell on that one. Another source of chaos in such equations is that a number of non-US online publishers use US date format (or even a weird format that doesn't agree with what WP would call any ENGVAR), because the content management system the publisher is using has a default and the operators of that instance of the CMS never changed it. It's thus not uncommon to see UK, Australian, etc., blogs with dates like "March 17, 2025" or "Mar. 17, 2025" or stranger variants like "Mar 17 2025", "Mar-17-2025", etc.). — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
"This is shaping up the same way." Yes, and we're also by no means inspired to take typographic-style and English-usage advice from someone whose every other word is an uncorrected typo. (Fortunately, a quick review of recent reader-facing, in-article output of this person doesn't show the same problems, but I only looked at the first page of contribution history.) — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 19:06, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
You must be looking at the wrong editor. This guy's got literally 1/10 of 1 page of contributions, total. EEng19:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
There was never any dispute about program, that spelling was adopted from the outset to refer to computer scripts, in British English, as distinct from programme which refers to schedules and TV series and the little booklets you get given at concerts and the theatre. MapReader (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
to EEng: Ofc yanks cant tolerate being criticised so they resort to insults.
i can talk the way i like thank you very much, this is literally a talk page, not an actual article.
what i want is there to be less americanism on pages about content that doesnt originate from usa.
Look at you, showing us how well you take criticism, whipping out an insulting nationalistic generalization in response. Also, no, bluntly telling us "what i want" while dismissing what's been said to you about what other people want is the opposite of a compromise. The existing guidelines you're complaining about are the compromise. Largoplazo (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
LOL this is a talk page as i said before, i dont need to talk in formal english
ZacharyFDS, I'm sorry, but I'm looking at the apostrophe-free "cant" and "theres", the lack of hyphens in "non usa related" and "so called", the puzzling phrase "japanese exclusive", and the complete lack of upper-case letters and periods, and I wonder what variety of English you think you're writing in. It certainly isn't British English, at least not as I'd expect it from someone who's militantly opposed to other editors' non-use of it. Largoplazo (talk) 23:34, 17 March 2025 (UTC)
Answering ZacharyFDS: Most English speakers prefer using the dialect of English that they use at home. Reading a different dialect is not too bad but most really, really hate writing in a different dialect. If we forced everyone to write in British English (because English came from England) then the Yanks would either stop contributing or write American English anyway. Likewise, if we forced everyone to write in American English (because Wikipedia is an American company) then the Brits, Canucks, Aussie, Kiwis, etc would either stop contributing or write in Commonwealth English anyway. By having both (see WP:ENGVAR for details) we appeal to both sides. Nobody really likes it but it's better than having half of the authors rebel. And we haven't found anything better. Stepho talk03:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps you're just a kinder person than I, but I tend to be very pessimistic about umbrage of the kind proudly taken above being worth the effort of either diagramming out a roadmap for empathy like you're doing, or being defused by being shown its rank hypocrisy like Largoplazo has done. I understand we're rightfully required to spend a lot of our time on here throwing AGF after bad, but.
I see under Contractions, in addition to referring to the usual contractions like "don't" -- that have apostrophes, it refers to Dr. and St ("Contracted titles"). Is this a common use of the word "contraction"? I've never heard of it. I would call those abbreviations and abbreviated titles. Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
The Merriam-Webster, Collins, and Oxford dictionaries all refer to Dr./Dr and St./St as abbreviations, not contractions. Doremo (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
This should be clarified, yes—contractions are morphologically different words, abbreviations are purely orthographical alterations of the same word. (They are still pronounced in full as doctor, saint. etc.) Remsense ‥ 论07:43, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the answer is generally pretty simple: articles should be self-standing, so if the meaning of vocabulary readers would not be expected to know provides important context to the article topic, then an inline explanation should be included. This is precisely how English-language jargon is treated, and there's no conceptual difference when the obscure vocabulary happens to be in another language entirely. Remsense ‥ 论07:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)
CONFORM question
In Korean, the tilde "~" is used for number ranges, e.g. "1945~1946". If this is in the title of a Korean-language work being cited, do we convert the tilde to an endash (e.g. "1945–1946") per MOS:CONFORM? I don't know if we should. I feel like CONFORM is mostly for when works are English-language, but the current wording doesn't cover that. seefooddiet (talk) 06:24, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I'd treat this analogous to embedded quotation marks in foreign-language quotations, about which the text says: "If there are nested quotations, follow the rules for correct punctuation in that language" (emphasis added). So typographical details in foreign-language quotations are not modified to fit English conventions (which would indeed be odd) but remain true to the surrounding language. So if year ranges in Korean are written like that, I'd preserve that verbatim too – every foreign-language title is effectively a short quotation from that language. Gawaon (talk) 09:40, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with using the tilde in a non-English-language quote or title for the same reasons Gawaon expressed. If the quote or title is translated from Korean to English, I'd assume the date range would also be translated to English with an en dash. Whether it's worth adding one more thing to our already long Manual of Style is another question, unless it can be shown that this is a frequent problem. When it is used, I would mark it with a {{not a typo |~}} template because most people will not be aware of that convention. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 17:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the wording could be adjusted to not add notable length, maybe a few characters but I don't think that's much to write home about. Currently the wording implies changes should be made regardless of the language of the source. If I started following this discussion, I'd be in violation of the letter of the MOS. seefooddiet (talk) 18:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
"But... in English, ~ means "approximately". "The entity weighed ~100 tons". "Korean Person (1408~1479)" kind of indicates that her exact death year is unknown. Yes the spacing is wrong, should be "Korean Person (1408 - ~1479)". Yes we are not supposed to use ~ for that but rather use circa -"Korean Person(1408 - c. 1479)" and always do in my experience. Yes AFAIK ~ is not best standard English and we don't do that for anything. The reader does not know this. She does or might know that ~ means approximately. Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
It's true that ~ means "approximately" in English, but the Korean writing system is a separate system. It seems strange to bend Korean practices to English practices in fully Korean-language text. I'm not sure if that's what you're suggesting we should do btw; it's a little hard for me to understand what your overarching point is seefooddiet (talk) 05:41, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
Note that we're talking about citing the original titles of works written in Korean here. It has nothing to do with writing about Koreans or Korean topics in English. Gawaon (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah, right, did not get that at first. Yeah for titles I can see a fair case for keeping the tilde... altho for titles do we not format them into title case (e.g. "Smith's article 'The day I became a genius' sucked...", would we not render that as "Smith's article 'The Day I Became a Genius' sucked..."? (Some publications use sentence case for titles, and wouldn't this be similar?) Not sure, asking. But keeping the tide in titles is OK too. Herostratus (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I could not find any instruction on whether inline HTML quote marks are acceptable in source editing view. <q>quote</q>, which would render as quote.
The way it renders depends on your browser settings, and can be configured through a stylesheet. That said, I'm not sure if there is a ready-made template to let editors manage the rendering (e.g. whether to use single or double quotes).
I ran a search and could not find a previous topic on this, or any suggestions outside the MOS. There has been a recommendation in place since 2005 against curly quotes (WP:CURLY), after MediaWiki made it possible by moving to Unicode.
The recommendation against curly quotes stands on the basis that they are difficult to type on a stanardcomputer keyboard. No such difficulty exists for HTML quotes. Users of source view are already familiar with HTML-like syntax e.g. <ref>. I would therefore like to propose that it should be deemed acceptable in the MOS to enclose quotes in a <q> element. Johnanth✆|☑20:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Oppose because it breaks cut'n'paste. Compare:
The man said, "Run, Billy!" (typed using the quote key)
The man said, Run, Billy! (typed using <q>...</q>)
Try to select the portion from "said" through "Run" in the browser (for me, desktop Firefox) and then paste it into various programs. The first approach gives me said, "Run (the literal chars I selected) pasted into a Word document and the same string pasted into this browser text-entry box. The second approach gives me said, Run (quote-char lost) in Word and said, "Run" (end quote-char added) into browser. DMacks (talk) 21:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I acknowledge DMacks's point, but that same behaviour makes <q>...</q> perfectly suitable to be used in {{DISPLAYTITLE}} for MOS:MINORWORKS that appear in quotes in running text, like song titles, short stories, etc.: Let It Be (song). Such a radical proposal would of course need very wide discussion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2025 (UTC)
There is a brief mention at Help:HTML in wikitext#q: <q>...</q> is used to mark a short quotation. There has been very little implementation of this element in Wikipedia yet.
How wary should we be of relying on HTML to convey meaning? For example, should we use it to distinguish actual quotations from indirect speech:
I try to avoid using HTML in wiki mark-up and much prefer using templates like {{quote inline}}. Noted that this does have the same issue as <q>...</q> about cut/paste not copying the quote characters. Stepho talk01:39, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I failed to find this template in my research. If we are happy with HTML inline quotes in principle, then this would be a valid alternative. Johnanth✆|☑17:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Should we generally prefer romanizations over non-Latin script in running text?
MOS:ZH has a guideline that Chinese characters should not appear in running text, proposing that readers only comfortable with the Latin script should generally be able to read sentences aloud (omitting any parenthetical call-outs) without hiccups:
Consistency makes sense, and it is probably better for readers to read transliterations first. CMD (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
My only worry is that those with little exposure to either the topic at hand or to language studies in general may not intuit that the native form is just that, if it is not given clear preeminence.
Typically this may be lessened when forms appear in native–romanization order early, e.g. with the translated title topic in the lead sentence? Remsense ‥ 论15:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I kind of expect Chinese to have transliteration first, potentially followed by characters, but I also expect Ancient Greek to have Greek alphabet first, possibly followed by a transliteration. Allowing Greek script but not Chinese script in the text may of course just reflect the bias of my somewhat classical education (and I kind of expect educated people to know Greek letters but not Chinese characters), but I would not want to have a rule that dictates we need to do it in the same way for all languages when this goes too much against scholarly convention. Consistency is always only local (if everything on Wikipedia follows the same rules it is usually inconsistent with the way everybody else uses the same words), so I do not value it very much. —Kusma (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I searched for a Greek example as a deliberate steelman, picking the least dissimilar non-Latin script. If anyone wants evidence in the wild I'll go find it, but also picture Russian, Hebrew, Arabic, Tamil etc. in your mind's eye.
Essentially, I find myself making this fix across many articles. It often seems to read more amiably, even in Greek. Remsense ‥ 论22:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
It's hard to see any justification for transliteration not coming first. This is about basic accessibility for the vast majority of English-language readers. I'd go as far as saying the answer should be obvious to us all.DeCausa (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
Let the person making the sentence do what she thinks best. Nobody notices or cares if its done differently in different articles and neither is objecectively better. (Internal consistency within an article is different, but that is covered by the rule "For any debatable construction, if there is a consistent version used in the article, follow it" or whatever, which I assume we have such a rule or we had better have. Since the reader doesn't care or even notice, any rule about this particular issue would be solving a problem that doesn't exist, and just gives editors overly concerned about consistency justification for going around changing it to no gain. Herostratus (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't've posted this barring the thesis that is there is a meaningful distinction, suggested by the fact that people generally read linearly, and interruptions of unfamiliar/functionally illegible elements in running text aggregate to make reading more difficult. If you don't think there's anything to that, that's fine, but I would appreciate acknowledgement that I'm not merely seeking to make more work for editors to do. Remsense ‥ 论02:27, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Fwiw I agree with Remsense; I think this is a problem that exists and that Latin script text should be preferred when possible. It's functionally a de facto rule already imo; putting non-Latin text first is an exception rather than the norm. I've seen few cases where non-Latin first could be justifiable. seefooddiet (talk) 03:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
This might be in conflict with MOS:FOREIGNEQUIV; the example given there is is of a name that's fairly similar in anglicised form and when transliterated but some of our articles have greater differences, so we go from Rhodes to Helen of Troy to Metropolitan Cathedral of Athens.
Even if it only applied to text after the first sentence, it might affect a lot of articles and peeve a number of editors when applied, so I'd suggest advertising it fairly widely and more clearly than the brief non-canvassingly neutral note I put at WT:CGR,[9] which I fear might not have made sense to anyone. Maybe an RFC? NebY (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I very specifically mean running text, meaning not in brackets, including at the beginning of the lead. Remsense ‥ 论19:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I think that, specifically in the case of Greek etymologies of English words (example Icosahedron), it would be incorrect and misleading to state the transliteration as the root of the word, with a parenthetical gloss stating the actual form of the root. We should state the root itself in running text in Greek script with a Latin-script gloss. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
It would be awkward to formulate this rule with any cut-out, though it seems clearly incorrect if this were the case with, say, Hebrew. If people feel likewise I'm happy to drop this idea. Remsense ‥ 论19:30, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Hebrew characters in running text are an absolute requirement for some mathematics articles like continuum hypothesis. Greek characters in running text are similarly required for articles like pi and golden ratio. In these cases, the characters are mathematical notation rather than parts of words, but they are still non-Latin-script characters in running text. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
Well, of course. Maybe I didn't articulate my position clearly enough, but those cases are clearly entirely outside the bounds of what I mean to suggest. Remsense ‥ 论21:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
I generally place the transliteration first when mentioning Greek words in running text, for the reason you've stated (reading without hiccups). I'm not necessarily sure that it should be explicitly recommended, though, and there are at least a few cases where I think having the Greek text first would be preferable. Stating, for example, that "the Greeks inscribed [insert transliteration here] on a tablet from ..." wouldn't be all that accurate, and particularly for more crude inscriptions the shapes of the letters might be important. Having the Greek text first would also be the better choice in a discussion of an ancient Greek manuscript's degeneration, or for illustrating a lacuna in a manuscript, and I could see that in some etymology sections editors might want to use the Greek text first. This isn't to say that it's not good advice in general (it is), but I suspect there might be more exceptions than initially thought, and editors in niche areas might find that such a guideline (if too absolute or all-encompassing) might be a source of irritation. – Michael Aurel (talk) 05:24, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Maybe something as simple as Be mindful of the potential for non-Latin scripts to interrupt the flow of reading for those who are unable to decipher them. In running text, consider placing the native non-Latin terms inside parentheses when they are needed, with a corresponding romanization or translation placed outside the parentheses and forming part of the sentence. That's too wordy as a first pass, but I wanted to at least concretize a tad. Remsense ‥ 论05:45, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
Michael Aurel's exception examples are ones where the actual form of the written word is relevant, I would expect them to apply for Hebrew, Chinese, and other languages too. CMD (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
If we do want to add something about this (and I wouldn't say I have strong feelings on whether or not we should), then a passage along those lines seems fairly sensible. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
That was my thought. I spent a lot of time hammering out this prose, and still am never quite sure when to use dashes versus colons in articles where a lot of statements qualified by lists are made. I guess I have a clearer sense not to use a colon when it would look this strange. Remsense ‥ 论22:53, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I just realized that I avoid colons, except when introducing a list. Don't know if it's the influence of some childhood teacher or what, but using them between two independent clauses just reads wrong to me. I mean, I know it isn't technically wrong, just somewhere through the years I absorbed a disapproval of them. My personal quirk, I guess. Schazjmd(talk)23:27, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Unable to justify colons, I am left largely to use dashes, which I have previously feared I overuse. In these instances, semicolons don't read as connecting the two thoughts strongly enough—in dense, technical prose, those more explicit logical connections seem pretty conducive to easing reader comprehension. Remsense ‥ 论23:33, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree that it matches MOS:COLON, but in my experience, lower-case is commonly used in such cases even when a complete sentence follows. So I would tend to make the "start it with a capital letter" rule optional for such cases. Gawaon (talk) 15:28, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
Remsense, I would disagree regarding the capitalisation after the colon in the example in some cases. As a general rule, shorter sentences are a more readable style. If it is indeed a complete sentence after a colon, it should probably be written as a separate sentence. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I think that many of those sentences where the dash is used could be split into a separate sentence following the dash (ie omit the dash). An exception would be where the dash is followed by for example. Just my thoughts. To your initial question, I would only cap after a colon where it was a complete sentence as a quote or perhaps: [T]he quote can be treated as if it were a complete sentence even if it was part of a longer sentence in the original text but end with a period or elipses as appropriate.Cinderella157 (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
Judging by Fowler (4th ed.), this is something which varies between British and American English: Note that in British English the word following a colon is not in capitals (unless it is a proper name), but in American English it is capitalized if it introduces a grammatically complete sentence. I live in a country where British English is predominant, and I wouldn't ever use a capital letter after a colon (except when needed for other reasons). – Michael Aurel (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
RfC on NCCAPS capitalization threshold
Procedural close: per several people below, the framing here will make it very difficult to determine consensus. Feel free to revert me if you like, but I strongly suggest starting a new RfC without simply inaccurate claims like Consensus is currently to treat the threshold for such as about 90%. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
For multiword page titles, one should leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase unless the title phrase is a proper name that would always occur capitalized, even mid-sentence. (Consensus is currently to treat the threshold for such as about 90%.)
Proposed wording
For multiword page titles, one should consider what sources use, particularly midsentence. If a substantial majority of sources (defined as about [depends on option]) leave the title capitalized, the title phrase can be considered a proper name in most cases. If that substantial majority is not reached, leave the second and subsequent words in lowercase.
Option A: Status quo; 90–95% capitalized.
Option B: 75–80% capitalized.
Option C: 2/3–70% capitalized.
Option D: 60% capitalized.
Discussion
Support, ideally option C or D as proposer. My reasoning is explained at this village pump thread. I originally supported a more radical version (instead of 70%/two-thirds, 51%), but the comments there and at the original discussion have persuaded me to adopt a more moderate stance with a greater chance of passing. TL;DR: Ignoring the vast majority of sources to uphold some editors' interpretation of grammar rules goes against the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!10:43, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
It ignores the majority of sources. If four out of five sources use uppercase, we use lowercase. This goes against our core principle of following the sources. 🐔ChicdatBawk to me!12:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: There are no circumstances under which a word or phrase should be treated as a proper noun/phrase in a title but not in body text. Any guidance as to whether to treat something as proper, including consensus thresholds, ought to be at MOS:CAPS, more specifically at MOS:PROPERNAMES, not MOS:NCCAPS. Largoplazo (talk) 12:05, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm confused by where the "Consensus is currently to treat the threshold for such as about 90%" comes from, since I can't find that in WP:NCCAPS. Gawaon (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Bad RfC per Gawaon, there isn't any "status quo" 90–95% threshold in the relevant policies. Beyond that, Oppose having separate thresholds for title and body (which would only lead to inconsistencies), although I wouldn't be opposed to a RfC establishing a slightly lower threshold for both. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:24, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
^ This. The RfC based on so many wrong premises, not least of which is setting an arbitrary numerical threshold for something that shouldn't use one. It ought to be called off ASAP. Toadspike[Talk]14:47, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose. Our MOS often incorporates best practice as seen in other style guides or in some sources, but like any style guide which provides a degree of consistency in publications, it has to dare to settle on choices which some will see as arbitrary or going against common practice elsewhere. We don't use the same spelling, units of measurement or representation of numerical values as our sources, switching from paragraph to paragraph or article to article; we follow our own MOS. This saves us from considering whether the sources are RS for style as well as content – this proposal would have us counting antique sources with modern ones, tabloid newspapers with academic journals, and British English with American and Indian. TL;DR: Wikipedia presents content in its own way, and that's fundamental. NebY (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: First there absolutely should not be different criteria for capitalization in article titles than in running text (except for the first letter). It invites a mess and would be a major change which would benefit no one. Second, Wikipedia style is to capitalize for proper names and acronyms. That is the style we've chosen and as determining exactly what is a proper name is difficult, we use other sources as a guide to determine what is and is not a proper name. We don't just follow other publications' capitalization because other sources capitalize for other reasons. Many capitalize all headings or article titles. Many capitalize for importance in a topic area. Many sources capitalize for no apparent reason. I see no reason for change. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 17:14, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Animal pronouns
Does the manual of style say anyting about pronouns for individual animals? Should we use 'it' or 'he/she'? I've had a look at a few featured articles (Laika, Easy Jet (horse) and Knut (polar bear)) which all use he/she pronouns but can't find anything on the manual of style or something. ―Panamitsu(talk)02:51, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
From English personal pronouns: Animals are often referred to as it, but he and she are sometimes used for animals when the animal's sex is known and is of interest, particularly for higher animals, especially pets and other domesticated animals. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Definitely not. I see minor awards/honors used in biographies to make the person seem more important. I thought we don't allow that. Doug Wellertalk07:03, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Do they actually make the person seem more important? I suppose they might, depending on the reader. Is it important to an encyclopedic article? My guess is it would depend on the context, but this is not really my field of interest or expertise. A basic rule of thumb might be "If you can wikilink it you can mention it, if not, have a good reason why it is worth mentioning". Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood(talk): 07:58, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
In some instances I think the notability of the award and the award giver is collapsed into a single basis for notability, such that there should not be separate articles on the two. If there is an article on an award giver that substantially mentions the awards that they give (which is probably the case with some film critics organizations that give film awards), I think that would suffice. BD2412T21:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
I really could use some context. The only more fully expressed questions underlying yours that I can come up with would belong at WP:N instead of here. Largoplazo (talk) 21:11, 13 April 2025 (UTC)
An example:"In 1981, They Came Before Columbus received the "Clarence L. Holte Literary Prize". Sertima was inducted into the "Rutgers African-American Alumni Hall of Fame" in 2004. "
I guess I can see how the question might be suitable here, if the question is whether to mention the award in an article about a person whose notability is established through other criteria. It just made me think of cases I've frequently encountered where a list of awards seems to be the article creator's basis for imputing signficance/notability, yet none of the awards are notable. That's why I had WP:N in mind. Largoplazo (talk) 11:57, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
If this is a question about triva/cruft, then as a general rule they should be avoided. However, it is easy imagine how a non-notable honor/award (being awarded a scholarship?) might play a significant role in someone's life, and thus be worth a mention in a biography. Does Aurelian being named Restitutor Orientis count as an honor? What seems important is that the honor/award is remarked upon as significant by secondary sources. Sources from the subject or the award body shouldn't mean much. CMD (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
I am pretty confident that in the last 10 years we had a centralized discussion that awards and honors (not just film) should be notable (not necessarily a standalone page, just being able to show that the general body of those awards could be documented with non-primary sources), as it was creating excessive fluff on some bio and other creative work pages to include every no-name award. Unfortunately, I can't find it easily. Masem (t) 12:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes, that was the resulting page or at least the ideas I call discussed from that prior discussion. Masem (t) 14:46, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
So maybe work towards making it a guideline? I know I, clearly mistakenly, remove awards etc if they don't have their own article or very clear notability. Doug Wellertalk15:24, 14 April 2025 (UTC)
Why African-American culture but not Middle-Eastern cuisine?
MOS:HYPHEN at point #3, bullet one instructs editors to never insert a hyphen into a proper name with the example Middle Eastern cuisine, not Middle-Eastern cuisine. African American is a proper name but the practice on Wikipedia is to hyphenate when this is used as a modifier, Cf. African AmericansbutAfrican-American culture. Is this covered somewhere in the MOS, and is this appropriate? African American is not really a case of MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES. African American culture seems more like Middle Eastern cuisine than Italian-Swiss newspaper but there may be a subtle distinction I can't quite put my finger on.
The current (18t) edition of The Chicago Manual of Style acknowledges that this has been subject to debate and makes allowances for author or publisher preference here but ultimately advises against hyphenating terms like African American because hyphenation does not aid in comprehension. (8.40: Compound nationalities; see also 8.39 where African American culture is used as an example, and further examples at 7.96 – subscription required). --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
In "African American", "African" is an adjective, as can be discerned by comparing it to "Polish American" (not "Pole American"). So it's comparable to "high speed" > "high-speed chase" or "big box" > "big-box store", in which hyphens are used. I don't see why the capital letters would lead to a different linking punctuation mark to be prescribed. Largoplazo (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Middle is also an adjective, with a secondary meaning/function as a noun. Its function in Middle East(ern) seems akin to its use as an adjective in middle seat or middle house in the row, except that eastern is also an adjective. The distinction I read in the MOS is that Middle East(ern) is a proper name, high speed is not. The Merriam-Webster entry for middle raises another example where middle can be part of proper names, in the names of historical language varieties like Middle Dutch. We wouldn't write the Middle-Dutch pronunciation of [X] or the Old-English word for [X]. We might write about a Swiss-German newspaper but notthe Swiss-German language. I analyze the first example as combining two proper adjectives (Swiss and German) into a compound modifier (Swiss-German), while in the second example Swiss German is a distinct proper name. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:11, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
"African American" and "Middle Eastern" are simply not analagous. One can speak of a multitude of people as African Americans but not as Middle Easterns. The morpheme tree (ignoring the morphemic breakdown of "African" itself) in the first case is African + (America + -an), not (African America) + -an, whereas in the second case it's (Middle + East) + -ern, not Middle + (East + -ern). Largoplazo (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I do see a difference that rationalizes African-American although I'm not convinced it is best. Curious if you would prefer Middle-East peace over the unhyphenated form. Or Han-Chinese people, Native-American religion? --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk16:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Also, your analysis treats African and American as two separate proper adjectives forming a compound modifier. However, African American is a distinct, two-word proper noun or adjective that is usually not hyphenated. In addition to Chicago, AP, MLA, APA, Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, and even OED use the unhyphenated form. How do we know when to derive a style from first principles following your analysis vs. when to follow MOS:HYPHEN's guidance against hyphenating proper names or widespread common usage and guidance against hyphenation? --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
The only analysis in my previous comment is that "African American" and "Middle Eastern" are different constructions so they need to be considered separately, in contrast to your remark that African American culture seems more like Middle Eastern cuisine. They aren't, they're quite different. Largoplazo (talk) 22:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Suppose there were an internet provider called High Speed. When referring to the company, we would write She upgraded her High Speed internet servicenotShe upgraded her High-Speed internet service because High Speed is a proper name. Just as when referring to Quantum Fiber, you would not write They pay for Quantum-Fiber internet. We also do not always hyphenate other commonly recognizable compounds, for example High school diploma, Parkland high school shooting, NBA high school draftees. And while you could probably find instances where sources do hyphenate those, for the shooting, we would never write Marjory-Stoneman-Douglas-High-School shooting because the school is a proper name. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, I always forget about Wikipedia Library. This is a great resource. The section on phrasal adjectives has a "Proper nouns" section which states: "When a name is used attributively as a phrasal adjective, it ordinarily remains unhyphenated." Garner's does not hyphenate in phrases like Middle Eastern country and American Indian people when they appear in the text, even though these contain phrasal adjectives. Is the policy on African-American a special exception to the proper nouns rule or does it rely on another rule, stated elsewhere or left unstated, such as a rule like Largoplazo's based on how the adjective is constructed? If it's based on how the adjective is constructed, then American Indian appears to be an exception, perhaps to avoid confusion with Indian-American or because American Indians do not have dual ancestry. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
Because of the difference between combining nouns (use hyphen) and combining adjectives (don't). Maybe this illustration will clear it up:
Three dashing guys walk into a bar to discuss hyphens: one African, one American, and one African-American.
Three guys walk into a bar: one Middle, one Eastern, and one Middle Eastern.
Middle, Eastern, African, and American are all adjectives and all except for Eastern can also be nouns. I should clarify, I do understand that African-American is an acceptable variant. Wikipedia appears to be in the minority in preferring the hyphenated form. I see that there are different approaches that rationalize this form. I appreciate your contribution – it's an interesting example that highlights how these words can be looked at differently as nouns or adjectives and how that can impact a decision around this minor spelling/punctuation variant. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk04:00, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Spacing around n-dash and m-dash
Am I the only one that was taught the opposite of what the manual of style currently says about spacing around dashes? I was taught that there is no spacing around an n-dash (e.g., "pages 1–20"), but that there are spaces around an m-dash — as is demonstrated here. I ain't no English teacher, so I'll yield to anyone with that sort of certificate, but the current text of the manual of style seems mighty backwards to me. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 14:01, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
No, the MOS is correct and concurs with what you've been taught: An em dash is unspaced on both sides and An en dash is spaced on both sides. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:23, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
To be clear, yes, the MOS is correct, but no, it does not concur (agree) with what Quantling says they've been taught, which I've never heard anyone say. Carlstak (talk) 05:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it is of course also correct that no spaces are used around en dashes in ranges just as "pages 1–20". Just to state the obvious. Gawaon (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Ah, it appears that I was taught the method used by The New York Times — spaces around an m-dash, which is used for breaks in sentences, but no spaces around an n-dash, which is used for ranges. But other publishers, including Wikipedia, have chosen differently, at least in some cases. I guess that I will have to adapt. —Quantling (talk | contribs) 17:21, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
While folks are here, could I ask really quick as regards ENGVAR considerations? Per Talk:Isidore of Seville (courtesy ping User:Carlstak)—apparently there's a notion that spaced en dashes are preferred over em dashes in BrE? I wasn't aware of this, but am not sure to what extent this is considered the case onwiki or off. Remsense ‥ 论05:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Personally I hate the closed em-space style because it looks more like it is joining things (like hyphens do) rather than separating them. But that's just a personal opinion. Stepho talk06:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Cards on the table, I started editing used to em dashes and have since come to distinctly prefer spaced en dashes, but I'm the one here that wasn't convinced there was any ENGVAR distinction at play (therefore generally falling back on MOS:VAR). Remsense ‥ 论06:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Re BrE vs AmE: I don't think I've ever seen a book that uses spaced en dashes, and that includes Fowler's original and Burchfield's version. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Fowler and Burchfield were printed in the UK, bur spurred by your remark, I inspected a few more related books, and found that Brandreth's Pears Book of Words does use spaced en dashes and no em dashes, so it seems there are no absolutes either way. Nor does the Canadian Bringhurst's exhortations in a book printed in the US against Victorian aesthetics clarify the matter of BrE vs AmE. I think following our own style guide is the most sensible way for our writing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
FWIW I agree but I wanted to make sure I wasn't conceited by posting this—per MOS:COMMONALITY, famously a "key" through which one may unlock the entire text according to mainstream MOS hermeneutics—the last thing we want is to enshrine another necessary difference for editors to worry about, instead of allowing it to be commonly acceptable, if we don't absolutely have to. I still fail to see any evidence that we have to. Remsense ‥ 论01:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
My "notion" was derived from the Oxford University Style Guide, which I've cited directly below this comment. I should think we would use British Style guides to guide our editing in an article written in British English. Given the dictum to use the en dash "in a pair... surrounded by spaces" by the OU Style Guide, it seems odd that The New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide says:
"The en rule (US en dash) (–)... Many British publishers use an en rule with space either side as a parenthetical dash, but Oxford and most US publishers use an em rule."
and:
"The em rule (US em dash) (—)... Oxford and most US publishers use a closed-up em rule as a parenthetical dash; other British publishers use the en rule with space either side."
Therefore, I must concede that either usage would be acceptable in an article written in British English, Remsense, and the choice should be determined by the established style of the article. Looking back through the revision history of the Isidore of Seville article, it seems that em dashes are used for parenthetical dashes. So I yield the point, at least concerning that particular article.
As to the OP's question, regarding spacing around n-dashes and m-dashes, see The New Hart's Rules: The Oxford Style Guide quote directly above. Carlstak (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
Proposal to clarify which MOS guidelines apply to citations
Presently guidance that clearly applies to citations is scattered among "Citing sources", "Manual of Style", subpages of "Manual of Style", and a host of guidance that might or might not apply to citations. When I think of any printed style guide I've ever seen, including "APA Style" and The Chicago Manual of Style, the table of contents makes clear it that there are separate parts, or chapters, to address citation style; the style used for everything but citations is addressed in different parts or chapters. I believe Wikipedia should do the same, and designate "Citing sources" as the primary home for citation guidance. Other pages that contain citation guidance should be listed within "Citing sources".
I also suggest that "Citing sources" be added to the "Manual of Style" (MoS) sidebar within the "Manual of Style".
I suggest accomplishing this by adding the following section:
Citations
Ordinarily, information about placing and formatting citations, and the content of citations, is found in the "Citing sources" guideline, as well as information about tools to assist with citations. That guideline states that
Editors expect to find information about citation format and style in "Citing sources" and should not be expected to be aware of citation guidance contained in this guideline, or in subpages of this guideline (for example, "Manual of Style/Legal"). Whenever guidance in this guideline or subpages of this guideline about citations exists, that page should be listed in the "Citation style" section of "Citing sources".
I don't think the last proposed paragraph is needed. If citation guidance is going to be centralized in one page (which can branch out to others), then any contravening guidance should be removed from other locations. Backlinks from other pages to the central page can be added. isaacl (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)
Without the last paragraph, there isn't a clear statement that the guidance is centralized. Can you suggest alternative wording? Jc3s5h (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
To respond more specifically to the proposal above:
"Ordinarily", editors expect to find citation-specific content in WP:CITE and some general, widely applicable style advice (e.g., "avoid all-numeric date formats other than YYYY-MM-DD"). "Ordinarily", editors do not expect to find detailed information about style questions (e.g., MOS:FRAC, which rarely comes up in a citation, but which still applies if it does.)
It is generally true that editors "should not be expected to be aware of" just about anything in the MOS, but that doesn't mean that the MOS doesn't exist or doesn't apply. About three-quarter million registered editors make 1+ edits each year. WP:MOS gets about a quarter million page views each year. Ergo, an actual majority of editors aren't reading WP:MOS. But "should not be expected to be aware of" doesn't mean that you're exempt from it; if you do your best to communicate about the source, and someone else invokes "OBSCURESTYLERULE § EXTREMELYRARE" and fixes it for you, then that's fine. There shouldn't be any sort of games about whether the MOS page says that it applies to citations, or if the WP:CITE page officially lists that MOS page in a designated section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing; their list of examples of MOS guidelines that apply to citations without specifically mentioning citations pointed out that a huge portion (maybe most?) of the MOS would need to be mentioned as applying to citations. I think it is enough to just point out that the MOS as a whole exists and should be followed in citations to the degree applicable, as we now do. Yeah, our pages are organized differently than other style manuals, but they are not crowdsourcing their rules from a worldwide community of volunteers.
I have definitely found some places where cross-references are needed between specific guidelines that conflict or need to be kept in sync, and added them. There's probably room for improvement, though I know too much about the MOS to figure out what confuses newcomers the most. (Suggestions welcome.)
I also agree it's fine and historically nearly ubiquitous that editors ignorant of the MOS make additions to articles and other editors come by and tidy it into compliance. I actually work a lot on automating this process as well as spell check, and I think we are improving our quality as time goes on. Simply the act of bringing existing contributions into compliance can also help a lot; most people just copy the style of what they see already written, and if that's already MOS-compliant they don't need to do a lot of MOS research to know what to do in most cases. (That's probably an argument for adopting a single house citation style.) -- Beland (talk) 01:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
The status quo is good enough: At Wikipedia:Citing Sources#Citation style we find the text: "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style, and applicable Wikipedia style guidelines should be followed." This implies that the entire style guide applies, notwithstanding obvious exceptions. Adding a long list of links to sections of the style guide will only serve to confuse, create more conflict and keep editors busy updating that list. A comprehensive list will cover like half the style guide, as WhatamIdoing illustrated here. In principle it might be sensible to link to particularly relevant sections of the style guide but IMHO the one link to MOS:ALLCAPS in Wikipedia:Citing Sources#Citation style is sufficient. I do not buy the argument that people who edit citations don't need to check the style guide. After all, people who edit citations typically also edit the prose which should ideally adhere to the style guide. An extra set of style rules for citations is the last thing we need. Joe vom Titan (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
My take: 99% of the time, no one will object (or care) if you edit an article to comply with an MOS. However, that leaves the 1% where someone does. When someone objects, my advice is to back off a bit … find out why they are objecting, and discuss it with them. Remember that all of our MOS pages start with a disclaimer that says “occasional exceptions may apply”. Blueboar (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Do you count bold via ''' as markup? Which would violate "Not be wrapped in markup, which may break their display and cause other accessibility issues." Stepho talk12:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
It is markup (both wiki markup and HTML markup), but we do allow italics. Strictly, comments are markup and we often see things like CO2 in headings – which is markup added via a template! The sentence that you quote would make more sense without having the comma. Not all markup in headings causes problems. However, bolded text is a rather specific problem, so I feel we should add something explicit that covers it — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me12:58, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
talk page order?
hello! i was wondering if there's a specified order for templates on the talk page? it seems a bit haphazard article-to-article and i can't find any reference to policy about it. is it safe to assume that since it doesn't tend to matter that much there's no interest in it?--Plifal (talk) 08:36, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Given I saw only mild apprehension at ensuring we don't accidentally incite sprees of rabid gnoming, and not concerns over the substance of my suggestion as I had it in my head, I'll courtesy ping folks and maybe splice this in if there's still no objection. Courtesy ping @David Eppstein, NebY, Michael Aurel, and Chipmunkdavis:
Be mindful that text in non-Latin scripts can interrupt the flow for readers who are unable to decipher it. When provided in running text, consider keeping non-Latin terms inside parentheses, while allowing the associated romanization or translation outside the parentheses to be read as a natural part of the surrounding sentence.
As a general rule for any kind of guidance on specific cases like this, I wonder if there is a conventional order, as in, do we do guidance first followed by justification, or justification first as you have it above? Adding an example sentence to the mix, I seem to think it is often 'G, E [,J]' (with J often left out) but I may be mistaken. If so, we might have:
When including text in non-Latin script in running text, consider keeping it inside parentheses just after the romanized equivalent:
The English word epic comes from [...] the Ancient Greek adjective epikos (ἐπικός), from epos (ἔπος), 'word, story, poem'.
This allows the reader to read the English text outside the parentheses in a natural way.
No doubt the wording could be further improved, but this is easier to grasp for me, as when reading a guideline, I want to consider what it is telling me, then I want an example to see what they are talking about, and at that point, I start to wonder why, and then comes the justification, feeling just like the coda on a musical piece and sewing it all together. Or, maybe I am dreaming, but that's how it feels to me. (As a further, albeit quite minor point, this allows the explanation to end at the original indent position, which seems to provide a more orderly transition to whatever topic the next paragraph is about if there is no section heading above it.) Mathglot (talk) 18:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
The trio is? The trio are? noun-verb agreement
Talk:Remember Monday#IS or ARE debate is probably a problem for multiple bands' pages, and Wikipedia's Manual Of Style should address it somewhere, but if it's already there, i don't know how to find it. A trio performs as Remember Monday, a British band. One edit summary i found claims that British English would say Remember Monday are a girl group rather than Remember Monday is a girl group, to which i say: [citation needed].
(Funny thing: "A trio performs", "The trio performs", and "The trio perform" all seem all right to my American English ears, but "A trio perform" seems wrong. Logic protests.)
It has been my impression that British English (BrE) uses are here and American English (AmE) uses is. Garner's Modern English Usage largely confirms this but does complicate the matter. You can read the full entry on this here with a Wikipedia Library login. Garner notes that BrE is more likely to use 'the plural (are, in this case) here and AmE is more likely to use the singular (is) but neither is universal and there are cases where AmE will use the plural to emphasize the members of a group. Garner calls for consistency within a piece of writing but notes that even edited, published sources are not always consistent. Here is an excerpt:
Apart from the desire for consistency, there is little “right” and “wrong” on this subject: collective nouns sometimes take a singular verb and sometimes a plural one. The trend in AmE is to regard the collective noun as expressing a unit; hence, the singular is the usual form. When the individuals in the collection or group receive the emphasis, the plural verb is acceptable <the Freudian school were not wholly in error>. But generally in AmE, collective nounstake singular verbs, as in the jury finds, the panel is, the committee believes, the board has decided, etc.
The usage note Choosing Agreeable Verbs for Collective Nouns from Christian Science Monitor also discusses the two approaches. I don't think our MOS should dictate a universal rule but I would mostly treat this as an ENGVAR issue and aim for consistency within a single article, while allowing for some flexibility in particular use cases. Curious what experienced style-guiders think. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. i'm sure MOS:ENGVAR prevails, but apparently i didn't examine it closely enough: the Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English section links to (and thus includes by implication) MOS:PLURALS, which does describe the grammatically acceptable use of notional agreement... without naming or linking to the notional agreement page, which maybe it should.
Wishing you all a lifetime of danger, misery, and failure. Ha! Kidding. Stay safe, happy, and productive, y'all. --70.22.1.45 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2025 (UTC)
This is an odd one. My initial instinct was that an en dash should be used, not a hyphen, but upon double-checking MOS:DASH, I'm not so sure. Although we normally use an en dash in compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between, this is not connecting two place names like Minneapolis–Saint Paul but rather repeating the same place name twice (unless the second "New York" refers to the state, which would be an odd use of a hyphen or dash, but I couldn't find information on the origins of the name in the article or online). Use an en dash for the names of two or more entities in an attributive compound would seem to support the use of an en dash, but again, it is technically the same entity and I'm not confident this classifies as an "attributive compound". We could also easily shorten the name to New York-New York (and probably should, per WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME), in which case, we are advised to use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities. I guess it just looks strange to use a hyphen because we usually use an en dash when applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, but this isn't a prefix. This reads like New / York-New / York rather than New York / – / New York, and "York" obviously doesn't modify "New". Thoughts? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:53, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
How do independent sources that discuss this hotel/casino present the name? Do they “correct” the dash, or consider it “part of the name” and leave it. I would especially be interested in exploring sources that we trust to usually get stylization right - to see if they make an exception in this case. Blueboar (talk) 22:40, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
Should we be looking to third-party sources for this? Many sources don't use en dashes at all in accordance with whatever style guide they follow (e.g. AP); we have our own style guide. So I don't think this is a matter of COMMONNAME. In any case, a cursory search on Google Books shows wild inconsistency, ranging from spaces to commas to slashes (and many false positives). InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I think you have answered my question - since we don’t see other sources making an exception to their own style guides for it, then neither should we. Blueboar (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
When I said "many sources don't use en dashes at all", I was not referring to this instance in particular, I meant in general. Some style guides do not use en dashes in any scenario, including cases where our style guide would call for them. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
Never look to sources on style issues. Sources are for facts, not style. External style guides can influence our MoS, but they are only one of multiple factors to be considered. Any mention of style guides should be in the context of proposed changes to our MoS, not individual cases. ―Mandruss☎ IMO. 00:38, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
That said, damn the hotel owners for unnecessarily creating such a conundrum for Wikipedia's MoS wonks. "New York Hotel and Casino" would have done just fine, and readers could just deal with any ambiguity between that and Sydney's New York Hotel. I'd be inclined to use the hyphen and call it a day; it's just not that critical. ―Mandruss☎ IMO. 01:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)
MOS feedback needed on FA Dementia with Lewy bodies
The linked discussion has converged on the following consensus: I'd also support spelling out on first mention in each section (with brackets: so "Alzheimer's Disease (AD)") on first mention in each section, and then abbreviating thereafter.
I think the suggestion to re-introduce abbreviations in each section of longer articles (on a case-by-case basis) would be a good addition to MOS:1STABBR. Lots of articles would get easier to follow that way.
I would also second this – readers often go to one section of the article without reading the others, especially for longer articles. GnocchiFan (talk) 18:51, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
The "Italics within quotations" section mentions one applicable template, but not another.
The page is semi-protected, and I only really make small fixes to articles (which doesn't happen so often, so I haven't been autoconfirmed), so I figured I may as well just mention it here. The "Italics within quotations" section mentions using the {{em}} template for emphasis within quotation, using {{em}} for emphasis is in another section. In the same way, {{lang}} is talked about for words in different languages in another section, however, {{lang}} is not mentioned in "Italics within quotations". I feel both of these should be treated equally, whether it be removing the existing mention of {{em}}, or adding a mention of {{lang}}. I'm on the side of adding {{lang}}, but that decision's up to someone else, I can't edit the article. Davie53K (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The guidance under Quotations at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Original wording is pretty straightforward and aligns with my expectations: Quotations must be verifiably attributed, and the wording of the quoted text must be faithfully reproduced and In direct quotations, retain dialectal and archaic spellings. My question concerns this passage (emphasis added) from The Guardian:
Asked about the incident on the ABC, the Nationals senator Matt Canavan said “it looks like there was a targeting there” but added he was “loth to jump to conclusions though when you just see part of the footage”.
Albanese and Senator Matt Canavan both said Tomasi's shooting appeared targeted, with Canavan adding he had only seen part of the footage and was "loath to jump to conclusions".
WP is full of numerous examples where the Engvar of a quote is preserved despite being at odds with the established Engvar of an article. This case should be no different. MapReader (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, both of you. This had been my approach, but someone edited it. I wonder if they thought it was a typo, as I might have done. I needed a sanity check because if we were citing the video we would of course never have transcribed it that way. I will correct and leave an invisible note. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk06:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
When to include the country alongside a city
Does MOS have guidance on when a city is large or well-known enough that we should exclude the country name in an article's text? For example, see the second sentence in 2024 UEFA Champions League final. I'm not seeing advice on this in MOS:PLACE, and MOS:OVERLINK only covers linking.
If it doesn't, where should that line be drawn? I would assume that London, UK, and New York City, US, are above it. Arguably, places like Chicago, US; Seoul, South Korea; and Istanbul, Turkey, could be as well. Ed[talk][OMT]19:42, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
It seems like it should be precisely the same list as "cities that go without wikilinks", no? Given the question in both cases is whether the city is sufficiently recognizable to nearly all our readers. Remsense 🌈 论19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
First, are we talking about mentioning the city in running text, or titling an article?
If running text, I would ask whether there is there a need for disambiguation? An article that mentions “Saint Petersburg” may need to clarify whether it is referring to the city in Russia, or the city in Florida (or some other one).
Article Context comes into play here. If the context is Medieval History, the reader can assume that a reference to “Boston” is referring to the town in England (as it was the only “Boston” that existed during this era). Blueboar (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
I'm concerned you may be overestimating our typical reader's knowledge of medieval history. EEng20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, see the list linked as footnote [a] from the "Major cities" section here [10]. Of course, that list isn't above criticism in the context of a modern, international encyclopedia e.g. (with all due respect) Cincinnati, Cleveland, Oklahoma City, San Antonio??? EEng20:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
"Use the appropriate plural"
Use the appropriate plural; allow for cases (such as excursus or hanif) in which a word is now listed in major English dictionaries, and normally takes an s or es plural, not its original plural...
The instruction under MOS:PLURALS is rather clumsy. The "use the appropriate plural" bit doesn't really convey anything, as it should go without saying. It seems to just be there to lead into the next clause, which mentions "cases such as excursus or hanif" without any context as to how these terms are significant. Apparently these are loanwords from Latin and Arabic that have become established in English. So what about loanwords that have not become established? What kind of appropriate plurals are to be used for them? Do we reflect CMOS's recommendation that "plurals of non-English words should be formed as in the original language"?[11] If so, this should be mentioned in the paragraph before the bit about allowing for special cases. But then the whole thing seems like it would better fit under the Non-English terms section, especially since there are already Terms without/with common usage in English subheadings there. Should it be moved there instead? --Paul_012 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
It is oddly phrased. Can I assert that I am duly allowing for the existence of such cases but indices remains the appropriate plural? Or am I being told to use indexes? NebY (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
The word index is a weird case. Both indexes and indices are valid plurals, but they refer to different things. If a document has an index for people and a separate index for places, then use indexes to refer to them collectively; if there are multiple scalars, e.g., subscripts, then use indices. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
That's very nicely summarised - thank you - and I clearly picked a bad example. I am still rather perplexed as to what "allow for cases" is telling/guiding an editor to do; could we be clearer? NebY (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
It's odd. There does seem to be something missing, as in: Non-English words used in running text in English (typically?) follow the pluralization conventions of the native language [example]. For cases… followed by the current statement (or some improved version conveying the point). It might be helpful to link between this section and the Non-English terms section, if some version of the guidance is to remain here. For cases where there is more than one reasonably standard plural form, especially where it does not effect the meaning, I wouldn't be overly prescriptive here. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk02:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
We could perhaps turn your phrasing around: Non-English words adopted into English take the plurals shown in appropriate English dictionaries, otherwise we follow the pluralization conventions of the native language? I put "appropriate" because ENGVAR might come into it. NebY (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a big improvement, certainly better than what I wrote. Far less clumsy than the original and more likely to be helpful, and I don't think it changes the underlying standard. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:38, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Doesn't this go without saying? I don't consider bureau a non-English word, frankly. The full section (11.3: Non-English words and phrases in an English context) in Chicago mostly concerns setting these words in italics, noting that this applies especially when such words are not listed in standard English dictionaries or may be unfamiliar to readers. This convention is intended to alert readers that such terms would not normally be found in English and can help prevent a non-English word from being misread as an error. The line about plurals is exactly as quoted in the linked piece above and comes near the end of the section, after the scope of the guidance is established. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
The problem is that English is full of words that were originally “non-English”, but are now considered part of the English language (bureau and index are both good examples). Blueboar (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
Bureau's a nice ENGVAR example too; very often -x in BrEng (eg the formal name Citizens Advice Bureaux) though I think often -s of the desks nowadays, but in AmEng more often -s. Still, dictionaries cover that well enough already, and so far the only sense I can make of our "allow for cases" guidance is "if it's in the English dictionary, do what that says and if not, do what the other language does". NebY (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've changed it as above but dropping the "Non-English" from "Non-English words adopted into English"; if it's adopted, it's not non-English any more, or at least that's needlessly arguable. Hope that's OK. NebY (talk) 10:23, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
When I saw how the paragraph would now work, the examples seemed rather obscure and didn't clarify so much as take the reader into the weeds. I wound up daring to think the bald statement was enough, even though the MoS is usually more, um, discursive. In short, no very strong reason! NebY (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
Ref name format, space or no space
Which style (with or without a space near the end) is preferable, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of each? (I know it doesn't make any difference in function.)
I was just curious. I see both uses and wondered if there is some reason. Maybe when searching a page or something. I have encountered some interesting reasons for editorial preferences over the years and was wondering if I'd learn some fascinating reason this time. If you don't think of anything, then just ignore this thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:54, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
This is a great opportunity to plug the syntax {{r|refname1}}, which does exactly the same thing but is so much cleaner. EEng00:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
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":[1]
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."
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 Shakespeare's Hamlet (written c.1599–1602) the following exchange occurs:
Hamlet. Is not parchment made of sheepskins? Horatio. Ay, my lord, and of calves' skins too.[2]
(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.) 128.86.179.55 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
Is there anything in our MOS that would forbid also bolding it, like this?
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."
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."
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. EEng22:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
Interesting. ChatGPT recommends bold based on common use:
✅ Best Practice for Quoting Interviews in Wikipedia Articles
👇 Recommended format:
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."
🔹 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 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):
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."
✅ 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.
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.
You're not seriously proposing that we pay attention to gibberish from a robot, are you? EEng19:59, 21 June 2025 (UTC)
No, it was just interesting, especially since ChatGPT knows PAG and MOS better than 99% of editors. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:56, 21 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. -- 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. EEng01:58, 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. -- 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 problem. 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.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. ―Mandruss☎ IMO. 06:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)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! Gawaon (talk) 07:12, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
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. 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.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.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.)Plus they'll likely bring their own biases with them, due to pretraining. As I also said, 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 impassionate dispassionate about the article subjects; i.e. unhuman. ―Mandruss☎ IMO. 07:47, 22 June 2025 (UTC)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. 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. ―Mandruss☎ IMO. 12:48, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
I asked Copilot "On Wikipedia, is it bad practice to bold names in dialog?".
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 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.
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?
That seems to mostly address other uses than what we're talking about here. The following mention of template {{Dialogue}} is spot on. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:31, 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. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:31, 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:
HAMLET
Is not parchment made of sheepskins?
HORATIO
Ay, my lord, and of calves' skins too.
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
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.
It certainly looks better than bold (everything looks better than bold!) but maybe not better than italic. --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. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:53, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
So here is a use of the {{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:[3]: 228
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.
I really should have quoted Gemini in full, and (annoyingly) it supports bold markup:
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.
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. -- 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. NebY (talk) 20:34, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
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." 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 Manual of Style has 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. -- 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 difference in interpretations is the local time zone first or second. For example:
The mention of precedence was based on my understanding that the WikiProject cannot override the MoS based on local consensus, which is an additional reason I addressed this.
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”). -- 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. 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? Joe vom Titan (talk) 19:31, 29 April 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 [12]) I personally feel that the putting UTC first when multiple local times are in use makes the article easier to read. Hawkeye7(discuss)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. Canterbury Tailtalk14:04, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
(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)
To be "in" a constellation is "purely by looking" and for planets, yes, it's temporary, for stars less so. All the best: RichFarmbrough22:46, 29 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. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:44, 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 here. NLeeuw (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
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.
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 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. NebY (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
@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 this essay "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names" which teaches humility in understanding how names work. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 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! NebY (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
This is a sensible approach, and what I would have suggested: 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. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:16, 9 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all!
In return, the story of Mr. Null, who persistently breaks databases:
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 {{Use American English}} which identify a specific variety of spelling, etc. {{EngvarB}} has been deprecated; many articles that currently use it will get re-tagged with {{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 {{Use Commonwealth English}} was deleted (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 {{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?
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. {{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 {{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.
{{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 {{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, {{Use Tanzanian English}} was deleted. Should these use {{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?
"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"? -- 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. CMD (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? -- Beland (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I feel if there was an easy answer someone would have discovered it. {{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. CMD (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
{{Use Oxford spelling}} is often fine and arguably the most international English! Leaving that (personal preference) aside, I wouldn't have problems with using {{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 {{Use Commonwealth English}} could indeed be resurrected as a simple synonym for {{Use British English}}? Gawaon (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there was a strong consensus to deprecate in the 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? —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
I don't detect "a whiff of colonialism" in {{Use British English}}, any more than tagging Physics with {{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 {{Use Commonwealth English}} to {{Use British English}}. This would recognise that British English is a more widespread variety of "Commonwealth" English than, say, New Zealand English. 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 '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 end 2004: "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) - 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. Gawaon (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@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. - 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. Gawaon (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@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. - 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. Gawaon (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@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 - 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. EEng02:27, 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. Gawaon (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@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 {{Use South African English}}, {{Use Ugandan English}}, {{Use Kenyan English}}, {{Use Indian English}}, etc., is somewhat misleading, and specifically {{Use British English}} is not really appropriate (and using {{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. - MPF (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@Gawaon MOS:TIES says 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 ... 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? - 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. Gawaon (talk) 20:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
The guidelines states: 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. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Abso-fucking-lutely not.
national or regional ties to a topic – Oh great, so you want us to debate the variety of English used in (to use your example) the Western Palaearctic -- 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.
"If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor – 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. EEng22:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)
@EEng: - 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). - MPF (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@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 {{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. 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. MapReader (talk) 20:34, 24 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. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@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. - 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. —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? -- 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? —Kusma (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Yes, editors have been complaining it is incongruent with the deletion of {{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 {{Use British English}}? That would rule out using Canadian spellings or Australian vocabulary, if that's OK. -- Beland (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@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. - MPF (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@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. - MPF (talk) 20:06, 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. -- 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. 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) 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. -- Beland (talk) 19:25, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@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. - 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. —Kusma (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
@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 - 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. —Kusma (talk) 20:29, 25 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. --Trovatore (talk) 20:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC) While it's not very important for the current discussion, just by the way, lion already uses British English. The {{British English}} tag was added by Z. Patterson in March, without giving a rationale; I would assume there were already British spellings in the article. --Trovatore (talk) 20:16, 25 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 "~ize" is very common. Having said that, there remain a significant number of WP articles where some element of national ties can be inferred. Ohc revolution of our times09:56, 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). --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 -ize word, 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. Ohc revolution of our times10:01, 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. --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. Gawaon (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
@Trovatore: I added the {{British English}} template to Talk:Lion because the article was written in British English before I added the template, as I saw {{Editnotices/Page/Lion}} when I viewed Lion's source. @Materialscientist created the edit notice on 16 February 2014, in Special:Diff/595703452. On 10 June 2018, @Galobtter changed the format to the edit notice by adding form = editnotice to the edit notice's source. In the source for Lion, the text has the following line:
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. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
I think that this is the best way forward. MOS:COMMONALITY means that we should use words that most readers will understand, rather than country-specific vocabulary. I think that this is what {{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 {{EngvarB}} to a new name), it would allow us to get rid of most of the nonsensical templates in {{Use X English}} that are unable to provide useful spelling and vocabulary guidance that is different from "Use -ise spelling". – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:42, 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 {{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. -- Beland (talk) 20:23, 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. 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? -- 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. 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:52, 26 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. cagliost (talk) 16:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
If we can change the documentation for {{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 {{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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:38, 28 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. Gawaon (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
How about adding {{Use -ise spelling}} as a synonym (alias) for {{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.) Gawaon (talk) 06:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
I also find most of the templates in {{Use X English}} nonsensical and annoying. We need a template that is neutral, and doesn't need defining. So, why not {{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.
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". – 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. 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 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 {{English}}, {{American}}, {{Canadian}} seem to you to be "less worse" than what we have now? {{English}} is currently a redirect and can easily be usurped. Ohc revolution of our times09:45, 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
I've long thought that {{Use American English}}, {{Use British English}} and the like should produce 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: {{EngvarB}} could produce an editnotice beginning "This article is written in British and Commonwealth English", say. Editnotices are visible when one edits any section of an article, whereas {{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.The editnotices could then supersede the talk page templates {{American English}}, {{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. 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 {{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. -- 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 {{Use Commonwealth English spelling}}. All the best: RichFarmbrough22:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC).
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 {{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 {{Use British English}} into a generic "Use British English spelling and vocabulary" guidance template, but I'd like to see the discussion settle. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2025 (UTC)
It appears that there is consensus to change the documentation at {{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 {{EngvarB}} to {{Use British English}}. Any further comments? – 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. -- 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? ―Panamitsu(talk)06:46, 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. ―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 {{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 {{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. Ohc revolution of our times22:51, 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. – 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 adding them, or sorting or replacing a deprecated template. We need to have a game plan, a strategy, and be organised. {{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. Ohc revolution of our times08:40, 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. -- Beland (talk) 09:45, 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 {{Use British English}}? The consensus above is that we are ready, and the documentation at the target template has already been prepared. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
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 {{EngvarB}} template to {{Use British English}}, based on the above consensus. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)
Date parameter
(This is concerning all of these "Use X English" and "EngvarX" templates.)
@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. -- 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.
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: RichFarmbrough22:38, 6 July 2025 (UTC).
I have updated the documentation of the "Use X English" templates to say the date represents the last spell-check against the declared variant. -- Beland (talk) 04:30, 11 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 William D. Leahy § Dates of rank or 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. (I looked in the archives and only found this unanswered question from Oritsu.me.)Ed[talk][OMT]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, 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. Hawkeye7(discuss)01:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
@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. Ed[talk][OMT]02:13, 3 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. Ed[talk][OMT]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. Stepho talk03:25, 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. Stepho talk00:05, 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. Hawkeye7(discuss)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? BD2412T00:39, 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. Remsense 🌈 论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. 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 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. EEng01:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Two sides of the same coin: "in unpopular culture" sections are among the most common one can find onwiki. Remsense 🌈 论21:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
@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? BD2412T22:20, 3 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. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:26, 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 an entity in which all property (streets, parks, etc.) and all services (courts, police, etc.) are provided or 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.,". -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username: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: RichFarmbrough21:48, 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 this search. -- Beland (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2025 (UTC)
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. Dicklyon (talk) 14:40, 7 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. RoySmith(talk)17:36, 13 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. 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". Largoplazo (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
I think this is pretty clear in MOS:RANGES: 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. 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. pburka (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2025 (UTC)
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.) Georgia guy (talk) 10:25, 16 July 2025 (UTC)
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.
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). Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 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. 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). Blueboar (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)
Hmm. Looking at 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. 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. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:18, 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:
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? NLeeuw (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
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. NLeeuw (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. 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. 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 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. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:24, 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 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:
Croats of Italy - compare Serbs in Italy; - the Category:Ethnic groups in Italy overwhelmingly uses Form 1 Fooians in Italy and Form 1c Fooian people in Italy, while some subcategories and articles use Form 1b Fooian minority in Italy (or actually Fooian diaspora in Italy). No other articles or categories use Form 2; Croats of Italy is the odd one out.
It seems to me that for the Americas and Oceania, the local consensus is Form 4 Fooian Barlanders, while for Asia and Europe outside of former Yugoslavia, the consensus is Form 1 Fooians in Barland. For articles and categories within the boundaries of former Yugoslavia, I would propose not to change anything for the time being. NLeeuw (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; Croats of Sweden to Croats in Sweden (edit: it's already Croats in Sweden); Swedish Serbs to Serbs in Sweden, etc. On a linguistic note, Hrvati u Švicarskoj probably better translates to Croats in Switzerland than to 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, NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
I realize that was rather vague. My default approach would be to start an RM on the most popular page, which is Swedish Serbs (see 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 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. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:59, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
@Myceteae Thanks! I've placed it there now: Talk:Swedish Serbs#Requested move 21 July 2025. @Blueboar and @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! NLeeuw (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
As Welsh English maintains the Late Middle English diphthong /iu̯/ as a falling diphthong (/iu̯~ɪʊ̯/), keeping you/juː/, yew/jɪʊ̯/, and ewe/U/ɪʊ̯/ heterophones, shall we write an euphemism, an European, an university, etc. in the Wikipedic articles of Wales or Welsh entities? 西城東路 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)
Use of business form in first sentence in article about business
There's currently a discussion at Talk:Google#First line "Google LLC" or "Google" about whether or not to include "LLC" in the name of the company in the first sentence. It seems that it's quite common to include the business form (or is it the legal name?) in the first sentence, e.g. Penguin Random House says "Penguin Random House Limited", Y Combinator says "Y Combinator, LLC (YC)". But why? Is there a policy or guideline regarding the inclusion of the business entity form of a company or business in the first sentence? (Not the article title, that's covered by WP:NCCORP.) — Chrisahn (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
That comment was not helpful. This is about general policy, not about Google. And if you believe opening sentences have to use the same name as the page title, you're quite mistaken. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
It simply makes sense for an article to mention any alternative names (including the legal name) in the first few sentences of the article… both to inform the reader and so users searching for one of those alternative names know they have arrived at the correct article. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
It's reasonable and widespread to give the full name in the first sentence (in bold), so including such legal entity identifiers. Gawaon (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)
Ptrnext had the answer: MOS:FIRSTCORP. Quote: "Regardless of the page title, the lead sentence of an article on a company or other organization should normally begin with its full legal name." That settles it. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)
After a bit of discussion at UBE template talk (and discussions listed in the table there), I feel there's some pretty divergent readings of MOS:COMMONALITY, so I feel it might be helpful to see what consensus (if any) looks like atp.
First, the scope or domain of MOS:COMMONALITY is either the class of English varieties or dialects (call it E), or is the class of terms and phrases of any particular English variety or dialect (call them Vx for dialect x). And the test of MOS:COMMONALITY is either boolean, or is if-else formed.
So we have four readings of MOS:COMMONALITY from what I gather:
boolean over E: where dialect x either meets or does not meet MOS:COMMONALITY, and so is fit or not fit for use on Wikipedia, as judged per its Vx.
if-else over E: null.
boolean over Vx: where a term or phrase in Vx either meets or does not meet MOS:COMMONALITY, and so is fit or not fit for use on Wikipedia, as judged by how universal it is in E.
if-else over Vx: where a term or phrase in Vx either is or is not universal in E, and if not, either is to be avoided (in favour of its more universal equivalent, if available and meaning or context allow) or else is to be glossed (otherwise).
I feel MOS:COMMONALITY is pretty straightforwardly meant to be read as 4 above, but have now come across a good number of editors seemingly reading MOS:COMMONALITY as 1 or 3 instead (so I might be way off!). These are all substantively distinct readings (with different consequences each), I feel. Might be helpful to see editor preferences/thoughts re these readings :)
Ps some editors also seem to include informal or non-written terms or phrases in Vx when testing MOS:COMMONALITY over E or over Vx, but this seems like a straightforward mistake (rather than a distinct reading of MOS:COMMONALITY), as these are already outside the scope of all of MOS by dint of Wikipedia's being a written encyclopaedia. But if not, we'd have even more than 1–4 readings of MOS:COMMONALITY!
Pps - Ohconfucius and Beland, I feel like you might both be using reading no 3? And Jonesey95 sounds like a no 1 reader to me. Apologies if I misclassified!
I'm sorry, I do not understand all of your mathematical jargon. MOS:COMMONALITY is pretty self-explanatory. It doesn't say anything about whether a given variety of English may be used, only what to do in cases where words have different meanings or do not appear in different dialects. MOS:TIES has a non- comprehensive list of dialects which must be used for at least some articles, and requires use of any given dialect's formal register. -- Beland (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm afraid that, like Beland, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here aside: my Ph.D. is in mathematical logic, but on the other hand I haven't worked in the field for a while and it's also late and I'm tired, so apologies if I ought to get it, but it seems to me that you're overthinking this. Basically it's just saying strive to use words that readers from most Englishes will recognize and not be jarred by (so for example generally use while in preference to whilst even if the article is in British English; use alternative in preference to alternate when they mean the same thing, even if the article is in American English). This doesn't need to be the subject of a law-school dissertation; just keep all readers in mind and use common sense. --Trovatore (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Aww geeez my bad, the above is just word salad tbh (long day, lots caffeine I fear). But Trovatore and Beland pretty much cleared by doubts, thank you :)
For future readers - I think I was trying to see whether (by consensus) it ever follows from MOS:COMMONALITY that this or that dialect is unfit for use in Wikipedia, or that this or that dialect's regionalisms are likewise unfit (rather than just to be avoided if uncommon/jarring, or else glossed if avoiding is not possible). These claims seemed to come up quite a bit in vars TfD and related discussions regarding vars {{Use X English}} templates, is why. Case seems settled in negative though!
I mean, stuff like that does come up. I think we've had several iterations of discussions over lakh and crore, which I think mean one hundred thousand and ten million respectively, though I could have that backwards. It's a difficult problem, because understandably Indian editors can be a bit offended at the idea that they should be banned, but on the other hand most non-Indian readers really don't know what they mean, whereas I'm pretty sure Indian readers do understand one hundred thousand and ten million. --Trovatore (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
For sure, and that's like healthy debate, and the intended/straightforward reading of MOS:COMMONALITY imo! Just goes a bit awry or gets a bit muddled (imo) when some editors go from (for eg) "Whoa, Indian English has lots of these jarring/uncommon regionalisms" to "Indian English fails MOS:COMMONALITY so is unfit for Wiki so let's delete {{Use Indian English}}". I wasn't really seeing how MOS:COMMONALITY could be blanket failed at all [outside of context in article prose]!, and the claim seemed to go unchallenged quite a bit in vars TfDs. Prolly the latter made me doubt my initial reading, won't happen again :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Nope, I don't understand a bit of what is laid out above. I do find it enjoyable that mathematical language unintelligible by even pretty smart readers is being used to open a discussion on the talk page for MOS:JARGON. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
MOS:NOTUSA says "Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes)." My impression is that "USA" is very common in addresses (for example, "1 Harbor Drive, San Diego, California, USA", or "a pasture in Middle-of-Nowhere, USA" or "a hill in southern Nevada, USA") where the writer includes the country—more common than "US" or "U.S."; therefore, the policy should be altered to allow or even encourage "USA" in these contexts.
When used as an adjective (for example, in "I am a US citizen."), I agree that "USA" is quite rare, and have no objection to implementing a rule against it in that context.
When used as a noun that is not part of an address (for example, "I visited the USA."), I encounter both "US" and "USA" often enough that I believe that both should be allowed. — LucasBrown08:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Might be due to established usage in Chicago MOS, or AP Style, or Strunk & White, or one of the those? Those are all American, so I feel this'd for sure be covered there, and then MOS followed whatever they recommended. (Or else this might've been WikiProject United States project guidance that then was adopted by MOS.) So practice seems pretty entrenched in and out of Wiki (regardless of informal/postal use of "USA")! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
There used to be a rationale listed for clashing with the abbreviation for US Army (vs USN for the navy and USAF for the air force). Stepho talk12:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
How frequently do articles contain international mailing addresses or casual remarks like "I visited the USA"? That latter doesn't even sound to me like something someone would say except in an affected way. The closest I think an article would come to it would be "In 1905, X visited the United States", in which the name would be spelled out and both US and USA would be inappropriately informal. Largoplazo (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia serves a global audience, including people in foreign countries who are less likely to know, for example, that Vermont is a state in the USA; therefore, when an article specifies an American location, it is usually encouraged to include an indication to that effect when the location's American-ness has not already been established. For example, Shiprock, New Mexico begins "Shiprock (Navajo: Naatʼáanii Nééz) is an unincorporated community on the Navajo reservation in San Juan County, New Mexico, United States.", and its short description is "Town in New Mexico, USA" (and I was not even the one who made that edit). Also, infoboxes for buildings and the like often contain street addresses; the one at White House goes so far as to contain "U.S.". — LucasBrown12:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
There's no need to have it read "USA" and I don't see any reason to change that. The short description should be revised. Largoplazo (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
I am intrigued to find such a lively debate about the ‘A’, when nowadays it’s the ‘U’ that seems so incongruous? MapReader (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with User:LucasBrown's point. I ingest an enormous amount of English-language written content every week from a vast variety of sources around the world and have done so for over 30 years. I'm not seeing any trend towards USA. U.S. has always been the preferred usage in formal written English, especially American English. The Simple English Wikipedia was created to serve those who lack sufficient training in formal written English. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Chicago Manual of Style loosened its long-standing objection to "US" in the 2014 edition. I haven't looked since, but the trend is definite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)
I have been looking into the history of British education in the 20th century for over two years because I keep noticing British English partisans trying to insert their bad ideas into the WP Manual of Style, and they point to American style guides like CMOS which have been picking up those bad ideas. I have come across numerous published secondary sources documenting the history of primary and secondary education in the United States, especially the teaching of English language arts. (For example, see this article about English Education in the United States.) ELA teaching as practiced in the United States is a conservative and occasionally cruel enterprise. Its conservatism explains why American English grammar evolves relatively slowly compared to other English dialects. It is true that ELA doesn't really work for half the American population, the ones who are illiterate or barely literate. But it works well enough for the other half, in the sense of producing some of the finest writers on Earth.
After searching multiple times on the public Internet and in two of the largest research university library systems in the United States over the last two years, I have not yet found any corresponding works for England, in the sense of an objective history of how schoolchildren in England are taught how to read and write and how that has evolved during the 20th century. I see polemics, I see reports, I see primary sources, when I'm looking for a high-level published secondary source that dispassionately connects the dots and gives me a forest instead of the trees. The fact that no one apparently has any interest in writing that secondary source speaks volumes about the quality of British English today. It is something to be ashamed of. It is not an example to be emulated. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, interesting statements. I can summarise your points as a) systems different to mine can be labelled as "bad ideas", b) looking for non-US sources in US libraries found nothing and c) no sources means too embarrassed which means it must be bad.
"I love you, but not enough to die for you / Te quiero mucho pero no tanto como para morir por tí"
from a comic strip published simultaneously in both languages. MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE doesn't seem to apply since it's not something that appeared in Spanish and I'm providing a translation for our readers' benefit. Both the English and Spanish versions are from the original text and neither is secondary to the other. Any suggestions on how to handle this? RoySmith(talk)19:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
To put it on the record, my (not particularly strong) suggestion was to lead with the English, as we know our readers can understand that, and do something like saying "I love you, but not enough to die for you" (in Spanish, "Te quiero mucho pero no tanto como para morir por tí").UndercoverClassicistT·C19:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
It should probably be OK to move the foreign-language version into an explanatory note, or to drop it altogether. Gawaon (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Same. Just use the English quote alone. Similarly, just use the Spanish quote in Spanish WP. This is what we do for preferring English language references in English WP. Stepho talk04:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
FOREIGNQUOTE says foreign lang original must be provided if quote was translated by the Wikipedia editor, else may be provided. But this one was translated by the source itself, so may or may not include imo (but agree it'd look better in a footnote). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I am intrigued to know why people are edit-warring about text inside a hidden note. Will people look what they are doing!Nigel Ish (talk) 18:31, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
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 parenthetical.
Correct:
He traveled through North Carolina before staying in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the night.
Incorrect:
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:
Correct:
Hantratty received a PhD from the University of California, Irvine, in 1977.
Incorrect:
Hantratty received a PhD from the University of California, Irvine in 1977.
Include a second comma when the construction with a comma modifies a noun or compound noun:
Correct:
Keith Wilson won the 2024 Portland, Oregon, mayoral election.
Incorrect:
Keith Wilson won the 2024 Portland, Oregon mayoral election.
It has been claimed that the guideline is valid for full sentences, but not article titles, and that "a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun is awkward and very unusual". If there were exceptions, they would have to be documented in MoS (wouldn't they?), but no such exceptions exist.
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 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 Jruderman in that RM.
Other comment
On the other hand, there is this comment from 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. 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.We visited their Enid, Oklahoma plant. but more commonly We visited their Enid, Oklahoma, plant."
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:
"5 Charged in U.C. Berkeley Professor's Killing in Greece, Including His Ex-Wife". The New York Times. July 17, 2025. 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.
"Judge T.S. Ellis III, 85, Dies; Stirred Outcry Over Manafort Sentence". The New York Times. August 12, 2025. He joined the large law firm Hunton & Williams (now Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP) in its Richmond, Va., office as a litigation attorney and briefly worked with Lewis F. Powell Jr. there before Mr. Powell was appointed to the United States Supreme Court in 1972 by President Richard M. Nixon.
(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.
Support in principle, particularly as the wording of WP:USPLACE already supports it. A few points, though:
There should probably be a brief line before the example, making the point it's intended to illustrate. Something like "Include a second comma when the construction with a comma modifies a noun or compound noun." – but I'd like someone else to have a look over that.
Could a more succinct example be used? With a different US state for the sake of variety, because the first example is also for a place in Tennessee? Ham II (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
What would the sentence be? "Pete Buttigieg's South Bend, Indiana, mayoralty laid the foundation for his national political rise" or something like that? Ham II (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)
Using a comma before and after the state in this context is also standard for all U.S. government style guides, and the Associated Press Style Guide. Its frankly weird to exclude the second comma. [13] -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Of course a comma is needed in such cases, but whether that needs a special example I really don't know. It's not essentially different from the other examples that are already there, as far as I can see. Gawaon (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. As you can see in the quotes from opposing editors, above and in the linked RM, they object to the comma when it's part of a compound modifier – "between an single adjective/attributive and a noun". This makes it important to add an example in which it's used as part of a compound modifier. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
All of the examples provided are in prose, not article titles. I find titles like 2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash quite strange looking and they take me an extra moment to parse. I understand and accept the reasoning for this usage in running text and don't find it so jarring when I encounter it there. I acknowledge this doesn't have a strong basis in external style guides or WP P&G, but the mixed consensus in various RMs cited shows I'm not alone. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
There's no reason to believe that article titles aren't the subject of the same guidelines/rules on spelling, grammar and (if present) punctuation as phrases. Do you really mean that, for the article on the election in the proposed example, the comma should be cut out? That doesn't make much sense to me, and sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
The mixed consensus maybe due to editors not paying enough attention to punctuation and/or not being aware of MOS:GEOCOMMA, and the mixed RM outcomes may be due to a simple vote count by the RM closer instead of checking the guidelines.
There are numerous cases of missing closing commas in phrases in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we don't correct it. (Editors have questioned that too, even fought against it.)
I have tagged some editors that opposed a previous RM that added the comma, but they have not responded. Probably because they now realize what the guidelines actually says. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I raised this because the discussion is presented as specifically pertaining to articles titles, and as the RM discussions referenced show, title-specific arguments are frequently made and consensus doesn't always land at including the comma. I agree with Amakuru's statement below—frequently editors are making a very reasonable and precedent-supported argument that titles are different. No doubt, as you suggest, it is sometimes also a result of ignorance, sloppiness, or inappropriate majority-rule !vote counting. Should our MOS have a separate GEOCOMMA rule for article titles? I'm not so sure, and I don't quite know how it should be formulated or limited. I'm not advocating for one although I think a useful version of an exception is possible. My point is that the discussion here, and the proposal to add another example from running text, does not actually address concerns specific to article titles. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk16:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Consensus at RMs is generally against adding the comma when it's pointed out to editors how ridiculous it looks. While omitting the comma isn't ideal, editors generally regard it as the lesser of two evils and it isn't entirely without precedent, as found in the sourced analysis done when we were discussing this previously. In a title, the placename can be treated as a single proper name, the way we would for a work of art - "I have the painting Knoxville, Tennesee hanging in my living room". — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
In the title of your painting, the comma is part of the title, serving a role within it but no role in the context of the rest of the sentence. "Knoxville, Tennessee" is the name of the painting. (It's made clearer by the convention of italicizing the title.) In "I visited Knoxville, Tennessee, in 1997", the name of the city is "Knoxville", which is being qualified as "which is in Tennessee" or "the one in Tennessee". The commas are serving a grammatical role within the sentence. If the whole name were "Knoxville, Tennessee" and the comma weren't meant to be fulfilling the ordinary grammatical role, then why would there be a comma at all? The name of the city could be "Knoxville Tennessee", comparable to "George Washington". In fact, with US postal abbreviations, that IS what we do: the prescribed format is "Knoxville TN". Largoplazo (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Please humor a not-so-bright editor
Can someone please explain to me what is illustrated or explained by the new Portland example, which isn't 100% covered by the Chattanooga and Irvine examples already present? If someone can come up with a construction with a comma [which] modifies a noun or compound noun which is not a variation on the themes already illustrated, that might be worth including, but AFAICS the Portland example adds precisely zero given what's already there. EEng02:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
The Portland example is the only one where the place is a modifier. Here, you could replace Portland or Portland, Oregon with an adjective or other modifier, like the big election or the hotly-contested election or the historic mayoral election, and the sentence is still grammatical. Adjectives can't replace Chattanooga, Tennessee or the University of California, Irvine in the other examples. This is a distinct use case, and I suppose fine to include, but I agree that it adds very little to the understanding of the guidance and, as I stated above, does not address controversies specific to article titles. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
The reason it needs to be included is that some editors allege that you can't put a comma "between an single adjective/attributive and a noun" because it "is awkward and very unusual" (and variations thereof), see #Oppose rationale above. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:55, 19 August 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 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.
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?). 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? -- 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. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 11:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
We discussed it here 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. 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. Gawaon (talk) 06:53, 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. -- Beland (talk) 14:50, 15 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. -- 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. 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. 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. -- 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?). Graham11 (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia is very simple and should ideally be able to support non-unicode systems like Windows <=2000. I think that we should stick with the three dots as the ellipsis character is an unnecessary complication.
We use UTF-8 as the character encoding for all pages, require HTTPS with HTTP/2 and modern encryption, and have modern CSS and HTML 5 tags. It's possible things degrade gracefully on some older systems, but if it's so old it doesn't support Unicode, it's also possible it just wouldn't be able to connect to Wikipedia and the Foundation would not find it cost-effective to put any effort into fixing that. What we do want to support are "simple" modern systems, like text-only non-JavaScript browsers, and browsers using text-to-speech. (And of course even the fully capable modern browsers surface usability problems with these characters, as mentioned above.)
The idea of converting all our en dashes and em dashes to ASCII hyphens is actually quite appealing, as it would simplify a lot of maintenance and make things easier to type and search. But the situation there is also a bit different; sometimes we use both an en dash and an em dash in the same sentence, and the difference can be visually helpful to distinguish a range from a parenthetical phrase. Or maybe because they are more visually distinct people just care about the aesthetics more. (For some reason I always sign my comments with a double hyphen as if I'm emulating an emdash, which is pretty much the ugliest way to do things.) -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
The precomposed ellipsis character was already part of the once widespread Windows-1252 character set. I think you'll have to go back into the last millennium to find Windows systems that might have problems with it. How many of those are still running and connected to the Internet? (Hopefully, not many!) Gawaon (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
For World AIDS Day 2023, the New York Transit Museum posted a retrospective noting that "The campaign’s long run meant that riders became invested in the story; interpersonal tension between characters lasted years in the minds of New Yorkers". Paul Baumann, writing for the liberal Catholic magazine Commonweal, called it an "interminable AIDS soap opera"
@Fortuna Imperator Mundi suggested in a FAC review that I be consistent with the capitalization. The current text preserves how the original sources had it (the second quote is a fragment from a larger passage). What's the right thing to do here? Should I do what I have now per MOS:PMC? Or silently change the capitalization to be uniform? Or change it, but call out the change with [brackets]? RoySmith(talk)13:07, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Should brief guidance on False titles be added to MOS?
Several times of the past year I've been involved in minor discussions over the use of False titles in articles. Nothing earth-shaking, usually civil discussions ... sometimes in Peer Reviews or FA reviews. The MOS is silent on false titles, so each discussion has to research and present the same points, over and over. I'm wondering if adding a sentence to the MOS may help future editors quickly resolve these situation? Something like:
Editors may use false titles or not, so long as each article is internally consistent.
Here are a handful of links where false titles were discussed (there are many more, this is simply a few I'm aware of):
I am aware of the essay WP:MOSCREEP, but since the false title issue appears to arise regularly, and the discussions always seem end the same way, maybe the MOS should steer editors to a resolution? It might save a lot of hours of wasted Talk page discussion. Noleander (talk) 15:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree adding a brief statement would be a good thing. If we were willing to indulge our CREEPiness a bit, I'd add that AmEng leans towards accepting them and BrEng leans towards rejecting them. RoySmith(talk)16:14, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I've seen people say this AmEng/BrEng thing a lot, and for all I know it's true, but I don't think I've ever seen a reliable source for it. Is there one? Popcornfud (talk) 16:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I was just going on what people had said in the various talk threads. If there's no consensus to add that, then I'm fine with Noleander's original terse statement. RoySmith(talk)16:50, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
The False title article has a pretty good survey of how false titles are used (or not used) in several countries, and why. My impressions are: there are no solid rules; the usage is evolving over time; experts disagree; and even in UK where false titles are rare, they are gradually creeping in.
If the WP MOS were to add some words about false titles, it may be prudent to steer clear of any advice, other than (1) both approaches are acceptable (use false titles; or not) ; and (2) be consistent within an article. Noleander (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
In response to Popcornfud: for what it's worth, The New Fowler's Modern English Usageentry for "the" cited in our article "False title", says:
The type Prime Minister Major. This construction, with omission of the before an occupational title followed by a person’s name, is embedded in AmE but less so in BrE. It is especially common in journalistic work.
Thanks for that. I wrote the false title essay but haven't looked at the actual Wikipedia article about it for years. Would probably have been a sensible place to check. Popcornfud (talk) 17:53, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
The current version of Fowler's (4th ed., 2015) has been updated (emphasis added):
This construction, in place of the more traditional the Prime Minister, i.e. with omission of the before an occupational title and the addition of a person’s surname, sometimes also with the first name, is embedded in AmE and becoming more so in BrE. It is especially common in journalistic work.
Example sentences include this 2012 article from British tech news site The Register where the phrase something Prime Minister Cameron said appears. Note that the examples include true titles (Prime Minister Cameron) and false titles (economist Sylvia Ann Hewlitt). --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:30, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm somewhat torn but lean against thinking this should be added. The fact that it apparently comes up regularly does give me some pause. I oppose requiring internal consistency within an article. False titles don't stand out to my American eyes and ears and switching between using false titles and including the article is natural whereas requiring internal consistency is overkill and may produce more awkward prose. Guidance and examples in Fowler's and several examples in the linked discussion Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/archive96#False_titles? show that the practice of using false titles is increasingly common in BrE and that the practice of switching between stylescombining false titles and use of 'the' within a published piece is also common. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:45, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
"Switching between styles within a published piece" sounds like a recipe for chaos on WP, which, admittedly, we already have in many articles. Those do tend to be crappy. I know what I would do if I were the Dictator of Wikipedia;-): make it policy that consistent styles, within individual articles and determined by local consensus, are the standard. No doubt some wildfires would break out on the respective talk pages, but at least there would be a lodestar for navigation. Carlstak (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't actually characterize using a false title in one phrase and then using 'the' elsewhere in the same piece as switching styles. It's natural and commonplace. I should not have called it switching between styles. Perhaps this is my American bias but phrase like the American director John Smith met with studio head Jane Doe reads fine to me and it would be bizarre to dictate that 'the' be added or removed. If there are actual problematic examples those could be copy edited per editorial discretion or local consensus for a particular article. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:59, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Even where it is a little awkward to combine within a single sentence, using both practices in different parts of the same article is not problematic. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:03, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
That's your opinion. I'm American and I don't really care one way or the other. I've been writing in British English and Oxford spelling English, as well as in American English, for quite a few years on WP, and I feel most comfortable when the article has an established style. Then I'm less likely to step on someone's toes or offend their sensibilities without digging into archives to see what consensus might have been established, if one ever was. Speaking in my imaginary capacity as Dictator of Wikipedia, just relax, nothing's going to happen here anyway.;-) Carlstak (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't really have a strong feeling one way or another on whether false titles are great or horrible or whatever. I'm just tired of having false titles brought up, and the subsequent confusion about what WP's policy is. I'd appreciate it if the MOS helped those discussions get resolved quicker. It would be helpful if the MOS captured the current WP overall consensus, even if that turns out to be: The MOS does not specify that false titles should be preferred or avoided; and does not require that false titles (or absence thereof) be applied uniformly thru an article. The MOS already has several "no opinion" statements, does it not? Noleander (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if the MOS helped those discussions get resolved quicker That's really what this is about. Once you've had an argument enough times that it's clear how it's going to end, just write that down and move on to something else. RoySmith(talk)22:27, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm still not entirely convinced. I have no strong objection to cataloguing current practice along the lines of The MOS does not specify that false titles should be preferred or avoided; and does not require that false titles (or absence thereof) be applied uniformly thru an article but I'm also not sure it's all that helpful. The evidence posted shows that the question comes up periodically but the discussions don't seem contentious. This amounts to a non-instruction. Thus the CREEP concerns are minimized but so is the utility. If a handful of editors will find it helpful to be able to point to this to move discussions along and the guidance does not amount to a change in practice, then perhaps it's fine. I'm not sure where this should go, if we decide to add this at all, but the MOSBIO section seems reasonable. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk07:16, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
What about this example?
International reactions
The President of France, Emmanuel Macaron, sent his condolences.
US President Donald Trump said his thoughts and prayers were with the families.
The Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, called the event a "tragedy".
I don't have much of a problem with this. It does read like a somewhat clumsy attempt to add variety by not repeating the same phrasing over and over again. Could it benefit from some wordsmithing? Sure. But it's not incorrect and I doubt I would have noticed it if I came across this in the wild. To the extent there is a problem here, a focus on uniform use or non-use of false titles it too narrow. This could be cleaned up per editorial discretion or, if the phrasing is controversial, local consensus at the article in question. I still object to requiring consistency throughout an entire article (and this looks to be where consensus is heading). If what is jarring to some editors here is the juxtaposition in successive sentences, differing usage in different sections or the article doesn't present the same problem. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that I wouldn't notice differing usage in different sections.. I think the term is parallelism (grammar) of multiple sentences: "She likes reading. He likes to play baseball." is grammatical but has a similar style problem. 174.138.218.72 (talk) 17:26, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The ENGVAR dimension should certainly be mentioned. I'm old enough to think that most FTs are just plain wrong in BrE, and certainly very jarring, but I leave them alone in AmE articles, although I don't think eg The New Yorker would normally allow them. I'm not sure the brief proposed text is going to help anyone, frankly, but adding it's largely an ENGVAR issue might; most Americans don't seem aware of this. Johnbod (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The evidence presented so far shows it is something of a historical ENGVAR issue, with increasing usage in BrE but possibly still less common than in AmE. If ENGVAR is mentioned, it shouldn't be over-stated. If there are other sources showing a substantial present-day difference, those should be presented. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk07:21, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
That "possibly still less common than in AmE" is a distortion of "the evidence presented so far", but we need more evidence, such as UK style guides. I'm strongly against ANY change to MOS that ignores ENGVAR issues. Johnbod (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
That "possibly still less common than in AmE" is a distortion of "the evidence presented so far" How so? And how would you propose handling the ENGVAR question in our MOS. So far we have one style guide (Fowler's, 2015) saying the false titles practice is becoming more [embedded] in BrE, another (Cambridge, 2014) saying it is resisted outside of American usage, and several examples of the usage in a variety of sources, including books published by Cambridge University Press. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk15:35, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I am leaning against, largely per WP:CREEP but also because telling editors that things must be consistent is a recipe for setting gnomes going, looking for articles that include a false title and then insisting that all other people mentioned in those articles must also have false titles for consistency. I don't think that would be a good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Here’s how The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2014, p. 536) treats the topic: “Journalistic omission of the. In everyday news reporting journalists often delete the when providing readers either a thumbnail identity of the person just mentioned in the report:
Peter Carey, (the) author of Oscar and Lucinda and ex-advertising man has a gift for graphic description.
As an appositional structure, this is grammatically straightforward. But the practice is sometimes applied before mentioning the person’s name:
Novelist and ex-advertising man Peter Carey has a gift for…
This gives the person a “pseudo-title” (Meyer 2002), a style which is well established in American news reporting but resisted in other quarters of the English-speaking world. It is strongly associated with journalese (see further under journalism).” Ham II (talk) 08:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I would oppose adding anything to the MOS about false titles. Certainly they should not be prohibited in any variety of English, per modern usage and avoiding restrictions on the English language based on rules which make little logical sense and have the air of something someone made up in days gone by (split infinitives are another example). But equally, the insertion of the is almost always just as good as omitting it, so if individual editors prefer not to use false titles or local consensus is against them, then that's fine too. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:37, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Just to clarify on this, I have no objection to adding the simple line "Editors may use false titles or not" to the MOS, but I strongly oppose the additional text suggested above, "so long as each article is internally consistent". Using or not using false titles isn't an all-or-nothing question, some constructs work well with them, and some work well using the more full version including the, which isn't a full title. We should be explicit that there's no rule about this, not say there's no rule and then throw in a rule anyway for no demonstrated value. — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes. Moreover, the Cambridge Guide argument seems to boil down to "we don't like it" (why is it a "pseudo-title" when used before the name, but "grammatically straightforward" after it?). Plus the cited source is more than 10 years old, and usage evolves. (I observe myself as having "resisted" this style more strongly 10 or even 5 years ago than I do now.) Gawaon (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Does anyone object to adding "Editors may use false titles or not" to WP:MOSBIO? Even that minimal guidance would help future editors. Alternatively: Editors may use false titles or not, and usage is not required to be uniform thru an article? Noleander (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The wording "false title" itself seems to suggest that there's something wrong with this usage, so it would probably be better to find a more neutral wording. Gawaon (talk) 14:38, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
How about "Placing 'the' before occupations is optional" or "Using the word 'the' before occupations is optional" or "Using the word 'the' before occupations is optional. Both "Historian John Doe wrote ..." and "The historian John Doe wrote ..." are acceptable or "Placing 'the' before occupations is optional (both "Historian John Doe wrote ..." and "The historian John Doe wrote ..." are acceptable)Noleander (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
To me, it would be odd to restrict any guidance to occupations. For example, a Guardian article published this week says "Just-announced album already looks like it will make singer and partner Travis Kelce hysterically famous at a new level", which uses false titles to describe Kelce as a partner (not an occupation), and to describe an album a "just-announced" (not even a person, let alone a person with an occupation).Popcornfud (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
You're right, I misread the example I quoted, d'oh. However, my point about "partner" stands - are we going to say false titles are OK only for occupations? Popcornfud (talk) 20:40, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I would say that "Taylor Swift and partner Travis Kelce" is (usually) outside the style permitted in formal English, except in journalism: we would expect her partner. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:18, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Reads good to me. It also applies in combination with nationalities ([the] Canadian historian Jane Doe), but maybe that goes without saying. Gawaon (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I can't defend this with any strict appeal to a grammar rule, but to my (American) ear, there's a subtle difference between:
historian John Doe
the historian John Doe
In the first example, the primary focus is the person (John Doe), and "historian" is just an adjective describing what he does. In the second. the primary focus is on the role (the historian) and "John Doe" is an adjective explaining which historian we're talking about. RoySmith(talk)16:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure I have the same feeling of the difference, but there would sometimes be cause for e.g. "the physician John Doe is a national hero; the cattle-rustler John Doe is a public menace" -- either to distingish between two people of the same name or, slightly poetically, between different aspects of the same person. That's an argument against "be consistent within the article", in my view, which is otherwise a good maxim. I remember in the discussion at FAC we found several examples of "good" publications which flipped back and forth in the same article/chapter/page. UndercoverClassicistT·C16:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I had the same feeling about 'false titles' suggesting the practice is improper. On the other hand, using the term to introduce the topic presents the opportunity to link to the Wiki article and clarify that the practice may apply to descriptors other than professions. I agree that if there's a better term, we should consider using that. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The most recent proposal (immediately above, in green) is simply: "Editors may use false titles or not." (added to WP:MOSBIO), so there should be no need to include words specifying context. Even that minimal guidance will be helpful to future editors, since it will prevent wasted discussion if any editors insist on avoiding false titles entirely, which does happen with some regularity. Noleander (talk) 14:42, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The guidance is limited to constructs of the following form: [The] occupation person-name... e.g. [The] historian Jane Doe ... [Edited based on discussion below] "[The] <nationality> <descriptior> <person-name> ..." such as "historian Jane Doe wrote ...", "the biologist John Doe established ...", "the Canadian academic Jean Doe concluded ...", "French philosopher Sartre published ...",
Use of the word "the" (in that construct) is optional (WP has no preference)
Use of the word "the" (in that construct) may vary throughout an article (no need to be consistent)
The guidance should include a link to false title to give readers more insight; but the term "false title" should be de-emphasized lest readers think "false" suggests that the word "the" is encouraged.
Not yet determined: should the guidance include examples; such as: Both "Historian Jane Doe wrote ..." and "The historian Jane Doe wrote ..." are acceptable.[Edit: moved examples up to second bullet, above]
@Gawaon: I updated the bullet points above to include nationality. I also moved the examples into the second bullet, presenting them as part of the proposed guidance. Noleander (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I worry that occupation is to narrow and would prefer to say descriptor (or something along these lines). My sense is that this is (most?) common with professions and that other descriptors may be more informal, but that's not universal. Gawaon's suggestion to mention the common usage with nationalities makes sense. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I like the updates made in response to both me and Gawaon. One nitpick that you can take or leave: I would not capitalize the first letter, unless it's a proper noun, to better show that these are not 'true titles' which often are capitalized. So: historian Jane Doeorthe historian Jane Doe. This doesn't need to be explained in the MOS but this minor change in formatting the examples will make it more clear. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Gawaon's suggestion is with [nationality + occupation], which is right, but "Romeo and Juliet was written by Englishman William Shakespeare" reads pretty oddly to me. UndercoverClassicistT·C21:23, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I was making two separate statements, apologies if that was unclear. First, that 'false titles' can be used with descriptors that are not professions, such as electronics showroom Best Buy[14] or convicted felon so-and-so.[15] Barring other issues like POV and overall informality, the statement about 'false titles' in the MOS should not only apply to professions. My second statement was agreement with Gawaon that we should the practice mention and include an example with a nationality, such as English playwright William Shakespeare or Canadian historian Jane Doe. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk00:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
'false titles' can be used with descriptors that are not professions Yep. I tried to make the same point above, but with a crappier example. Popcornfud (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think we should limit the note to any particular type of false title. A link to the article false title, which establishes that term as the common name and defines its scope, with a note that all forms of false title are acceptable, would seem acceptable for this. — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
The "false title" question (are they permitted or not?) comes up quite regularly. Editors waste time repeating the same discussions over and over, year after year. The MOS offers no guidance. The only guidance editors have is the WP article on false titles; and a non-binding essay (which says false titles are bad). The main purpose of the MOS is to capture the consensus that is reached over and over on multiple Talk pages ... even if the consensus ends up being "False titles may be used or not". A couple of sentences in the MOS would quickly wrap-up future discussions, so editors can get back to building an encyclopedia. Noleander (talk) 12:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I've encountered enough disputes about this to support some mention in the MOS. I don't mind false titles, and I don't think it overly biases the reader to call them that. Of the alt names, "pseudo-title" is maybe a bit more neutral. I agree with the many above that think we shouldn't demand internal consistency. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for suggesting "pseudo-title" as a neutral name ... any MOS guidance should definitely avoid the word "false". The first sentence of the False title article lists some alternative names: "A false, coined, fake, bogus or pseudo-title, also called a Time-style adjective and an anarthrous nominal premodifier, is a kind of preposed appositive phrase..." Of the names listed, "pseudo-title" is the best: neutral, concise and understandable. Noleander (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Er... assuming "false title" is the most common term, shouldn't we use that in the MoS, if we're going to write anything? Popcornfud (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Good question. User:Gawaon was the first to bring this matter up in this Talk page, above, where they wrote "The wording "false title" itself seems to suggest that there's something wrong with this usage, so it would probably be better to find a more neutral wording." Then User: Firefangledfeathers suggested "pseudo-title", immediately above.
I suppose it is a balance: "False title" is perhaps more common (is it? we'd need to research that); but it might lead readers to think it is discouraged. "Pseudo-title" seems like a good balance between the concerns. But I don't have a strong feeling one way or another. Noleander (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree. When I googled false titles yesterday, there were a couple hits for the topic we're discussing here at the top of the first page of results, but more results for false titles of nobility and false or misleading job titles or qualifications, as well as real estate fraud (as in property titles) and references to fake or misleading headlines or titles of works. This all makes me doubt whether false title is the primary topic for false title and the few sources we've reviewed here don't clearly show it is the common name, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion… --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
"Pseudo-titles" sounds decent. Alternatively it could be a more descriptive wording, with "false titles" added in parentheses. Gawaon (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I support the use of pseudo-titlesif this goes in the MOS. It's already a redirect and bolded alternative name in the lead and avoids the negative connotation of 'false'. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk19:36, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
As per Popcornfud above, we should be using the common name for this. If psuedo-title is really more common than false title then we should be moving the Wikipedia article about it. Calling it one thing in the article title and something else in the MOS seems unnecessarily confusing. — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Using a synonym that better suits the tone and purpose of a given page is sound editorial practice. Redirects facilitate this. Both terms are listed and defined as synonymous in the lead of false title; this should clear up any confusion. That said, an RM or exploratory discussion at Talk:False title may be in order. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:17, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I think this is an useful addition to the MOS, and I support Noleander's revised wording given above. This issue is not-evident one way or the other and it comes up sufficiently often that some clear guidance is useful. Gawaon (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above (not saying there is a consensus yet), a possible addition "A" to the MOS is:
Candidate A - Editors may choose to use pseudo-titles or not; and the choice need not be consistent within an article. Acceptable: historian Jane Doe wrote; the biologist John Doe established; the Canadian academic Jean Doe concluded; and French philosopher Sartre published (examples omitting "the" are pseudo-titles).
As already noted, this phenomenon is not limited only to biographical articles. Any entity can potentially have a false (or pseudo) title added before it, so this needs to go in the general MOS, and we need to include some examples that aren't people on our explainer. Other than that, your wording is decent enough, once the naming issue sis revolved. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 22:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree it's not restricted to biography articles. I'm not sure where the best placement would be. Perhaps a new subsection under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Grammar and usage. Wherever it lands, a link from WP:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Positions,_offices,_and_occupational_titles to this guidance would be appropriate. we need to include some examples that aren't people I agree, although my sense is that such usage tends to be even more informal, so we'd need to find or construct a suitable example. An example I mentioned previously is electronics showroom Best Buy. I would probably not use just-announced album (another example that's been raised) in an encyclopedia article. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru@Myceteae: - I'm trying to understand the non-human usage. Are there any Talk page discussions in WP that involve a non-human instance of false titles? Or, if none exist in WP, are there some reliable grammar/journalist sources that discuss false titles in relation to non-human entities? (I'm not saying including non-humans is wrong; I'm just trying to learn more by seeing concrete examples). Noleander (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
My Best Buy example is from this NYT blog post (2012). IIRC, someone shared this link here or in one of the other linked discussions. Garner's Modern English Usage (5 ed., 2022; accessible here with Wikipedia Library login) gives the example sentence: They played eventual champion Arkansas in the opening round last year sourced to the Asheville Citizen-Times. And this from The Chronicle of Higher Education's language and usage blog contains several examples such as ride-hailing firm Uber and tire-manufacturer Pirelli. Note that all three sources use the term 'false title' (and recommend against the practice). --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk04:51, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I think that's purely journalese and unfit for encyclopedic usage. (For the time being at least, who knows how things will stand in 10 or 20 years.) Gawaon (talk) 07:05, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree these tend to be less formal and should therefore be avoided but I’m not convinced every instance is problematic. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk14:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for supplying the link to Garner's Modern English Usage ... it is very informative. I suppose it would make sense to include one or two non-human examples in the guidance. Especially if the guidance is "may be used, or not" then there is no controversy. I have no opinion on if the MOS should discourage false-titles for non-human entities ... but including that advice would probably prolong this discussion, and perhaps lead to a "no consensus" outcome, hence nothing gets added to the MOS. Noleander (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I agree—Permitting one usage and forbidding another gets further into CREEP territory and is less likely to. I see a coupe options:
Give one suitable non-human example without commentary.
Note that non-human examples can be seen as especially informal and, in such cases, should be avoided on those grounds. Follow with a suitable example.
Remain silent on non-human usage.
(1) Is the most parsimonious/least CREEPy way to explicitly address this. It may be interpreted such that this usage is always permissible, but other general standards of encyclopedia writing could be invoked to challenge problematic usage in articles. (2) Is perhaps the "Goldie Locks" version with a little more guidance but not a new or contradictory rule. Of course it may invite controversy about what is informal and in what ways usage needs to mirror our example(s). (3) Contradicts my initial position on this but if this is not a live controversy, perhaps more instruction is not needed here. It may inspire controversy and different interpretations of the omission.
Based on the discussion above (not saying there is a consensus yet), here is another candidate, call it "B", for text to be added to MOS:
Candidate B - Editors may choose to use pseudo-titles or not. In the following examples, the word "the" may be used or omitted: [the] historian Jane Doe wrote; [the] Canadian academic Jean Doe concluded; [the] French philosopher Sartre published; and [the] eventual champion Harvard University began. The choice to use pseudo-titles, also called false titles, need not be consistent within an article.
This candidate "B" updates candidate "A" by (a) adding a non-human example; (b) using both "pseudo-title" and "false title"; and (c) inserting the word "the" in all the examples for clarity (the fact that "the" is optional is explained outside the example list). Noleander (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
This candidate uses {{xt|the}} for all examples and may appear biased against false titles. Perhaps a more neutral alternative would be {{xtg|the}} or {{xt|[the]}}. 174.138.218.72 (talk) 21:03, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the tip ... I was wondering about that potential bias myself. I'll change Candidate B to use the bracket [the] solution. Noleander (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
To expand on the issue with the Harvard example that Gawaon alludes to below, this guideline on false titles is not meant to usurp the English grammar rule that a non-essential element like a non-restrictive appositive is set off with commas per MOS:COMMA. In the sentence The eventual champion, Harvard University, donated the prize money to charity., having "the" as an article preceding the noun phrase goes from a false title for Harvard to indication of a specific champion. Whereas the other examples can sometimes have the name be a similarly non-essential element depending on the preceding context, there is definitively one eventual champion, so the Harvard example is uniquely problematic. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
What the MOS policy for documenting a style choice when WP has no opinion on the choice? Applied to false titles: if the consensus is "WP doesn't care, any style is okay", then should the MOS remain silent? I looked in the MOS page, and I saw two statements that apply:
The MOS states: "New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue." False titles are a subject of recurring discussions, typically marked by confusion due to lack of guidance in the MOS. It is difficult to quantify the magnitude of the issue. I've seen false titles discussed in FA reviews, Peer Reviews, and the like (typically, the reviewer states that false titles are discouraged; and the nominator disagrees, or grudgingly acquiesces).
The MOS states: "Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS one should be used consistently within an article..." This MOS guidance applies to false titles because the use of false titles is optional. However, if the consensus is that the false title choice is not required to be applied consistently within an article, then that consensus deviates from the MOS guidance. That deviation should be documented in the MOS.
It seems like either one of the above two points are sufficient to support adding guidance about false titles to MOS. Noleander (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
There are other MoS entries which do the same (that is, explicitly state that Wikipedia has no particular stance on the matter): MOS:ERA, for instance. They're helpful when editors need to be told not to make a fuss over something. UndercoverClassicistT·C22:44, 19 August 2025 (UTC)
I definitely support adding something that says both ways are acceptable. This is the type of perennial issue that the MoS is supposed to settle by documenting the currently accepted practice. Hopefully we don't WP:BIKESHED about the exact wording we use to describe it. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸04:01, 20 August 2025 (UTC)
I have seen this come up enough times that I think it would be good to add it to the MOS so we don't have to cover the same ground over and over again in discussions going forward. The added text should be clear that both approaches are acceptable, and should explicitly state that it is acceptable to use both approaches in the same article (no need to stick to one or the other "for consistency"). I have no strong feelings about the precise wording, and we can tinker with the phrasing after adding it if need be anyway. It might be worth spelling out the WP:ENGVAR aspect, i.e. that it is more common to omit the definite article in American English than it is in British English but that both approaches are used in both of those varieties (though I am generally speaking not particularly keen on treating those as the only varieties of English worth considering). TompaDompa (talk) 20:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Candidate B. I've become persuaded that such guidance may be useful. The wording reflects consensus, as I see it, and can always be refined after it goes live. I would add this as a new subsection under Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Grammar and usage. I would name the new (sub)section "Pseudo-titles". I acknowledge that there is some dissent about which terminology to lead with in the MOS. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk20:39, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I oppose adding any ENGVAR guidance at this time. My position is unchanged from my earlier comment and subsequent reply. More discussion is needed if this is going to be added, preferably in a new thread. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk17:05, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Candidate B - Because (1) this is a perennial issue: "New content added to this page [MOS] should directly address a persistently recurring style issue."; and (2) false titles are not required to be used consistently, which deviates from the default MOS guidance: "Where more than one style or format is acceptable under the MoS one should be used consistently within an article...."Noleander (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Support either A or B, per my earlier comments and the discussion so far. Though I'm not so happy with the "Harvard University" example in B, but you don't always get what you'd like, I guess. Gawaon (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Support A or B. It seems valuable to save future debate by giving a brief mention of the consensus practice. I prefer A for brevity (I'm not convinced the examples really aid in interpretation) but both seem to reflect what occurs. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:35, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Support Modified B Per Gawaon, I have commented above as to why the Harvard example in Candidate B needs to be removed. Otherwise, this guideline is well-written to address an apparently persistent source of disputes. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Considering that that seems indeed where the consensus is leaning, I'd say it's fine to go ahead and make the change. Gawaon (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
Go ahead and add it. There were clearly many !votes in favor of B as well as prior comments supportive of the overall change. We can make tweaks or start a new discussion in the future as needed. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:51, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the policy used to say (some variation) of:
The MoS presents Wikipedia's house style, to help editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting, making Wikipedia easier and more intuitive for users. Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
Now it instead says:
Editors should write articles using straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language.
As far as I can see, this change was mostly done by User:EEng in February 2022, without discussion (as far as I could find). If others are involved, do ping them of course.
While I have nothing against ditching the explanations, I do wonder if shedding "Plain English" wasn't a loss. It is super convenient when you want to explain not to use elaborate "difficult" writing (unless necessary, of course). Not only is "plain English" immediately understandable, it also linked to the Plain English article, which goes into more detail (if that really is needed).
The current wording does say the same thing pretty much... except it doesn't say it directly. Why say "straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language" - which some readers can get confused by - if we mean plain English? I'm talking exactly the type of reader that needs plain language the most!
I think this attempt at simplification and/or brevity loses a couple of crucial nuances. We want to say use language "intended to be easy to understand." We want to say "avoid[] the use of rare words and uncommon euphemisms." We want the reader to understand we mean easily understood "regardless of one's familiarity with a given topic" and that our articles are "intended to be suitable for almost anyone." But we don't. But Plain English does - the quotes are from there!
I would like us to improve and strengthen these both aspects, that I think got somewhat lost in the shuffle.
I find "straightforward, succinct, and easily understood language" not making TONE issues clear enough; explaining who we want it to be straightforward, succinct, and easily understood for. Thoughts? CapnZapp (talk) 18:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
If the change happened more than 3 years ago without being challenged, I'd say it reflects WP:EDITCON by now. "Plain English" also has problems like that it might be understood to mean a controlled vocabulary or a prohibition to use rare words, which are avoided by the current wording. Personally I think that straightforward, succinct, and easily understood is a straightforward, succinct, and easily understood wording that does the job very well. Gawaon (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)
"Plain English" has the potential drawback of being confused with Basic English and similar, which are much more formal/codified systems which have their value and place, but are generally poor models for writing on this Wikipedia. On the other points -- I'm not sure that our articles are "intended to be suitable for almost anyone." was ever included or implied in the original, but it's a major bone of contention in several discussions as to how far all our articles should fit that bill -- see WP:ONEDOWN for a much-cited guideline that contradicts it. UndercoverClassicistT·C09:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
More succinctly: the Plain English article is a mishmash of junk useless as any kind of guide. EEng10:45, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
There's an ambiguity here. The term "Plain English" is different from the term "plain English". It is, I hope, plain English that is meant. For example we don't (or shouldn't) say "relative to" when we mean "about", "persons" when we mean people, "residence" when we mean home. We eschew circumlocution (in content). We are not Simple English Wikipedia. We do not avoid technical terms, but we often explain them or link to them on first use. We use local terms where appropriate but we also explain or link to them, apart from the very basics.
What I said above has many exceptions, I'm sure, but the principle is the same. We do not unnecessarily make articles harder to read for the vast majority of our readers.
I agree with the other editors who have replied. The current wording is better—it is more straightforward, succinct, and (probably) easily understood than the original. There are exceptions, caveats, and nuances that aren't captured by either version because they aren't easily summarized and that is not the function of this introductory guidance. In this case, less is more. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk16:39, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Most commonly used current variant
@UndercoverClassicist: Greetings! Re: this revert...I was trying to clarify "most commonly used current variant" since the question has come up in talk pages recently. Does it mean "most common in the national variety" or "most common across all Standard English varieties"? I surmised the former based on the discussion that mostly focused on removing archaic spellings. If it means the latter - and I agree that would be a better guideline - a clarification like "(across all varieties of Standard English)" would be helpful. If it means neither of those things, then clarification would also be helpful. -- Beland (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for opening the discussion. I don't think the adjustment/clarification you proposed ("most common that variety" or similar) can be inferred from what's already been written and discussed. The statement in question is part of MOS:COMMONALITY and under an overarching guideline that For an international encyclopedia, using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable.As I read it, the most sensible way to take "most common" in that context is "used most often across all varieties". So, for example, it would encourage writers in American English to refer to someone as a lawyer rather than an attorney, or writers in Scottish English to talk about a stream rather than a burn, or writers on Welsh topics to talk about gym shoes rather than daps -- even though almost any English speaker brought up in Wales would probably choose daps as first choice, and understand gym shoes as an acceptable alternative.As I said in the edit summary, if the MoS was going to make a statement about choosing common terms over unusual ones when EngVar isn't in play, MOS:COMMONALITY wouldn't be the place for it -- we would expect that in something like MOS:ACCESSIBILITY or WP:MTAU. So that also weighs, to me, against the "within a variant" reading of that guideline. UndercoverClassicistT·C17:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
Style guidelines for still images are generally also applicable to equivalent questions regarding the use of audio and video media.
That's it, that's all it says. And the #Images section is right above it, there's nothing between them. I propose the new section be named "Images and videos" and specify in the beginning that they generally also apply to videos. FaviFake (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
Combining these and renaming the section "Images and other media" makes sense to me. This is better than "Images and videos" since audio is also mentioned. @FaviFake If you agree with my wording, I say go ahead and make this change since it does not represent an actual change in guidance and there has been no objection or other input. I would add an {{anchor}} to preserve any existing links to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images, as in:
No objection to this edit… just a comment that the edit summary claimed “consensus” based on only two people agreeing. Ok… perhaps… but it is the weakest consensus possible. Quibble ends. Blueboar (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
Blueboar Technically it's not the weakest, there's also WP:SILENT. I've implemented changes based on that alone.But the main point is: this discussion has been on this highly watched page for 6 days and nobody objected it. That's usually enough.(Also, now that we know at least 1 other person is neutral, it seems, we have an even stronger consensus because we have proof someone read the proposal and didn't object!) FaviFake (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Since it's common for editors to make the mistake of putting 's to pluralize abbreviations, I think there should be a shortcut link to § Plural forms for the sake of edit summaries correcting such errors.
I think the section Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Possessives is full of unnecessary headings. It has only 4 paragraphs of text, yet there are 4 sections, one for each paragraph. I think this makes reading the section unnecessarily harder and interrupts it. This is what it would look like with the headings removed.
I prefer the version with the subheadings. The MOS is typically quickly scanned rather than read through. Frequent subheadings makes it easier to identify the correct content in the TOC and find it in the body.--Trystan (talk) 13:36, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems the essay you linked to is not related to this situation; it talks about how one should write the actual sentences that form policies, not how they should be formatted. Did you mean to link to a different page? FaviFake (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
If there is a shortcut, then there should be a heading to match. The MOS is a dense read with lots of information and so deserves a lot of headings to facilitate navigation and inbound links. Also, I would second the view that you need to slow down. Editing the global MOS for Wikipedia needs much more care and contemplation. If you have changes to offer, then good, but start by proposing them in this talk page. This gives other editors the chance to comment, so any change can be polished. — GhostInTheMachinetalk to me16:03, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
The subheadings are fine here. This is a style guide, not article content (where they would likely be excessive). Gawaon (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
Keep the subheadings. They are more beneficial than not. The MOS is still easy to read as a whole and the subheadings make it easy to quickly locate specific guidance. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk21:44, 4 September 2025 (UTC)
Disclose contradictory readings of COMMONALITY
In a recent TfD, the following readings of MOS:COMMONALITY were both deemed acceptable readings by quite a few editors:
(1) It follows from COMMONALITY that some English dialects are not suitable for Wikipedia.
main thrust: COMMONALITY advises that uncommon terms or phrases be avoided, and nothing else.[1]
(2) It does not follow from COMMONALITY that some English dialects are not suitable for Wikipedia.
main thrust: COMMONALITY advises on the use of uncommon terms or phrases (avoid or gloss [note the or here]), and nothing else.[2]
Notably:
(1) and (2) seem to and do contradict each other.
(1) seems to contradict MOS:ENGVAR: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others."
(1) seems to contradict at least some other related policies or guidelines (eg WP:TITLEVAR).
(1) seems to contradict at least some TfD consensuses (eg this EngvarB one).
Possibly, (2) seems to contradict at least some other related policies or guidelines.[3]
(2) seems to contradict at least some TfD consensuses (eg this UCamE one).
I personally (and strongly) believe COMMONALITY should not be ambiguous between (1) and (2), and that rather one or the other should be excluded as an acceptable reading (eg with explicit text to that effect in COMMONALITY). I feel the current ambiguity (and/or its non-disclosure in COMMONALITY and related policies or guidelines) might be doing more harm than good.[4]
As I really doubt we might reach consensus on one of (1) or (2) here,[5] I'll be adding explicit language to disclose the current lack of consensus on (1) or (2). I'll add this text to either COMMONALITY only (Proposal 1) or to COMMONALITY and all related policies or guidelines (eg ENGVAR, TITLEVAR, etc; Proposal 2). Unless someone objects? Or has a preference for Proposal 1 or Proposal 2?
Again, as with the other large blocks of text posted by the above editor, I don't really understand the logical reasoning here. I don't think MOS:COMMONALITY is confusing. It says to write in a way that would make sense to any educated reader of English, and not to use dialectical constructions that would be seen as ungrammatical or uninterpretable by most readers of English. An example that I gave in a discussion about Euro English and Ugandan English was the sentence, apparently acceptable in the Ugandan dialect, "They told me to come and you give me the package." MOS:COMMONALITY says not to use phrasing like that in English Wikipedia articles, except when glossing or explaining them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
To editor Jonesey95: Ohh geeez, I'll try to rephrase but honestly might need another editor to put this into better terms if this doesn't work :/
You and others claim: (A) "There are some national varieties of English which are unsuitable for Wikipedia."
I and others claim: (not A) "There are no national varieties of English which are unsuitable for Wikipedia."
These stances cannot both be true at the same time, and so they are contradictory stances. Claim (A) is often made with reference to COMMONALITY in particular (by saying something like "this dialect fails COMMONALITY" or just "this dialect is unsuitable per COMMONALITY"). And claim (not A) is often upheld even with reference to COMMONALITY. So, the contradictory stances seem to be due to distinct readings of COMMONALITY, in which case these readings themselves are contradicting one another, if that makes sense? (Or Pppery seemed to recognise the distinction so they might be able to help here, if possible? But in case this was a good explanation, would you oppose Proposal 1 or Proposal 2, or have a preference? :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Putting words in my mouth without providing links is not a great practice, especially on a MOS talk page, where arguments should be more precise than in other places on Wikipedia. I do not think that either (1) or (2) follow logically from MOS:COMMONALITY, although I find the double negative in (2) a bit cloudy. Please link to where I have claimed that "There are some national varieties of English which are unsuitable for Wikipedia." I may have said that a given article about an English dialect provided no guidance about differences, or supplied only differences that would be viewed as ungrammatical or misspelled by most educated English speakers, but I do not think that (A) or either of the propositions at the top logically follows from such a statement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
For the record though, at least one of (1) or (2) must be an acceptable reading of COMMONALITY, just logically I think.[7]
Also for the record, I'm not seeking consensus on (1) nor (2) here! And I'm not saying stance (A) or (not A) is good/bad/whatever! It's just the lack of consensus on (1) or (2) (or (A) or (not A)) that I feel oughtta be disclosed per Proposal 1 or Proposal 2.
Finally, for the avoidance of any doubt, here are the comments I could find in support of stance (A). At least some of these seem to explicitly or implicitly (and partially or fully) be based on COMMONALITY imo.[8]
13 Aug 2025: "I continue to object to the creation of both templates whose talk pages direct to this page, per MOS:COMMONALITY." [link preserved] (in this UCarE talk)
3 Aug 2025: "I disagree with the change to remove mention of unusable dialects; it is needed to avoid creation of useless templates like the recent {{Use Cameroonian English}}." [link preserved] (in this UBE talk)
20 Nov 2024: "Indian English#Spelling says that British spelling is used, and any Indian-specific vocabulary would not be usable because MOS:COMMONALITY says not to use regionalisms: Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences." [links, colour preserved] (in this EngvarB talk)
23 Nov 2024: "Neither Indian English#Spelling nor Pakistani English makes any substantiated claims that the spelling of those variants of English are different from British English, and we would not use dialect-specific vocabulary here at Wikipedia, per MOS." [links preserved] (in this EngvarB talk)
22 Nov 2024: "The rest of the article explains the differences in pronunciation (not relevant since Wikipedia is a written medium) and regionalisms (also not relevant because MOS:COMMONALITY says not to use regionalisms: Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences)." [link, colour preserved] (in this TfD)
22 Nov 2024: "Ugandan English explains that this dialect makes use of phrasing that would not be acceptable here on Wikipedia per MOS:COMMONALITY, and uses misspelled standard English words. We would never accept those misspellings here, so these templates should probably go away." [links preserved] (in this TfD)
26 Nov 2024: "How is Ugandan English different from British or American English in a way that is applicable here on Wikipedia? We can't accept misspelled words or non-standard phrasing that would not be understandable by the majority of English speakers, so this template is not usable as a guide for writing articles." (in this TfD)
5 Dec 2024: "The Ugandan English article provides examples of English usage that would be considered incorrect here at Wikipedia." (in this TfD)
29 Jul 2025: "Most usage of this variant on WP will be subsumed per WP:COMMONALITY." [link preserved] (in this TfD)
29 Jul 2025: "the relevant phrases are inappropriate for use in articles in any case" (in this TfD)
13 Aug 2025: "Propose deletion of this template which encourages the use of terms which are not suitable for use on Wikipedia in line with MOS:COMMONALITY." [link preserved] (in this TfD)
13 Aug 2025: "It is not practical to expect every known English dialect to be used when editing a corresponding article. Nor would it be helpful since articles should be written in commonly used English." (in this TfD)
8 Aug 2025: "Without disparagement on my part of the numerous varieties of English that exist in the world, I don't see it as practical to designate an article to be written in one of the few varieties that, together make up the bulk of English used internationally, and that typically are even the varieties used formally in places with their own variety. Should an article restrict itself to Cameroonian English or Philippine English or Roatan Island English, it would effectively place a sharp limit on who can contribute to it or copyedit it, excluding anyone who has no idea what that variety entails." (in this TfD)
14 Aug 2025: "This template is an attempt to establish a new 'variety' of English in the MOS through an inappropriate route (i.e., it is bypassing a MOS discussion). First gain recognition at MOS for this as an ENGVAR variant that may be used." (in this TfD)
Thanks for that exhaustive work. I think my view continues to be summarized by one of my statements above: "Ugandan English explains that this dialect makes use of phrasing that would not be acceptable here on Wikipedia per MOS:COMMONALITY, and uses misspelled standard English words." I see that as distinct from "(1) It follows from COMMONALITY that some English dialects are not suitable for Wikipedia." Phrasing and spelling differences that are far enough from standard English to be seen as errors by most native English speakers should not be used on the English Wikipedia. That's not really part of MOS:COMMONALITY; it's more like MOS:COMMONSENSE. If an article about a dialect provides only examples of differences between that dialect and American or British English that are likely to be seen as errors, then that is a dialect for which a Use X English template should not be created, since we would be giving guidance to editors that is contrary to MOS. I think I need to step away from these Use X English conversations, since they tend to be a mud pit where everyone wrestles and nobody ends up making any progress. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Additional comment which seems to be in support of stance (A):
15 Aug 2025: "please stop creating language templates without consensus. ... We have to discuss each in turn because some have much less merit than others." [shortened] (in this TfD)
Notably, this editor recommends establishing consensus before creating new {{Use X English}} templates. The 14 Aug comment from the same TfD[9] seems to agree, further adding that consensus ought to be established here, in MOS talk. I feel other editors might share this view, so this stance oughtta be recorded here imo. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
One thing I find confusing here is that "dialect" largely refers to the spoken language, while Wikipedia is a written work. So any "dialect" that's chiefly spoken, but hardly ever written, is automatically unsuited for Wikipedia, simply due to its character as a written work. Can we agree on that? Gawaon (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it's true that "dialect" largely refers to the spoken language... In my experience, most varieties of standard English can be found in written form somewhere (or at least, analysis/description of the written variety can be found in the literature). It might be less easy to find formal written texts in English-based creoles, which are often more vernacular to a particular place, but this is irrelevant here as creoles and pidgins shouldn't be used on the English Wikipedia as they aren't necessarily mutually intelligible with any variety of standard English (they're their own languages). Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Right. But per ENGVAR, it seems clear enough that any variety of written English that is used as the standard written form in any English-speaking country is eligible for Wikipedia, and I can't remember anyone having said anything else. So I'm frankly not convinced that the disagreement sketched by Asdfjrjjj does actually exist. Actual conflicts are rather about the question of when a standard written form used in some place is sufficiently distinct from other standard forms to get its own name. To give a made-up example, one can doubt that the English written in California differs sufficiently from that in Oregon to treat Californian English and Oregonian English as different varieties. So in practice we don't do that, instead just using the label "American English" for both. But there is no conflict about the meaning of COMMONALITY or ENGVAR (nor is the use of "Oregonian English" forbidden), it's simply a question of when a variety of written English is sufficiently distinct to get its own name and template. Gawaon (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Did you read this TfD? Because the argument being made by the nominator was exactly that the standard variety of English in Cameroon, where English is an official language and the national variety (ie. dialect, per my comment below) is Cameroon English, should not be used on Wikipedia. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I hadn't read it before. I have skimmed it now, but would rather interpret Jonesey95's argument as meaning that Cameroonian English is a variety that's spoken or maybe used in informal writing – not but a clearly distinct written form used in Cameroonian newspapers or other formal sources. Did I miss something? Gawaon (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from, and maybe that was was the nominator originally thought, but during that discussion we established that Cameroon English does have its own spelling rules/patterns/standards when written down (including in formalised written sources)—I just couldn't list all of them with beyond-reasonable-doubt confidence because the only exhaustive source is a dictionary that isn't available online. Pineapple Storage (talk) Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, that was your conclusion, but did everybody else in that TfD agree with you? I have some doubts. A single dictionary is also not particularly convincing proof, especially since it might focus on the spoken and informal language rather than, or in addition to, the formal written register, and it probably won't reveal how many of these forms are distinct from those used in neighbouring countries. Gawaon (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I interpreted this comment as conceding that CamE was a distinct variety but just arguing that there shouldn't be a template for it, and this comment pretty much underlined the fact that the delete !voters hadn't given any evidence that CamE is identical to any other variety.I agree that one dictionary shouldn't be the only source in consideration; I did provide other (reliable, formally published) sources that discussed examples, but these were seen as not exhaustive enough. Anyway, even if the dictionary only documents spoken usage, the spellings that are used in it (because a dictionary has to be written down) will shed some light on the spellings in use in written CamE. But this isn't a discussion about CamE specifically, so I'd rather not get back into that debate now! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
The question "does MOS:COMMONALITY ban some English dialects?" is a bit vague, and as I mentioned can be answered "clearly yes" and "clearly no" depending on the definition of "dialect".
If we sharpen the question and ask "do recent TfD results indicate that the standard English of some English-speaking countries is unacceptable because of MOS:COMMONALITY?", I would object to writing "there was no consensus about that" into this MOS page because I think those discussions were about non-standard varieties and what to tag articles for the convenience of editors than about the acceptability of standard national varieties. Having a list of TfD discussions on this topic is useful for future discussions on this family of templates; perhaps there is a better place to document that than the MOS, like an internal category or navigation template?
There's an underlying question about whether the standard English of a given English-speaking country is indistinguishable from say, British English, either before or after MOS:COMMONALITY is applied. As the above discussion highlights, this is an empirical question to which the answer is "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, more research is needed to show that this is in fact true for at least one country in the world". Whether or not given country or collection of countries (like the Caribbean and South Asia) even have a distinct local standard variety in the first place is also an empirical question that has been answered for some but not all.
Then there's the philosophical question of whether to call the resulting words "Cameroonian English" or "British English" if writing in formal standard Cameroonian English preferring commonalities with British English produces the same words as writing in formal standard British English preferring commonalities with Cameroonian English. As a practical resolution to avoid offending nationalist sensibilities and align intuitively with MOS:TIES, we may simply allow people to tag articles with either of those labels to and program our spell checkers to use the same dictionary for both tags. Or we may agree on a single neutral tag that better describes the desired style of writing. What I think would not be helpful is to let a debate over tags become a whiff of "some editors are trying to ban the standard English of certain countries" into the MOS when that's definitely going to offend some people and is kind of an oversimplification or arguably not really what's happening. -- Beland (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I think part of the difficulty with relying on TfD discussions (exclusively) to identify ENGVAR consensus is that there are two different questions:
Is X variety of English suitable for use on Wikipedia?
Does there need to be a {{Use X English}} template?
TfD discussions are meant to be answering question 2; some respondents try to do this without addressing question 1 (eg. by saying "X variety is basically the same as Y variety, which we already have a template for so we don't need this one"), while others do it by addressing question 1 (eg. "this template shouldn't exist because X variety shouldn't be used on Wikipedia"). Really, to properly get a sense of consensus about question 1, there needs to be a discussion independent of question 2, so that we're all addressing the same question; this is why I'm glad this discussion has been started.Also, just a minor point about terminology: it feels unfair to label people who object to the deprecation of certain varieties as being "offended"—this word carries connotations (nowadays especially). I'm sure some people would take offence, especially if their native variety is specifically excluded (for instance, if they have to learn an unfamiliar set of spelling rules to avoid their contributions being "corrected" as misspellings) but this is far from the only argument against deprecating certain varieties.[10] Personally, I've spent hours and hours researching the issue and arguing the case for inclusion of CamE even though I don't speak (or write) CamE and have no connection whatsoever to Cameroon; I'm not offended by the idea of CamE not being allowed on Wikipedia. Rather, I have strong opinions on the issue because (1) as a linguist and a Wikipedian, I care about both Wikipedia and the English language; (2) I believe Wikipedia's use of English should represent its global focus and reach; and (3) I know that the way Wikipedia works (and progresses) is through community discussion, so I want to contribute to this process. If we approach these discussions with the assumption that the only reason why anyone would object to certain (standard, written) World Englishes being deprecated is because they take offence (ie. feel personally insulted), we run the risk of overlooking the other arguments against deprecation (eg. countering systemic bias), which don't deal with personal emotions etc. but with broad, project-wide principles of Wikipedia, and with the practicalities of managing a reference work whose authors are from all over the world. Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't think there's actually any serious effort to ban standard formal Cameroonian English from Wikipedia, nor to change MOS:TIES in such a way that it says articles about Cameroon should be allowed to violate the local standard English spelling and grammar rules (e.g. by using American spelling sometimes under MOS:RETAIN). That would be egregious and I can't imagine that ever getting consensus support, and I think implying that there is such an effort would needlessly upset some people. What did happen was a debate over whether to tag Standard Cameroonian English as Standard British English because there is no practical difference for Wikipedia purposes.
I have never believed that the only reason someone would object to say, tagging Standard Cameroonian English as Standard British English is because they are personally offended. "Actually there are practical differences between these dialects" is certainly one of those reasons, and that fact violates the assumptions of the above scenario. I'm just pointing out that national identity is a sensitive topic and that some people can be offended by even something as simple as how we name things, so even if there are no practical reasons to do something, we might benefit from doing it anyway for the sake of editor harmony. -- Beland (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
That would be egregious and I can't imagine that ever getting consensus support It's very refreshing to hear this, thank you. Unfortunately, as I see it at least 4 of the ~7 participants in the CamE TfD were arguing that CamE shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. I got this impression from some of the statements made in that discussion:
"Being inclusive might be nice but[...] There is no practical way that certain articles can be written using terms that contradict EN or US usage. Also, there would be no practical benefit from such a system." (here)
"how can I venture into an article expressly written in Cameroonian English?" (here)
"if none of this is codified, we can't really enforce a 'Cameroonian English'." (here)
"I don't think you could get consensus that these are anything but typos to be fixed[...] regardless of their use in some countries." (here)
For the reasons I discussed above, I think the context of TfD pretty much took all the nuance out of the conversation re ENGVAR, which is why the wider conversation should happen somewhere else (ie. here, in an MOS discussion). I also agree with you absolutely that editor harmony is an important consideration when it comes to sensitive topics like this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think editors there were considering much beyond automated spell checking, where having a dictionary is necessary and most of the concern was about not encouraging editors to use an informal dialect.
As for spellings like "truely", are these mandatory in Cameroonian Standard English, or are Standard British English spellings also accepted? If they are mandatory, it seems we'd have to accept them per MOS:TIES. Getting a complete list of any such exceptions would be helpful for automation purposes. -- Beland (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't think the unique spellings are mandatory, as BrE spellings are also widely used in CamE; I think "truely", "occured",[11] etc. are just valid alternative spellings. I ordered the CamE dictionary when the TfD was closed and I'll update Cameroonian English once it's arrived. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
In that case, using the same spellings as the UK does isn't forcing Cameroonians to write about their own country using spellings that are invalid Standard Cameroonian English, so I don't see the problem in using the international spellings. MOS:COMMONALITY says the most common spelling in the national variety should be used, so it's possible that technically the unusual local spelling should be preferred. Is that easy to determine?
It might actually be worth changing this to say that where two variants are equally acceptable but only one is present in other national standard Englishes, the international one would be preferred. This could prevent confusion over editors trying to fix typos that aren't typos, and also lessen the distraction for readers to which the local variants look like errors. -- Beland (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Is that easy to determine? Probably not, unfortunately, beyond getting access to a corpus, as most studies don't address minor spelling differences explicitly. Preferring more international spelling variants is sensible; thankfully this is already covered by MOS:COMMONALITY, but I agree that the MOS:TIES application could be emphasised—for instance by explicitly saying something to the effect of "just because X Standard English variety has multiple acceptable patterns, most of which are shared with another variety, this doesn't mean X variety shouldn't be used or that MOS:TIES shouldn't apply to that variety". Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't see where the existing verbiage in MOS:COMMONALITY says to prefer international spellings over local ones? It says that about word choice explicitly. Are you implicitly extending that to spelling as well? I read the "most commonly used current variant" as explicitly saying not to prefer the most international spelling if it's not the most common local one. -- Beland (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferredI read the most commonly used as meaning the one that's most common generally, ie. shared by multiple varieties, rather than most common to that particular variant. If this interpretation of it is wrong, and there is consensus for the latter reading, then I think that wording needs specifying. Otherwise, if a consensus hasn't yet been established about that specific point, then maybe that's a discussion to be had? Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
To editor Beland: I might get us that list of TfD and ENGVAR discussions soon-ish, as I also could've really used such a list when I first waded into this part of MOS :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thank you for starting the conversation @Asdfjrjjj, I think it's definitely one that needs to be had at some point.Unsurprisingly I have quite a few thoughts on this issue! Since the CamE TfD (this one) I've been doing some research about World Englishes and have been gathering sources at User:Pineapple Storage/Bibliography/World Englishes (still very much an incomplete work in progress; I also can't claim to have read all the sources there, it's basically a reading list) so I feel like I'm saturated in WP:ENGVAR thoughts at the moment, and I will likely add comments to this discussion about multiple different aspects of the issue as they occur to me—apologies in advance for this.One thing that springs to mind following @Gawaon's comment above is that ENGVAR maybe shouldn't even refer to varieties at all, but should instead refer to dialects. Variety (linguistics) says:
I would argue, the fact that ENGVAR only mentions varieties rather than dialects is probably a result of the prejudice/misconception described in the lead of Variety (linguistics):
The use of the word variety to refer to the different forms avoids the use of the term language, which many people associate only with the standard language, and the term dialect, which is often associated with non-standard language forms thought of as less prestigious or "proper" than the standard.
This perception (of "dialect" meaning a non-standard variety) is clearly a misconception; it's linguistically inaccurate, and can be easily dispelled by reading the first two sentences of the article Dialect.When we discuss ENGVAR, what we're actually discussing is dialect, because register and style are already dictated by WP:ENCSTYLE; this is an encyclop(a)edia, so the style is encyclop(a)edic and the register is formal (but not excessively/performatively formal, because it needs to be accessible to a very wide audience).I think ENGVAR should be altered to replace variety with dialect (and maybe to add an explicit mention that the formal register of any dialect should be used in articles, to clear up any ambiguity). What do people think about this? Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I think that "variety" should stay for just that reason: if a dialect, or variety, is chiefly spoken, but not written, that it's not eligible for Wikipedia – not out of prejudice, but since Wikipedia is itself a written work. "Variety" seems better suited to get that across. Gawaon (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Or, in words cited above: any standard variety of English is suitable for Wikipedia, but not any dialect, register, or style. Gawaon (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I think it's worth pointing out here that the word "dialect" can be used in at least three different ways. As our article Dialect points out, sometimes it exclusively means non-standard varieties. In that sense, there are no dialects which are suitable for Wikipedia. Perhaps what Gawaon is getting at is that non-standard varieties (which are more commonly spoken than written) are unsuitable for a written encyclopedia - and yes, I think that it generally agreed upon. I should also say that simply because a dialect is commonly written doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. People in Yorkshire may commonly use Northern colloquialisms when writing letters, emails, text messages, business signage, or when transcribing spoken language. But we're not interested in just any writing, we're interested in writing in what they consider their standard written dialect, which would be Standard British English - the sort that appears in newspapers and generally intelligible formal documents not written in legalese or other technical dialect.
I tend to use "dialect" in the primary sense defined by the article Dialect, which includes both standard and non-standard varieties. In this sense, Standard American English is the dialect I happen to speak, it is the one spoken on national news broadcasts and written in national newspapers, and it is the (only) appropriate dialect for writing articles with strong ties to the United States. In this sense, some dialects are appropriate for Wikipedia.
Asdfjrjjj seems to be using "dialect" to mean "national variety". In this sense, all dialects are appropriate for Wikipedia, because as ENVAR says: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others."
Using the second sense, I'd say each English-speaking country can have multiple native dialects, and only the standard one is suitable for Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Still though, I think ENGVAR in its current state leaves an ambiguity in the minds of some editors, who might then feel it necessary to proscribe certain dialects as being "too informal" when actually the standard written register of that dialect is perfectly acceptable. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with changing "variety" to "dialect". The whole reason linguists use "variety" is to avoid controversies in the definition of dialect. That includes the question of whether "dialect" has a connotation of informality, and also more commonly the question of whether two or more varieties are different dialects or different languages. I do agree ENVAR could be improved with some clarification; I'll come up with some verbiage. -- Beland (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
If "variety" is still going to be used, then ENGVAR should make it very clear that any country'sstandard written variety can be used (unless of course consensus turns out to be that only some standard written varieties are acceptable, which I would find disappointingly predictable). Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
There should probably also be a discussion about how we're defining "standard"... Does a "standard written variety" need to have been formally codified in order to be allowed on en-wp, or is attestation/description in other (non-dictionary) reliable sources sufficient? If a consensus can be reached on this, then ENGVAR should probably make it clear. And how are we defining "codified"? Does a single published dictionary count? If so, does the dictionary being unavailable online (as discussed in the CamE TfD) make the variety ineligible for use? And if a single dictionary doesn't count, how many dictionaries must exist? This would all ideally be made clear—if not in WP:ENGVAR, then somewhere else. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
MOS:TIES requires that the English of a specific nation (which I think means "country" in this context) be used for any article with strong ties to an "English-speaking nation". Our article English-speaking world defines that as "the 88 countries and territories in which English is an official, administrative, or cultural language". So I would infer we care about matching the expectations of English speakers in Cameroon, for example, but not France.
I think the requirement here is to produce articles that are 100% compatible with the article-local standard English, and intelligible to everyone else (with glosses if necessary) even if there are spellings and other quirks that are not allowed in the reader's local standard English. It is not a goal to produce articles that demonstrate unique aspects of the article-local standard English. The question of whether unique constructions exist in standard contexts and would plausibly be used on Wikipedia is relevant to tagging and spell-checking, but if the answer is "no" I think it is not right to say that a given country's standard dialect is "not allowed" on Wikipedia. It just means that articles happen to be 100% compatible with the standard English of multiple countries.
It's worth pointing out that MOS:COMMONALITY doesn't "ban" all localisms and by implication the national standard dialects they come from. It just requires that those that can't be avoided should be glossed for intelligibility. For example, even though for articles about Nigeria we prefer constructions that it has in common with British English, sometimes it is impossible not to use localisms that refer to elements of local culture, like danfo (which is a specific type of shared taxi and has no equivalent phrase in British English with the same precise meaning). I think we would also prefer local Nigerian expressions such as senior wife to refer to the primary polygynous spouse, whereas in American English we would say "first wife" which does come up for example in Mormon families.
Reading Codification (linguistics) carefully, it appears that process is a process of establishing social consensus for a set of spelling and grammar and vocabulary preferences, which by definition has already happened in standard varieties. It sounds like by "formal codification" you mean someone has written down these social rules.
Thinking about how we resolve questions of Standard American English in US articles, we often simply rely on native speakers of that variety to know what is and isn't correct grammar and spelling. That would imply we could rely on local editors to know the correct forms for a standard English that does not have a dictionary or written rules of grammar. I think that's fine; by definition there will be lots of documents in a standard written variety they can point to for attestations if there's a dispute. No version of English has a single official authority that sets the rules, so while dictionaries and books from grammarians can be very helpful in settling these disputes, they don't always agree with each other or the actual current social consensus. It's up to editors to decide if disputed practices are OK, like ending a sentence with a preposition, or how to deal with something that only one editor or maybe less than 1% of American English speakers consider an error is worth changing, presumably depending on the available alternatives. Even in the US and the UK we have turned to attestations to argue some disputes, like whether it is OK to refer to a ship as "she".
We might think not having written dictionaries and grammar rules for a national standard English would make it difficult to write articles about that country in cases where there aren't a lot of local English speakers active on Wikipedia, but in practice targeting Standard British English seems to result in compatible outcomes. (That's the advice I've gotten for grammar-checking Indian English.)
I'm not sure we need to put specific guidance about this in the MOS. I think editors know what it means to say, "use standard formal Cameroonian English", and how to research what the rules are for that variety, disputed and undisputed. -- Beland (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
To editor Pineapple Storage: Oh wait I'd missed User:Pineapple Storage/Bibliography/World Englishes, looking pretty good! I'd also written WP:CARIB/E for Caribbean English (more as a descriptivist overview than a bibliography). Maybe we might sort of consolidate these similar to how the big/well-known Englishes are consolidated in the various Comparison of forms of English articles (though these prolly oughtta stay in project namespace to focus exclusively on description of only formal, written English, or to focus exclusively on bibliography). Might add sources from Caribbean English to your page soon-ish if you don't mind :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
@Asdfjrjjj For sure, this sounds like a good plan! The World Englishes bibliography I've been putting together is very much a work in progress, but I plan to keep going basically until I've got sources about all the places (and their national varieties—or not, in cases where English is an official language but sources say a distinct variety hasn't yet emerged, such as in Sudan, South Sudan, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, among others) currently covered by Template:Ties/sandbox.Absolutely, feel free to add any sources (and new sections etc. as needed) to User:Pineapple Storage/Bibliography/World Englishes, and also feel free to incorporate any sources I add there into WP:CARIB/E if you find them useful!! There are a bunch of sources about Caribbean varieties that I've bookmarked but haven't yet done full citations for, so I'll hopefully add those soon. Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand how the EngvarB closure could be read as saying anything about which dialects are or are not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's mostly a decision that "EngvarB" is not a good name for a template, and the choice of whether to always tag language as specific country varieties or to use tags that posit a country-spanning variety of some sort was left open. -- Beland (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
A dialect is not defined as a set of words/phrasing that are different or unique when compared to whatever default is implicitly implied in that definition. If a word or formulation is common to that dialect as well as to the implied default, then it is a part of that dialect as it is the implied default. CMD (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Well put. This is why "avoid the unique features of this dialect" is not the same as "this dialect is banned". -- Beland (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes. The original question didn't give examples, but I am happy to. We would avoid terms such as "lakh" or "krore" because they wouldn't be readily understood by most Wikipedia users. This doesn't mean we are banning Indian English, we are just going for common (COMMONALITY) features. cagliost (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Based on the discussion so far, here's my proposed clarification:
Change "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." to "All national varieties of Standard English are equally acceptable on English Wikipedia, which uses a formal, encyclopedic register or tone."
Change "conventions of a particular variety of English" to "conventions of a particular variety of Standard English"
Change "within a national variety of English" to "within a national standard variety of English"
Change "(formal, not colloquial) English" to "standard (formal, not colloquial) English" for consistent terminology.
I'd support these changes. For MOS:TIES, maybe adding links might be helpful, eg. "standard (formal, not colloquial) English"? Or maybe "standard (formal, not colloquial or vernacular) English"?Also, after the list of example articles and varieties, currently TIES says:
I have no objection to the first suggestion of adding links.
The second suggestion doesn't make sense to me, as there are standard English varieties in most if not all of those places.
Can you gave an example or two of where it would contradict MOS:TIES? I think the language about the Commonwealth of Nations ended up this way because {{Use Commonwealth English}} was deleted and replaced with {{Use British English}} in articles where there weren't clearly ties to a specific country. It had previously said that Commonwealth and British orthography were nearly indistinguishable for encyclopedic writing. -- Beland (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
From my reading of the current wording of TIES, it basically says "If a country is in the Commonwealth or used to be a British territory, use British spelling" but doesn't make any exceptions for Commonwealth nations or former British territories that have their own national variety of Standard English. So if we were to follow only that sentence (and not the rest of MOS:TIES), articles with ties to every country and territory listed at List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom would have to be written in British English, regardless of whether a local national Standard English exists. This clashes with the first sentence of TIES, which says "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." The change I'm suggesting is basically to alter the sentence so that it allows local varieties to be used for ex–British-territories that have their own national variety. For example, currently, articles about Malaysia use British English, but with the new wording they would use Malaysian Standard English, in line with the first sentence of TIES. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Both to clean up which countries we're referring to and to cover multi-country cases which don't all use UK-derived spelling, would it be better to say something like:
For articles with strong ties to the Commonwealth of Nations organization, use British spelling.
For articles with strong ties to multiple English-speaking countries, either:
Okay that's where the ambiguity was. These suggestions seem sensible! What about cases like Gabon and Togo, which are Commonwealth countries without national varieties whose articles don't currently have a variety template? Should this apply to them, or should they be governed by MOS:RETAIN? Also, the wording you propose would remove any mention of former British territories. Should these be mentioned explicitly as being treated the same way as Commonwealth nations? Or should they just be assumed to fall under the main MOS:TIES clause? Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I added "former British territories" because not all of the English-speaking countries that have standard written dialects close to British English are still members of the Commonwealth of Nations, like Ireland and Zimbabwe. But that's also a bit odd because the United States is also a former British colony that does not use British spelling. I think we were just looking to say "it's OK to just say we're using British spelling for topics with ties to multiple countries that have almost identical spelling to the UK" and not bother trying to make an exception for Canada when it's in a group of British-spelling countries. So maybe the intended group is more like "English-speaking countries that don't use American spelling".
Yes, MOS:TIES clearly already applies to articles about individual English-speaking countries regardless of their Commonwealth or former British colonial status. The above clarifying language only applies when we're talking about more than one of country, and if the article is about two former British colonies that still have British spelling in common, then British spelling is a valid choice, as is either national standard variety.
According to English-speaking world, Gabon and Togo are not English-speaking countries, so I think they should be governed by MOS:RETAIN. They are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, but an article has to have strong ties to the organization, not one of its member countries, for the Commonwealth clause to apply.
I do also intend "country" to include UK dependencies that are not part of the UK, like Bermuda and Pitcairn. -- Beland (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay, all sounds good to me.I'm glad you mentioned UK territories actually, as most do have their own varieties named and described in the literature.
Cook Islands English is a distinct variety, often studied/grouped alongside Samoan English and Fiji English into the South Pacific Englishes (and one source mentions an acrolectal "South Pacific English")
Guam English "could be considered an inner circle variety, or a variety that is on the way to become one" ([26])
This accidentally turned into a pretty extensive research exercise so apologies for the hefty paragraph and the ~9hr delayed response! I've collapsed it to save space and boredom for non–language-nerds.Still though, it proves that there are a lot of potentially eligible British Overseas Territories varieties, as well as varieties from other dependent territories. By nature of most of these territories being remote and/or island nations, the speaker communities are always going to be very small compared with other varieties, and I sense that the idea of the varieties listed above being "allowed" on Wikipedia would really raise the hackles of some of the participants in this discussion and the recent TfDs.So, what should we do about these varieties? Is there really any harm in "allowing" them, as some would argue? Or can they just remain as lesser-used options among the many varieties available? Pineapple Storage (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
It is already allowed, and in fact required by MOS:TIES, to write articles on these jurisdictions in a way that is compatible with the standard varieties in all these countries. Whether or not the need for formality and clarity for an international audience means any of the unique localisms actually get used in articles, is an empirical question. Presumably that would depend on someone who actually knows something about the local English varieties attempting to use them. -- Beland (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be better if there were one template to cover a large number of countries with derived spelling patterns and a small number of unique elements that editors would expect to need in articles. It could say something like "This article has been identified as having strong ties to [country name]. It should use the standard formal written English of this country, which [is similar to British English, is similar to American English, is a mix of American and British conventions] in spelling and grammar. Follow MOS:COMMONALITY when using local expressions." That helps editors know what spellings to use even if they aren't familiar with the requested dialect. -- Beland (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
This would go very far in harmonising all the {{Use X English}} templates we have, would be veeery much in favour of this. Buuut at least some editors would like at least some varieties excluded, so would be nice to get their thoughts/go-ahead first. To editors Quondum and Dgp4004: this is another very relevant proposal to your stances re these templates in the UABE TfD! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:22, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
It is, in any case, much more practical than having more than a 100 different "Use ... English" templates! Gawaon (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, I remain opposed to pretty much all of these suggestions which arise from a misreading of MOS:TIES.
Starting with the British Overseas Territories, we're now talking subnational. These are not nations. And it opens the door to even more silly subnational templates like 'Use Antiguan English' and 'Use Barbudan English', because I bet somebody can dig out a word that's used on one island and not the other. So no, I absolutely do not accept that there is any policy on Wikipedia which mandates the creation (or backdoor creation via another template) of a 'Use Falklands English' template.
Further, this idea of creating a new mega template including dictionaries of local vocabularies is just going to be a vehicle for even more of these pedantic and poorly sourced claims. So I remain opposed. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I never mentioned 'the bureaucracy of template tracking'. I'll stick with my own words; they don't need paraphrasing. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like I'm not understanding what you mean, then. What is it then about these templates that you find objectionable? -- Beland (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
They do not improve Wikipedia, they are like spam. It seems that editors create them, and then only when challenged do they try to find out exactly what X English means, and suddenly we have 'I've ordered a dictionary' and 'this newspaper uses -ze so it must be a local variety of English'. They are not created from need. None of this arises from an organic discussion, dispute or confusion on the relevant pages. Their purpose appears to be to promote or even create a local formal English that cannot be adequately sourced. These words that are used to justify the language template's existence are not even words that often appear in an encyclopedia, let alone on those few pages that will use the language template. I have sometimes cited the example of bread roll in British English. There are a great many words like cob, bap, barm, bun etc. which are only used in particular regions. That does not create a justification or a need for a 'Use Lancastrian English' template. Dgp4004 (talk) 11:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
It seems everyone is agreed we don't find non-standard dialects acceptable, including regional ones. It seems necessary to tag articles with something so spell checkers know which dictionary to apply.
What would be your preferred rule to determine if a separate template is needed? That an article actually use a local word or spelling? Wouldn't that potentially mean a lot of re-tagging of all a country's articles if we later discover it's actually necessary to distinguish it from British English for practical purposes? Is it better if all these templates are merged into one and the country is only indicated by a parameter? -- Beland (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I would also be interested in the answer to this. I write in Belizean English, and will continue doing so until ENGVAR guidance changes. I've been tagging everything {{UBE}} b/c it was the closest I could find to "not AmE" (and {{EngvarB}} confused me tbh). Sure, I can continue tagging everything I write as {{UBE}}, but that's not actually accurate, and imposes more of a burden on me whenever I need to flag "Hey guys, this is actually correctly written in Belizean English, despite what the tag says!" And ofc precludes the use of bots/scripts to correct Belizean English usage (by preventing tracking categories). And discourages Belizean editors from contributing to Wikipedia (they might be forgiven for thinking they must write in BrE/AmE/one of the English dialects with a {{Use X English}} template). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 11:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
To editor Gawaon: imo? by being wayyy more tolerant of Americanisms and American-style spelling, plus some distinctive terms/senses, a few unique spellings (caye not cay, etc; cf WP:BZE/E)! My -ise spellings are actually wayyy old school in Belizean English: Oxford-style spelling is the historical, formal norm afaik. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I don't want to go down yet another handbrake turn onto another topic as this is interminable. If you would like to discuss whether Use Belizean English should continue to be a thing, a specific TfD would be the best place to go into the depths of that. Whatever you're writing in, all I can tell you is that it is indistinguishable from British English.
As to what would be my preferred solution, I would personally prefer guidance which asks editors to use the established templates and to seek consensus for each additional template they wish to create. Rather than the present, 'I'm doing this regardless of need and I'm going to tag as many pages as possible and then maybe later I'll think about what Use X English actually means.'
Once a need has been established for one of these templates by consensus, I have no problem whatever with that being used. But this is the only way to stop the proliferation of these poorly sourced, unnecessary and meaningless templates which spread like wildfire. That doesn't touch on any other policies about language. It only concerns the proliferation of language templates. Dgp4004 (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
To editor Dgp4004: Eh I was just using Belizean English as an example, just read X English in its stead! Your preferred solution unfortunately keeps us from using tracking categories, discourages some potential editors from contributing to Wikipedia, and imposes a burden on some editors. Beland's unified {{Use X English}}, on the other hand, fully addresses your goal ("to stop the proliferation of these poorly sourced, unnecessary and meaningless templates which spread like wildfire"), without any of the drawbacks of your preferred solution. If that goal is the only reason you have for opposing Beland's solution and preferring that any new {{Use X English}} templates go through a pre-approval-by-consensus process, then I'm really sorry but I don't think your stance makes much sense to me.[14] - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I completely understand why you would oppose seeking consensus on the creation of some of these templates because they can't stand up to scrutiny, just as Use Cameroonian English didn't. Hence why we're here seeking to move the goalposts. Dgp4004 (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Certainly it could be a waste of a lot of effort to create a template and apply it to a bunch of articles without some assurance it won't be deleted because it's widely opposed. There isn't a "Draft template" namespace; I don't have a problem with people being bold and temporarily creating templates that aren't used in articles for the purpose of prototyping or discussing them, especially if they aren't simply variations on the theme of templates that have been deleted.
Personally, I also mildly dislike the idea of a large number of templates, one for each of the 88 English-speaking countries, because that creates a lot of overhead maintaining their documentation, doing updates if formatting changes, etc. The idea of creating one mega template addresses the objection on the grounds of template proliferation.
If the idea is to get consensus before using such a template, great, this conversation is part of that process.
You objected earlier: "a new mega template including dictionaries of local vocabularies is just going to be a vehicle for even more of these pedantic and poorly sourced claims."
Yes, though it's a very interesting topic for linguists and readers of articles on the dialects of English, it is much more efficient when thinking about templates to entirely avoid the question of whether or not standard formal English in a given country is different from British English at all. (Not to mention the distraction of non-standard national varieties, which is most of what our articles cover.) This implies we want to avoid templates that make claims like "this article is written in Cameroonian English". I see Template:Ties/sandbox is doing that, which is not what I was proposing and not what I would favor. I also don't like that it allows specifying a given English variety using anywhere from one to four different codes. A, the codes are less intelligible to editors than country names, and B, having more than one per choice creates a headache for people like me who write bots. It's better to have only one, intuitive way to specify a given variety, and spit out an error for invalid choices.
I have drafted an alternative at Template:English ties. This is in the form of an editnotice, but at this point I mostly care about getting consensus on the wording and not making it pretty or where it will be used (we could replace the talk page notices with this, for example, or use a non-displaying version embedded in article wikitext that would be more efficient for bots).
Instead of saying "this article is written in Cameroonian English", it says "This article has strong ties to Cameroon. Per MOS:TIES it uses standard formal written English as used in this country, which for encyclopedia purposes is very similar to British English."
For countries where there is an undisputed distinct national standard variety, it will simply link to that article, like: "This article has strong ties to the United States. Per MOS:TIES it uses standard formal American English." It also handles Oxford and IUPAC spelling cases.
This template is not the place to put exhaustive lists of spelling differences for specific dialects. I think that joyfully pedantic work is best directed at Wiktionary, where the results can be used by everyday readers, linguistics researchers, editors trying to follow MOS:COMMONALITY, and authors of automated spell-checkers like me. (I already use Wiktionary as my list of valid words, and it also tags common misspellings which is very helpful for correction purposes.)
You also referred to a "misreading of MOS:TIES". I agree that policy doesn't require the creation of any templates; that's a different practical question. If there's something else you're getting at, it might be good to make that explicit and clarify the MOS if needed.
Or in general, if people feel we should be treating small English-speaking countries and their dialects differently than large ones, maybe we should have a discussion about that. My proposed template can only be used for articles that have strong ties to a country (or to note Oxford or IUPAC spelling subvariants). That means people can't go around tagging random no-ties articles like Electron and say they have to use Cameroonian English. (I'm wondering if worry that someone might do that is one of the reasons some people are resistant to creating templates for more national dialects?) Should there be an explicit list or usage cutoff for dialects that can be used for no-ties articles? In practice articles without ties to a specific country almost always use American, British, or Oxford, and because these are highly used that makes things easy for readers to understand, minimizes distracting or confusing localisms (or the need to commonalize them) and gives editors an easy target. Or we could say no-ties articles should use a dialect with at least 20 million speakers, which is 0.25% of the world population. (That would mean American, Indian, Nigerian, Pakistani, Indonesian, Phillipine, British, Canadian, and Australian, according to List of countries by English-speaking population.) -- Beland (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the feedback on Template:Ties/sandbox; I've updated it so that only one (ISO 3166-1 alpha-3) code can be entered per country/territory, so hopefully that would make it easier for bots etc.? I also removed the mentions of specific varieties; I'll go through and add comparative explanation for the various lesser-known varieties (based on the sources I've been able to find that provide that kind of description), but that will take a while obviously. Pineapple Storage (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
@Beland I just re-read your comment and realised you specifically said the codes were a problem! Apologies for that.You said above that you mostly care about getting consensus on the wording for Template:English ties, so I feel like it's worth mentioning this: currently the template is worded in a way that assumes that any variety (other than IUPAC, Oxford, AmE, CanE and PhlE) is functionally the same as BrE... Is that what you meant by entirely avoid the question of whether or not standard formal English in a given country is different from British English at all, in your comment above? If so, does this not run the risk of attracting EngvarB-type objections? Many varieties, especially Caribbean and Australasian Englishes, incorporate enough AmE spelling patterns etc. to differ noticeably from standard BrE, even in formal/encyclop(a)edic writing. Pineapple Storage (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Sort of. That list is not complete; I only bothered putting in a few countries for demonstration purposes. If we decide we want to use the template, I will add all the other English-speaking countries that shouldn't get the "which for encyclopedia purposes is very similar to British English" message. That's only the default so I didn't have to repeat that text over and over again. I could change the template to not have a default and reject any string that's not explicitly listed as a country name or other valid choice? -- Beland (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
To editor Beland: re {{English ties}}, looks excellent! I personally would avoid explicit MOS mention, and rather just summarise the relevant MOS guidance and link to it.[15] Could we have this edit notice track all the Category:Use X English tracking categories though? I feel this might be needed for bots/scripts, and to fully supplant all current {{English variant templates}} (maintenance and edit notice ones).[16] And on a side note, the IUPAC switch prolly oughtta not even be indexed to BrE/AmE, as IUPAC's independent of English variety as far as I can tell?
re the proposal to restrict ENGVAR (the 20 mil cutoff for non-TIES articles), I think that's a great compromise, as I do feel this might be a fear amongst stance (A) editors (but I've misread their stance/reasoning before, it seems, so dunno).
Should maybe any of these proposals be RfCs? I dunno how we establish consensus on them, and I don't really see a lot of stance (A) editors participating here so I fear this might be an echo chamber with only stance (not A) editors :(..? Asdfjrjjj (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
I must apologise to you Beland, and to Asdfjrjjj and others, as my tone has been belligerent. I am far calmer now, and against all the odds, Beland's template Template:English ties has won me over!
It elegantly marries the freedom to use any national variety of English with the commonalities they share with British English, and allows for flexibility for those varieties that don't. And it will be far easier to discuss and agree edits to one template than trying to keep track of many and putting them each through TfD. Great work!
However, just to muddle things completely and swap sides... whilst I'm certainly not against your proposal to restrict neutral articles to the major English varieties, it might be a little unfair! I wonder if it mightn't be better to expand the scope to also replace - or at least have the potential to replace - all the Use X English templates, even the large ones. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
And something else that just occurred to me while reading the template's examples: I know it sounds silly, but 'English ties' could be perhaps provocative. It could be misread as ties to England. 'English ties|Scotland' or 'Northern Ireland' or 'Falklands'. And it also sets an example that it can be broken down into tiny sub-national areas, each varying from another. Perhaps it would be better to restrict it to nation states. English ties|United Kingdom, Ghana etc. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
The name "English ties" was chosen hastily just to get something drafted. Any suggestions for a better name that avoids confusion with the country of England? {{strong ties}} is available. We could also clobber {{ties}} with whatever final design is preferred. I don't have strong feelings, other than that it should be intuitive and hopefully short.
I threw in Scotland as an example because {{Use Scottish English}} and {{Scottish English}} exist and are used on hundreds of articles. A 2023 TfD found no consensus to merge {{Scottish English}} to {{British English}}, on the grounds that words like "church" and "barrister" should not be used over the Scottish alternatives when talking about Scottish entities. Though it is not listed at English-speaking nation, Scotland is considered one of the four "nations" of the United Kingdom, and so arguably is one. This implies we actually do need to say to use standard formal Scottish English, with deference to commonality with British English. I will update my draft.
I think "Falklands" needs to be a valid choice because even though it is under British sovereignty, it is not part of the United Kingdom, so using {{English ties|United Kingdom}} would produce factually incorrect text. It's possible that the standard written English of the Falklands, Bermuda, and England are all the same for encyclopedic purposes, but given how geographically separate they are and how Bermuda is influenced by Jamaica and the United States and the Falklands is influenced by Argentina and Spanish, I wouldn't be surprised if one day we discover we need to treat them differently. Since part of the point of this template is to avoid having to re-tag, I think we are better future-proofed by allowing the names of dependent territories. ISO 3166 can be somewhat helpful figuring out what entities exist and which are internal territories vs. external. I think I know enough about some places to say flat out to use the sovereign power's national variety, like "strong ties to the United States Virgin Islands, use American English". But if we discover later that there actually is a difference that requires different spellings or more gentle wording, that's easy to change in the central template without re-tagging hundreds or thousands of articles. -- Beland (talk) 02:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Hmm, if we want this to replace all the "Use X English" templates, then presumably a name that has "ties" might be too narrow? -- Beland (talk) 03:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Or actually, we could use {{ties}} for choices based on strong national ties, and {{English variety}} or something else for choices based on MOS:RETAIN. One could be a redirect to the other so they could share overlapping code and mappings and whatnot. -- Beland (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes, Ties and English Variety might be a good idea. Just for the record though, I must disagree with your assertion that the overseas territories are apart from the UK. You're absolutely right that they're not in it, as such. But they are annexed to the Crown of the United Kingdom. That 'of the United Kingdom' part is often overlooked. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Well, the "as such" part actually matters. We don't want to put text in our template that directly contradicts our articles: United Kingdom says the UK is only England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. It explicitly says that the Crown Dependencies are not part of the UK. British Overseas Territories explicitly says they are not part of the UK. That's why I say they are under British sovereignty but not part of the UK. -- Beland (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
I would second this proposal, seems an elegant and reasonable solution to me, and allows for ENGVAR restriction for non-TIES articles (if that comes about :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 18:56, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Also interesting about the Scottish English template still being a thing. Use Scottish English already redirects to Use British English. Just one of the many Hydra's heads I suppose! Dgp4004 (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
The original {{Use British English}} and {{Use American English}} templates were devised by me with help from User:Rich Farmbrough (if my recollection serves me correctly) as a technical solution not only to identify which spelling variants are used in any given article (in accordance with WP:ENGVAR) but also to ensure that there are means to ensure that an article's spellings remain consistent going forwards. As such, each template is dated for when it was last audited. Its functionality and facility for maintenance are predicated on its placement within the article as a hidden category. Templates marking the 4 canonical varieties have to be retained to achieve those twin objectives.
But I see that this mega template has already been created, not even in draft space, so there's little point in taking part in this discussion. It's like hydra's head. You object to one template, a dozen more spring up. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:06, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
Template proliferation was always going to be the result of the engvarB close, this discussion isn't the cause. CMD (talk) 10:39, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
It’s British English. Where a variety has sufficient differences from British English to merit its own template, like Australian English, use that where appropriate. Where it doesn’t, then those places are effectively using British English, maybe with a bit of added local vocab. MapReader (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
If you're talking about the EngvarB TfD, I closed that discussion, and that wasn't the outcome. I specifically wrote that "editors will need to decide if they want to revive or create templates" for spelling styles that span countries, and gave a few examples of different approaches to doing that. -- Beland (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
The outcome was that the template was deprecated, not set for renaming. Many of its instances have been replaced by other templates, and existing instances will continue to be replaced as time goes on. That can't be unwound even if a new template is created, so whatever the intention proliferation was baked into the outcome. CMD (talk) 02:10, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
Certainly many articles were more appropriately tagged with country-specific templates since they did not have ties with multiple countries. But those templates already existed, so I'm not sure I would consider that proliferation. If {{English ties}} replaces those country-specific templates, we may in fact see the reduction in the overall number of language variety templates. -- Beland (talk) 03:02, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
That's not certain at all, unless there's an analysis of engvar b template replacement I've missed. CMD (talk) 03:13, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
I largely agree with User:Beland, but I try not to overthink the situation.
Commonality has to be synonymous with accessibility for our wide readership. Local vernacular, before it acquires the status of loan word, is something that I would generally find acceptable, provided that its use within any given article is rendered comprehensible through glossing or otherwise defining. Classic examples that immediately spring to mind of words that must be defined/glossed are the Indian measures "lakh" and "crore", which, through being exceedingly common in Indian sources for dealing with metrics cause confusion to readers elsewhere in the world – I would note in passing that we seem to have fewer problems eliminating numerical separators that are not common in the English-speaking world (viz: the full stop, the space, the comma). All that remains are the more common spelling variants denoted by nationalistic phonetic simplification ("color", "gray", "liter", "edema"), or a particular morphology ("traveled", "paneling"), or the Oxford ~ize, which are the object of the EngvarB script.
These permutations are the foundational variants that define/form the 4 "core varieties". As my good friend User:Tony1 has remarked, barring semantic variations, there really are precious few words in Aus and NZ English that are differently spelt compared to British English that would warrant using their own language tag – except of course nationalistic considerations, and for which I still favour {{EngvarB}} over {{Use British English}}, but I digress.
Thank you for the ping @Pineapple Storage. For myself, I oppose your suggested changes the the MOS above. It won't surprise you that I believe the MOS needs tightening up rather than loosening. I think that putting in terms like 'Standard English' is just going to lead down a rabbit hole of whether a variety is indeed 'Standard English'. There will no doubt be some editors of the belief that a single obscure study or dictionary about some national variety is sufficient to make it 'Standard English'. In my view, these changes just creates more wriggle room to crowbar in dozens and dozens of obscure 'Use X English' templates. Dgp4004 (talk) 15:52, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
If the following are true:
All articles are legible and intelligible to readers who can read English
All {{Use X English}} templates are about varieties that have their own Wikipedia article, which either currently contains or could in the future contain comprehensive documentation and guidance on the spelling and grammar rules of that variety
then what exactly is the problem with dozens and dozens of obscure 'Use X English' templates?Aside from the fact that obscure is relative (and the suitability of an English variety shouldn't be decided by someone who's never heard of it), there are dozens and dozens of countries and territories that do have a Standard English variety. And there are dozens and dozens (likely hundreds and hundreds) of linguists around the world producing documentation of (and other literature about) these varieties. As with everything on Wikipedia, what matters is whether the reliable sources exist, and as long as they do, there's no real reason (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT) why a certain variety shouldn't be used. Also, we're not working on paper, so there are no practical limits that stop us from making as many templates as there are (attested) Standard English varieties. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
What Standard English looks like for any given country is pretty easy to figure out these days, given that by definition it's used in newspapers and government documents. There should be plenty of samples of that online for all but the smallest of countries. A variety is not considered standard because an academic paper is published about it, it's because of its status and use in society. Having a dictionary published for a dialect does not make that dialect standard. Consulting a dictionary is a good way to know if a word is colloquial or regional or standard. We also have Wiktionary which already knows this about most words, and which can be updated as we learn about new country-specific English words.
I'm not sure why adding "standard" would create new disputes over actual usage. Editors should already be complaining about and removing non-standard, informal, or colloquial language and avoidable regionalisms.
MOS:TIES apparently already requires us to write compatibly with 88 different national standard dialects. This language doesn't change that, it just makes explicit what should already be obvious, that there are not dozens of dialects beyond that to choose from. Whether or not we need to have 88 or 90 different templates to indicate the dialect choice of all articles is a different question, and I'm skeptical the template tail should be wagging the "how should I spell words" dog.
Beland's suggested changes read good to me. I also think that they adequately match what is already the meaning of ENGVAR – they are a clarification rather than an effective change of the guideline. Gawaon (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
These seem very sensible to me :), agree with Gawaon above re how they're not changing MOS meaning. Buuuut I and Beland read ENGVAR the same way I think, so would be nice to hear from editors who hold the opposing view first before making any changes, I feel?[18] - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Asdfjrjjj (talk) 19:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Nothing much to add. This all seems to fall under WP:BLUE to me, going back to the original post. The reading that all forms of English are acceptable down to a single person's idiolect and (e.g.) William Faulkner's article should be written from the POV of a mentally disabled southerner, ee cummings's article should have no punctuation or capitalization, and China should be written in Chinglish with Chinese grammatical rules... it's just patent nonsense.
One thing: The Ugandan example above seems to point to occasions when a standard national form of English might accept constructions not grammatically included in most others. If this is really a large issue people can't be rational about at this late date, it might be necessary to also strengthen the wording that we should default to phrasing acceptable across multiple dialects. We really should, honestly, but some Brits would probably get their dander up about being told to just use "while" on all occasions and it's not like we want to discourage anyone's work on the project. — LlywelynII03:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
How would people feel about adding a sentence to the "When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English" item so it reads:
When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred, except when:
The less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized context, e.g., connexion in Methodist connexionalism
Two spellings are accepted in a national variety and they are equally common or usage frequency is difficult to determine, the spelling which is more broadly used internationally is preferred
Pineapple Storage points out above that "most commonly used" may have been intended to mean "most commonly used across all standard English varieties" rather than "most commonly used in the national standard English variety. If that's so, we could take care of this with a much smaller change, like saying "most commonly used current variant (internationally)" or "(across all national varieties of Standard English)". -- Beland (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Just a quick note… remember that we are discussing written varieties of English, and not spoken varieties. Formal written English (ie what one would use in writing an encyclopedia article) has a lot less variation than colloquial spoken English. Blueboar (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
My impression so that we here we come into overly specialized territory where it's just not practical to have a rule. In practice, such issues rarely arise, and if they do, the statistics needed to apply the rule likely won't exist, or their reliability won't be clear. Not every theoretically possible detail needs to be covered in the MOS (avoid CREEP). Gawaon (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Comment - I'm not sure what the latest proposal is, the discussion seems to have become fragmented... But if there is a consensus forming around the proposed {{English ties}} template, then I think that sounds a good proposal. My main points of concern in the past have been that we should not remove opportunities to specify that articles have ties to their own locations, e.g. by deleting "Use Ugandan English" and forcing articles from that country to be written in "British English", while also retaining the principle of EngvarB, which gives editors unfamiliar with local dialects guidance as to the broad category that it falls under. As long as we allow all the ties that might be necessary, including those for Cameroon and Tanzania etc, even where a formal specification of that country's English can't be found, then {{English ties}} looks great. A nice corollary if this is that it looks like it avoids the need to be too prescriptive about terminology from on high, and allows decisions to be made at article level on whether to use local terms or default to commonality. Thus the danfo and senior wife examples mentioned above could be accepted in an article, while other obscure local terms might be avoided, with local consensus and normal editing determining this. Does this sound like the proposed plan? Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:06, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
{{English ties}} probably shouldn't be using the more American "encyclopedia" in templates specifying similarity to British English. It's also worth noting that there is variatoin within countries, including the US and UK, and it is unclear whether this drive for directly linking formal English standards to individual countries is meant to assert a single standard for each country. CMD (talk) 09:36, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Hehe, that's a tricky problem! Personally I think it should rather be "encyclopedic/encyclopaedic purposes", since an adjective is called for in that position, but I don't really know now to resolve the ENGVAR issue. Though maybe it's possible to tweak the output to generate the correct form depending on the ENGVAR actually specified by individual invocations of the template? Gawaon (talk) 10:23, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Oxford dictionaries list "encyclopedia" before "encyclopaedia", so the former is an point of WP:COMMONALITY between British and American English. I agree with Gawaon about "encyclopedic purposes". Ham II (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Heh, that implies all instances of "encyclopaedia" should be changed to "encyclopedia" if the latter is more common in British English. -- Beland (talk) 18:21, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Sounds like we want to create separate {{ties}} and {{retain}} templates for articles that have strong ties to an English-speaking country vs. use an arbitrary national variety following MOS:RETAIN. I can make drafts. Before I put work into that, I was wondering if we need all three possible placements - talk page, editnotice, and non-displaying bot tag? Also, do people have any preference for making separate templates for each placement (e.g. {{ties talk page}} and {{ties editnotice}}) vs. making one template for all placements using more complicated logic? The latter would at least prevent anyone from putting one in the wrong place. It seems to me that having both talk page and editnotices is a bit redundant, but it looks like editing of editnotices is restricted to admins and template editors and page movers. -- Beland (talk) 17:08, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
I've been intending to come in on this so I'd better do so now before the discussion moves on. What would we gain from having separate {{ties}} and {{retain}} templates instead of a single {{English variety}} template? I imagine it would be a lot of work to divide up the existing instances of {{Use American English}}, etc. – to what end?
I think we should take this opportunity to do away with the clutter of ENGVAR templates on talk pages, and (if it's feasible) have them in editnotices where they can be seen by users editing articles. Ham II (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
The main reason for having two different templates is so that there can be two different wordings. Articles that have strong ties to a place have to use Standard English as written in that place, but we want to avoid telling editors that articles about, say, the Falkland Islands, have to use British English because it's disputed as to whether there is a separate Falklands Standard English. There's also the dispute over whether it's worth creating lots of rarely-used templates even when there is a demonstrable difference, because it may not actually make a difference to the spelling for encyclopedia purposes. The English variety for these articles also cannot be changed by local consensus, or at least that would create a conflict with the general MOS rule.
For articles with no strong ties, we can't use the wording that says the spelling and grammar are controlled by that of a particular place; we're just declaring which variety has arbitrarily been chosen. This wording can also say the variety can be changed by local consensus, and point to the method for finding the earliest substantial edit in a particular variety. Presumably the list of available dialect choices will also be a lot smaller for this template. There seems to be broad support for using American or British English for no-ties articles, but tagging a no-ties article as Ghanaian English may or may not have consensus (especially if it's practically indistinguishable from British English as used in that article). We could debate that and enforce an outcome separately from the need to write articles about Ghana in Ghanaian English.
For articles currently tagged for American English, this may improve the accuracy of spell checking for topics tied to places that use mostly but not entirely American-style spelling. I think it's probably more of a pressing issue for small countries; if the bulk of AE-tagged articles stay the way they are now for a few years, that may be unsatisfying for those that want to tidy up template space, but not really creating disputes or confusion over spelling choices. -- Beland (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree with User:Ham II]. I don't see how having additional templates for {{Ties}} and {{Retain}} would truly add value for the editor, at the cost of contributing to screen clutter.
OTOH, as to the direction of travel, my preference would be to keep only a slimmed-down collection of {{Use X English}} templates. We could even resurrect that {{EngvarB}} (instead of British) template and {{EngvarA}} (instead of American) as palliatives to "[anti-]imperialist" sentiment. Templates that do not represent canonical variants (while ignoring dialectic vernacular) could be consolidated through a merger into a template of one of the 4 canonical varieties. Ohc revolution of our times18:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
@Ohconfucius There simply are not4 canonical varieties though. You say ignoring dialectic vernacular as if the only formal written varieties of English are AmE, BrE, CanE or Oxford, which is clearly not the case. Also, I'm sorry to have to ask again, but canonical according to whom? I've looked, and I can't find any evidence that consensus is to ignore WP:ENGVAR when it says "All national varieties of Standard English are equally acceptable on English Wikipedia"—or, prior to recent changes, its previous wording "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others"—and limit the encyclop(a)edia to four varieties (well, three varieties and one spelling system). Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
If only admins can edit editnotices, that would be a serious hindrance, so I'd consider talk page + and non-displaying bot tag the way to go. (Just as we do it with {{Use Oxford spelling}} and friends, which all have their talk page cousin.) Gawaon (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
Summary
The following is a quick summary of the above discussion as of the datestamp here:
Consensus against adopting either Proposal 1 or Proposal 2.
The following is a more comprehensive summary of the above discussion as of the datestamp here:
The original poster clarified (here) that the controversy they'd seen was on whether or not some national varieties of English were unsuitable for Wikipedia. An editor noted (here) that the original poster may have misinterpreted their stance or the basis for their stance. Another editor noted (here) that the original poster may have misinterpreted the controversy, noting it might rather be on whether or not some national varieties of English were distinct enough to need a separate label or template. A third editor agreed (here) that the original poster may have misinterpreted the controversy, noting it might rather be on whether or not some varieties of English were non-standard, or on whether or not this or that English variety tag would most help editors to maintain a consistent style. A fourth editor noted (here) that at least some editors on TfDs for English variety templates seemed to take a stance on whether or not some national varieties of English were unsuitable for Wikipedia.
editor asked for guidance after TfD; consensus seemed to be: "update {{Use British English}} doc to explain and emphasise that {{Use British English}} is not exclusively for articles with TIES to UK, but rather any article with certain words and spellings"
nominated after vars EngvarB talk discussions and because dialect-specific tags existed and were better; consensus seemed to be: "TIES articles should use dialect-specific rather than non-specific tags, and EngvarB is not a good name, and bots should respect dialect-specific tags or not be used, and articles with TIES conflicts should follow RETAIN or create and use a spelling-specific (rather than dialect-specific) tag like {{Use Oxford spelling}}"
editor proposed to soften the wording in COMMONALITY re the preferred spelling variant when more than one coexisted within a national variety of English (towards vs toward in AmE and BrE)
nominated because template advised use in articles with "Bangladeshi English spelling" despite main article not mentioning any distinctive spelling, and because template provided guidance contrary to COMMONALITY
following a Bicolor cat talk discussion, editor sought clarity on whether an article's having a title in one particular English dialect should determine whether that dialect was likewise used in the body per ENGVAR
nominated because templates were created without prior discussion, and because main article noted phrasing that would not be acceptable per COMMONALITY, and noted misspelt standard English words that would not be acceptable; consensus seemed to be: "UgE may not be standardised but is nonetheless its own Engl variant"
nominated because main article noted IrE standards aligned with BrE, and regionalisms were to not be used per COMMONALITY, so templates were redundant to their BrE counterparts; consensus seemed to be: "IrE might look like BrE but is distinguishable from it, eg by use of Irish loanwords"
editor noted the X English main articles of vars {{Use X English}} templates did not note substantive spelling differences from BrE, and so vars {{Use X English}} templates might be redundant to {{Use British English}}
editor sought clarification on whether § International organizations was a TIES-like principle for articles with strong ties to international organisations
editor sought to copy-edit RETAIN to clarify that there was nothing special about the originally-established English variant nor editor who originally established it, in the face of consensus to change the established variant
editor sought advice on whether to change the established English variant and date format of Tartan Day after no one had objected nor consented to the change in the talk discussion
editor sought ENGVAR clarification on whether the main spelling variants of a dialect (gray, theater, draft in AmE) were required over minor spelling variants (grey, theatre, draught in AmE)
following a suggestion to use Indian English in biographies of Indian people, a new page patroller sought ENGVAR clarification on whether they were supposed to be adding {{Use X English}} templates to articles they patrolled, and whether there was a tool to convert articles they patrolled to the correct English dialect
nominated because there was no single written standard for Commonwealth English or there was no Commonwealth English dialect, and because templates prescribed spellings not backed by sources; consensus seemed to agree
nominated because there was no evidence that a distinct written standard of Bermudian English existed, nor that any article was written in such a dialect
nominated because there was no evidence that a distinct written standard of Nepali English existed (and main article noted no one in Nepal could agree on a standard), nor that any article was written in such a dialect
nominated because no identifiable written standard variety of Pitcairn Islands English existed, and no evidence that any article was written in such a dialect
editor sought to overhaul TIES as they identified only two standard written varieties of English (BrE, AmE) since COMMONALITY precluded use of distinctive dialectal expressions, and current wording gave rise to numerous useless templates, led to nationalist or territorial tagging of articles, and TIES rather ought to focus on spelling differences than on varieties of English
editor proposed deprecating all Varieties of English templates, noting they served no good purpose but rather usually served as a form of nationalist territorial marking, whereas an IP editor was mass-tagging articles with {{Ghanaian English}} despite there being no written standard of Ghanaian English that differed from standards of written American or Commonwealth English (w/ or w/o Oxford spelling), and despite COMMONALITY precluding use of distinguishing dialectal expressions
nominated because all but two templates were unused, and because nearly all corresponding English variants had either no main article or had just a redirect as one, and because the corresponding English variant of some (eg {{Jersey English}}) did not seem sufficiently different from BrE to warrant their own templates; the two used templates ({{Malawian English}} and {{Botswana English}}) were nominated because they otherwise had the same problems as the rest
nominated because template was unused, had no Montserratian English main article, and corresponded to an English variety that was too niche to need a separate template
editor sought guidance on whether English English was a recognised variety of English, as it seemed covered by British or Commonwealth English, whereas they had noticed an attempt to tag articles with templates flagging English English
nominated because Hiberno-English referred to spoken, vernacular dialects, not a standard, written English dialect, such that no Wikipedia article ought to be written in Hiberno-English
nominated because they didn't display edit notices (like their X English talk page template counterparts); consensus seemed to be: "these are non-displaying maintenance templates for bots or scripts or categorisation"
nominated because IUPAC spelling did not only apply to AmE and BrE, and Oxford spelling did not only apply to BrE, and so these spelling systems might be better tracked by parameters in each {{Use X English}} template or their talk page counterparts
nominated because there was no defined Upper Class English, and upper class English usage might differ across varieties of English, and an upper class English dialect ought not to be used in articles
nominated because template was used only twice, there was no difference between Scottish English and BrE, and Scotland was part of the UK such that the template seemed to be a POVFORK
nominated because template was redundant to {{Use British English}} and {{British English}}, there was no evidence that script maintainers were ensuring pages were being properly tagged as written in BrE per ENGVAR, no evidence that pages written in AmE had a similar script, and template produced unsightly white space in at least one page
nominated because these talk page or edit notices did not guide editors on how to match established style, rather serving only to scare away those that might make silly orthographic changes, whereas a show of nationalism was not needed for this effect
nominated because template was used only once, and per main article the English variety was substantially similar to AmE so edit notice might be redundant to {{American English}}
nominated because template's flag topicon looked disgusting and served little purpose, whereas newbies were unlikely to see or care about dialect consistency requests, while experienced editors could just tell the established dialect via spelling, and talk page notices were available, and edit notices might be created
nominated because template was redundant to {{Canadian English}} and we did not have separate templates for regions of large English-speaking countries eg US
nominated because Scottish English was substantially similar to BrE per main article so template might be redundant to {{British English}}, and because Scottish English might also refer to Scots, which would be a separate Wikipedia and so confusing
nominated because template was unused, and Singaporean English was obscure, and its differences from BrE were marginal such that very few article would demand SingE particularities
nominated because template was used only once, and European English referred either to BrE or English as used by European organisations or Euro-English (a stub noting "euro-English has no central norm"), and template did not note differential spelling from AmE or BrE so might be redundant to {{British-English}}
nominated because templates were not used and both English dialects were accepted by MOS so corresponding notices ("This page is in <American/British> English") served no purpose
^This is only the primary reason for (1); other reasons for (1) might exist. This isn't my position so I might not have correctly identified the primary reason for it, or else rendered it poorly here, but maybe Jonesey95 might verify? Seems like Jonesey95's and Ohconfucius's [not sure they wanted to be pinged] and Johnuniq's and Dgp4004's and Largoplazo's position per linked TfD.
^This is only the primary reason for (2); other reasons for (2) might exist. Copied from 5 Aug comment by Asdfjrjjj in linked TfD. Seems like Pineapple Storage's position per the same linked TfD. Seems like Beland's and Trovatore's position per this MOS discussion (ignore Asdfjrjjj's mangled comments there :).
^Could not think of an example for this but other editors might have some (maybe Jonesey95)?
^For instance, by leading editors to waste their time and effort, eg by creating {{Use X English}} and related templates that then just go to TfD where (1) and (2) both have the same normative weight, such that discussion just becomes a matter of how well-known the X English dialect is (ie a popularity contest), rather than a discussion on whether the template itself breaks any policy or guideline (or meets any WP:TFD#REASONS).
^Compare to Pppery's closing comment in the same TfD: "Sure, you can interpret guidelines like MOS:COMMONALITY they way Asdfjrjjj did in favor of specific dialects, but you can also interpret them in the way the nominator did, as requiring only broad-scope dialects that can't be included in more common cases."
^Else, we'd be saying both that X does not follow from COMMONALITY and X does not not follow from COMMONALITY (= X does follow from COMMONALITY).
^But I could be way off, ofc. This is not an exhaustive list of stance (A) comments. The last couple in this list seem to pretty clearly not be based on COMMONALITY, but were included just for variety. Some of these comments might be referring to a dialect's informalregister rather than COMMONALITY, maybe, but in that case they'd be straightforwardly mistaken and wrong in their stance (informal registers being present in every English dialect, and obviously inappropriate in a formal encyclopaedia like this one), in which case we should prolly read them charitably and interpret them as referring to COMMONALITY imo.
^"This template is an attempt to establish a new 'variety' of English in the MOS through an inappropriate route (i.e., it is bypassing a MOS discussion). First gain recognition at MOS for this as an ENGVAR variant that may be used."
^Incidentally, since the TfD discussion, I realised that "assured" is spelt with only one r in (AFAIK) all varieties. I know this is because of the etymology from French assurer, whereas "occurred" derives from Latin occurro, but in practical terms in Modern English it means that ured vs urred is already an inconsistent rule.
^My best guess would be "largely BrE, but with lexical influences from local creoles, and AmE influences on spelling etc. in territories that are geographically close to the US". But again, this is just an educated guess.
^I feel like stance (A) above would be a better/more understandable reason for your position here, in which case the question would be: is not the burden on stance (A) editors to establish a list of unsuitable dialect (eg by consensus), given ENGVAR as it currently stands, so that the burden is not on incoming editors who might be forgiven for thinking their English variety is welcome on Wikipedia?
^Eg "This article has strong ties to <country>. It uses standard formal written English as used in this country, which for encyclopedia purposes is very similar to <AmE/BrE/blend-of-AmE-and-BrE>. Remember to prefer vocabulary common to all varieties of English, and to consistently follow the conventions of this variety of English." This might be less scary to newbies I feel, and saves editors a click imo.
^Not a template editor, just assuming tracking categories are needed due to their existence/the Engvar script.
^Also just felt that as Engvar script creator, we'd really like to know your thoughts if possible :) but I apologise if this was still an unwanted ping, just lmk!
^Currently I only see Dgp4004, and Jonesey95 would prefer not to be pinged it seems. I might not have pinged editors correctly, maybe? So will try again :)
^Adapted from the 4 Aug table in this UBE talk discussion. List meant to be complete to 2019 for MOS talk, and to 2005 for TfDs, but for sure errors of ommission possible. Errors of interpretation also highly possible in Description column. An editor has suggested (here) that TfDs in this table be documented in a place more appropriate than MOS, eg an internal category or navigation template. Wasn't quite sure how to technically do that, so made this table instead. MOS talk seemed a more appropriate place for it than userspace.
MOSPOSS, Bayes' Theorem, and Olbers' Paradox
So there's a clear issue which has been simmering around various pages for a while but doesn't seem to have been explicitly taken on here. Many editors over the years have been debating the proper apostrophe format for possessive S's. MOS:POSS explicitly mentions that, when not difficult to pronounce, singular possessives should always end with an ['s] unless followed by "sake", but deference should be given to official names.
However, the MOS is frustratingly silent on how this intersects with WP:COMMONNAME in cases where there is no 'official' body dictating a phrase but popular use goes against POSS principles. This may seem like a trivial gripe, but it has resulted in several different move request discussions over the years:
It's clear that many independent users through time have, with the intent of following MOS:POSS guidelines, tried to move articles of non-official common names to be consistent, in almost every case being overruled by others on COMMONNAME grounds, but still these move requests persist (and sometimes, as in Shays'[s] case, succeed) before the discussion crops up anew once again, with another editor reading MOS:POSS and assuming something needs to be fixed.
So: can we please add a provision in MOS:POSS that, when a possessive name violating this is commonly used enough that it fulfills WP:COMMONNAME, that this overrules the policy and should be used as such in articles? I might propose something like this:
For the possessive of singular nouns, including proper names and words ending in s, add 's (my daughter's achievement, my niece's wedding, Cortez's men, the boss's office, Illinois's largest employer, the US's partners, Descartes's philosophy, Verreaux's eagle). Exception: abstract nouns ending with an /s/ sound when followed by sake (for goodness' sake, for his conscience' sake). If a name ending in s or z would be difficult to pronounce with 's added (Jesus's teachings), consider rewording (the teachings of Jesus).
If the established common usage of a term or phrase omits an 's (Olbers' Paradox, Achilles' Heel, Shays' Rebellion), use the WP:COMMONNAME instead.
I'm also not inherently opposed to MOS taking precedence, and us reworking each of these titles to include an 's contrary to popular usage, but right now the actual usage in articles is contradictory and the MOS is silent either way. Some sort of official comment one way or the other appears necessary. Arguably adding it could be considered fairly uncontroversial, but considering the number of high-participation move requests over the years (linked above) I wanted to get a reality check before making such a far-reaching addition. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 07:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I don’t think that is another example of what is raised here. It’s just a phrase referring to some pontoon bridges belonging to Xerxes, for which Xerxes’s bridges works fine. MapReader (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
In addition to the evidence above, I'll add some experience as someone who's been around here for a while, if arguing about these things floats your boat, go on and do it, but at this point making Wikipedia consistent isn't going to happen unless we change the requirement for consensus. Consensus won't happen. We could appoint a dictator to make a decision. We could do the equivalent of flipping a coin. There are probably other ways to solve the problem. Most likely is a lot of words and effort and no change. As I said, feel free, but I suggest letting it go. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
I have tweaked the bold edit made while this discussion is ongoing, to pick up the point I made above by including a reference to proper names, for which there might be an established format. Bayes’ Theorem is one such; Bayes’s underpants is not. MapReader (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
I apologise for not getting in earlier, but I've reverted the bold edit for now -- there are a couple of problems here. First and most importantly, whether a given publication writes Bayes' theorem or Bayes's theorem is going to be a matter of that publication's style guide on apostrophes in general, not on that individual item, so we can't meaningfully extrapolate from how many publications plump for one or the other into specific guidance on specific terms. Secondly, it is established at various points in the MoS that differences of punctuation do not make for a different lexeme (see in particular MOS:CONFORM), and so WP:COMMONNAME can't be applied here, since the MoS treats Bayes's theorem and Bayes' theorem as the same name, differently rendered. Finally, the guidance as written would mandate some pretty bizarre things -- such as a sentence like Bayes' theorem is Bayes's greatest contribution to mathematics. Just looking at this discussion, I can't see any real feeling, other than from the proposer, that this change is/was a good idea. UndercoverClassicistT·C07:19, 5 September 2025 (UTC)
Knowingly tangential to the main discussion, but out of curiosity, what would the correct course of action have been here? My thought process was that it's been around a week since I raised the question, so given how prominent talk:MOS is, anyone who was liable to see it and have a strong opinion would have likely commented by now, and the lukewarm response signified that it was a pretty non-contentious edit. Should I have waited longer? Or would the lack of responses suggest not to make the edit by default? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think any harm was done -- consensus can be tacit, so "nobody objects" can be taken as evidence of it; bold edits are generally encouraged, on the understanding that they can be reverted and discussed. Equally, the MoS is a contentious topic, so it may be considered wise to err on the side of caution and wait for positive consensus before making substantive changes -- after all, the group of editors who watch WT:MOS is much smaller than the group affected by what the MoS says. From another point of view, three editors had chipped in with (at best) lukewarm views of the proposal, which might have been taken as an indication to take things slowly. But we had a bold edit, it was reverted, we're discussing: that's the process working as it should. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
If it were a regular article, it would have been better to wait for more discussion, but with the MoS, it’s a heavily watched page, so it wasn’t unreasonable to go ahead and try a BOLD on the offchance that others would find it non-contentious. Equally, very shortly after the edit was made, I amended it, and another editor reverted it, both of which are reasonable actions and indicate that it doesn’t have consensus. I don’t see the edit as non-contentious, since it changes a clear and unambiguous guide to always use "’s" into one that requires debate and consensus over “established common usage” in potentially a very large number of instances. It’s also worth noting that - in a week now - you don’t really have any comments from other editors fully supporting it? MapReader (talk) 06:49, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
And incidentally, just for interest, I went looking at some sources regarding Mr Bayes’s little theorem, and found that usage varies considerably. In particular, the unpunctuated Bayes Theorem format is pretty common, especially in more modern sources including some scientific ones, and Bayes’s Theorem isn’t unheard of, including in some reputable sources such as the Oxford University Press. So even in your core example, there may a debate to be had? I don’t think there’s any doubt that the single apostrophe without an "s" is the classical usage, but it’s certainly not universal usage, leaving WP free to adopt its own style. In written English generally, a hundred years ago the single apostrophe was much more common for the possessive of singular words ending in "s", whereas modern usage trends increasingly towards "’s", which as I recall was a consideration in WP adopting it for the MoS, with the added advantage that it reduces ambiguity (because with ‘ you don’t know whether the word is singular or plural, except from context) and editor conflicts. MapReader (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Your last point doesn't apply to names, though. Nobody would read Bayes' and wonder whether it were singular or plural. And on the rare occasions when a plural possessive would be used on a name, the definite article will almost always precede the name (e.g. the Kennedies' assassins). 76.20.114.184 (talk) 18:33, 7 September 2025 (UTC)
Section on Scrolling lists and a link to a non-consensus help page
I removed a link that went to a help page that was more negative than MOS on scrolling lists. That help page is not even essay status or consensus and could leave editors thinking it was part of MOS from the link. I did me. The link in this article should directly point out it is going to a non-consensus help page or it should be delinked so other editors do not make the same mistake I did. Hence this added discussion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:07, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Links to how-to pages from policies and guidelines are often fine, and are not generally treated as problematic. How-to pages are described in WP:HOWTOPAGES, and it isn't reasonable to say that links to these pages should be removed because they can be confused with guidelines. The linked page is not an opinionated essay and is not supposed to be interpreted as "stricter" than the MoS. It is only linked to explain to a reader who does not know what "scrolling list" refers to what these words mean. If you think the how-to page overreaches in some way and does not represent the actual practice, you should edit it. In any case it is not normative for the MoS.—Alalch E.06:36, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Actually we have seen that some of these "how-to" pages are a problem with little vetting. To have a page like MOS link to one of these seems wrong. Perhaps if these pages said in giant bold red letters that it has no real meaning per MOS, then editors wouldn't be bamboozled into thinking they were special. It's like finding articles with no sources. And it is completely reasonable to say that links to these pages should be removed because they can be confused with guidelines, if it's true. I have seen it happen multiple times and it's time someone said something about it. We get folks telling us to do things a particular way based on these non-vetted musings and we have to explain to them that these pages are not MOS or policy. You might as well have Wikipedia MOS link to an outside blog... and that isn't right either. Browsers, phones, and screen readers have gotten smarter and smarter, and with ai probably even more so. Our MOS has been brought together with lots of hard work and elbow grease... kudos to those that helped build it. But linking our MOS to some of these non-consensus pages without spelling that fact out prior to the link, seems to weaken what others have created by consensus. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I would agree in principle with removing it if it were an opinionated essay, and I've probably removed a few of those myself from PAGs, but this is a how-to page that intends to be objective and is not supposed to contradict the MoS. It primarily serves to explain what the thing is, and if it is seemingly "stricter" than the MoS and reads as if the MoS restricts the use of such lists more than it actually does, then it's a factual error in the how-to that needs to be fixed. My idea of how to proceed is you making your desired changes to Help:Scrolling list. I recommend that you leave the link to the page here alone; it has been here since 2012 (Special:Diff/526474166), and it is a useful link that explains what "scrolling list" refers to. —Alalch E.07:49, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
I will leave it alone here now because you reverted me. But we have a big difference of opinion on MOS and the way it should work. You say fix the other page and I say MOS should not be linked to such a page unless it is fixed or unless MOS explains what the page is that it is linked to. I don't think we will agree on protocol and what we feel is best for our readers, which is always my first priority. It is what it is I guess. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:30, 8 September 2025 (UTC)
Host/website names in text
Where's the guideline, if there is one, for displaying in text a website name that takes the form of its domain name? When I came across the diff at [27], where an editor changed In August 2023, Namecheap launched Spaceship.com to In August 2023, Namecheap launched Spaceship.com, I realized I didn't know what the approved treatment is. Which of the following?
I'd say it depends on how the name is used in reliable sources. When I go to https://www.spaceship.com/ it looks like they call the website sometimes "spaceship" and sometimes "Spaceship". A quick web search leads to mixed use. I'd go with "Spaceship" as that seems to be the name of the website, which is a proper noun and we generally capitalize proper nouns. Oddly we italicize website names in references, but I don't recall ever seeing them italicized in text. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:22, 29 August 2025 (UTC)
However, "Namecheap launched Spaceship" sounds confusingly similar to the generic "Namecheap launched a spaceship" (and lowercasing it as "Namecheap launched spaceship" would be even worse). Gawaon (talk) 07:30, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
In reaction to your remark, I've just added further alternatives with quotes to the list above. In 1973, Parton released Jolene would imply that Jolene was some poor soul held in captivity by Parton for some period ending in 1973, but we actually write it In 1973, Parton released "Jolene" so we have no problem of comprehension. The only alternative I can think of to setting off the website name through some typographical convention is to be explicit, Namecheap launched the website Spaceship. (In that case, MOS:TMLOWER—registered or not, a website's name is its trademark, it seems to me—would be why we wouldn't write Namecheap launched the website spaceship even if the word were exclusively uncapitalized on the website.)
Instituting special formatting to designate website names will never be as easy or as understandable as saying "a website named ...". We aren't short on space in this electronic encyclopedia. We can write well and be clear. Problem solved. If a website is named say "Wikipedia" there's no point in calling it "wikipedia.org", unless you need to talk about the website's domain name. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 18:49, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
There are websites that have no title other than their domain name (and, in some cases, whose parent companies have no other name): hotels.com, booking.com, cars.com, answers.com, the old pets.com, and crypto.com (which is even the namesake of a stadium, Crypto.com Arena in Los Angeles). Largoplazo (talk) 20:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)
Right. If the website name is the same as the domain name, you could say "a website named pets.com". That would be clear. SchreiberBike | ⌨
The existing rules are at MOS:ITALICWEBSITE but only mention names of web sites that are not the domain name. I agree italics is not necessary in these cases, and capitalization is optional but seems to be the dominant practice. I've added a note and cross-reference. For citations, the citation style being followed determines the formatting, and that varies from article to article. -- Beland (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2025 (UTC)
I would use Space.com and treat it as the name of the website in this case. There are some subtle distinctions one might make like "Facebook can be accessed via the app or online at facebook.com" where one might make a case for lowercase. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk23:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
Superseded by topic below Should MOS:COLOUR permit multiple colors in some situations?
"When using color, editors should keep accessibility for users with low vision impairments and color blindness in mind:... Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information, or for distinguishing elements such as links, templates, or table rows. Always provide an alternative method [such as icons, symbols, etc]" [emphasis added].
On the right are four maps that illustrate the confusion I observed in FA and GA. The confusion revolves around the question: When does MOS:COLOR permit the use of hue (red/blue/green/yellow/orange) as the sole means of conveying information in maps?
Notably, everyone agrees that color lightness – e.g dark blue/ medium blue/ light blue/white – is consistent with MOS:COLOR. Likewise, using dotted/dashed/solid line styles is acceptable for conveying information in maps.
WP:MOS says "New content added to [WP:MOS] should directly address a persistently recurring style issue." I think this color issue is "persistently recurring" because I've seen it four times in the past six weeks, so I suspect that hundreds of editors are facing this issue monthly as they add or review maps within articles. Therefore, keeping MOS:COLOR unchanged is, in my opinion, not wise.
Personally, I have no opinion on how to apply MOS:COLOR to maps. I raise the question here only because it is clear that many editors are confused about it.
Therefore, I pose the question:
Should MOS:COLOR be updated to clarify if and when color hues (such as red/blue/green/yellow/orange) may be used to convey information in maps?
In the interest of minimizing future confusion, what do you think of adding "The MOS:COLOR guidelines do not apply to the content of images, including maps." to MOS:COLOR, perhaps as a footnote? Noleander (talk) 14:07, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that images should be excluded from the MOS. Images (and other media) are an important part of how we present information to our readers and we should be putting as much effort into them as we put into text. I think we too often fall back on "Not my problem, that's the best I could find in commons", which is a shame. I understand that not everybody is skilled at manipulating images, but we have projects like Wikipedia:Graphics Lab which can help. RoySmith(talk)14:34, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Agreed with RoySmith -- once an image becomes part of an article, it's subject to the same standards as anything else in it. Of course, the MoS is only ever a guideline, so maps which use colour to convey information aren't strictly verboten, but we acknowledge that, in theory, it's better if some other supporting method can be used, or at least best not to use pairs of colours that are commonly the subject of vision problems (e.g. red and green) where they can be easily confused. If it really is the best in Commons, then we can discuss whether it adds net value being in, even given the accessibility issues, or whether it's better taken out. It's a similar situation with citation -- information in a map isn't exempt from WP:V because it's in a map, and reviewers at FAC, in particular, will often ask for proper verification on the image's page. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:21, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I am worried about raising the standards too high (if the MOS says every map needs to be colourblind accessible we will have people going around to remove all others). Maps are extremely helpful to understand many articles. If there is a high quality map that violates the accessibility guideline, we should include it in the article because it helps many of our readers. Of course we should continue to try to get a better map. Just like we will use low resolution photographs of living people until we get a better one. —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
What about adding wording to MOS:COLOR that focuses on recommendations, rather than mandates. Such as: "When colors are used as the sole means of conveying information in a map, the colors should be chosen with color-blindness in mind: Using color lightness or line-patterns is recommended. Relying on hue alone is discouraged, but if hue must be used, pairs of colors subject to color-blindness (such as red/green, or orange/red) should not both be used. Consider using this external tool to evaluate the colors.". Noleander (talk) 16:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Could you elaborate? I could see no mention of maps or color hue in that page. Are you agreeing with user Kusma above that MOS:COLOR has no bearing on the content or colors used in maps? Do accessibility concerns impose any guidance on colors used for graphic overlays drawn in maps? Noleander (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
The MOS does not apply to outside the articles space. WP:MOS: Changing "articles" to "pages" (or any change broadening MOS's scope of applicability) would require a widely advertised RfC
Huh? Images included in articles are obviously part of the articles, in "article namespace", to which the manual of style self evidently applies. The images themselves might be hosted on Wikimedia Commons, where there's (as far as I know) no restriction against hosting as many atrociously bad images as anyone feels like uploading. But there's a whole sub-page Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images pertaining to the use of images in articles. –jacobolus(t)19:45, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria can probably supply others, since they are an expert in this area, and raised accessibility concerns in all of the above. And I should mention that I'm one of the confused editors: in my nomination for James Cook I felt obligated to spend a lot of time revising maps to change the colors; only later to find other editors that stated MOS:COLOR did not require the revisions. Again, I have no opinion on the matter, but I am confused :-) Noleander (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Only somewhat related to the original question, but I do find it frustrating that while MOS:ALT is part of the MOS, folks at WP:FAC seem to interpret It follows the style guidelines as including a carve out making MOS:ALT optional. In general, I think we give accessibility issues less emphasis than we should; we should not just be the encyclopedia anybody can edit, we should also be the encyclopedia anybody can read. And I'm still doing a bit of a slow burn that when I recently pointed out to somebody that their user page was formatted with so much fancy styling that it difficult for me to read, they blew me off with (paraphrasing) "I can read it just fine, you must have vision problems". To be sure, my vision isn't as sharp as it was 10 (or 20, 30, 40, 50, or even 60) years ago, but you'll all get here too if you survive long enough. And while I still see well enough to qualify for a driver's license, I guess I'm quickly reaching the point where I can't read an encyclopedia. RoySmith(talk)15:18, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
folks at WP:FAC seem to interpret It follows the style guidelines as including a carve out making MOS:ALT optional. I share your frustration here. The usual point that gets made is that we don't have good guidance on what makes good alt text, and external sources of wisdom often disagree -- but then I still think there ought to be general agreement that you can't follow MOS:ALT without at least having a go at writing some alt text, and therefore that an article with no alt text at all can't pass FAC. But that may be a discussion for another venue. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:24, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
This is somewhat off topic here, but what would be a good practice for the alt text in Lexell's theorem? I just set the alt for every diagram to alt=Refer to adjacent text on the recommendation of MOS:ALT because I can't think up a way of describing these images in a way that is independently valuable, but would it be better to leave alt out or blank? In general, a diagram of a geometric proof conveys roughly the same formal information as the text of the proof, but the text is often pretty hard to follow without the image as an overview and mental anchor. I frankly don't know how to make an article like this accessible to someone who can't see (especially since most screen readers mangle mathematical formulas, which are the primary non-image content; I wouldn't necessarily mind providing explicit alt text for every formula, but we don't currently have a way of accomplishing that). –jacobolus(t)19:54, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I am colour blind and I often find maps useless because I cannot tell apart the colours. I do not have a problem if they are poster colours, that is pure red, blue, etc, with no shade of another colour. I do not know how typical I am. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
user:GeogSage said at WT:MIL § Using colors ... "The average person making maps for Wikipedia is not qualified." And pointed to the work of Cynthia Brewer, especially her ColorBrewer tool, as a quick shortcut to getting a better result than whatever a non-expert might naïvely first try. Quoting Brewer, GeogSage pointed out that "Hue variations are used to allow more contrast between categories, but lightness should still be the primary differentiating characteristic." Brewer (and GeogSage) is right here, but that's not the end of the story. Lightness contrast is completely essential for making anything that will be placed directly side-by-side clearly distinguishable, whether in a photograph, user interface, diagram, map, or whatever. If you place two large filled objects with very limited lightness contrast next to each-other, the result will be that they blend together; if the two are of similar color, then they will tend to just look like a uniform blob, and if they are both highly colorful but of substantially different hue they will be extremely distracting and "clashing", while also simultaneously being hard to distinguish. It is completely essential that any colors representing different data values be split by lightness (say in a choropleth map or the like). But in some contexts the lightness contrast between objects of one type and objects of some other type is more important than contrast between various objects of the same type, so we sometimes have a relatively limited range of contrast to work with for, e.g., several fill colors that need to all contrast with foreground text, or for several line colors or text colors that need to contrast with the same fill colors. Just like writing decisions, color design takes some taste, knowledge, and careful trade-offs, based on the content, output medium, intended viewership and their expectations, etc. It's hard to boil these decisions down to any kind of ironclad rules, but only general guidelines, like: Try to make the most contrast you can, while also being non-distracting in the context of a text article people are trying to read (this limits how colorful, busy, or high-contrast any image should be, and argues against very active animation), keeping labels and symbols legible, trying to support readers with non-standard color vision as best as possible, etc. I think more useful than trying to force any kind of universal requirements (or e.g. blocking articles from being featured if the images have issues) would be to have a place where image authors could consult some more experienced Wikipedians who have thought about these aspects of design and offer advice, or maybe some kind of team effort to produce some examples (perhaps drawn from existing images on Wikipedia/Commons) showing specific problems and possible ways of improving them. –jacobolus(t)06:58, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
That is an excellent suggestion: "... have a place where image authors could consult some more experienced Wikipedians who have thought about these aspects of design and offer advice" If that were implemented, those advisors would inevitably create a FAQ that summarizes the common issues that arise. Such an FAQ would be required, for example, when the advisors are busy IRL, or retire from WP, etc. Can you sketch-out the advice that hypothetical FAQ would provide to editors regarding the use of color in maps (in the context of accessibility)? Noleander (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
I can list several sources if anyone is interested, but this entire category is filled with maps that the literature would consider misleading. Attempts to outright delete them have been blocked, and instead we've been told to just replace them as we go to avoid disrupting the project. Bad maps are worse then no maps, there is no defense for the maps in this category (I've done the literature review). This is ONE example of how bad the problem is with Wikipedia's cartography. Many maps have no sources, including many of the boundaries on country pages. The projections are often not documented, but when they are are often inappropriate to the map type. Color is a huge issue, but we have a lot of other glaring problems that need to be addressed. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:03, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
Maps are not the same thing as an image. Maps are models of reality, bad maps should be viewed the same as an inaccurate or misleading piece of text. All maps lie, however there are conventions and norms that help us to ensure they are white lies. If a bar chart or line graph is improperly used, it is worse then no graph at all as it might paint an inaccurate view of the underlying data. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
To be fair to the Wikipedian mapmakers, most other aspects of Wikipedia have the same kinds of problems: poor sources or no sources, poor organization, inaccurate factual claims, logical fallacies, misleading interpretations, claims not reflective of the scholarly mainstream consensus, poor writing, bad API design of templates, etc. etc. But despite all its problems, it remains a marvel, and generally better than I would hope it to be when just imagining the concept. –jacobolus(t)04:43, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
The issue is that if I point out an article is making inaccurate claim, or if material is poorly sourced, I can remove it without much of a fuss. When it comes to maps, people demand that they must be replaced with something better, rather then deleted. That entire category I linked is filled with maps that are worse then no maps at all, not only do they present data with inappropriate symbolization leading to misleading representations, they set an example that other amateur cartographers follow. Bad maps out number good maps online, and we are part of the problem. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 04:56, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Bringing this thread back to the topic of this section :-) .... I'm perceiving that there is no appetite to make the MOS:COLOR hue guidelines mandatory for maps. As I read the comments above, there appears to be a strong feeling that some maps can and should use hues to convey information. Of course, there are many, many variables, and every map must be considered on a case-by-case basis. But I don't see any editor that says "maps must use colors in a in a manner that permits visually impaired readers to clearly grasp the data". So perhaps we could add text or a footnote to MOS:COLOR that clarifies that the color guidelines are recommended as an aspirational goal for maps; but may be waived if there is a valid reason. That should put an end to the frequent confusion that has been observed in FA nominations over the past decade about how MOS:COLOR applies to maps Noleander (talk) 19:34, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
"Guidelines may be waived" also seems like the wrong framing (and our current guidelines are pretty weak). More like: people should try to do the best they can within available constraints, and most of the criteria involved should not be interpreted in a black-and-white fashion.
If there are obvious improvements that can be made to particular maps folks should feel free to make those or offer specific critiques. In many cases a bad map is still better than no map, and in my opinion a map being ugly or amateur isn't, by itself, sufficient reason to throw it out.
But sometimes a bad map is worse than nothing: If maps have more serious issues violating core Wikipedia policies (e.g. are inaccurate, non-neutral, not supported by reliable sources, link to sources but mischaracterize their content, etc. they should probably be removed from articles.
There are many resources available (including free resources online) for learning about graphical design, data visualization, cartography, human vision, etc. Wikipedia's articles about these topics are often mediocre, so if someone wants to work on this topic, such articles are an obvious target for incremental (or radical) improvements. If anyone feels like making more specific advice or guidelines for Wikipedia maps per se, that would also be a good project. –jacobolus(t)20:48, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, that text you suggest is useful: "People should try to do the best they can within available constraints, and most of the criteria involved should not be interpreted in a black-and-white fashion." That looks like it would address the primary goal of this topic (helping to minimize confusion about usage of colors in maps); and it appears to be consistent with the comments other editors have made above. What do you think of this wording: "Applying these color guidelines to maps is recommended, but they should be balanced with other cartographic goals and constraints. [This would be added to MOS:COLOR as either text or a footnote]. Does that sound sensible? Noleander (talk) 22:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
a bad map is still better than no map I can not stress enough how much I disagree with this statement, although my definition of "bad map" might be a bit different then yours, as being ugly or amateur does not inherently make a map "bad." Bad maps break cartographic conventions that misrepresent the underlying information to the user, and the situation on Wikipedia is REALLY bad. Another example, outside color, can be seen in our locator maps, like the one of South Sudan I'm including. South Sudan (orthographic projection) highlighted Try digging into the sources for the boundary files on Wikimedia. I've found that most of the time, it is completely impossible to find out where a user is getting these from, and several list the source as "Own work," or that they are derivatives of other maps in the commons. This is the exact same thing as original research, and would not be tolerated anywhere else on the project.
In terms of improving the state of cartography pages on Wikipedia, I can not agree more. My general mission on Wikipedia is to improve the geography literature where ever possible; I've nominated several for Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Nominations, and Cartography is high on my list. I've done some work on Computer cartography, GIS, Distributed GIS, and created pages for Web GIS and Internet GIS, and want to take on the page for Map, but it really needs a lot of editors eyes on the problem. If you're interested in helping, I'd personally appreciate others involvement. My comments here have mostly focused on the broader situation involving maps as a whole because I want attention called to the problem, it is difficult to address the finer points of the MOS like color choice when we have so many maps that aren't following basic conventions like proper projection, thematic map type, and citing sources. Some fun pages to add to the list you have are Cartographic design, Cartographic generalization, and Map communication model. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Your example map of south sudan is a very helpful basic locator, and still would be with moderately inaccurate borders for any reader who is not trying to carefully parse every pixel of the border. It is in my opinion clearly better than having no map at all. –jacobolus(t)00:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
If I write a sentence that says, "North and South Korea are divided 39th Parallel," it would be immediately deleted. If I make a map that shows North and South Korea divided on the 39th Parallel, we would keep it until someone made something better. This is stuff wars are fought over, and different groups have different sets of boundaries. If you do not provide the source for the border you are using, it is as useful as an uncited textual claim describing the the land holdings of Genovia in the article History of Europe. We are endorsing disputed territorial claims in Wikivoice, and people with political agendas are actively exploiting this to push versions of the world map that fits their world view. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 03:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
You are far over-interpreting the map here, and fundamentally misunderstanding/mischaracterizing its purpose. There are a variety of detailed maps later in the article which show various more precise claims about territory and explain more about their sources (I have no idea if those are accurate; I didn't investigate), but the basic country locator thumbnail is showing the globe-scale context, and does not make any of the precise border details even visible; we're talking about differences of 1 or 2 pixels on someone's screen, which are not even going to be distinguishable unless someone is extremely knowledgeable and peeping the thumbnail with a magnifying glass.
A better analogy would be the sentences that say: "South Korea [...] is a country in East Asia. It constitutes the southern half of the Korean Peninsula and borders North Korea along the Korean Demilitarized Zone, with the Yellow Sea to the west and the Sea of Japan to the east." While it's true that this description is not incredibly precise, it's also still very useful to someone who is trying to figure out where in the world the place is that we are talking about. If the South Korea locator map accidentally drew the border in the wrong place by 50 kilometers (2 pixels at the scale of the locator map in South Korea), it would be a regrettable error and worth fixing, but it would basically not matter in any practical sense. –jacobolus(t)05:02, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
You are far over-interpreting the map here, and fundamentally misunderstanding/mischaracterizing its purpose. From the perspective of the outside literature involving cartography, I do not believe I am. Look at the map of South Sudan again, in that there are boundaries showing Western Sahara as a separate country without any indication of border disputes. This IS a political stance, and without a source it is Wikipedia taking a stance on that issue, without a citation, the Wiki IS the source. Different maps have different levels of cartographic generalization, which is why it is important to document the source. It will tell you the level of accuracy you can expect from the boundary files. Another way to look at the problem, if I drew the border of Egypt 50 kilometers in the wrong place, I could move ALL of Gaza into Egypt. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 16:56, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
But Western Sahara and Morocco are visible. If a set of borders are not cited, it is original research, plagiarism, or in some cases a combination of both. Borders should be viewed as an exact quote, the South Sudan example, like many, omits the person or organization that is responsible for the base map. I suspect there are several maps in the commons that are using copyrighted material inappropriately. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 20:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I don't see what Western Sahara has to do with anything. In any case, map borders are not protected creative works, and copying them is not "plagiarism". The person responsible for the base map (User:Martin23230, who originated the file File:Africa (orthographic projection).svg) was a Wikipedian in 2009. They didn't cite a source and haven't made any contributions here since 2015.
Western Sahara is a disputed territory and the United States now recognizes Morocco has sovereignty over it, which is disputed by several other countries. The choice to include the line dividing Morocco and Western Sahara is a political stance, which is one reason for requiring citations. As I've said, for some reason, things that would not be acceptable in text, like uncited direct quotes and misinformation, are kept in map form unless someone takes the time to make something better. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, unsourced or user generated map boundaries should be removed, not kept until we find something better. This is a problem across the project. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 21:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I stated above, Color is a huge issue, but we have a lot of other glaring problems that need to be addressed. The discussion is about cartography on Wikipedia. On Wikipedia, we have a lot of maps that are violating basic cartographic conventions, that are missing sources for their data, that are complete user fabrications, and that are spreading misinformation either intentionally or by the ignorance of the map makers. Discussing color choices is great, but we have absolutely no consistently upheld standards when it comes to maps. Whenever these issues are brought up, it is dismissed. The current discussion is kind of like an HOA discussing how to paint houses that are violating every possible housing regulation imaginable, on fire, and actively spreading that fire to other parts of the city. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Sorry to get a bit off topic in the above.
I meant to mention before, but one of the basic problems here is that MOS:COLOR is (a) not a very complete guideline, and (b) doesn't really try to make itself applicable to graphical content like images or maps. Its focus is on content consisting of primarily text, e.g. in lists, tables, image captions, warning banners, or the like. It has a few useful advice tidbits in this context, such as: don't rely on color alone to convey information, make sure that links are obviously clickable, and don't go overboard with colors. But it isn't an adequate replacement for serious resources on this topic (I second GeogSage's recommendation to look up Maureen Stone's advice). It leans heavily on the WCAG 2.0 text contrast recommendations, which are unfortunately fundamentally broken because they are not based on an accurate model of human perception, and as a result provide extremely misleading guidance to designers. (User:Myndex was so dissatisfied with these that he spent years making up a better text contrast metric.) I don't think anyone should be over-interpreting MOS:COLOR; I don't know how it achieved its current form, but I doubt there was too much expert effort put into crafting it. –jacobolus(t)01:27, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
A personal anecdote to illustrate this, in a map use class I took the final assignment was to write a 10 page paper that could communicate everything contained on a topographic map, with the main point was to prove how futile such a task is. Even in a simple map, how do you write all of the spatial relationships between the objects of interest out? GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
I'm very doubtful that any wording about maps would work, as it would need to be so hedged about with ifs and buts that it would be worthless.
I have instead a small suggestion: add a guideline that use of colour on maps and diagrams should be redundant with a different cue, such as text labels, tone (black/grey/white), type of shading, etc. So, you don't just colour an area blue, you label or mark it as well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap - Thanks for the suggestion " ... use of colour on maps and diagrams should be redundant with a different cue, such as text labels, tone (black/grey/white), type of shading, etc..." That wording seems to be consistent with the existing guidance in MOS:COLOR, which says "Color should not be used as the sole visual means of conveying information.... Always provide an alternative method—such as an accessible symbol and/or text [or icons or labels, etc]" [emphasis added to "sole"]. Can you clarify: are you suggesting that maps that solely rely on hue (red/blue/green/yellow/orange) are never acceptable? or are merely discouraged? What do you think about notion, mentioned above by other editors, that there are there some situations where hues may be used as the sole means of conveying information in maps (after balancing accessibility goals with other map requirements)? Noleander (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
My own recommendation would be for authors to try to add a moderate amount of lightness contrast to lines or fills of different colors (not always feasible), try to choose colors such that the map can still be accurately read when various "color-blindness simulator" type filters are applied, depending on the context consider also using alternate graphical differences in addition to color, and ask for help if they are having trouble making a map accessible. –jacobolus(t)16:33, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
A web search turned up this paper about the topic of map colors specifically:
I don't think, as I implied already, that we can use a "shall" for any of this. Hue alone is unlikely to be any better; given that light, eyesight, and computer monitors all vary, it must be a dead duck as a sole method. In particular, when there is some sort of scale, say from warm brown for mountain tops down to dark blue for ocean depths, distinguishing particular intermediate levels can be quite difficult even if there are contour lines to assist, and is pretty much hopeless on its own. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap - You wrote: "Hue alone is unlikely to be any better; given that light, eyesight, and computer monitors all vary, it must be a dead duck as a sole method." That sounds like it applies primarily to gradient-type maps such as File:Alicella Projected Distribution.jpg (third map at top of this topic). Referring to the two topmost maps at the top of this topic (File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.pdf and File:Cook Three Voyages 59.png) those use red and blue to distinguish graphical overlay lines. Thousands of maps in Wikipedia use hues for graphical overlay lines that way. For those sorts of overlay situations, it is not clear to me what you are suggesting. Do you suggest that those kinds of red/blue overlays be prohibited? Permitted? Discouraged? Avoided (but okay as a last resort when balanced against other map-design factors)? I apologize for pestering you, maybe I'm too dense to grasp your intention :-) Noleander (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Hue, Saturation, Lightness: I supposed you were suggesting hue as the key variable, and I said it wouldn't do. Maps do indeed often use such scales: I'm saying the scales are very difficult without additional cues. Please stop pinging me. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
It applies to all kinds of map elements including lines, discrete symbols, etc.
File:Alicella Projected Distribution.jpg has a badly chosen depth gradient because it does not have enough lightness contrast. The legend explaining the depths is extremely confusing, and the distance scale is distracting, unnecessary, and somewhat misleading for this projection. The map uses a not very effective map projection, the tectonic plate boundaries are confusing, the gray color has way too little contrast with the green/blue, etc. This map is certainly better than nothing, but was made by cartographic amateurs (biologists) and leaves a lot to be desired.
File:Vicksburg Campaign April-July 1863.pdf is very hard to read because the background shading is too dark and the text and pattern are much too busy. Much of the text is nearly illegible, the foreground elements are easily confused with background elements, the symbols for battles are not effectively shaped or colored, etc. The description page says it's the creator's own work, but it's not clear what that means (how was the background map generated, from what sources?) The red and blue colors for lines are okay though; they have sufficient lightness contrast and well enough chosen colors to be pretty clearly distinguishable by color blind readers.
File:Cook Three Voyages 59.png has very problematically chosen colors. The red and green are almost completely indistinguishable to deuteranopes and hard to distinguish for protanope. This is a significant accessibility problem, and should make this map a priority for fixing. A basic fix (choosing better colors) would be easy. A more complete fix might also involve using different line styles for the three voyages. (While we're at it, the Eckert IV projection cut near the prime meridian is probably not the best choice for this map, since a lot of the action of the map takes place at the edges where there is a lot of distortion.)
If that tool (and its website) is reliable, accurate, and stable, it might be worth mentioning it in a footnote within MOS:COLOR ... especially if the outcome of this discussion encourages maps to use hues in a manner that promotes accessibility. Noleander (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2025 (UTC)
If you use Firefox, hit Ctrl-Shift-I - the accessibility menu allows you to simulate various kinds of colour blindness as well as contrast loss. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thank you for pointing that out. That's a nice tool. Along the top bar of that screen, select "Accessibility", then there's a drop-down list next to "Simulate:" where various vision patterns can be examined. It's explained here as "Color vision simulation". There are some other useful tools too. Do other browsers have that? SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:21, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Remember that this and every MOS page starts with a disclaimer that says “exceptions may apply”. A map depicting a complicated situation can probably be justified as one of those “exceptions”. Blueboar (talk) 00:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out that "exception" statement .. I was not aware of it. It looks like most editors commenting above agree that many maps need an exception to the MOS:COLOR guidelines. WP:MOS says "New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue." There have been scores of examples in FA nominations over the past decade where confusion ensued after editors suggested that maps were not in compliance with MOS:COLOR ... so this may be a "persistently recurring" situation. What do you think about the addition of a brief sentence or footnote to MOS:COLOR? Perhaps a footnote that references this Talk page topic? Or summarizes its themes? Noleander (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
In addition to this, I notice people making maps tend to use graphic design software, which has limitations. With GIS software freely available that is capable of doing almost anything you can do with the paid stuff, there really ins't an excuse for not using it. To add to the list a bit:
ColorBrewer is a great tool to help with picking map colors that considers color vision impairment. You can see the website here.
I recommend QGIS which is free and opensource to actually make maps, you can download here.
To gauge the magnitude of this issue, I looked in the "What links here" lists for MOS:COLOUR and MOS:COLOR. Limiting the search to the year 2022, and only in the FA nominations, I found about twenty (20) discussions where MOS:COLOR was applied to maps: Some examples (not limited to 2022): 12345678910111213141516.
The typical pattern is: an editor improves an article and nominates it for FA; the article includes a map with color usage that is not consistent with MOS:COLOR. A reviewer points it out. The editor is puzzled, because the map was in WikiCommons, and there does not seem to be any remedy available. Sometimes the map is removed from the article. Sometimes a new map is created. Most often, the map is left in the article and the nomination continues.
Contrasting maps with tables: Roughly the same number of FA nominations in 2022 (about 20) uncovered MOS:COLOR issues in tables, but those reviews took a different path: nearly always, the tables were immediately rectified. So, MOS:COLOR - on its face - is understandable. It is only when applied to maps that confusion arises.
Extrapolating: if there were 20 COLOR-map issues in FAs in 2022, then there were roughly 200 in the past decade in FA. Extrapolating to the entirely of English Wikipedia, as a wild guess, there were 2,000. And that is only the discussions that involved multiple editors ... certainly there are also a large number of situations where isolated editors consulted MOS:COLOR for map guidance and were confused. Noleander (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
Tables are usually trivial to fix, because the they are rendered by the browser and any text editor can be used to create or edit them (sometimes smarter software or small programs can be helpful, but is not necessary). They are usually graphically pretty simple, and their styling and assessment involves relatively straight-forward criteria. They are also hosted either in the page or in a template, here on English Wikipedia.
Maps and diagrams are typically at least an order of magnitude harder to fix, because they are made using a variety of software running on various hardware platforms, usually involving at least some steps using (often expensive) commercial software, and the published version on Wikimedia commons is just a rendered output file, not an editable version which preserves the full chain of steps/materials for creation/modification; even when a fully editable source is provided, it is often nontrivial for someone else to work with it. Various map/diagram authors have different preferred tools and incompatible workflows. There has been limited effort building broadly accessible tools for creating maps and diagrams for Wikipedia per se. Making better ones would be a very valuable project, but would take a lot of effort and probably some funding from Wikimedia. –jacobolus(t)22:28, 18 September 2025 (UTC)
No one will fix the problem if we continue to allow the bad maps to exist. We need to purge them all, and then spend the next few years carefully monitoring new maps added to fill the void. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
For your sake I hope you aren't serious. You are definitely not going to find any consensus for a position of «let's delete most of the maps from English Wikipedia and then reject any new ones unless they are made by professionals». If someone else made this post, I would say they were writing an reductio ad absurdum parody to discredit you. –jacobolus(t)01:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
"Anybody can publish any kind of a map, however bad, and get away with it. Ordinarily a field is subject to the law of natural selection the things that are bad or inadequate fail to survive. But in cartography this law does not operate effectively because the ability to discriminate among maps is not widespread in this country."
I'm absolutely serious, as someone who teaches cartography I believe it is my ethical responsibility to advocate for good maps. To clarify, I think we should absolutely delete maps that violate basic cartographic standards, that spread misinformation, and that are not cited in the same way we would delete text/articles that are plagiarized or spread misinformation. This not not necessitate that we only have professional cartographers in the same way insisting on proper grammar and factual accuracy does not necessitate English professors and professional researchers. Anybody can edit Wikipedia and publish anything if others don't check it. Misinformation is not excusable because it is contained in a map. POV pushing is not acceptable when done using cartography. We don't leave bad information until someone replaces it with something better. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 01:46, 19 September 2025 (UTC)
Proposed update to MOS:COLOR
Summarizing the discussion above:
There were about 20 instances of confusion related to applying MOS:COLOR to maps in FA nominations during year 2022. Extrapolating: 200 in FA the past decade, and more than 1,000 across the encyclopedia.
The number of incidents of confusion meets the WP:MOS requirement: "New content added to this page [MOS] should directly address a persistently recurring style issue."(emphasis added).
Review of the FA nominations shows that MOS:COLOR is applied to tables without confusion, which suggests that MOS:COLOR, by itself, is understood by most editors.
Ideally, all WP map data would be understandable to visually impaired readers. Where possible, maps should use the recommended MOS:COLOR techniques (lightness shading, labels, icons, dashed lines etc) to make map data accessible to those readers.
There were no editors (in this Talk page discussion above) who suggested that MOS:COLOR guidelines must be strictly applied to all maps
There are many competing design goals that a map must satisfy, including sophisticated cartographic design standards. Good map design is a complex process and must consider many factors.
There are some maps which may not be able to meet the MOS:COLOR guidelines without adversely impacting other map design goals.
Therefore, I propose adding the following to MOS:COLOR:
a) "These color accessibility guidelines apply to maps, but they should be balanced with other cartographic goals and constraints."
or
b) ""Applying these color accessibility guidelines to maps is recommended, but they should be balanced with other cartographic goals and constraints."
This could be text within MOS:COLOR or, less obtrusively, included as a footnote. The new text could include a wikilink pointing to this Talk page discussion. Thoughts? Noleander (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2025 (UTC)
As written, I think both of those run the risk of creating an exception that ends up un-writing a rule. Everything in the MoS applies to everything, but should be balanced with other goals and constraints. But then I also see that this is a persistent issue with maps but not (as you note) with tables, so perhaps there's some room to draw attention to the fact that some uses of colour are more difficult to substitute than others. UndercoverClassicistT·C20:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist Good point. Do any of these options move in the right direction? (boldface emphasis added to indicate key differences between the proposals):
c) Applying these color accessibility guidelines to images and maps sometimes requires judgement when balancing them with other design principles.
d) Applying these color accessibility guidelines to maps is sometimes difficult due to other cartographic design principles.
e) When applying these color accessibility guidelines to maps, balancing them with other cartographic design principles may be difficult in some cases.
f) Applying these color accessibility guidelines to maps sometimes requires judgement when balancing them with other cartographic design principles.
All of these would include a footnote referring the reader to this Talk page discussion, so they can find additional insight, examples, and background. Noleander (talk) 21:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)
I think c) is the best of those: being difficult isn't normally a problem for this kind of thing (you don't get a pass on MOS:PEOPLETITLES because the rules are complicated and confusing), and it's not just maps where this could be an issue: there are other types of images where colour is useful and can't easily be done away with. UndercoverClassicistT·C06:30, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
It may be worth mentioning the technical difficulty of making significant changes. Just exchanging colors in an SVG file is usually not too hard (search/replace one set of color coordinates for another), but trying to change line styles, add patterns to fills, move labels around, etc., requires some skill, access to tools, and time to do the work. –jacobolus(t)16:42, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
That's definitely useful information. There are three places we can convey info to the reader:
Text within MOS:COLOR (probably a single sentence, such as proposal (c) above)
Here in this Talk page discussion (new MOS:COLOR text's footnote will link to this discussion)
@Jacobolus Would you be willing write a couple of paragraphs here in this Talk discussion? Describing "Best practices applying MOS:COLOR to maps". It would be readily available for future editors, and may even turn into something more significant (essay?) in the future. Noleander (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
I think would be hard/time consuming enough to do well (especially with possible discussions around it) that I don't want to commit to doing it in the short term. I'd recommend again:
I understand. It is clear from the discussions above that is a very complex and subtle topic, with many nuances. That document you cite looks excellent. I propose to include a link to it in the new footnote (at bottom of the MOS:COLOR page). Noleander (talk) 18:01, 24 September 2025 (UTC)
Greetings, all. Have there been discussions about tolerating wikilinks more in articles whose subject is scientific? I searched but it appears there aren't any; and if that's indeed the case, I'd start a discussion about it. -The Gnome (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking: Articles on highly technical subjects might demand a higher density of links than general-interest articles, because they are likely to contain terminology unfamiliar to the average reader. However, do not use links as a substitute for explanation; if a technical term can be simply explained in a few words, do so. EEng09:15, 28 September 2025 (UTC)
A section heading followed by a {{main}} template, followed by prose that might wikilink to that main article.
A section heading containing prose with a wikilink to the main article.
My feeling is that a {{main}} template follows Wikipedia style and is easiest for a reader who may wish more information. The opposing view thinks {{main}} is redundant when the prose wikilinks to more. I looked at a featured article, and found an example. Earth §Size and shape, first has a {{main}} and then in prose, a wikilink to the same article. I chose #1 because it avoids us sending readers on a scavenger hunt for more information. MOS:LAYOUT, WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE, and WP:HATNOTERULES all appear to agree. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:35, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
I prefer #1 and I agree with your reasoning. Hatnotes are occasionally overkill but they serve a distinct purpose and should be used accordingly. {{main}} signals something important to readers that is not immediately obvious from the mere inclusion of wikilinks in prose. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk22:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)
When, instead of having the other article, its content could logically have been included directly in the section, and the reason for having it as a freestanding article instead is a combination of size and level of detail, then the other article is the main article for the section, and it can be seen as a direct offshoot of the article containing the section. Indeed, it may have been created by splitting the longer, more detailed text from the higher-level article. In that case the {{main}} template is virtually necessary, the other article is a component of the one containing the section. This is irrespective of whether the section also links to it. Or maybe it means the link is somewhat contrived and shouldn't be there. Largoplazo (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the background. As always, context matters for these discussions and there will be reasonable editorial decisions to take a different approach based on the article. The example given in the discussion here was related to Earth#Size and shape. The usage there makes sense and any concern about redundancy is overridden by the fact that this is likely very useful to readers, based on the use of piped links and numerous wikilinks in hatnotes and in the section body. I haven't read through the discussion you linked, but it appears the situation was sufficiently different and was subject to a lengthy discussion, so a different approach is appropriate there based on the particulars. --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk18:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)
Space4TCatHerder, thank you for accepting my invitation to post here. Your version of facts are false and stymied the discussion.
Myceteae, thank you for your replies. Multiple {{main}}s can cause a log jam and be overkill as you say. Nevertheless, may I remind everyone.
A controversial context is exactly where editors should follow Wikipedia precedent and execute within the MOS shared wisdom we are lucky to have. Wikipedia has hundreds, maybe thousands, of contentious articles on wars and world conflicts. Each one observes MOS—otherwise they'd have splintered into diverging encyclopedias. We should treat this subject like every other to help our readers. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:17, 12 September 2025 (UTC)
MOS is a Wikipedia guideline. Why isn't this discussion board stepping up to support it? Four readers have added {{main}} since this thread started. Each was reverted because one editor decided WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2025 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2025 fix contradiction with WP:MOSSIS. 173.206.40.108 (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Done waddie96 ★ (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
indicates redirect (shortcut).
Implemented: Changes noted, and changes implemented. Please let me know what you think? The {{tqb}} above is a transclusion so you can just purge the page if it hasn't updated. waddie96 ★ (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
: Most English speakers prefer using the dialect of English that they use at home. Reading a different dialect is not too bad but most really, really hate writing in a different dialect. If we forced everyone to write in British English (because English came from England) then the Yanks would either stop contributing or write American English anyway. Likewise, if we forced everyone to write in American English (because Wikipedia is an American company) then the Brits, Canucks, Aussie, Kiwis, etc would either stop contributing or write in Commonwealth English anyway. By having both (see WP:ENGVAR for details) we appeal to both sides. Nobody really likes it but it's better than having half of the authors rebel. And we haven't found anything better. Stepho talk 03:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
His name was 刘仁静 (Liu Renjing).
His name was Liu Renjing (刘仁静)..jpg?lang=en)
Ohc revolution of our times 10:01, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Pragmatic Ohc revolution of our times 10:53, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Template:Use Cameroonian English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)
Agree. When I googled false titles yesterday, there were a couple hits for the topic we're discussing here at the top of the first page of results, but more results for false titles of nobility and false or misleading job titles or qualifications, as well as real estate fraud (as in property titles) and references to fake or misleading headlines or titles of works. This all makes me doubt whether false title is the primary topic for false title and the few sources we've reviewed here don't clearly show it is the common name, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion… --MYCETEAE 🍄🟫—talk 19:30, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
Apologies for that.You said above that you 
_highlighted.svg?lang=en)
.svg?lang=en){kind=link}