Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the MOS pit[Humor]


    Style discussions elsewhere

    [edit]

    Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

    Current

    [edit]

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

    This section is an excerpt from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Current.[edit]


    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Concluded

    [edit]

    Use of main article template

    [edit]

    Can you please tell me which is preferred?

    1. A section heading followed by a {{main}} template, followed by prose that might wikilink to that main article.
    2. 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)[reply]

    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 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:00, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the use of {{main}} means that we don't wikilink that article in prose. I prefer that over no {{main}} and linking it in prose. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Myceteae, the inline link was suggested in two rounds of discussions on Talk:Donald Trump involving SusanLesch and Muboshgu. The links were then discussed in Talk:Donald_Trump#Follow-up to Trump-Epstein which would have been the place to discuss a hatnote. As for the section itself, it's not a summary of the Relationship of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, so IMO WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE doesn't apply. The two sentences are the lowest common denominator the editors could agree upon after more than a month of discussion and two rounds of !voting. Option 2 (section heading with a wikilink) wasn't proposed by anyone. Editors agreed on an inline link in the first sentence of the text. Space4TCatHerder🖖 18:05, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:41, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    Will anyone stand up for MOS?

    "Editors should structure articles with consistent, reader-friendly layouts and formatting"

    . -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    Readability

    [edit]

    I came to the MOS looking for guidance on paragraph size for readability and could find none. Viriditas (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Try MOS:PARA (in MOS:LAYOUT): Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose, each dealing with a particular point or idea. Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read. That's not massively prescriptive, but then the MoS generally isn't on matters of style, and it would be difficult to pin down a general rule that applies to all cases, sentence lengths, subject matters etc. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Added this.[2] Let's see how many seconds it lasts. I don't want to mention their name, but I know who is going to revert it. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, my blushes! EEng 03:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to revert it, but I think it's too schematic expressed like this. I'd prefer a more cautious "rule of thumb"-style expression. Gawaon (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you modify what I added? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I tried, but of course I can't prevent the reverting if it happens. Gawaon (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, looks good. Now, using the Hawaii article linked below as a guinea pig, you see the excessive paragraphs. What do you do? Cut them back first, or leave a message on the talk page? I'm asking because going straight to cutting them back could upset the primary editor. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you were the primary editor, so ... do you mind? Gawaon (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I explicitly invited you below! I was talking in the abstract, in terms of approaching this elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you got me a bit confused there! No, I didn't, and wouldn't ask for permission. Paragraphs aren't owned by anyone, and this is basic copyediting work. Gawaon (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My personal rule of thumb: if a paragraph has more than 210 words, it's probably too long and should be spit. Conversely, if two adjacent paragraphs are very short (no more than three to five sentences together, say), they might be suitable for merging. But that's just me, you won't something quite like this in the MOS. Gawaon (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Two questions: the 200 word rule appears to be quite common when you go looking for it off-wiki. 25 years ago, 150 words was considered the maximum in academic journal articles (not sure which countries, but assuming US). Newspaper articles are much smaller, around 40-70 words or so. But with the rise of social media, we've had a major change in the expectations of paragraph size, with younger readers expecting smaller, not larger paragraphs. A discussion from last year on the village pump asked people to check their mobile phones as a rule of thumb (most of our readers are mobile). Is there a historical reason as to why we can't seem to nail this down? It appears that 200 words is the upper limit outside of Wikipedia, yet I'm dealing with a 242 word paragraph on wiki at the moment, and this is more common than not. Second question: is adding a general range of words to the MOS out of the question? We do that elsewhere for many different things. For example, adding 30-200 words seems reasonable for a standard paragraph on Wikpiedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It might very well be a good idea for Wikpiedia, but here at Wikipedia we're better out without such one-size-fits-all misguidance. ;P EEng 03:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I'd split such a paragraph if I encountered it. I don't think I've ever been reverted for splitting a long paragraph (but of course, one never knows). Gawaon (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think I've ever been reverted for splitting a long paragraph – That's the most obvious reason (though there are other compelling reasons as well) that any kind of rule on the subject is a bad idea -- see WP:MOSBLOAT. EEng 03:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, today is your lucky day! I wrote Hawaii series by Georgia O'Keeffe and need to be admitted to rehab. What's the longest paragraph there you ask? I hesitate to tell you. Send help immediately. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So why, uh, did you write it like that? Gawaon (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Experimenting with different styles, mostly. I do that a lot. I wrote that article in May of 2024; it passed GAN in early 2025. I only got on the paragraph bandwagon several months ago when I was informed by three younger editors that their generation does not read long paragraphs like that, mostly due to their experience growing up with social media. Since then, I've been trying to cut my paragraphs back to accommodate them, but haven't yet touched that one. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed some of it already. Gawaon (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't touched the part from "Departure and return", if you or anyone else wants to continue the work. Gawaon (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to be a guinea pig. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.[3] Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a few more. Think it's fine now. Gawaon (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Much obliged. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    younger editors ... their generation does not read long paragraphs ... mostly due to ... social media. ... I've been trying to cut my paragraphs back to accommodate them — As an editor of an encyclopedia, I find it disturbing that social media might be setting the standard for our writing. I know that we write for our readers, but surely the paragraph length should be dictated by the content, not by the apparently limited reading skills of social media users. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Second question: is adding a general range of words to the MOS out of the question? We do that elsewhere for many different things: is this true? Off the top of my head, I'm struggling to think of guidelines that make a quantifiable ruling on a matter of style, rather than general recommendations. We have MOS:LEADLENGTH, but that's been whittled down from a much more prescriptive length recommendation which proved more frustrating than useful in practice. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to WP:SIZERULE. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, of course. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We also have MOS:MILSECTLEN: Overly lengthy continuous blocks of text should be avoided; sections which are so long as to impede reader understanding should be broken down into subsections. There remains some disagreement regarding the precise point at which a section becomes too long, so editors are encouraged to use their own judgment on the matter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you brought this up because the lengthy Carl Borgmann#Academic career section has been bugging me. I want to leave it as it is, but subsections might be required. What do you think? Is the section too long? Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know! Let's have a bot that roves through article space, calling on ChatGPT to merge and split paragraphs throughout thousands of articles per day. Problem solved -- with no thinking, consideration of the material (or of anything else for that matter) needed! EEng 03:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Wikipedia:Readability tools, which is mostly about word length (number of syllables) and sentence length, but whose principles apply to paragraph length, too. I suggest that when the length of a paragraph is not obvious based on content, you consider having varied lengths (alternating shorter and longer paragraphs instead of always having all paragraphs about the same lenth). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Counting words in a paragraph

    [edit]

    What is the easiest way to count words in a paragraph? Do you have to copy the text to an external app, like a word processor? I know about and use User:Shubinator/DYKcheck, but I think that only counts words in a whole article. Nurg (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know about easy, but I copy "suspicious" paragraphs into a word processor to check. That also makes it easy to find a suitable split. Gawaon (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The easiest way is to install an extension in your browser. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good answer. That got me on the track. Thank you. Nurg (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC: commas and ENGVAR

    [edit]

    May editors revert edits that add commas or remove existing commas from articles written in British English on MOS:ENGVAR grounds? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ♬ Comma comma, comma comma, comma chameleon! They come and go! They come and go-uh-uh-oh! ♬
    Note: Joke recycled from the last comma knock-down-drag-out. See also: The Tragedy of the Commas

    Introduction

    [edit]

    It has recently come to my attention that some of our colleagues who congregate at featured article review (FAC) have formed a local consensus to use MOS:ENGVAR as a pretext to remove commas from articles with the British English tag. I have opened this RfC to confirm whether the community supports this practice.

    One thing that I want to make clear is that I believe that the omission of commas in these cases can be legitimate, based on the guidance found at MOS:COMMA, which indicates a preference for the modern style of light punctuation. MOS:COMMA, however, allows for discretion; whether a comma is required in a given place is often a subjective judgement. In my understanding of our present guidelines, consensus through editing and discussion should determine whether a comma is actually needed in any given piece of text.

    My objection is to the use of ENGVAR to justify the removal of commas from articles tagged for British English, and to the reference by certain editors to 'American' commas. My understanding of ENGVAR is that it explicitly excludes punctuation from its purview, mentioning only vocabulary (elevator vs. lift ), spelling (center vs. centre), and occasionally grammar. Our MoS proscribes the use of single inverted commas for quotations (commonly used in British contexts) and prescribes logical quotation style (uncommon in everyday American use) on the basis of MOS:COMMONALITY. To make punctuation an ENGVAR issue is to set the stage for endless disputes, all of which will be fruitless and distracting from the process of building an encyclopedia.

    The crux of the issue, however, is that I can find no clear difference between standard British and American comma use in reliable sources. I must first disclose that I am a native speaker of British English. I am familiar with the major style guides. I have never once encountered the idea that there is some rigid distinction between American and British comma use. As all writers know, comma use is often subjective. Some British and American style guides favour serial commas, others castigate them; however, even style guides that proscribe the serial comma as a general rule allow for their use when they are needed to avoid confusion. Indeed, discretion is what both British and American style guides tend to advise. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Style guide review

    [edit]
    Succinct summary:
    Reliable British and American style guides are generally in accordance on the issue of comma use.
    There is no evidence of a clear transatlantic divide. The use of ENGVAR to enforce any kind of comma use is baseless.

    Let us take up the case of commas after an introductory phrase, the locus of the dispute at the Liz Truss article (see below for details), which brought about this RfC. A British style book, Plain Words, states: Some writers put a comma here as a matter of course. But others do it only if a comma is needed to emphasise a contrast or to prevent the reader from going off on a wrong scent...On the principle that stops should not be used unless they are needed, this discrimination is to be commended. Next, I grant you a quotation from a renowned American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (6:34): Although an introductory adverbial phrase can usually be followed by a comma, it need not be unless misreading is likely. Shorter adverbial phrases are less likely to merit a comma than longer ones. My reading of these two passages is that they both advise the same thing: commas may be placed after an introductory phrase, some writers do so, some do not. However, in line with the modern trend towards light punctuation, commas may be removed unless confusion will result. If my reading is correct, there is no evidence of a transatlantic divide in this instance.

    Next, please allow me to cite a passage from the style guide I tend to use in my own work: Grammar and Style in British English. The guidance reads: Introductory adverbs are traditionally followed by commas...But with the current fashion of minimal punctuation, they are now often omitted. Again, please note that no indication is made of an Americo-British distinction. The real distinction, as noted by our own MOS:COMMA, is between traditional and modern use; modern style on both sides of the Atlantic favours light punctuation. Plain Words concurs: Present practice is markedly different from that of the past in using commas much less freely.

    Next, I will cite the Oxford Style Manual (1st ed). Firstly, on page 117 it states: The modern tendency is towards use of rather fewer commas. Too few commas can cause confusion, however, just as too many can cause distraction. Since there is a great deal of acceptable variation in their use, they are perhaps the most abused type of punctuation. Note again, the mention of a 'modern' style; also note the point about 'acceptable variation'. It seems that Oxford are slightly more tolerant than the Wikipedia editors in question! Then, about adverbial phrases specifically (pg. 119): Adverbial material, whether clauses, phrases, or single adverbs, obeys no single rule regarding commas, though the length of the material and what it modifies in the sentence regulates where commas are placed. Again, 'no single rule', and no evidence of any transatlantic divide.

    Finally, allow me to refer to the MLA Handbook, another American style guide. This is information taken from the MLA Style Centre, rather than Handbook itself: A comma may generally be omitted from an introductory phrase of two or three words, but consider using a comma when you wish to emphasize the phrase. Again, the omission of commas is deemed acceptable, at the discretion of the writer. No mention is made of a transatlantic divide, nor is there any clear conflict with the British guidance above. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Details of the edits that brought about this RfC

    [edit]

    The edits that brought my attention to this issue demonstrate the problem. One gnomish editor with a penchant for copyediting added some commas to the Liz Truss article. This editor, one may note, is almost certainly a native speaker of British English, based on his editing history. Then, one of the FAC group of editors reverted his change, with the edit summary: BrE tag. Now, this edit summary would not be sufficiently clear in even the best of cases; the gnomish editor was rightly vexed, and reverted with the edit summary: 'No reason given for reverting'. He was then reverted again, this time by another member of the FAC group. The edit summary used this time was more clear, if no less vexing: rv good-faith change per previous edit summary: these commas are used in American English but are not standard in British English, which is the established variant of the article (WP:TIES). In this instance, we have the absurd situation of an editor-cum-administrator rejecting an edit made by a probable native speaker of British English for being 'American'.

    I challenged the editor who wrote this edit summary to provide a basis for his claim; despite many gyrations, he was unable to do so. As we have seen above, comma use cannot be rigidly delineated as British or American – it is a matter of discretion on both sides of the Atlantic. Kindly note again that I have no objection to the reverts made in and of themselves. The text as it is was formed on the basis of consensus, and reviewed at FAC. MOS:COMMA and the above style guides favour the modern preference for light punctuation, and can be used to justify the style used at the article in question. My objection is to the use of a baseless ENGVAR straitjacket to gatekeep British English writing, without any grounding in Wikipedia policy or guidelines, or indeed, in reliable sources and actual usage. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Survey (commas and ENGVAR)

    [edit]
    • No – Commas are outwith the purview of ENGVAR; even if they were, there is no evidence of a clear-cut distinction between allowable commas in British English and American English. Comma use in a given article is subject to editorial consensus and MOS:COMMA. If editors seek to remove unnecessary commas, they are welcome to invoke MOS:COMMA. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No – per RGloucester and because I, too, am not aware of any clear-cut, general ENGVAR distinction in this regard. Also because I find that, when in doubt, adding commas is usually better for readability than leaving them out. Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My perception is that American English more strictly/readily uses commas after introductory phrases, such as "However,…" or "Last year,…" or "In 2023,…", whereas in British usage these are sometimes omitted so that formulations such as "However I disagree" or "In 2023 he died", or indeed longer such constructions, are more commonly encountered. Whether this reflects anything that has been formalised in any style guidelines, I do not know. MapReader (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant yes. The question this RfC asks depends on a more fundamental one: are there BrEng and AmEng styles of comma use? (And I think that should have been the question the RfC asked.) If there are, clearly ENGVAR can be cited for reverts. The problem with that question is that ENGVARs are not absolute -- there are some very clear differences such as colour/color, but I've seen reverts (though I can't lay my hands on one) where the distinction was less clear cut. I don't think that's caused a problem in the past and I don't think we should start legislating this sort of thing -- instead, if someone reverts and you don't agree, debate the issue on the talk page. So I'm at yes, largely because of WP:CREEP and the inherent fuzziness of ENGVAR; reluctant, because I don't want to see people arguing that anything they say is BrEng has to be believed. But overlegislating this would be more harmful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There appears to be no clear-cut distinction between British and American English in this regard. Graham11 (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some people use the Oxford comma in lists, other's don't. No, it's not an ENGVAR issue, but it is disruptive to switch an article that uses one style to the other without very good reason. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I guess, but please for goodness' sake don't edit-war over commas. (per voorts) Toadspike [Talk] 00:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. (Also: Someone thinks the Oxford comma isn't an acceptable British style?) I also question the MOS:COMMA assertion that "Modern writing uses fewer commas". Fewer than when? It basically didn't exist until the 16th century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (commas and ENGVAR)

    [edit]
    • Comment – Unfortunately, I don't have access to many style guides at the moment and have only snippets of some online versions. But some that I have seen do have some fairly fixed rules on commas after introductory phrases. For example, the University of Oxford Style Guide (for staff, not students) says, 'Do not use a comma after a time-based adverbial phrase.'[1] For example, 'In 2010 the most popular game among children was hopscotch.' Whereas my understanding was that the Chicago style guide would have it, 'In 2010, the most popular game among children was hopscotch.'
    There do seem to be a lot of British editors who remove commas after a time-based adverbial phrase. So the practice must be pretty widespread. One editor, Keeper of Albion, did say to me once that I wouldn't find a single British style guide that gave instructions to use a comma after a time based adverbial phrase. And to be fair to them, I never have. Dgp4004 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The University of Nottingham in England is also very clear: 'However, even though it's tempting, don't use a comma after a time-based adverbial phrase'.[2] Dgp4004 (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The 'University of Oxford Style Guide' and the 'University of Nottingham Style Guide' are both corporate manuals for use within each respective university's promotional material, and should not be confused with authoritative sources like the Oxford Manual of Style. That some British style guides say that it is acceptable to omit the comma in this case has already been established; that does not change that some American style guides allow for the same thing, and that other British style guides allow for the comma. Chicago allows for 'In 2010 the most popular game among children was hopscotch': it clearly specifies that the comma can be omitted as long as it will not cause confusion. This is not an ENGVAR issue, but an issue of style guides. Consider similarly that most British style guides prefer -ise spelling, but on Wikipedia we allow Oxford spelling as well because it is an acceptable variant within British English. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:33, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You have access to many more British style guides than I do I understand. Is there nothing in any of the British guides that mention commas after a time-based adverbial phrases? It seems odd to me that it would be explicit in two corporate style guides and then left either vague or unmentioned in the academic ones. Dgp4004 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind, there's a copy of the New Oxford Style Manual (2012) on archive.org. Just sharing here so that we've all got a copy of the text:

    When a sentence is introduced by an adverb, adverbial phrase, or subordinate clause, this is often separated from the main clause with a comma...This is not necessary, however, if the introductory clause or phrase is a short one specifying time or location: 'In 2000 the hospital took part in a trial involving alternative therapy for babies'...Indeed, the comma is best avoided here so as to prevent the text from appearing cluttered.[3]

    Now of course, shouldn't is not the same as mustn't. And Oxford, of course, is not every style guide. But it doesn't seem all that unreasonable to me for those editors you cited to claim that such a comma shouldn't be added to British English articles.
    Perhaps what we should really be discussing is altering MOS:COMMA to make Wikipedia practice clearer. Dgp4004 (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument you are making does not logically make sense. That a comma may be omitted in these circumstances in British English is something that no one contests. However, as you have seen above, American style guides also permit the omission of the comma. Take for instance the MLA, which I linked above. It explicitly gives a date-related example, and allows for omission. If omission is permitted in certain American and British style guides, it cannot logically follow that commas should not be added because an article is written in British English. This does not even take into account the fact that the use of commas is explicitly mentioned as an acceptable variant in numerous style guides, such as the ones I cited above. Your excerpt from the New Oxford Style Manual was selective. The full text reads: Indeed, the comma is best avoided here so as to prevent the text from appearing cluttered. Whichever style is adopted should be implemented consistently throughout. Clearly, if either style may be used, one cannot say that the style that uses a comma is either 'non-British' or 'American'. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me also cite New Hart's Rules (2014), since I think it is germane here. This guidance is more or less the same as that found in the 2012 New Oxford Style Manual, but it adds the following caveat: If commas are omitted, be vigilant for ambiguities: In 2000 deaths involving MRSA in males increased by 66 per cent – Prefer In 2000, … or recast the sentence. Please note again that the omission of commas is governed by discretion, as with all comma use. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:01, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you clarify why this matters? If everyone agrees that some British style guides support omitting commas in the circumstances under discussion, why would it be any more "fruitless and distracting" for an editor to dispute a comma addition "per British English" vs "per British Style Guide X"? If we're not looking to change MOS:COMMA, what is the practical outcome of this discussion? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see above, these style guides permit the omission of the comma in these circumstances, but do not offer any prohibition on comma use. Indeed, there are circumstances where ambiguity demands the comma. Disputing a comma addition 'per British English' is unfounded when the use of a comma is permitted within British English, at the discretion of the writer. The practical outcome of this discussion will be to determine if ENGVAR can be used to justify the blanket removal of commas from a given article merely because the article is tagged as written in British English, effectively eliminating the discretion that has heretofore been allowed to the writer within that variant. I would argue that the principle of discretion should be maintained, in line with the guidance found in the style guides above.
    If we were to follow your argument, I could edit an American English article to remove commas in these circumstances 'per American English' because the MLA and Chicago specify that commas may be omitted. In actual fact, this is an oversimplification of the guidance provided. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 02:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't made any argument here, other than that I don't think this discussion is worth the words being spent on it. If the discussion concludes that comma use is entirely discretionary, that is likely to lead to more disputes rather than fewer (see the previous commas discussion linked above). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not remember having said that. Comma use on Wikipedia is governed by MOS:COMMA, not 'entirely discretionary'. I simply do not see any basis anywhere for a blanket prohibition of certain kinds of comma use from British English articles on ENGVAR grounds, when this is not in accordance with MOS:COMMA or British style guides. What these editors are trying to do is impose an editorial straitjacket where one does not exist in actual practice. This will negatively impact the readability of our encyclopaedia, and raise the barrier for British English contributors who have a different style. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 02:32, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Our Australian Style Guide says: Use commas after adverbial phrases and adverbial clauses.[4] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      No, that's not "Our Australian style guide"—it's this ridiculous Australian Government style guide, widely recognised as shyte. I know you've latched onto it as laying down the law; please don't. Tony (talk) 02:11, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Mike Christie: I did not ask that question because 1), other forms of specifically British and American forms of punctuation are already prohibited by the MOS on COMMONALITY grounds (see my example about single inverted commas and logical quotation above), 2) editors do not have the ability to determine whether there are British and American styles – this is something that needs to be determined by reliable authorities on style. There are some mistaken Britons who believe for instance that the '-ize' spelling is American, when in fact this is an acceptable and recognised variant within British English. Do you really think it is a good idea to allow editors to go around removing certain commas from articles written by British writers on ENGVAR grounds, when this practice is not actually rooted in consensus? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 02:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We have established above that there does appear to be some difference in usage, across the Atlantic, and there are some instances where punctuation markings are part of ENGVAR, such as the treatment of abbreviations, contractions and acronyms. But the punctuation of a sentence is clearly covered by MoS guidelines common to all varieties of English, and therefore the answer to the question as you asked it is clearly ‘No’. Nevertheless I don’t see anything in COMMA that directs as to whether "Nevertheless, he went and did it" or "Nevertheless he went and did it" is preferred, and hence it surely comes down to editor preference and consensus? When I have created content, as British I have tended to leave out the comma, and have sometimes noticed another editor coming along later and adding those introductory commas into the article; as I don’t feel particularly strongly about it, I usually just let these edits run, even though to my eye as a reader they sometimes seem to break the flow unnecessarily. MapReader (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting aside the question of acronyms and initialisms, and the clearly unquantifiable difference – i.e. what you called a 'tendency' above – in Americo-British usage...I think I am in agreement with you. I hope you will acknowledge that under the present guidelines a British English tag alone cannot possibly justify comma removal. While I am reluctant to enter the realm of primary source analysis, a random sampling of the BBC and The Guardian provides the following examples:
    • BBC – On Friday, the Met wrote to Defend Our Juries to raise concerns about the amount of police resources the protest would divert at a time when "visible reassurance and protective security" was needed for communities.
    • The Guardian – Last month, the publisher of the Nottingham Post warned of an “increasingly Trumpian approach” to the media creeping into British politics.
    Neither of these publications is a paragon of English, but neither is their use of commas 'American'. To be clear, I would omit these commas or rewrite the sentences. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. And I don’t think I would suggest that not having these commas is standard British usage; it’s just that British usage seems more relaxed about whether they are there or not, whereas my perception is that American English treats them as mandatory. The difference is most notable when it comes to dates - “In 2023 he got married” seems fine to me, but I suspect an American editor would write “In 2023, he got married”. MapReader (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "mandatory" may be too strong a term here. I have edited academic manuscripts for publishers in both the US and the UK, and in my experience not all American writers would consider a comma necessary in that example. It depends partly on register and partly on the length of the clause that follows: "In 2023 he got married" might not trigger a comma, but a need for one would be felt more strongly in a sentence like "In 2023, he retired from the advertising business and opened a small hotel in southern Italy, where he and his wife had met thirty years earlier during a cycling trip". But you are absolutely correct about the bigger picture: American writers and publishers are generally much more likely than their British eqivalents to use a comma after such phrases at the beginning of a sentence, and therefore this can reasonably be considered an aspect of ENGVAR. In any case, it's pretty clear that this RFC is not really about comma usage at all: it's about the OP's indignation that another editor dared to describe some aspect of his English as "American", a description which the OP considers "slanderous". His intemperate reaction to that innocent comment in the edit summary for a revert which even he concedes was proper demonstrates the very opposite of good will and collegial editing (not to mention common courtesy). 87.7.87.236 (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read the exchange, and RGloucester's complaint that "nothing can be more reprehensible than to have one's actions labelled 'American'. The gravity of this disgrace demands one's utmost attention", it does seem that this whole RfC is merely ammunition to 'win' an extremely petty argument elsewhere. So I'll not waste any more time on it. Dgp4004 (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this RfC is an attempt to determine if there is broader community consensus for the interpretation of guidelines used by certain editors elsewhere. That comment was in reference to the British editor who was confused when his edits were rejected on ENGVAR grounds, not me. I may have an ornate personal style, for which I can beg your pardon, but I am perfectly capable of separating personal and professional. Here is the real question. Which editor who was a party to that discussion decided to log out to and make a comment here to avoid WP:SCRUTINY? Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:53, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It really doesn't matter. Stop going about metaphorically slapping people with a glove like an 18th century dandy and WP:Grow a thick skin. Dgp4004 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And to be clear: no going about literally slapping people with a glove, either. EEng 15:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought you're supposed to slap with a trout instead of a glove. Gawaon (talk) 17:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not a part of that original discussion, but I did read it, and that's precisely why I logged out to comment. People who get into such a lather over perceived slights on the internet can't be trusted to behave rationally, and I don't want you following me around and filling my talk page with hectoring comments over a trivial disagreement about punctuation that offended your amour-propre. Dgp4004's advice is good; you should follow it. 87.7.87.236 (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't feel any need to comment on what are clearly personal attacks by someone who refuses to disclose their identity in contravention of established Wikipedia practice. This is not a matter of 'perceived slights'; I have behaved rationally at every step of this discussion, supporting my statements with reference to Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and external sources. My concern is really very simple, and it has very little to do with glove-slapping. It is that Wikipedia is meant to be an egalitarian space, where actions are governed by policy, guidelines, verifiability, and accountability. When editors in positions of authority use their power to subvert policy and guidelines without broader consensus, they must be challenged; otherwise, one ends up with the disaster that was the recent arbitration case. What started as trivial gatekeeping at FAC could very well end up spreading like a plague across the encyclopaedia. I have every right to ask the broader community whether there is consensus for this practice. That you seek to avoid scrutiny speaks for itself. I hope we can allow uninvolved editors to come to their own conclusion. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "University of Oxford Style Guide" (PDF). University of Oxford. p. 12. Retrieved 4 October 2025.
    2. ^ "Commas". University of Nottingham. Retrieved 4 October 2025.
    3. ^ New Oxford Style Manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. p. 69. Retrieved 4 October 2025.

    edit request, contractions' apostrophes

    [edit]

    Should Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Apostrophes link to (or maybe transclude) Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Contractions?

    Wishing everyone safe, happy, productive editing. --70.22.1.45 (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    A short mention and link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Contractions would probably be appropriate, e.g. (as the penultimate point, i.e. before "For further treatment ... see the article Apostrophe"):
    Mitch Ames (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    ENGVAR and gaol / jail ?

    [edit]
    Discussants were mostly divided between those favouring "jail" for clarity and consistency with MOS:COMMONALITY, and those defending "gaol" as a valid British spelling tied to historical institutions. Even though several editors argued that "jail" is now the dominant spelling across all varieties of English and should therefore be preferred in general prose, others pointed out that "gaol" remains a correct British form still used in official and historical contexts, and that wholesale changes would conflict with MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES. The discussion clearly shows strong policy-based support for using "jail" in ordinary descriptions, but also clear consensus that "gaol" should be preserved in proper names, quotations, and historically accurate contexts. In short, there is no consensus for a blanket replacement of "gaol" with "jail"; editors should please avoid mass, indiscriminate changes and instead apply case‑by‑case judgment. The outcome is therefore a compromise: apply "jail" as the default modern spelling but retain "gaol" where it is part of a name or historically appropriate. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Can I replace uses of 'gaol' with 'jail' per MOS:COMMONALITY because gaol is a dated spelling? This would apply to existing articles like Cork County Gaol or Dic Penderyn.

    See Talk:Beechworth. More eyes on that thread would be useful. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's an article showing the Australian view: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/radionational/archived/booksandarts/jail-or-gaol-how-should-australia-spell-it/7532694
    As a child in school in Australia in the 1970s, I would see "gaol" and be confused by it. As an adult I still have to stop and re-read it. I suspect many Brits are the same with thinking "gaol" is archaic (can you confirm?). And of course, Americans and most non-native English readers will have vast trouble with "gaol".
    Of course, if a building has an official name including "gaol" then we use that.  Stepho  talk  00:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Garner's Modern English (5th ed., 2022), jail has been more common in British sources since circa 1967 and the current ratio in print in "World Englishes" is 17:1 in favor of jail. The Ngram also shows that jail took off around 1967 and has been the dominant form in BrE ever since. Fowler's Dictionary of Modern English Usage (4th ed., 2015) begins the entry for gaol with: the traditional and treacherous spellings in the UK, are now under severe and probably unstoppable pressure from jail, jailer, which are dominant in most other parts of the English-speaking world. The jail entry also says this is the more common spelling in BrE and is the preferred spelling except in historical contexts in which the gaol- forms might be more appropriate. Learner's dictionaries from Cambridge and Oxford call gaol "old-fashioned". I don't have access to OED but several sites say they label 'gaol' "archaic", including this 2013 post which states all four British dictionaries consulted list jail as standard. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:40, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access to the full OED content either, but one can already see in the public part that they list "gaol" as a mere "variant of jail". Gawaon (talk) 17:35, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Shorter OED (6th edition, 2007) says:

    gaol (noun & verb) var. of jail

    and under jail:

    – NOTE: In Britain gaol is used in some official contexts, but otherwise is restricted to literary use, jail being the usual form. In American English jail is the usual spelling.

    Mitch Ames (talk) 11:06, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an aside, as a kid I read 'gaol' before I knew how it was pronounced and thought is was pronounced with a hard 'g' and almost rhymed with 'cowl'. I assumed it was a different type of jail, and that there were three things: gaol, jail, and prison! I also thought Geoff was 'gee-off'. Ah, the dangers of too much reading! TreeReader (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Tale of Two Cities in high school or so, and when we watched a video (or film, maybe?) in class, I was so confused that he said "are you the jailer's daughter", instead of the line as written. :) I think we should use "jail" as appropriate, since it's also considered proper BE. "they built the gaol to replace the old jail" doesn't work for me, though. Maybe "old facility"? SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in that article. "Gaol" is the official spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:15, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • So how do we proceed here? The Beechworth thread seems to have broken down into useless WP:IDHT retrenchment and demanding proof that tourist attraction flannel doesn't stand as WP:RS. Should we really reword a whole bunch of articles about 18th century Irish prisons on the basis of modern-day usage in Australia? Do a whole bunch of recent changes need to be rolled back? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:16, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:COMMONALITY is a fairly gentle suggestion -- using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable), not use vocabulary common to all varieties of English or similar. "Gaol" is slightly old-fashioned but perfectly correct in BrE, so while there might be good reasons to opt for "jail" (or "sulfur", "fetus" and similar), it would be inappropriate to insist on a change on the grounds of COMMONALITY in an article with WP:TIES to the Commonwealth. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:33, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      MOS:COMMONALITY also says "When more than one variant spelling exists within a national standard variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred" and there are exceptions listed when there's a different meaning with a different most-common spelling, proper names, and direct quotations. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart points out that even in British English, "jail" is the more common modern variant, and so should be the preferred one when it's lowercase. In fact, that chart shows "jail" is the most common modern variant in the UK, Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States. I'm not sure any standard dialect in the world actually uses "gaol" more commonly. -- Beland (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Avoid both, and use "prison" except in names of institutions with "Gaol" (and any that might have "Jail"). Ham II (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a legal technical difference between prison and { jail, gaol }. Also most of these are using 'Gaol' in the first place because that's some fundamental part of that specific article, like a historical title, e.g. Beaumaris Gaol [5]. Of course if we're writing ab initio we would choose clear, common language. Nobody is looking to write an article, 'Should electric motorbike riders be sent to gaol?' Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How can we tell which institutions are jails and which are prisons? The article Beaumaris Gaol describes it as both a "gaol" and a "prison". -- Beland (talk) 16:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The distinction of terms, in the UK (but not in the US), is mostly down to chronology (as I found out during my recent self-revert on the Wilde poem) -- the prison system was nationalised in 1878, after which most prisons were officially called "Her Majesty's Prison Suchandsuch". Beaumaris closed in 1877, so wouldn't ever have officially held that name. Other laws earlier in the C19th used "gaol" for all of them. The Beaumaris article correctly says "gaol, or prison" -- "prison" being provided as an alternative word for "gaol" rather than an alternative function it may have served. UndercoverClassicist T·C 17:09, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a bit confused by this. Words have meanings; if "prison" means something different than "gaol", it should not be presented as a synonym for "gaol". For example, in the US "prison" formally means long-term detention and "jail" means short-term detention. "Jail or prison" would not be a correct formal descriptor of most facilities (perhaps there are some that do both). If "gaol" and "prison" mean the same thing in the UK system, then for the sake of native English speakers who don't have "gaol" in their standard national dialect and who would have a lot of trouble figuring it out, shouldn't we use "prison" instead of "gaol" because that word is universally legible? -- Beland (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a few different things we might scope out that could also help us with spelling and word choice issues:
    • The words used in the names of institutions (in laws and other proper names in use)
    • The words used in the names of laws
    • The common nouns used to describe facilities in everyday speech
    • The legal classes of things and their names
    To start out, I took a look at the text of Gaols Act 1823. That name does not appear in the text, and that article says the same law is also called the Prisons Act 1823. It appears the names of many laws are applied retroactively and in multitudes, and many early laws may not have had names at the time they were enacted.
    Turns out it defines two classes of prison: gaols and houses of correction, with different legal requirements for each. I started documenting at Prison#UK and Ireland.
    There's a whole bunch of confinement-related laws in the UK and I don't have time to research them all now, but it would be interesting to figure out a beginning and an end time for the legal category of gaol. From what UndercoverClassicist wrote above, the end point may be Prison Act 1877. There are references on Gaols Act 1823 to laws talking about gaols or gaolers going all the way back to the 1300s, and it will take a bit of research to go past that to see if there is any notional beginning of the idea of a building of confinement, and also figure out if legal categories changed at all in those 500 years. Though that far back the statutes are in Middle English, when spelling was unstable. Wiktionary lists the spellings "gayole, gaiol, gaylle, gaille, gayle, gaile".
    I'll also note Category:Defunct prisons in the United Kingdom is a good place to find examples of names, and there is a lot of variation, many without either "Gaol" or "Prison" in the name. -- Beland (talk) 08:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In my own poking around, I found Inveraray Jail (built 1820 in Scotland), which looking at Google Books is generally referred to as a "jail", substantiating the claim on Talk:Inveraray Jail by someone who says they currently run the place that it was never known as "Inveraray Gaol". The one exception I found was in the law that created it, which of course was written in England, not Scotland. From this I infer that "jail" and "gaol" were both used historically to refer to the same class of institutions, which seems to undermine the idea that the only way to refer to UK confinement institutions from a certain era is "gaol". (Of course that law also capitalizes all nouns and uses long s and has lots of other archaic spellings we don't use, so it has forms like "Court-Houſe" instead of the modern "courthouse".) Beland (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Let anyone be misled: the use of long s does not represent a spelling variation; it's merely a typographical style. Long s is still ess. EEng 00:15, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Short answer? No, you may not replace the official names of places with names you prefer. Cork County Gaol and Cork City Gaol and Kilmainham Gaol are their names. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:01, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    But what about re-writing inside that article so that Cork City Gaol now states the building of a new Cork City Gaol to replace the old jail at the North Gate Bridge (the old jail, [6] ? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    With this diff, I have just boldly changed The Ballad of Reading Gaol to replace the second use of the word gaol to make HM Prison Reading explicit. Let's see if it survives. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:19, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about this revert on Dorothy Smith, Lady Pakington? It just says "...Pakington was forced to appear before the court of high commission, and was committed to gaol." The capitalized word "Gaol" does not appear anywhere in this article, and the name of the facility that this person was sent to is not mentioned in the article. @Roger 8 Roger: on the other thread, you seemed to think "jail" was better in these instances; is "prison" OK? It's the most common variant in both British English and across national standard dialects. @Ham II: It sounds like you'd prefer "prison" here, or is "jail" OK? @Bastun: Unclear what your position is? @Andy Dingley and UndercoverClassicist: Do we need to research whether the thing being referred to was named "Gaol" or "Prison" or was part of a distinct legal class of facility regardless of name to decide between "gaol" and "prison"? There seems to be some notion that context flips the more-common "jail" to the less-common "gaol" and I'm trying to figure out for those favoring "gaol" in some circumstances what the scope of that is. -- Beland (talk) 17:45, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Nope -- in this case, while MOS:COMMONALITY would suggest "prison", it doesn't insist, and the relevant question is whether "gaol" is a valid word for this thing in in British English (which it is). UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:31, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, so it sounds like you're ambivalent between "gaol" and "prison" in this case? Or would you object to changing it to "prison" if others object to "gaol"? -- Beland (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use "Gaol" if it's part of the official name of an institution (hence with a capital letter), "jail" everywhere else. In that way, no commonality is wasted and spelling sanity prevails as far as possible. Gawaon (talk) 19:52, 22 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      In the case of the Beechworth article, the article refers to the Old Melbourne Gaol, an official name. There is a semantic difference in meaning between "gaol" and "prison": the former is a facility for the temporary holding of persons, the latter is for long-term detention. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:02, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      We solved the controversy in that article by not using lowercase "gaol" but the proper names "Melbourne Gaol" and "HM Prison Beechworth". Some of Andy's recent reverts could be resolved in that way, though we'd have to verify that "X Gaol" (or "HM Prison X" or something else) is in fact the correct name. But there would be other reverts where we are not using a proper name and can't because it would be too repetitive or the text doesn't specify which facility. -- Beland (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      What's the problem with "gaol" anyway? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Mostly that it's highly irregular, so it can be nearly impossible to sound it out and figure out what word it is supposed to be unless you've seen it before and memorized it. (As Prison#cite_note-5 says, soft g does not normally occur in English before "a", and "ao" is not a normal English diphthong.) When it's not coming across as a nonsense word, it's looking like a misspelling of "goal". This is in contrast to typical spelling differences where maybe a silent "e" gets added to the end of a word or a consonant gets doubled or a "u" jammed in. That might be an invalid spelling in one's native dialect, but it doesn't change the sounding out of the word enough to make it unrecognizable. And those changes follow rules, so once you've seen a few examples, new words that follow the same pattern are easily understood.
      Americans probably have the biggest problem because "gaol" is just not a valid spelling of any word in Standard American English, and we don't have historic buildings with "Gaol" in the name or "gaol" in any laws that we still use, as far as I know. In order to have memorized this word you'd need to be reading about jails in a foreign dialect, and that just doesn't happen very often. Even for native users of Standard British English, "jail" is becoming more common so there are fewer chances to learn "gaol" and an even lower probability that documents with "gaol" will get exported.
      We expect readers to know words in order to be able to read, but only the words in the national dialect they've learned. We can bridge this irregularity with a gloss in the same way we bridge terminology differences, like "lift (elevator)" and "pants (underwear)" - "gaol (jail)". This is perfectly comprehensible but a little bumpy. To me it seems cleaner to just write "jail" in the first place, so I'm probing the scope in which we have consensus to do that. Given that "jail" is now either the highly dominant or only spelling in all standard English dialects, we never have to gloss in the reverse direction like "jail (gaol)". -- Beland (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Hawkeye7: Would you happen to have a pointer to any reliable sources that say that Australia uses jail for short-term and prison for long term, either now or during the era of the Old Melbourne Gaol? This is asserted a lot for the United States, but I couldn't find anything establishing that for Australia. (What I did find I suspect was AI-generated and might be completely inaccurate.) I'm mostly trying to document this for readers, as Prison#Australia doesn't mention any such distinction at the moment.
      Looking at List of prisons in Australia, it seems none of the modern facilities have "Jail" in the name, mostly either "Prison" or "Correction Centre". Looking at Punishment in Australia, it seems that the term "remand centre" is used for short-term pre-trial detention, and many of these are located within prisons and correction centres. It would be interesting to find out when and why "Gaol" stopped being used. -- Beland (talk) 06:18, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      "Gaol" and "prison" fell out of use when they moved to change the names to "correction centre" and "remand centre" many years ago. I presume this happened at different times in different states. I don't think these terms have currency or recognition outside Australia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For a reference, see History of the Criminal Justice System in Victoria, Chapter 1. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, this has turned into the same mess of minutiae as happened at Talk:Beechworth
    To try and reset it, can anyone please tell me which policy (not specifically about crime and punishment) support bulk changes to an article text (not title) like these [7][8] ? What's the fundamental reason for it, and benefit derived from it?
    Unless we have a broad reason for doing it at all, we don't even need to start poking at the details. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A proximal reason is compliance with MOS:COMMONALITY. The fundamental reason is desire to convey information seamlessly to readers in the face of the unreadability of "gaol" for speakers of certain standard dialects (which I explain in detail above in reply to Hawkeye7 at 10:55 today).
    I'll note that the existing text of Derry Gaol uses both "gaol" and "jail", and "Derry Gaol" and "Derry Jail" without explanation. This seems untidy. -- Beland (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of MOS:COMMONALITY supports arbitrary changes to existing articles? In particular, this goes against the underlying principle of WP:ENGVAR which is to avoid churn. Churn itself being seen as harmful, even outside the argument to 'be right'. A recommendation to use accessible language is one thing, but automated bulk changes to existing articles quite another, and one we've always opposed.
    ENGVAR supports the idea of 'ties'. Now I can't think of a stronger tie than an article about one specific named Gaol then using 'gaol' within its own context. If you claim that this term is too 'unfamiliar' to readers, then they're not going to get past the title.
    There is no justification here, or in any of our policies, for these bulk, blanket changes to stamp out one particular word. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The changes I have made are not arbitrary, they are to implement "most commonly used current variant (across all varieties of Standard English)". Because "gaol" is not the most commonly used current variant in any national variety of Standard English, it logically follows it should not be used on English Wikipedia outside of exceptions like proper names, direct quotations, citations, and when discussing the word itself. That guideline should not result in churn, because no one should be going around changing "jail" to "gaol". A burst of editing that brings a large number of articles into compliance with consensus guidelines is not undesirable churn, it's desirable cleanup. Churn does occur if there is not agreement as to which direction the guidelines are pointing or there is a desire to change them, which is why we have stopped changing these spellings and are discussing the question.
    Based on what has been written so far, it seems some editors want there to be an exception to MOS:COMMONALITY for articles on certain facilities, and others do not. That's fine; it's a normal thing to have a discussion over. It would be helpful to the discussion to articulate the scope of that exception. For example, does it only apply to jails in the UK up to 1877? MOS:TIES only discusses "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation". Other editors have objected to adding any other entities to this rule, such as states or provinces or regions with their own dialects. If you want to expand this rule to have something beyond ties to a "nation" influence spelling, that's fine; specific language would be helpful for the purposes of discussion. But this rule currently only concerns choice of dialect, and we all agree that articles about British jails should be written in British English. If you want to introduce the notion of ties to choice of spelling within a dialect, it's possible MOS:COMMONALITY is the right place for that, since it would effectively be an exception to the "the most commonly used current variant (across all varieties of Standard English)" rule. Specific language for discussion purposes would be helpful. Is the thing you want to see happen something like "articles with strong ties to a specific historic period should adopt the spellings of that period if those spellings are still considered correct in the national variety of modern standard English, even if they are considered old-fashioned or are less clear to some readers"?
    Nothing in MOS:ENGVAR prevents edits to "existing articles". MOS:RETAIN prevents changing an existing choice of dialect, but it does not apply to articles with MOS:TIES, which are the ones we are discussing. There are plenty of reasons to change spellings in bulk across all articles with ties to the UK, for example to change "defense" to "defence" because the latter is the British spelling.
    I think it's a bit overboard to say that the fact that "Gaol" is in the title of an article means that readers who don't know what "gaol" means can't find out by reading the article. We can just tell them what it means. We already do this implicitly in Old Melbourne Gaol which starts out "The Old Melbourne Gaol is a former jail"; I think that's fine. We could make it more explicit for readers who don't pick up on the correspondence between the two words by adding '("gaol" is an old-fashioned spelling of "jail")' but I'm not sure that's necessary. You also reverted instances of "gaol" where a specific prison is never named and it's just being used as a general concept, one time in the entire article. Cases like that seem to be single instances of an unclear word that could be improved, uncomplicated by worries about consistency with the rest of the article or confusion that could result from proper nouns with "Gaol" in them. -- Beland (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (What I wrote is not quote right; the clarified version of the "most common" rule not only means "use jail because it is more common in British English than gaol" but also "use jail because it is the only valid spelling in American English and also exists in British English".) -- Beland (talk) 04:12, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Despite the title of this topic, "gaol" vs. "jail" is not really an ENGVAR issue at all, since the latter spelling is preferred in all varieties of English (for BE, according to OED). So changing "gaol" to "jail" is (outside of proper nouns) always fine and improves the article, if in a minor way. Gawaon (talk) 07:01, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think jail should generally be used in preference to gaol per MOS:COMMONALITY, I think it's unnecessary and even confusing to require it where the article title uses Gaol (because that's it's the actual name of the institution as in the examples above). I looked at the "mass" changes to the 2 articles that Andy Dingley linked to and they really seem unnecessary. Clearly someone starting to read both those articles will know what a "gaol" is from the article text itself - there's even a reference it to being "jail". There's no need to then replace gaol thereafter - it doesn't add any extra understanding for the (say) American reader. In fact, I can see readers being puzzled why there's one spelling in the title and one in the body. I think the principle would be use jail in preference to gaol except where it would lead to inconsistency with the article title. DeCausa (talk) 09:13, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This seems backwards to me. Oftentimes I will only be reading part of an article, because I have skipped down to the section I'm interested in, because I've followed a link that points to a specific section, or because I'm reading a snippet in search results or an AI answer. If I encounter a word I can't read in the body of a section, it's not going to help me that word is explained in the intro to the article (which I haven't read, and I don't know to go there to decode this word). As a result, I might just not know what certain sentences mean.
    Compare that to the negative consequences of having "Gaol" and "jail" in the same article. Maybe it looks a little weird? Seems a bit incongruous? But everyone knows old spellings and foreign names are weird sometimes, so is it that out of place? If that difference is explained in the intro ("gaol" is an old-fashioned spelling of "jail") that puzzlement is cleared up for everyone reading the article from the beginning. But what if someone skips the intro and goes right to a section? They might still be a little puzzled, but able to understand everything that's written. That seems really minor compared to not being able to read some words at all.
    If an incomprehensible word only shows up inside a proper noun, then e.g. American readers who miss the intro clarification don't really need to worry about decoding it to understand the meanings of sentences - it's at least clear it's the name of a thing, if not the name of a jail. Knowing that "Gaol" in a proper name means "jail" makes that weird name make a lot more sense, but for example I don't need to know that "Lacroix" means "the cross" to know that "Thierry Lacroix" is the name of a person. I don't even need to know how Western names work - that the last part is a family name - in order to understand more about this person's life. If I continue reading I will eventually notice that the same word appears in the names of their family members, but I don't have to wait for this realization to understand other facts. -- Beland (talk) 10:07, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you certainly need to infer a heck of a lot about our readers and the way they read articles to make your argument work. I guess if we (ever) have a reader that matches your template exactly, you'll be right! DeCausa (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression is rather that you make a lot of odd assumptions about our readers if you seriously think people would be confused by encountering the spelling "jail" in any article. Gawaon (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Beland and Gawaon. Readers who recognize gaol likely recognize it as old fashioned. It's an extraordinary claim that they would be "confused" by the standard spelling. Readers unfamiliar with gaol, who represent the majority, will encounter at least some friction every time they read it, even if it's been defined for them. Some will encounter gaol as a significant barrier to understanding. The behavior Beland describes is common—many readers skim and skip around. We have many practices that anticipate this behavior and aim to improve the experience for such readers. For example, linking to article sections directly, guidance bolding selected terms in sections following the lead, and guidance on redefining and repeating wikilinks to key terms in subsequent sections. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:45, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On that basis we can dispense with the whole MOS principle of internal consistency within an article. No need - they'll work it out! DeCausa (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because comprehension gets priority over consistency when there's a substantial conflict doesn't mean that consistency should be abandoned. For example, choosing British-style spellings for an article without strong ties might be a good idea if it mentions a proper noun like "Foo Correction Centre". Both "center" and "centre" are comprehensible regardless of the reader's national dialect. -- Beland (talk) 17:53, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think everyone knows where you stand on his and what your arguments are. DeCausa (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, that was not clear from your comment that implied we think consistency should be abandoned. -- Beland (talk) 18:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to consider whether it's wise to post a response in this thread to every comment that's adverse to your view. You are an admin, after all. DeCausa (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't see how we can reach consensus without conversing with people who we disagree with; we just need to keep it respectful. I am also frustrated that this conversation lacks focus on comparing rationales and reaching actionable compromise, and there are a lot of easily refuted objections coming out of left field. (You're not at fault for that, and of course helpful points have also been made on both sides.) Instead of complaining about personal jabs or the conversational style of other editors, I've been ignoring personalities and trying to ask questions that get us back to the substance of the question.
    If you truly feel I've engaged in misbehavior here, please report me at WP:AN/I. I don't think people who care about the substance of this question are interested in personality clash drama. -- Beland (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa! Steady there. I was just making a suggestion, not saying you've misbehaved! I didn't even link to the B-word. Oops I just did. DeCausa (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a misapplication of "internal consistency" to use unusual words or spellings in the article body just because they appear in the title. We use "cemetery" in Pet Sematary and Pet Sematary (1989 film); we use "vampire" throughout Nosferatu and Nosferatu the Vampyre; we use "the" in Ye Olde Curiosity Shop and it would be bizarre to use "olde" outside of the store's name, if the adjective were needed in running text. Even a strong reading of internal consistency must be balanced with COMMONALITY and comprehension. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:56, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh hang on. I wasn't going to bother posting any further on this thread but that's just bollocks. There's no way in British English gaol is remotely comparable to "Pet Sematary" or "olde". It's standard British English even if less used than jail. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, those were on the extreme. These are on a continuum and I maintain that gaol is too nonstandard for internal consistency to overcome the objections. Perhaps examples like The Vitamin Shoppe, The Pop Shoppe, Grand Canal Shoppes are more reasonable. The articles use "shop", "store", etc. in running text. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 01:12, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's equally ridiculous. If you think "shoppe" is comparable to "gaol" in British English then you've miscalibrated this badly. Gaol will appear in standard British English dictionaries. DeCausa (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They only list is as a less preferred variant, though. So why should we prefer it in some articles just because it happens to show up elsewhere in those article, just in the name of "consistency"? What about consistency with the rest of Wikipedia, and with what the reader is used to? Gawaon (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • "There will be no churn because My Way Is Right" is why we have policies against churn. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:14, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course. That's why I say people need to make edits in the direction the MOS points, not their own direction, and if there is any disagreement about which direction the MOS points (as there is in this case), that needs to be resolved with discussion, as we are doing. -- Beland (talk) 16:55, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • MOS:RETAIN prevents changing an existing choice of dialect, but it does not apply to articles with MOS:TIES
    You are literally trying to quote a policy supporting stability to support a change in spelling against another policy supporting stability. On the basis of using a web snippet about modern Australian use to change descriptions of 18th century Ireland. This makes no sense, it's just text wallpapering until you've bludgeoned away anyone who disagrees. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, sorry for the long posts, but sometimes it takes more words to explain why an idea is wrong than it does to state the idea.
    I don't follow your logic about stability. Are you saying we're supposed to leave "defense" in articles with UK ties, for example, or are we supposed to change existing text that violates MOS:TIES? -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. If the article has a {{Use British English}} tag, then you change "defense" to "defence" without further ado.
    2. If yours is the first non-stub edit, you can tag it, and then change it.
    3. Otherwise, you should establish consensus on the talk page to change the English variant.
    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:53, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with (1), but I'm asking Andy if that kind of change violates the sort of stability they are advocating for, if that spelling which apparently violates ENGVAR is long-standing. -- Beland (talk) 03:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use "jail" throughout the article body. Use "gaol" only where it occurs in proper names or, sparingly, in quotes or other instances where it is beneficial to highlight this usage. In an article about "X Gaol", call it the jail, etc. in prose. Explain or gloss "gaol" on first usage or early in articles that use this word in the title. Obviously, use "prison" instead of "jail" if this is the more appropriate term. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Also: the (partial) proper name should not be overused. Cork County Gaol, for example, contains phrases like: The Gaol was designed in the Greek Revival style and The County Gaol was the scene of executions by hanging, which took place in public outside the Gaol until the 1860s. We would not typically write the Theatre was built or the School opened in articles about institutions with 'Theatre' or 'School' as part of the name. This isn't an ENGVAR or COMMONALITY issue but it does add to the awkwardness of these articles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 18:10, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      For the reason I just posted above, I think it will just increase puzzlement to talk about "jail" in an article where there's "Gaol" in the title. DeCausa (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I've responded above to keep the thread together. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:46, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What is being argued for by some is that we should have a style guide that applies to British English articles that jail always be used in everything but proper names. But although rarer, gaol remains standard British English, and what is instructive is that when British publications and institutions write about places that are named x gaol, they will use use the same spelling throughout. I presume they do so because this is simply clearer. So should we. Examples: Derby Telegraph [9], or the UK parliament [10], [11], [12]. Here's the National Archive using the term [13]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:50, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the problem with "gaol" anyway? as Hawkeye7 said above. Both words are current English so both can be used. Just because one is commoner does mean we automatically discard the other. If an article is about a place called a gal then we use gaol throughout the article. It's the same as the UK/US spelling rule about choosing one and sticking with it. The preference for jail should only apply to new article where no actual place name is mentioned. Just because some people don't know what a gaol is doesn't mean we should dumb down. We should assume a certain level of intelligence. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My post above crossed with sirfurboy's. Coincidentally, the same argument. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think there's quite a few non-British editors in this thread that have an erroneous impression of how "antiquated" gaol is in British English. One (above) has even equated it with "shoppe" and "olde"! DeCausa (talk) 08:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not if you keep MOS:COMMONALITY in mind, though. Gawaon (talk) 10:19, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Writing "jail" instead of "gaol" is not "dumbing down". It conveys exactly the same information, except with a spelling that more readers can successfully interpret. The point of MOS:COMMONALITY is exactly to avoid readers having to run to the dictionary when simply picking a different spelling would make a sentence comprehensible on its face.
    Readers who don't know how to pronounce "gaol" are not less intelligent; they simply have not been exposed to it because they live in the US or Canada or Australia or NZ, where Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling tells us this spelling is not part of the standard language. (And haven't happened to read either specialized or foreign publications, perhaps because it's never come up, or perhaps because they are in elementary school.)
    I don't think it's reasonable to assume that the Derby Telegraph thinks that "gaol" is clearer for its American readers. It is not writing for an international audience, it is writing for the people of Derbyshire and their neighbors - at most England or the UK. -- Beland (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, writing "jail" instead of "gaol" is 'dumbing down' because it to underestimate our readers and assume that they can't cope with the original, still-correct, word. This is Wikipedia, not Simple Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:56, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I would say "can't cope"; nearly anyone who can read the encyclopedia could look a word up in a dictionary. But isn't just factually accurate to estimate that many if not most of our readers would in fact have to look this word up in a dictionary to understand it? -- Beland (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Readers from Australia should be familiar familiar with the "gaol" spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:15, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That probably depends a lot on how old they are and whether or not they read about certain topics, and we've heard a personal experience above that even with passing familiarity it's problematic. We could research the comprehensibility in Australia in more depth, but it hardly seems to matter as the vast majority of Americans certainly aren't familiar with this spelling. -- Beland (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And we can find British, Irish, and Australian sources that use jail in articles about a named Gaol.[14][15][16][17][18] --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    And, indeed, American universities publishing papers using gaol [19]. But given that it is clearly a valid current alternative spelling, in use in the British parliament, the British National Archive interpretive information, and academia, as well as newspaper sources, there is simply no reason to impose a style restriction on pages, especially when we note in your examples that when the article uses jail it may find the need to explain itself. It is clearer just to use a consistent spelling, although nothing decided here should over-ride a local consensus relevant for a specific page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using "gaol" instead of "jail" does not obviate the need for the article to explain itself, as many if not most readers won't know what "gaol" means. The publishers you mention above are for a British national audience, or a specialized audience, not a general international audience.
    When you say "there is simply no reason to impose a style restriction on pages" to avoid using valid spellings, that sounds like an argument for repealing the "most commonly used current variant" of MOS:COMMONALITY. Editors obviously had reasons for adding that in the first place, and I doubt there would be consensus to remove it. But it sounds like you're specifically concerned about the tradeoff between consistency and clarity. Would you support adding an exception like: "except where the article must use a specific spelling, for example in a proper name or direct quotation"? -- Beland (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Using "gaol" instead of "jail" does not obviate the need for the article to explain itself - sure, but whereas you can just wikilink gaol, if you start using jail instead, you need to include a sentence of explanation as to why you did so. The publishers mentioned are not just writing to a British audience, because we have seen examples in Australia, Ireland and the USA. You just did not reply on those, nor on the use by Parliament nor TNA. as for "Would you support adding an exception like..." - no. I don't support the multiplication of intricate stylistic rules. Gaol is a variant spelling. It is still in use, including, as we have seen, by academics, parliamentarians and information professionals as well as journalists. I'd support dropping the stick on this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:39, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:COMMONALITY says When more than one variant spelling exists within a national standard variety of English, the most commonly used current variant (across all varieties of Standard English) should usually be preferred, except where the less common spelling has a specific usage in a specialized context, e.g., connexion in Methodist connexionalism. That means if the article is about a proper noun article that includess gaol, stick with gaol throughout. Otherwise jail is 'usually' preferred, ie it's not set in stone. So, why were these mass changes ever made, there's no need?Roger 8 Roger (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger, if you're saying this falls under the specialist meaning exception, I'm not quite seeing that. The word "gaol" does not refer to a specialized concept or only to jails in one place or period. The most common way to refer to institutions with "Gaol" in the name using that term is "jail", including in British English.
    I do think the specialized meaning applies to something like "gaol fever", where that is actually still the most common spelling (perhaps because this concept is no longer present in modern medicine) and I support retaining that.
    Sirfurboy, sure, some publishers do use "gaol" in the UK, including Parliament and the BNA. As MYCETEAE points out, there are other British publishers that use "jail", and based on the Ngrams graph it appears they are a minority maybe 1/7th of usage) and extrapolating long-term trends, that spelling may just go away entirely in the UK. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling tells us "gaol" is so little used in the US, NZ, Australia, and Canada, that it's not considered a proper spelling.
    I don't think wikilinking is sufficient; it doesn't help people using print editions or seeing the word in search engine results or AI summaries or excerpts on other web sites. It's just as much of an interruption as going off and looking up the word in a dictionary. If we expect people to go off and do their own research to answer questions raised by the spelling in the article, I don't see why we'd put in a note that "gaol is an old-fashioned spelling of jail", either.
    If your rationale for not changing "gaol" to "jail" is that "gaol is a valid word in British English", that implies to me that we should always ignore the "most commonly used current variant" clause of MOS:COMMONALITY. Would you be in favor of removing that to avoid this sort of issue coming up again, or are there some circumstances in which that advice should be followed? -- Beland (talk) 03:52, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But unlike connexion (as in Connexionalism), gaol has no specialized meaning. It's defined everywhere as a spelling variant of jail. You yourself describe it this way. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:16, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    sure, but whereas you can just wikilink gaol, if you start using jail instead, you need to include a sentence of explanation as to why you did so. A wikilink is not a substitute for an explanation (see: MOS:NOFORCELINK) and at a minimum significant ENGVAR differences need to be glossed (MOS:COMMONALITY). Even if we didn't have these guidelines, I'm baffled by the notion that using a less common regional variant is somehow less confusing or requires less explanation than using a universally-recognized variant. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 14:57, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean for example, about specialised meanings, if the article is about melbourne gaol, then use the spelling gaol whenever the word is used in that article, not just when referring to the actual building called melbourne gaol. Gaol is a normal contemporary spelling of the word, not an archaic spelling, even if used less than jail. Also, the mos guidelines say usually use the commoner version, meaning there will be exceptions and allowing for some flexibility and common sense by editors. Roger 8 Roger (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    This reminds me of when Daniel Lambert was TFA way back in December 2010, we had all manner of people wanting to change "gaol keeper" to either "jail keeper" or "goalkeeper". If the soure says "gaol", we should stick with that spelling. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What about articles that use more than one source? (Hopefully, the huge majority!) Gawaon (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, "gaol keeper" is very hard not to read as "goal keeper", because "gaol" is rare or unknown in a reader's dialect, and "goal keeper" is common. I'm not sure why the right response to complaints about that article was to blame people for not reading carefully, instead of using the common spelling so it's easy to read in a single pass. -- Beland (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good grief. The lead at Daniel Lambert is an example of what not to do. Readers should should not be forced to click a link or read an explanatory note to understand a basic vocabulary word. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:05, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed! Gawaon (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Tried to fix it and was swiftly reverted. *sigh* --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose one who would argue to retain this usage might also be described as a gaol keeper, of sorts… --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:46, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On the contrary. That FA had a good solution which had gone through our featured article process). You tried "fix" something that didn't need fixing by introducing pointless repetition. Good revert. DeCausa (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding comment to prevent archiving; has been listed at Wikipedia:Closure requests. -- Beland (talk) 13:52, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Are box quotes discouraged?

    [edit]

    For large quotations, editors have a choice of Template:block quote or Template:box quote. The MOS has guidance on the choice: MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, which begins with Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides.... That suggests that box quotes are discouraged. Yet, the MOS is silent on box quotes, which leads to confusion. For instance, many new WP articles use box quote format, including many new Featured Article nominations. (Tangentially: MOS:PULLQUOTE says the box quote format is bad ... but that guidance is limited to the context of duplicating body text in a box). Since many editors are confused and continuing to use box quotes, should a footnote be added to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE that explicitly says box quotes are discouraged? Noleander (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no template "box quote", it's a redirect to {{Quote box}}. As for {{Quote box}}, the second sentence of the documentation reads "However, this use is only rarely appropriate in articles." (It doesn't, annoyingly, enlighten us as to what those rare cases are.) The following sentence leads to the MOS:BLOCKQUOTE guideline you mentioned, where it states "Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}." This can be taken at face value, without it needing to list all the ways not to do it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that editors are continuing to create box quotes, so the MOS is not as clear as it could be. The MOS page says, at the top: New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue. Which seems to cover this situation. The existing guidance "Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}." doesnt mention box quotes at all. It says that "block quote" should use the block quote template. It does not say "large quotes" should use block quote template. Editors may read that and think "Well, my quote is a box quote, not a block quote, so it does not apply". My question is: Is there a benefit in adding a small footnote to MOS? Noleander (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that editors continue to create box quotes for the same reason that most edits contrary to the MOS are made: because the editors aren't familiar with the MOS or with specific provisions. In those cases, it won't matter how specific the guideline is. After all, as you note, they're using that template, which generally won't mean the template's documentation isn't clear enough, it'll mean that they haven't read it.
    Regarding long quotes, in general, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE already begins "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation". In other words, don't format a long quote as a box quote. That aside, if a user thinks that a box quote is something different from a block quote, then they won't be looking at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. So, to solve that problem, maybe there should be a tiny separate section with its own heading and shortcuts MOS:BOXQUOTE and MOS:NOBOXQUOTES with a single sentence telling editors not to use them in articles. Largoplazo (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There's an important sentence on WP:PAGS which I think applies here: the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. The page where the prohibition appears is neither policy nor guideline -- it's a documentation page -- and its instruction that box quotes are only rarely appropriate in articles does not follow practice. It's common enough to use them in Featured Articles in place of an image -- for example, for an apposite quotation from a work or a subject's works (see e.g. Ezra Pound or The Sun Also Rises), or for an illustrative quote about the subject (e.g. Liz Truss). Indeed, I remember one fairly recent FAC where it was specifically requested. If anything should change, it should be the documentation page. UndercoverClassicist T·C 16:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting! If that's so, adding a short note mentioning this options to the MOS sounds like a good idea to me. Gawaon (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Template documentation is neither policy nor guideline but, ideally, reflects it? For context:
    • There was an RFC on pull quotes that I'm not going to read all the way through, at least not just now, but that covers related matters include quote boxes.
    • @Herostratus updated the documentation in January 2017 to reflect the outcome of the RFC, yielding a version that summarized the situation as "However, this use is not advised in articles."
    • @Charcoal feather, in August 2023, removed the language.
    • A few days later, @EEng, explaining his intent in his edit summary, filled the void with the language that's there now.
    Pinging them all herewith for any insights they care to bring to this. Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That RFC included EEng supporting the deprecation of repeating text in pull quotes with the understanding that the generic concept of "quote boxes" is not being affected and the proposer Herostratus confirming that, and adding in the threaded discussion "Based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184, there is some support for formally permitting Quote box (but maybe not the others) for regular quotes". Maybe that RFC wasn't the basis for the template documentation after all. NebY (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It does seem that of ~852,000 uses of {{Quote box}}, ~24,500 are in articles.[20] NebY (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, the documentation says they're rarely appropriate, not that they're rarely used. Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. In the first place, I just wanted to check how trivial or significant actual usage might be. Picking up on UndercoverClassicist's point though, it seems we have about ~24,500 instances of disagreement with the documentation. NebY (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Or 24,500 instances of people not having read the documentation. Largoplazo (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There could also be an element of survivorship bias. We don't know how many people refrained from using the template precisely because of what's said in the documentation or the MOS. What if it's 25 million? Then the compliance rate is over 99.9%. Largoplazo (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, the documentation page needs to be updated to reflect the actualité of editorial practice and say something different—probably the opposite—to what it does now. —Fortuna, imperatrix 17:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmmm, the above comments seem to prove that there is substantial confusion on this point, so the MOS could definitely stand some clarification. It looks like there are two approaches to long quotes::

    A (disregard this choice- superseded below) Block quotes are preferred; box quotes are discouraged. (Which is kinda what MOS:BLOCKQUOTE says now: Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides.... )
    B (disregard this choice- superseded below) Block quotes and box quotes are both permitted, but block quotes are generally preferred.

    Personally, I have no opinion on whether (A) or (B) is better. But some editors think (A) is the consensus; and others think (B) is the consensus. If (A) is the consensus, then MOS:BLOCKQUOTE should have a couple of words added (maybe a small footnote) explicitly saying that box quotes are discouraged. But if (B) is the consensus, then MOS:BLOCKQUOTE should have its wording tweaked to indicate that box quotes are permitted in some situations (because the current wording appears to prohibit box quotes). Again, I have no opinion on whether (A) or (B) is superior, but the MOS guidance is not clear today. Noleander (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think either needs to be placed into the MoS -- it would be instruction creep. There isn't a persistent misunderstanding or problem -- there's just a documentation page which is out of sync with practice. Largoplazo inadvertently made the point well -- if thousands of people (including our reviewers and writers at the highest level of quality control) are either ignoring the documentation or, in its absence, do the opposite of what it says, that means the documentation needs to be changed. Once it's changed, there will be no conflict and so no need to legislate on exactly when to use block quotes vs box quotes: both remain options for editors to use as they see fit. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's B, then, however, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is clearly in need of tweaking too, as it currently says a number of things that contradict it. Gawaon (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it? What do you have in mind? The bit about pull quotes doesn't apply -- that's about repeating part of an article as a quote in a box/blockquote, and avoiding that is common practice and good sense (for the reasons on the page). While we're at it, I'm not convinced It is conventional to precede a block quotation with an introductory sentence (or sentence fragment) and append the source citation to that line is actually true, but that's another discussion. UndercoverClassicist T·C 21:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe the MOS text that @Gawaon is referring to is "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}." Personally, I have cited this green text three times in the past year in an FA review, when I told a nominator that box quotes are discouraged. Extrapolating, I presume that hundreds, or thousands of editors are concluding that box quotes are discouraged. If the consensus here is that box quotes are acceptable (approach (B)) then would you agree that this MOS guidance (in green) should be adjusted to let editors know that box quotes are an option? Noleander (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That, and also: "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged." {{Quote box}} uses a light gray background by default; the background colour can be set to something else, but the template doesn't seem to offer an easy way to turn off background colouring altogether, as would be needed for MOS:BLOCKQUOTE compatibility. Gawaon (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The A and B options above are too crude as the only alternatives. If we're going to have MOS speak to this (and I'm not convinced the need is there), then I believe the guidance should be that boxed quotes (whether in the main stream of article text e.g. 25th Amendment, or in the article's margin e.g. Clark Kerr) are rarely, but not never, appropriate appropriate in only very limited and unusual circumstances.

    The argument I've heard against quote boxes is that they can privilege one source's opinion above others, and that is indeed the danger; plus, when inappropriately used they just plain look klunky. The 25th Amendment example linked above, I believe we can agree, privileges nothing, but highlights the amendment's complex text for convenient reference as one reads the article's explication. And I believe the Clark Kerr examples are good illustrations of the best use of marginal boxes: unexceptionable text in which the reader may perhaps take pleasure, or gain insight into the subject's life and work.

    BTW, you often see an image of this person or that, accompanied by a caption which quotes something that person said; but you never, for some reason, hear anyone object to these "boxed quotes" (which is what they are, just under a picture). EEng 00:55, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That is excellent input, thanks. I think the "leave the MOS as is" approach would not serve the WP community well. It is clear there is confusion over quote boxes: Are they interchangeable with block quotes? Or discouraged, but tolerated? Or prohibited in all but rare cases? No one knows. What if we add a footnote to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE (which currently says that block quotes should be used for quotes over forty words), and the footnote says:
    • Both block quotes and box quotes are permitted
    • Block quotes are preferred over box quotes, in general
    • If a box quote is used, it must be: relevant, informative, especially noteworthy or insightful, not duplicated in the body text, and does not need context that body text could provide.
    • Box quotes should not be used if: merely decorative, or would overemphasize a point of view, or require context that body text could provide, or would be misleading.
    I realize this tentative footnote text is rather verbose... I'm only tossing it out as a starting point. I'm sure those points could be condensed. Noleander (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably the last I can say on this without repeating myself, but I still think this is CREEP. The MoS is usually wisely silent on matters of taste, and doesn't need to legislate for everything that's good sense or normal practice. At the moment, the MoS says that blockquotes are usually the best option for long quotes -- that's true -- and that no template should be used for pull quotes -- that's also true. The other points about box quotes needing to be useful, needing to be clear, and not breaking DUEWEIGHT are all covered by other PAGs. Nothing in Wikipedia should be misleading or overemphasise a point of view -- why single out box quotes when we don't have a demonstrated pattern that they are currently being used in this way? UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Correcting clear conflicts between the MOS and actual usage is not CREEP, it's a way to keep us sane. "It's OK to do that despite MOS:BLOCKQUOTE clearly saying the opposite in at least three sentences" (see discussion above) is not a healthy way of dealing with the MOS. Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see that block quotes and box quotes are the same thing, and therefore don't see a conflict -- blockquotes shouldn't have coloured backgrounds, for example, but that applies strictly to blockquotes rather than to box quotes. If other readers do think that MOS:BLOCKQUOTE applies to box quotes, then perhaps a note to clarify would be helpful, but again we should be reacting to an existing misconception rather than proactively trying to get ahead of one that might arise. UndercoverClassicist T·C 09:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." – That leaves no way to format quotes with more than about forty words as box rather than block quotes. But maybe you were talking about very, very short box quotes (less than 40 words)? If so, I'll have to admit that you're technically right. Gawaon (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, precisely -- and applying the usual caveat that the MoS is always a guideline rather than an absolute rule. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I'm really confused :-) It looks like editors are reading "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." in two ways:
    1) Box quotes discouraged (Under 40 words characters: use in-line quotes)
    2) Box quotes acceptable (Under 40 words characters: use in-line quotes OR box quotes)
    I have no opinion on whether (1) or (2) is better. MOS front page says "New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue." But since that green guidance can be interpreted two wildly different ways, what is the harm in adding a footnote explaining whether (1) or (2) is the intended meaning of the green text? Noleander (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    40 words, not 40 characters. So I read it as:
    • If you have a quote under 40 words or so, do what you like with it -- put it inline, in a blockquote or in a box quote.
    • If you have a quote over 40 words or so, you should probably put it in a blockquote by preference to the other two options, but as with all guidelines there's flexibility here.
    • The stipulations of MOS:BLOCKQUOTE apply only to block quotes unless the phrasing makes clear that they don't.
    We could definitely soften the language to a "usually", "general rule" etc. UndercoverClassicist T·C 12:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (Thanks for pointing out my words vs characters mistake). You say We could definitely soften the language to a "usually", "general rule" etc That is all I'm asking for: a small tweak to assist editors: so they do not conclude that the statement prohibits box quotes. It could be a change to the wording or a footnote. It could mention "box quotes" explicitly or not at all. Anything is better than what we have now :-) Noleander (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally, I don't see a valid reading of "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. that includes "box quotes are discouraged for quotes under about forty words". It's a bit like saying "travel by train for long journeys" -- that passes no judgement about how you should travel for short journeys. I think it might be a good idea to put some concrete suggestions together in a subsection below and see where the consensus is. UndercoverClassicist T·C 19:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [Silence] on matters of taste is indeed wise, though perhaps readability is another matter. Only one person's opinion, but mine is that the {{Quote box}} format is often more readable on mobile devices (and looks better too). Since most of our readers are on mobile devices, this does seem like a relevant consideration for this discussion. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above has pointed out many confusing and contradictory ways that "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." can be interpreted. The purpose of this Talk page discussion is to see if it can be clarified. Some editors think that text implies "No box quotes"; others think it means "box quotes are okay any size"; others "box quotes are okay only under 40 words"; It sounds like you feel box quotes are acceptable ... particularly for mobile devices. That is fine by me ... I have no opinion, I'm just looking for clarity. Do you object to adding a clarifying footnote to the MOS? Something like "Box quotes are acceptable, especially when they improve readability on mobile devices ". Noleander (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Noleander on that one. For me, Option B is the right answer.
    There is another case where I consider box quotes can and should be used, like we use images at the side, where it is a particularly apposite quotation. (Bearing in mind the risk of undue prominence to a particular perspective but that's by the by for this discussion.) I refer readers to Brexit and the Irish border where there are two such boxes and in my view this is the best form in which to present the quotes and {{blockquote}} would work much less well. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC) revised --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps "B" could be amended to read Block quotes and box quotes are both permitted (although block quotes were once generally preferred, box quotes may improve readability on mobile devices). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As Hawkeye7 says below,

    Block quotes form part of the text. Box quotes are separate, like the images. They serve different purposes.

    — Hawkeye7

    Blockquotes are used in the running text, for example to give more obvious attribution than a simple "according to Hawkeye7, block quotes... etc". Box quotes go at the side, they supplement the text like an illustration does. The quote should be particularly germane to be used in this way. So no, in my view anyway, box quotes should neither be preferred nor deprecated – maybe we should say more clearly that they should be used very sparingly and only when particularly important. Of course on mobile, the distinction is a little less obvious but they are boxed but, on my Android at least, the blockquotes have a line at the left and the box quotes are boxed (and presented in sequence as images are). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC) revised --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think block quotes should be 'discouraged . . . (because who knows and we are not saying)'. That does not mean we can't have guidance on their use. It should be phrased that way too, not 'don't' but 'when'. For example, editorially in a bio, if someone is known for what they have said or written or thier quote, goes along way toward explaining them/their life, a box quote could be used well, imo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean to say "box quotes" in your first sentence? Noleander (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Block quotes form part of the text. Box quotes are separate, like the images. They serve different purposes. Length is immaterial, although excessively long quotes are discouraged.Conformance to the MOS is strictly optional, but generally preferred except when utterly absurd. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My historical understanding of the existing MoS guidance at MOS:BQ is that 'box quotes' were discouraged in favour of block quotes. In fact, I have specifically avoided using the box quote template in places where I would have preferred using it for this very reason. I made the presumption that our venerable MoS regulars had created this guidance for some specific purpose. If there is no evidence of a justification for the current guidance, it seems reasonable to adapt it to explicitly allow either block or box quotes as a matter of style. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      MOS:BQ doesn't have anything to say about box quotes. The relevant discussion was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184. The consensus was: guidelines are generally to reflect consensus and common practice, not the other way round. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You say this, but if one seeks to add a 'long quote' into an article, one will inevitably wonder how to format it in line with MoS guidance. Upon consulting the MoS, the only method mentioned as acceptable is to use the block quote template. As has been evident in this discussion, the present text can be interpreted in different ways by different people; this, in and of itself, is reason enough to consider amending it. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would be sceptical regarding the idea of adding a blank permission of box quotes. They may be appropriate in some contexts (an excerpt from a work in an article on a novel or other work of fiction, a well-known saying from a person in an article on that person), but in other contexts they could easily be an NPOV violation or UNDUE (say if in an article on a controversial historical event, one historian's analysis is box-quoted giving the impression of it being more important and correct than what others might have said). Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree. I going to propose a potential clarification to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE below, but I'm not sure that proposal should go into detail about when box quotes are appropriate. Clearly there are some situations where they are not good (as you list above) but putting those details into the MOS could take weeks of painful deliberation, and would probably never achieve consensus :-) So, that may be best saved for another discussion. For now, I'm just trying to improve the wording of "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." so it is less confusing. Noleander (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another issue is how to quote within lists. Neither {{block quote}} not {{quote box}} respect the indentation level. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that they're essentially outside of the normal text flow, like images, so that's not really an issue. Gawaon (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposals to clarify MOS:BLOCKQUOTE

    [edit]

    To summarize the comments above:

    1. Box quotes are commonly used in Wikipedia articles, and no one has suggested that the MOS should indicate that they are prohibited by community consensus.
    2. Box quotes are more akin to images than to body text. Box quotes must be used with care, because (a) they are devoid of the context that body text (leading into the quote) could provide; and (b) they are potentially misleading, and may present POV or UNDUE issues.
    3. MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is not very clear with regards to box quotes, particularly in the following guidance: Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}. That text might suggest to some editors that box quotes are discouraged (either all box quotes; or box quotes over 40 words)
    4. The "about 40 words... " threshold was apparently added to the MOS to distinguish inline quotes from block quotes. I don't think the "40 words" was intended to have any bearing on box quotes. (But if anyone thinks box quotes are generally supposed to stay below 40 words, please speak up).

    Based on the above, here are some rough concepts for how to clarify MOS:BLOCKQUOTE:

    A) Keep MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as-is, but add a new footnote after the the green "Format a long quote..." sentence which says: A box quote is an alternative to an inline quote or a block quote. Box quotes should be used with care, because they lack the context supplied by the flow of the body text, and might present POV or UNDUE issues. [optional: Mention that box quotes are similar to images, and are best used for especially noteworthy or stand-alone quotes that do not require context from body text.]
    B) Same as (A), but the new footnote is presented directly as a sentence in the MOS body text.
    C) Change the MOS:BLOCKQUOTE green "Format a long quote..." sentence to something like: For short quotes, use inline quotations (or box quotes[fn]); for longer quotes (more than about forty words, or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) use a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}. And [fn] is the footnote described in concept (A) above.
    D) Keep MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as-is, but add a footnote to the green "Format a long quote..." sentence (above) that says: This guidance does not restrict or discourage box quotes in any way.
    F) ... other? Any other suggestions are welcome.

    I am neutral on this, I'm just tossing these out as possibly helpful to future editors. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noleander (talk • contribs)

    @EEng: I must apologize: I mistakenly re-used the identifiers (A) and (B). They are used near the top of the discussion, where (B) is: "Block quotes and box quotes are both permitted, but block quotes are generally preferred". And then I used them again here, just above, with four proposals A,B,C,D. Here, the focus is on these "lower" four ABCD. It looks like you are referring to the upper (B). I'm sorry about the confusion ... rookie mistake on my part. Noleander (talk) 20:33, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Seeing no objections, I have implemented approach (B) into the MOS page. The change is here. If anyone thinks the change needs tweaking, or does not reflect the consensus, please let me know, and I'll remedy the issue. Noleander (talk) 16:47, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Above, user @UndercoverClassicist pointed out that the instructions in Template:Quote box also need to be updated, to be consistent with the MOS consensus. That template is protected, so I submited a change request atTemplate_talk:Quote_box#Template-protected_edit_request_on_19_October_2025_Suggestion. I'm not sure of how quickly that will get processed; we should check back in a week or so to make sure it got implemented. Noleander (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: I was able to improve the guidance within Template:Quote box ... apparently the "documentation" can be edited by anyone. So, that task is complete. Noleander (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your addition. I am happy to see this matter clarified. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific text on boxquotes

    [edit]

    I've boldly modified the text on boxquotes to communicate a bit more sense of caution:

    A {{Quote box}} is an alternative to an inline quote or a block quote. Quote boxes are displayed in a stand-alone manner (similar to images) and are best suited to noteworthy or important quotations which, when presented without the context they would enjoy if integrated into the text of the article proper, do not present point of view or undue weight issues. Because this is a high bar, quote boxes should be used with great care.

    Thoughts? EEng 03:57, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    That second sentence is pretty long... I'm having a hard time parsing it, and I've been thinking about this for the past week :-) Is there some way it could be a bit plainer, so casual editors could grasp the points more readily? Noleander (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we split: noteworthy or important quotations. When presented without the context they would enjoy if integrated into the text of the article proper, quotations can create point-of-view or undue-weight issues. Because of this...}? The current text suggests that there's such thing as a quote that's so important or noteworthy that its notability makes it immune from PoV or DUEWEIGHT issues, and I'm not sure that's totally true (especially on the first part). UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As quote boxes always present quotations with less context, and because some readers might not understand "enjoy" at first glance, perhaps noteworthy or important quotations. Quote boxes can create point-of-view or undue-weight issues, because the quotations are not integrated into the text of the article proper and put in context. They must therefore be used with particular care. or some such? NebY (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This wording from Neby is very easy to understand. It also removes the peculiar word "enjoy". And it also removes the "high bar" wording which I don't think is consistent with the above discussion (vs the phrase "use with care", which is more consistent with the above discussion). Noleander (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion notice: alt= text

    [edit]

    Weroyal would be honored (and surprised) by your participation at: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images#Basics: What makes a good alt= text? ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 17:30, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Db-notice § Remove wikilink from heading. FaviFake (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Does MOS:HEAD apply to talk page messages?

    FYI to watchers here, the specific issue is MOS:HEADINGLINKS and whether it applies to the widespread use of links in headings of semi-automated talk page messages. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, thanks for the clarification. FaviFake (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting input regarding MOS:CIRC

    [edit]

    There's a discussion that could use more input at Talk:Hunter S. Thompson#Links, not sure if this is the correct place to put this, but I lack the time review the procedures for this circumstance, and the editor responsible for adding the links refuses to discuss on the talk page so it would seem the only way to get wider community input without an RFC is a short informal note requesting additional input from others. 204.111.137.106 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "Dollars worth" or "dollars' worth" (and similar)

    [edit]

    UK and US English grammar resources strongly suggest the need for a trailing apostrophe when using "worth" in genitive/plural possessive phrases such as "ten dollars' worth" or "two weeks' worth." Whether a "rule," "norm," or "suggestion" seems to vary quite a bit from editor to editor.

    See Apostrophe and The University of Oxford Style Guide (p.9, lower, right-hand corner) for additional detail.

    After recent and lengthy searches, I could find no clear guidance on WP's preferential consensus in WP:MOS. Articles have frequently ignored the grammatical norms outlined above, but efforts to apply them have lead to edit reversions and lengthy talk sessions that are prone to personal preferences for lack of clearer direction in WP:MOS. As a suggestion or request, could clear, definitive guidance be added to WP:MOS indicating the consensus preference in either direction or even a statement to the effect of "either way is fine;" or is the WP:MOS silence on the topic to be interpreted as the latter? ShoneBrooks (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you asking that something be added to the MOS, or just trying to clarify what you, right now, should use in some specific article(s)?
    I am loath to add a rule in the MOS for every rule that exists in English, and this seems to be a case where "we use proper English" (of some form) ought to be good enough. The examples at Apostrophe should suffice for settling any reversion arguments. To wit: one hour's respite, two weeks' holiday, a dollar's worth, five pounds' worth, one mile's drive from here.
    I guess if we decided we absolutely needed explicit guidance, it could go in at MOS:GRAMMAR somehow, but, again, ick. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:MOSBLOAT. Has editor time been wasted arguing about this, or are errors along these lines so prevalent that Wikipedia is brought into disrepute, our editors are humiliated, and the gods become angry? EEng 21:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I was asking -IF- guidance should be added to MOS, as I really don't know. I can't speak to the prevalence or amount of time wasted arguing about it from an over-arching POV because we often edit in isolated silos. I was, in part, hoping to learn if this was a wider point of contention with a decidedly 'right' practice to be followed (which might benefit from MOS inclusion), or more of a non-issue for most. I can say I have encountered differences of perspective leading to edit reversions and discussions after the initial investment of good faith edits toward what other resources indicate is a more encyclopedic voice (assuming better grammar=more encyclopedic voice, which may not be accurate). If WP doesn't see that as the case, and it's more of a personal preference situation, then I'm not feeling overly inclined to invest more in similar edits or 'argue' on their behalf. Leaving affected articles "as-is" requires much less effort and saves ruffling feathers and discussing opposing POVs concerning those edits. Based on the points presented here so far (especially WP:MOSBLOAT), I'm hearing that may be the (at least de facto) consensus here, which is fine. Thanks for the input. ShoneBrooks (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Consensus for the current recommendation to always subst the anchor template within a section header

    [edit]

    Over at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Consensus for the current recommendation to always subst the anchor template within a section header I'm asking for the discussion for the current recommendations to always subst the template within anchors. Unless this is a more appropriate talk page, best to engage over there. CapnZapp (talk) 21:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Fewer commas

    [edit]

    @RGloucester, you've restored the claim in MOS:COMMA that "Modern writing uses fewer commas" to MOS:COMMA. This is supposedly a comparison of usage "within the last forty years or so" against an unstated time period. The number of commas used in English the 15th century was zero. Ergo, by using them at all, modern writing uses more commas than that prior, non-modern time period.

    This paper says that commas are used with the same frequency regardless of type of writing (e.g., fiction vs academic writing) but varies significantly by country/ENGVAR (e.g., more in the US, less in Australia). Graph A in Figure 5, based only on the Corpus of Historical American English, indicates that AmEng writers are using the comma more since its nadir around 1940 (though it's still down from its peak around 1840, when the comma was used more often for rhetorical flourishes and for comma splices).

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.144 reviewed psychology textbooks for the last 110 years, and found no statistically significant differences in comma usage. (Question marks have increased since the 1970s, though.)

    So I ask: Why do we believe this statement about the frequency of comma use is true? And even if it is true, why do we believe that it's important to provide a statement about some unspecified historical level of use in the Manual of Style ("Modern writing uses fewer commas[compared to?]"), instead of just getting straight on to the advice ("there are usually ways to simplify a sentence")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the spirit of your edit; however, this is a controversial change and should be discussed. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If you agree with it, then you shouldn't have reverted it. WP:BRD only works if people who agree with the edit let the reverting be done by someone who actually disagrees with it. See Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#Use cases:
    "In general, BRD fails if...
    • ...the individual who reverts the bold change actually supports it, but is reverting as a proxy for some other, unidentified person."
    WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the spirit of the edit, but not its implementation. There are many style guides that mention a difference between traditional and modern tendencies. My expectation is that this piece of text originates from one of those style guides; perhaps Oxford, which I know Mr McCandlish previously mentioned as being instrumental in the development of the MoS. Please allow me to quote Oxford (1st ed): The modern tendency is towards the use of rather fewer commas. I agree that it doesn't make much sense to regulate comma use on the basis of an unquantifiable distinction between reified 'traditional' and 'modern' styles. In as much as the concept itself is rooted in reliable style guides, however, I think it is better to have a discussion before making any change. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 06:14, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that sources contradict each other on whether this statement is true. Additionally, we have no sources saying that this trend is 1975 vs 2025 (as opposed to, say, 1825 vs 2025, which is less relevant, because few editors might feel a need to modernize the natural 19th-century writing style they learned as children).
    What is the argument for including this at all? The sentence says "Modern writing uses fewer commas; there are usually ways to simplify a sentence". Does anyone believe that the option of simplifying a sentence depends upon modern writing allegedly using fewer commas than at some unstated point between the invention of the comma and 40 years ago (1985)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the crux of this issue is the rhetorical use of commas, something touched on by the Sun and Wang paper you cited. In my personal writings, I am a liberal user of rhetorical commas, and place great importance on prosody. Perhaps this is because, whenever I read a given text, I voice it in my head, or perhaps it is because I was trained in romantic poetry. Modern writers tend to give little importance to prosody, instead focusing on the syntax of the text as it is written. As it says in Sun and Wang: It also seems that English native speakers have been influenced unconsciously by the syntactic orientation of punctuation and started to use fewer commas owing to their redundant rhetorical function. In short, as Schou puts it, ‘this development can be therefore characterized as moving from the modern rhetorical-grammatical punctuation of 1800 to the modernistic stylistic-grammatical punctuation’.
    In the kind of 'modern writing' that one is meant to find in an encyclopaedia, syntax is the primary concern. Hence the MoS guidance that you removed, which specifies a preference for syntactical clarity over all else. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What I removed isn't "guidance". It is a factual assertion that is not even wrong, because modern English (defined in the footnote as that of the last 40 years) uses both more, fewer, and the same number of commas – depending on the reference time period (e.g., 1800 vs 1940?) and the subject matter (e.g., textbooks vs poetry).
    The actual guidance is to simplify awkward sentences. That remained in my edit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Rather than rowing about nothing, I've decided to restore your edit with minor adjustments. Perhaps someone uninvolved may care to express an opinion. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 05:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it's fine. However commas are complicated. Some people would write this as Sentences may, often, be simplified so that fewer commas are needed. Removing the commas (without incidentally otherwise simplifying the sentence) changes the emphasis slightly. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 12:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

    Mr Farmbrough, that is precisely the point that I was attempting to discuss above. Sentences may, often, be simplified so that fewer commas are needed is an example of rhetorical comma use. The commas are not needed syntactically, but serve a rhetorical, or prosodic purpose. My understanding is that such commas are deemed unnecessary in most modern style guides. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 21:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we even need that sentence in the first place? I'm ok with deleting it altogether. This sounds like WP:CREEP:

    Sentences may often be simplified so that fewer commas are needed.

    Clear

    Schubert's heroes included Mozart, Beethoven, and Joseph and Michael Haydn.

    Awkward

    Mozart was, along with the Haydns, both Joseph and Michael, and also Beethoven, one of Schubert's heroes.


    Nobody on their right mind needs to be told the second first sentence is clearer. Or that you can restructure sentences to have less commas.... FaviFake (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FaviFake You mean the second sentence is (wildly) less clear. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, fixed it. FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that we don't need that. It is a bit WP:CREEPY, and it's really about re-writing for clarity instead of being directly about the commas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree too. I doubt it'll be missed if we delete it. Gawaon (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with removal of this guidance. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i've boldly removed it. FaviFake (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding macrons

    [edit]
    Macron (singular)
    Macrons (plural)
    Macroni (mass noun)

    I believe that adding macrons help get the reader to understand the correct pronunciation. This source for example, mentions Farīdābād with the macrons but my edits at Faridabad and other articles where I added macrons have been reverted. Please see my request at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Firefangledfeathers#Reverts - Baangla (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    My edits to the Male Mahadeshwara Hills, Murshidabad, Faizabad, Gurgaon, Koraput district, Koraput, Mekedatu, Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, Male Mahadeshwara Wildlife Sanctuary and Kamsale articles have also been reverted simply because I added macrons to some terms.-Baangla (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    On which basis did you add those macrons? Do you have good evidence that these places are more frequently written with macrons than without? Gawaon (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a caution re "more frequent": there is a culture war in New Zealand over the Māori names of places. Most English language sources do what they do everywhere and discard all diacritics. The dispute is over attempts to reassert the 'correct' spelling – i.e., with Macrons. So minefield alert! 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This reliable source (for example), mentions Farīdābād with the macrons but my edits at Faridabad and other articles where I added macrons have been reverted because other sources do not use diacritics. However, in the scripts of the local languages, everything is written with the correct pronunciation (in this case फ़रीदाबाद). I agree with JMF that this is a minefield but I am wondering if the reverts are justified, simply because I added terms/place names with macrons.-Baangla (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You added macrons to every mention of Faridabad in that article, which is not justifiable as help[ing] get the reader to understand the correct pronunciation. You did so in 54 edits, your WP:ECP right has been revoked for WP:GAMING, and you are on the point of being topic-banned from any edits related to the region of South Asia (which would include this thread) so saying "reverted simply because I added macrons to some terms" doesn't quite give editors here the full picture. NebY (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not topic banned yet (see this) but I want to know if those reverts were justified (I had added terms/place names with macrons which were reverted).-Baangla (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Vowel length is non-phonemic in English, so, even if the fundamental principal here is that we write names the way they're normally written in English reliable sources, writing "Kolkātā" isn't going to change the way most English speakers pronounce the name of Kolkata in English. Consider that even with the macrons, there's no indication of which syllable to stress. Nor need there be: the spelling is what it is, it isn't a pronunciation guide, especially in a language with largely non-phonetic/non-phonemic spelling like English. Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad you brought up that place's name. The locals (Bengalis) are able to write and pronounce that just fine but others, especially foreigners cannot.-Baangla (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, adding macrons to Kolkata will make the pronunciation wrong.-Baangla (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see I chose a bad example. I was misinterpreting the spelling of the name in Bengali. Let's do Agra. At least going by Agra, it's pronounced [ˈaːɡɾɐː] and spelled आगरा in Hindi, but in English it's "Agra", not "Āgrā". I'm looking at the result of a Google images search on agra signs and not a single sign has a macron on it. So we're going to help the reader by writing it as it's spelled in English, not as a representation of how it's pronounced in Hindi. Largoplazo (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks.-Baangla (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    IPA

    [edit]

    Where can I find English alphabets with diacritics and their corresponding International Phonetic Alphabet?-Baangla (talk) 14:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    English terms with diacritical marks doesn't mention it (of course, I did not check the citations used in that article).-Baangla (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean by "English alphabets"? English uses only one alphabet. Largoplazo (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean ã, ā, à, á, â, ä etc.-Baangla (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    English doesn't use those, or only very rarely in exceptional cases. For how other languages such as French, German etc. use them, you'll have to look at the orthography and phonology descriptions of each specific language. There is no international standard. Gawaon (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those aren't English alphabets, they're non-English letters from non-English alphabets. Largoplazo (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    About a hundred years ago, they were used in English also - it is only now that we skip using them. I remember seeing some old Oxford dictionaries in the British Library with alphabets using diacritics like that but I want to find something online if possible.-Baangla (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The wikipedia article about Diacritic doesn't give the pronunciation. Very sad.-Baangla (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No they weren't (with rare exceptions, like née, café, coõperate). Where are you getting that from? And you still seem to think that each letter is called an "alphabet", which is making it harder to figure out what you're looking for. Largoplazo (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You perhaps meant 'coöperate' with a diaresis, not a tilde?
    —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I mean words like that with such diacritics. I want a link to something that explains the pronunciation.-Baangla (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is interesting.-Baangla (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is about the diaresis.-Baangla (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is also about the diaresis.-Baangla (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I certainly did! Largoplazo (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes to what Largoplazo?-Baangla (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To the person whose comment mine is immediately indented under, Trappist. Largoplazo (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Baangla, looking at your comments in various sections above, there is an underlying theme, and it is this: this is English Wikipedia, and we write words (including place names, even people's names) the way they are spelled in English language sources. Wikipedia is not involved with "correctness", or how people pronounce or write things in their own language; we follow English usage only. The name of the largest city in southern Germany is "Munich" with a hard-K sound at the end, because that is the way English sources write it and how English speakers pronounce it, even though it is München in German and the "correct" pronunciation is /ˈmʏnçən/. And the country it belongs to is Deutschland of course—er, I mean, it is Germany, of course. Even people's names are not immune: Carl Friedrich Gauss spelled his name Gauß, and that's the way it is spelled in every book in Germany, but not in English. We write Copernicus, but they write Kopernikus; we write John Calvin but they write Jean Calvin; we write Christopher Columbus, but they write Cristóbal Colón.

    Need I go on? I think you see the point, and you should understand going forward, that here at English Wikipedia, you must adhere to English usage, namely, how English sources write the name of a city, person, or other name originating from another language, and ignoring the "correct" spelling in the other language. In the case of Indian English, it almost never uses macrons or other diacritics; e.g., Chennai, Kolkata, Bengaluru, Varanasi, Gandhi, Nehru, and Satyajit Ray, are correct, and never Chennāi, Vārāṇasī, Satyajīt Rāy, and so on. As far as macrons, outside of an IPA pronunciation guide in the first sentence, or articles talking about how things are written in other languages, please abandon all use of macrons and other diacritics in English Wikipedia, unless that is what the English sources do. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I might not put this quite so categorically. I would note that, though there are lots of English-language sources that use the spelling "Lanai", our article is, I think correctly, at Lānaʻi. Of course you can also find English-language sources that spell it that way, but I doubt that was the only criterion considered. --Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Lānaʻi spelling appears to be part of a deliberate effort to make the Hawaiian language more prominent. Our articles on topics with names in the Japanese and Arabic languages also often use macrons. Nevertheless, Mathglot's advice to avoid these for topics with English-language names is in general good. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That could be the case. While this ngrams chart shows a steady gain in the ratio (green line) of the accented over unaccented versions, Lanai (red) is still far more popular in books than Lānaʻi (blue). That does seem to support the view that other criteria were deemed more important than a 7x majority of Lanai in English sources. (The link is case-sensitive; thus confusion of Lanai with the patio sense should be minimal.) If the "other criteria" were "a deliberate effort to make the Hawaiian language more prominent", overriding five policy-based WP:CRITERIA, then that would seem to me to be unwarranted ethnonationalistic WP:RGW; or is there some legitimate reason for it? Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I meant deliberate on the part of Hawaiians, in how they name their places, rather than on the part of Wikipedians. Our coverage reflects those efforts rather than being part of those efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see; no doubt about that. But how much, if at all, should Wikipedians be influenced by that kind of deliberate effort by a vocal offline minority? It's hard to argue that official government policy or local language considerations should override what a clear supermajority of English sources do about a Hawaiian place name, but not an Indian one. I suppose consensus, in the form of a well-attended Rfc with a clear outcome, would override article title policy, but it has to be based on something more than WP:I just like it. Otherwise, we have a situation where Lānaʻi, an official government spelling based on a local minority (American) language beats WP:COMMONNAME, but Vārāṇasī, an official spelling based on a local minority (Indian) language (which might actually not be a minority) loses to WP:COMMONNAME (as used mainly by non-Indians), maybe only because most editors are American? One could also argue here that not only is Lānaʻi an WP:AT violation, it is also an WP:NPOV violation, with respect to the clear difference in the outcome of title disputes on accented American places vs accented Indian places. Even if consensus (legit, or of the IJLI variety) overrides AT policy, consensus notably does not override NPOV. This looks like systemic bias to me. This is no way to run a wiki; something has to give. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's comparable to the way the Turkey article still hasn't been moved to Türkiye. The existence of a campaign among some Turks (spearheaded by the president) to get English-speakers to call it the country "Türkiye" doesn't overcome WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NAMECHANGE and it won't until the campaign is successful as measured the new name having achieved predominance. Largoplazo (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking of, "archaic" English. This is more detailed about it.-Baangla (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I unfortunately made my comment before I saw that you are currently involved in this thread at AN/I. As it appears that a TBAN on South Asian topics is imminent, it will probably be best if you do not respond to this thread anymore, or at the very least, avoid saying anything having to do with Indian English or anything related to it, even remotely. I did not mean to draw you in towards that topic, as I was unaware of the AN/I thread at the time. I would avoid further commenting on this page if I were you, unless you are very confident you can do so while strictly observing any editing restrictions, but as you are a new editor, that is risky. Probably your best response here, is no response. Best regards, Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks. I will follow your advise.-Baangla (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of “archaic” English… in most cases you are talking about non-English words that were in the process of being adopted into English. Example: Nee/Née… this is a French word that English speakers adopted. So, originally they wrote it in FRENCH - the French way (using the accent) - but over time it was anglicized, and the accent was dropped. Today we tend to write Nee. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks.-Baangla (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    DOB but without year?

    [edit]

    Like at Emily Neves, lead and infobox. Is there anything written anywhere on that? IMO it just looks weird and I'd prefer to exclude it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not all that uncommon for figures in distant history to know the date but not the year: it might be recorded that someone was born (for example) on a certain saint's day, but the year might not be known, or might not be given in a calendar that we can use. BLPs are a bit of a special case, because there we err on the side of not giving a specific date of birth unless it's widely reported in good sources, but in general we should report the information about someone that is known and found in good sources: it would be a mistake to leave something out because we wish we had more information about it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:08, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I was thinking more about BLP:s rather than Jesus and Muhammad. I have no problem with a good WP:ABOUTSELF source for BLP-YOB/DOB ("or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object "), but just a date without year looks non-Wikipedian to me. In the Neves case, I don't think the source is that good, but I commented on that at the talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, I think the question of sourcing is a seperate problem and probably the one that needs to be solved here: under BLP rules, that's what should dictate whether we include it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:34, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel as though reporting that someone was born in 1960, if the full date isn't available, is comparable to reporting that they were born in South Asia if the specific country isn't available. Both still give a useful general idea. Reporting that they were born June 29 is like reporting that they were born in a country whose name begins with "S". It may be true but it doesn't really serve the purpose (except for readers who want to send a birthday card, but that isn't really our purpose). Largoplazo (talk) 08:50, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's how it seems to me too. IMO, people sometimes try to hard to get a DOB in there, combining social media posts and whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Imprecise dates are often appropriate (Themistocles: c. 524 BC) just like other imprecise measurements (about 5 feet tall) but day+month isn't a point in or measurement of time at all, and as bad as "some feet and 2 inches tall". NebY (talk) 10:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, sometimes there's uncertainty about the year because of contradictory information, so a statement like "21 October 2002 or 2003" may be appropriate, but without any information on the year, the rest seems rather useless. Consider the case that the month is missing too, so "born on the 21st" – would that really help anybody? Gawaon (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (I have now removed the birthdate from the article.) Gawaon (talk) 10:57, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon: I personally don't think it would help any reader or editor if either the month or year is missing. Also, thanks for removing the birth date from the Emily Neves article. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:06, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    After giving it some thought, I suppose a potential cleanup project of removing day+month (for example, 5 July) from the infobox and lead from certain BLP articles if the month or year is missing might be worth it. Any comments or objections to this proposal? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know much about WP:CLEANUP, so I don't really have an opinion. Is there an easy way to find these/some of these articles? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:58, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I could try. I've already asked at WT:BIO for their thoughts on this. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you mean WT:BIOG? Big difference :P Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:26, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's exactly what I meant. I inadvertently left out the "G" to the link in my above comment. It happens. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like you are saying you don't want to include partial information even if it is reliably sourced because it looks weird. Why would we want to leave the reader with less knowledge? I'd object to that change. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:28, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Our infoboxes are - per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE - for key facts ... The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. When to send birthday cards isn't a key fact. NebY (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've known a number of people in their 90's born in China. Typically, nobody recorded their exact year of birth but they know it was X days after a particular holiday. And there was no requirement to go to school, so there was no reason to know or record when they were 5, 10, 15, etc years old. So when they get somewhere in their 90's they choose a year and announce to everybody that this year they are 100 years old.  Stepho  talk  13:57, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think in practice this is going to end up pretty situational, and I wouldn't advise a wholesale "cleanup" project. What works for a BLP of a fairly low-key celebrity (probably to omit the birthday if the year isn't known) might not be appropriate in other circumstances, such as an obscure figure from ancient history where we take what we can get. NebY's point about infoboxes is well taken, but I think the discussion above was mostly about removing the date from the article, and in most cases SchreiberBike is right (under WP:DUEWEIGHT): if something is known and widely reported in reliable sources, in general we should include it, even if we wish we also had more information to go with it. UndercoverClassicist T·C 14:11, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Come to think of it, we might or might not use different references from social media accounts (which don't have a check mark) and other different sources to combine them for a BLP's full date of birth if it's not published.
    However, if any reliable source such as newspapers in print and/or digital format (even if it was archived on newspapers.com or a subscription-based news website) like the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the Houston Chronicle, the San Francisco Chronicle, or in any reliably-sourced websites/interviews/podcasts, estimates a subject's age being known at the time (as is the case here (Emily Neves), here (Cindy Robinson), and here (Tia Ballard)), we'll use the {{birth based on age as of date}} to identify the potential YOBs based on said template's instructions. The relevant information reads For a person whose date of birth is unknown, this template estimates the person's birth year and current age based on a given age at a certain date. This is useful when a reliable source states only their age at the time of publication. and This template is appropriate in cases where sources from only one point in time are available.. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem IMO is that THIS partial information is irrelevant and useless. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a birthday greetings service. A birthday that doesn't tell the subject's age (not even approximately) is not legitimate partial information; it's similar to telling what they had for breakfast on a random day in 2002. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Information should only be added if it's relevant, not if it's not. Born on the 21st (without month and year), on a Sunday (without date), on the 3rd floor (without further info on building or place) – those are irrelevant trivia, not worthy of being mentioned in an encyclopedia. Gawaon (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, being born on only a sourced birthday without a year of birth and/or doesn't even tell the subject's age, is irrelevant trivia and can be removed without any problems. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a month and day of birth is relevant and useful if the person is important enough to have a holiday or feast day celebrated in their honor. I can't think of anyone who's year of birth is uncertain who has a celebration on their birth day, but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen somewhere. Also, saints have feast days. Usually the feast day is the month and day the person died, but by giving the month and day of birth, we inform readers that the feast day is not the birth day. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that purely theoretical reasoning or do you know of an actual case (person) where these conditions are indeed fulfilled, while the year of birth is not even approximately known? Gawaon (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Solomon Grundy. :) Otherwise, I think there may be minor medieval figures whose death day and month, but not year, is known from monastic or church calendars of annual masses - but I'm no medievalist, I can't give an example, and if we didn't have even an approximate year, I suspect we wouldn't have enough other data for them to pass WP:N. NebY (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Commonality

    [edit]

    Honda City was started a long time ago (by an editor in India, as it were) and has been edited by people from around the world. This car is not particularly linked to any variety of English and the language of the article is generally neutral/international. Someone added a British English hatnote in 2024, not very appropriate, but not a real problem as they did not follow up with enforcing it. Another editor is currently trying to label the article as Australian (because of coincidental word usage) and went so far as to issue an ultimatum in the question. My question, per MOS:COMMONALITY is: is there a template such as {{use neutral English}} or {{use international English}} available? Leaving it without a template seems to invite pointless arguing.  Mr.choppers | ✎  19:57, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not quite what you're asking for, but MOS:ENGVAR has very clear guidance on this situation:

    When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. There is only very exceptionally (such as when a topic has strong national ties, or the change reduces ambiguity) a valid reason for changing from one acceptable option to another. When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.

    In other words, if you (collectively) can't tell what the article's established variety, go back until the first edit that maeks it longer than a stub, tag it with the variety used there, and make it consistent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. That's what MOS:RETAIN says. The article has never used British English, before or after the hatnote was added. The article seems to use a mix of Australian and American English, with Australian English having more MOS:TIES to the article because the car was sold in Australia but not the US, but with US English arguably having been used first. I don't care one way or another which one it uses. I will admit to having misinterpreted the earliest non-stub version as using Australian English when arguably there was a stronger precedent for US English, but once again I do not care either way so long as it is consistent. Changing the article to exclusively use US English or Australian English requires a few small changes to spelling and vocabulary. Changing the article to use British English would require substantial changes throughout the article which would contradict the entire decade-plus history of the page. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if there was no clear standard before the additional of the the first Use... tag, I'd say that the first Use... tag, hence "Use British English", prevails per MOS:RETAIN. If that was the first spelling variant actually standardized for the article, it's the one to keep. Unless consensus on the talk can be reached to restandardize on something else, of course. If you want something fairly "international", "Use Oxford spelling" is probably the best you'll get. Gawaon (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon:: The article uses the word "sedan" 66 times throughout its current version, and has consistently used said word since its inception. It definitively does not use British English. If it used British English it would use the term "saloon car" instead. I do not understand what is complicated about this. It feels like people are just deliberately gaslighting me at this point. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what dictionaries may say but I suspect that "sedan" in an automobile context is understood pretty much anywhere in the English-speaking world, while using "saloon (car)" would definitively leave some people confused. So in the interesting of COMMONALITY, "sedan" is the better term regardless of the variant of English otherwise used for the article. Gawaon (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon:: An article which otherwise uses British English but which incessant uses the word "sedan" to describe a car is not in British English but is effectively in Australian English, in which case the article should be tagged to use Australian English to avoid causing confusion. I don't care either way whether the article uses "sedan" or "saloon car", but I do care about avoiding causing confusion. It comes across to me as if people are just writing off the idea of changing the tag to specify using Australian English out of an obstinate desire to have a deceitful note that willfully misleads editors about which vocabulary term they should be using and readers about British English vocabulary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you want to restandardize on Australian English, I won't stand in the way. But you'll still need to get the agreement of the other user on the talk page. And if you can't get that, my advice would be to let it be. There is really no point in having long disputes about the variant of English used, and MOS:RETAIN was specifically developed to avoid them. Gawaon (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This probably will be considered heresy here on a talk page that attracts those who care a lot about style consistency… but… I would say that inconsistency is the norm here on WP. Perhaps it should be explicitly made an option when editors can’t agree on one variation over others. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very sad that, in my absence from this project for some years, the very handy EngvarB was abolished. Now people wage petty squabbles over nationalistic linguistic markings that provide no benefit to the encyclopaedia, creating artificial differences between standards where none really exists... Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My feelings exactly, which is why I was hoping that there might be a neutral/inconsistent/international/supranational/global option out there. Otherwise, someone will add a tag, and once there is a tag, then someone else will go in and "fix" the article. Of course I also recognize that there was a {{use neutral English}} tag, then we would have eternal arguments about whether "pavement" or "sidewalk" is the correct, neutral term.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there can be such a thing as 'neutral English', but some level of standardisation is possible. At least in regard to the Commonwealth varieties, there is a high-level of consistency in terms of spelling, if not in diction. This is where 'EngvarB' came into play.
    As is mentioned above, one is meant to determine which variety to use based on the content of the article at its first significant expansion beyond stub status. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, an article at such a stage may use -ise and -our spellings without having any other distinguishing features. Sure, one could tag the article as being written in 'British English', but it might just as well be written in Australian or Bajan or Indian. This is where EngvarB was useful, allowing for consistency in terms of spelling without forcing any artificial word-choice restraints on the article. Alas, the community decided that it was better to propagate strange WP:OR about different standard Englishes, using such 'productive' templates as Template:Use Ghanaian English and Template:Use Belizean English to mark various articles... Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. From now on, I will add "use Belizean English" to any and all new articles I create, in the spirit of Carthago delenda est.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we also note which templates for the standard English ones (i.e. American, British, Australian) are being used in the talk pages so that anyone doesn't get confused about which specific types are being used in the article? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean? Each {{Use ... English/spelling}} template has an accompanying template (without "Use") that can be added to the talk page. Gawaon (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean?: For example, if there's an article about an Australian topic that has the hidden {{Use Australian English}} template on the page (i.e. Sydney, Mad Max, etc.), we can always add the {{Australian English}} on the article's talk page. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, we can and we should! Gawaon (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1319204691"