This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcut WT:MOSWT:MOS

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

faq page Frequently asked questions Wikipedia's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed. Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “, ”, ‘, and ’)‍? Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings. Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation? This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus. Why does the Manual of Style differentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)? Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters. Why does the Manual of Style recommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending in s? Most modern style guides treat names ending with s just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of 2004, 2005, 2005, 2006, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009, 2009, 2009, 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2017, 2017 (the RfC establishing the present consensus), 2018, 2018, 2019, 2021, 2022). Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice? Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.

Section sizes Section size for Wikipedia:Manual of Style (158 sections) Section name Byte count Section total (Top) 2,661 2,661 Retaining existing styles 2,787 2,787 Article titles, sections, and headings 137 12,116 Article titles 3,441 3,441 Section organization 4,794 4,794 Section headings 3,744 3,744 [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#{{subst:Anchor|Consequences}} Implications|{{subst:Anchor|Consequences}} Implications]] 211 211 Heading-like material 873 873 National varieties of English 960 7,091 Consistency within articles 1,387 1,387 Opportunities for commonality 1,934 1,934 Strong national ties to a topic 1,333 1,333 Retaining the existing variety 1,477 1,477 Capital letters 648 18,696 Capitalization of The 935 935 Titles of works 1,232 1,232 Titles of people 780 780 Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines 4,974 4,974 Calendar items 545 545 Animals, plants, and other organisms 5,793 5,793 Celestial bodies 1,249 1,249 Compass points 1,203 1,203 Proper names versus generic terms 1,337 1,337 Ligatures 528 528 Abbreviations 778 8,161 Write first occurrences in full 643 643 Plural forms 245 245 Punctuation and spacing 1,175 1,175 US and U.S. 1,943 1,943 Circa 279 279 Avoid unwarranted use 662 662 Do not invent 874 874 HTML tags and templates 383 383 Ampersand 1,179 1,179 Italics 105 6,351 Emphasis 1,133 1,133 Titles 572 572 Words as words 1,320 1,320 Non-English words 751 751 Scientific names 499 499 Quotations in italics 566 566 Italics within quotations 767 767 Effect on nearby punctuation 638 638 Quotations 1,330 18,120 Original wording 3,660 3,660 Point of view 1,234 1,234 Typographic conformity 6,095 6,095 Attribution 438 438 Quotations within quotations 94 94 Linking 483 483 Block quotations 3,248 3,248 Non-English quotations 1,538 1,538 Punctuation 203 76,586 Apostrophes 2,257 2,257 Quotation marks 379 13,493 Quotation characters 1,076 1,076 Double or single 1,246 1,246 For a quotation within a quotation 859 859 Article openings 729 729 Punctuation before quotations 2,023 2,023 Names and titles 1,331 1,331 Punctuation inside or outside 3,588 3,588 Quotation marks and external links 940 940 Quotation marks and internal links 1,322 1,322 Brackets and parentheses 3,357 4,562 Brackets and linking 1,205 1,205 Ellipses 3,339 3,339 Commas 5,255 8,359 Serial commas 3,104 3,104 Colons 1,733 1,733 Semicolons 3,316 5,706 Semicolon before "however" 2,390 2,390 Hyphens 9,141 9,141 Dashes 790 16,272 In article titles 760 760 In running text 2,182 12,608 In ranges that might otherwise be expressed with to or through 3,044 3,044 In compounds when the connection might otherwise be expressed with to, versus, and, or between 5,226 5,226 When applying a prefix or suffix to a compound that itself includes a space, hyphen, or dash 1,503 1,503 To separate parts of an item in a list 653 653 Other uses for en dashes 543 543 Other uses for em dashes 966 966 Other dashes 605 605 Slashes (strokes) 3,331 3,938 And/or 607 607 Symbols 595 595 Number (pound, hash) sign and numero 2,287 2,287 Terminal punctuation 672 672 Spacing 515 515 Consecutive punctuation marks 1,151 1,151 Punctuation and footnotes 2,145 2,145 Punctuation after formulae 218 218 Dates and time 361 5,083 Time of day 794 794 Dates 1,033 1,033 Months 323 323 Seasons 774 774 Years and longer periods 1,080 1,080 Current 718 718 Numbers 1,884 1,884 Currencies 1,637 1,637 Units of measurement 2,737 2,737 Common mathematical symbols 2,606 2,606 Grammar and usage 46 12,590 Possessives 158 1,918 Singular nouns 975 975 Plural nouns 523 523 Official names 262 262 Pronouns 104 5,843 First-person pronouns 1,477 1,477 Second-person pronouns 2,275 2,275 Third-person pronouns 1,987 1,987 Plurals 1,795 1,795 Verb tense 2,988 2,988 Vocabulary 98 22,402 Contractions 476 476 Gender-neutral language 1,333 1,333 Contested vocabulary 256 256 Instructional and presumptuous language 2,466 2,466 Subset terms 618 618 Identity 2,003 3,736 Gender identity 1,733 1,733 Non-English terms 289 7,973 Terms without common usage in English 1,557 1,557 Terms with common usage in English 400 400 Spelling and romanization 4,876 4,876 Other non-English concerns 851 851 Technical language 1,961 1,961 Geographical items 3,485 3,485 Media files 69 2,725 Images 313 313 Other media 181 181 Avoid using images to display text 818 818 Captions 526 1,344 Formatting of captions 818 818 Bulleted and numbered lists 1,535 1,535 Links 10 1,750 Wikilinks 1,411 1,411 External links 329 329 Miscellaneous 18 13,496 Keep markup simple 1,168 1,168 Formatting issues 1,016 3,144 Color coding 1,243 1,243 Indentation 885 885 Controlling line breaks 2,471 2,471 Scrolling lists and collapsible content 3,164 3,164 Invisible comments 1,558 2,861 How to add an invisible comment 1,303 1,303 Pronunciation 670 670 See also 1,199 4,646 Guidance 1,242 1,242 Tools 300 300 Other community standards 523 523 Guidelines within the Manual of Style 135 1,382 Names 1,247 1,247 Notes 24 24 References 28 28 Further reading 1,206 1,206 Total 228,530 228,530

This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Manual of Style This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing. For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations. Wikipedia Help Top‑importance This page is within the scope of the Wikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see the Help Menu or Help Directory. Or ask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp Top This page has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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.

(newest on top)

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Flags and coats of arms - Usage of flags and coats of arms in infoboxes relating to entities with them
• Talk:Fun_(band)#RfC_on_article_tense - RfC on whether to refer to an inactive, but not apparently disbanded band in the present or past tense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrSeabody (talk • contribs) 08:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Talk:Achilles' heel#Requested move 12 July 2025 – concerns MOS:'s and "common name"
• Talk:Cancún#Requested move 26 June 2025 - whether to keep the accent
• Talk:Carleton_S._Coon#Birth_and_death_places - a discussion pertaining to MOS:IBP (April 2025)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide – A perennial unresolved usage debate has returned, with a variety of proposals (March 2025)

  Summary of prior related major discussions: MOS:SUICIDE, MOS 2014, WTW 2016, MOSBIO 2017, MOS 2017, VPPOL 2018, VPPOL 2017, WTW 2018, CAT 2019, VPPOL 2021, VPPOL 2023

• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#RfC: Removal of links to "animated" on animated film articles – Has fairly broad MOS:LINK implications, beyond animated films (March 2025)
• Talk:Vasa (ship)#Informational footnotes (again) – a discussion pertaining to MOS:RETAIN and MOS:LAYOUT (Jan.–Feb. 2025, following on a not quite conclusive Feb. 2024 RfC)
• Talk:Archimedes#MOS:'S – on whether this subject should be exempt from MOS:POSS (Dec. 2024 – March 2025)
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Proposal to import a line-item from WP:JUDAISMSTYLE into MOS:BIO – to use policy-based material on "Christ" found in an essay but more useful in a guideline (Nov. 2024)

I propose to rethink this rule. It was established by one user, having extreme opinion on this issue, 20 years ago, as stated in this discussion (latest discussion about this rule that I found in archive of this talk page). It was justified by problems with display of this Unicode character in very old browsers and fonts, all of these problems should be irrelevant now. The problem that brought me here is this:

1. AWB replaces Unicode character to three dots as a part of "minor fixes" pack, containing hundreds of fixes, and this pack could only be turned completely on or completely off, there is no way to turn off only this replacement.
2. In Russian Wikipedia, my main wiki, local MoS prescribes usage of Unicode character instead of three dots. AWB with "minor fixes" enabled brokes our MoS.
3. If I file a ticket to AWB developers, they probably will use enwiki's MoS as a reason not to change AWB minor fixes. Only when enwiki's rule will changed, I can request AWB developers to remove and even inverse this harmful replacement.

MBH (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not change the ruwiki MoS? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the rules for this differ across various Wikipedias, getting the AWB developers to add a toggle button for this feature seems like the best solution (or maybe it could be autodetected based on the wiki one is in?). Gawaon (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of differences between English and Russian; it seems weird to use the same AWB configuration to try to tidy up both? -- Beland (talk) 05:43, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've not used AWB in other languages, but it makes sense that different rules would apply in different languages. At least we need to check with the AWB developers before changing the MoS on this topic. Last time I looked, the precomposed character and the three dots looked significantly different depending on fonts chosen. SchreiberBike | ⌨  11:07, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed it here last year. The discussion didn't require a formal close; there was some support for but some marked opposition to switching to or even allowing the Unicde character, and consensus for change was not in prospect. NebY (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a formal close would have been better; as I see it, while the discussion went against deprecating the three dots in favour of the precomposed character, there was no clear consensus against allowing the latter as an alternative. In any case, the discussion should not be used as argument in favour of an outcome it did not have. Gawaon (talk) 06:53, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why we wouldn't use the Unicode character. Graham11 (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Like many other special characters, it is difficult to type, so people are more likely to enter "..." when searching. This can cause problems and confusion; for example, searching a page for "..." in Firefox does not find instances of the Unicode character. -- Beland (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it's prescribed by the MOS and not everyone uses it, that's fine. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it will be taken care of by the gnomes. Graham11 (talk) 03:40, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Wikipedia were to use the character perfectly consistently, it would cause a lot of confusion because most people don't know that it's possible to have a single character with three periods in it, and certainly don't know how to type it, so their searches would be mismatching whenever it occurred. -- Beland (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Browsers should simply treat "…" as equivalent to "..." when searching, just as they treat different kinds of quotation marks as equivalent. But you're right, currently that doesn't seem to be the case, and that's a plausible argument against allowing both. Gawaon (talk) 15:23, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do browsers not treat it as equivalent? I just pressed ⌘+F in Chrome and tried searching both "…" and "..." and, in both cases, it turned up all instances of either on this page. Graham11 (talk) 05:32, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't happen in Firefox. Chrome has the severe limitation of not being able to distinguish between dashes and upper/lower case, so it's useless for this kind of gnoming. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:59, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that's true with respect to letter case, but Chrome can definitely distinguish between hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes (unless it's different on PC vs Mac?). Graham11 (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is very simple and should ideally be able to support non-unicode systems like Windows <=2000. I think that we should stick with the three dots as the ellipsis character is an unnecessary complication.

Also, the three dots are identical to the unicode, easier to type and easier to search for. Semmalnk (talk) 13:44, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is saying that for the em dash, despite it being equally problematic for "non-unicode systems". 174.138.218.72 (talk) 14:08, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We use UTF-8 as the character encoding for all pages, require HTTPS with HTTP/2 and modern encryption, and have modern CSS and HTML 5 tags. It's possible things degrade gracefully on some older systems, but if it's so old it doesn't support Unicode, it's also possible it just wouldn't be able to connect to Wikipedia and the Foundation would not find it cost-effective to put any effort into fixing that. What we do want to support are "simple" modern systems, like text-only non-JavaScript browsers, and browsers using text-to-speech. (And of course even the fully capable modern browsers surface usability problems with these characters, as mentioned above.)

The idea of converting all our en dashes and em dashes to ASCII hyphens is actually quite appealing, as it would simplify a lot of maintenance and make things easier to type and search. But the situation there is also a bit different; sometimes we use both an en dash and an em dash in the same sentence, and the difference can be visually helpful to distinguish a range from a parenthetical phrase. Or maybe because they are more visually distinct people just care about the aesthetics more. (For some reason I always sign my comments with a double hyphen as if I'm emulating an emdash, which is pretty much the ugliest way to do things.) -- Beland (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The precomposed ellipsis character was already part of the once widespread Windows-1252 character set. I think you'll have to go back into the last millennium to find Windows systems that might have problems with it. How many of those are still running and connected to the Internet? (Hopefully, not many!) Gawaon (talk) 14:15, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Include a second comma when the construction with a comma modifies a noun or compound noun:

It has been claimed that the guideline is valid for full sentences, but not article titles, and that "a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun is awkward and very unusual". If there were exceptions, they would have to be documented in MoS (wouldn't they?), but no such exceptions exist.

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

Some examples of comments on a recent RM follow here.

• "Putting a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun is awkward and very unusual, while leaving out a comma after "city, state" or "mmm dd, yyyy" is common." Quoting Jruderman in that RM.

On the other hand, there is this comment from Ham II in the same RM:

There needs to be clarification at MOS:GEOCOMMA and MOS:DATECOMMA over whether a second comma should be used when a construction with a comma is used as a modifier. Evidence from sources like the NYT and from style guides would be helpful. This is an example of an RM where the matching commas were kept.

• Here's a start on the evidence-gathering: Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style (1995, p. 26): "Some writers omit the comma that follows the name of a state (or province, country, etc.) when no other element of an address follows it, which usually occurs when a city name and a state name are being used in combination to modify a noun that follows. However, retaining this comma is still the more common practice.
  We visited their Enid, Oklahoma plant.
       but more commonly
  We visited their Enid, Oklahoma, plant."

Here are some recent examples of a comma between an single adjective/attributive and a noun in WP:RS:

• "5 Charged in U.C. Berkeley Professor's Killing in Greece, Including His Ex-Wife". The New York Times. July 17, 2025. Five people have been arrested by the Greek authorities in the July 4 killing of a well-known University of California, Berkeley, professor, including his ex-wife and her current boyfriend, the police said.
• "US judge sentences ex-police officer to 33 months for violating civil rights of Breonna Taylor". Reuters. July 22, 2025. Taylor, a Black woman, was shot and killed by Louisville, Kentucky, police officers in March 2020 after they used a no-knock warrant at her home.
• "Judge T.S. Ellis III, 85, Dies; Stirred Outcry Over Manafort Sentence". The New York Times. August 12, 2025. He joined the large law firm Hunton & Williams (now Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP) in its Richmond, Va., office as a litigation attorney and briefly worked with Lewis F. Powell Jr. there before Mr. Powell was appointed to the United States Supreme Court in 1972 by President Richard M. Nixon.

(emphasis mine)

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

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

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

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

• Support. Article titles should always comply with MOS:COMMA. 2600:1700:6180:6290:8809:7A01:B960:FC8 (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle, particularly as the wording of WP:USPLACE already supports it. A few points, though:
  1. There should probably be a brief line before the example, making the point it's intended to illustrate. Something like "Include a second comma when the construction with a comma modifies a noun or compound noun." – but I'd like someone else to have a look over that.
  2. Could a more succinct example be used? With a different US state for the sake of variety, because the first example is also for a place in Tennessee? Ham II (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, we could take Pete Buttigieg, who was mayor of South Bend, Indiana, before running for U.S. President and becoming U.S. Secretary of Transportation. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What would the sentence be? "Pete Buttigieg's South Bend, Indiana, mayoralty laid the foundation for his national political rise" or something like that? Ham II (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe something simpler, like "Keith Wilson won the 2024 Portland, Oregon, mayoral election."? HandsomeFella (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a big improvement – thanks! Ham II (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support coming around to this. In-line with policy, and happy to help with page moving if that's needed. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 21:40, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the above and since a comma is obviously needed in such cases. Gawaon (talk) 07:50, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Using a comma before and after the state in this context is also standard for all U.S. government style guides, and the Associated Press Style Guide. Its frankly weird to exclude the second comma. [2] -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Of course a comma is needed in such cases, but whether that needs a special example I really don't know. It's not essentially different from the other examples that are already there, as far as I can see. Gawaon (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you. As you can see in the quotes from opposing editors, above and in the linked RM, they object to the comma when it's part of a compound modifier – "between an single adjective/attributive and a noun". This makes it important to add an example in which it's used as part of a compound modifier. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  All right, let's add the example then. Gawaon (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just a postscript, these are "parenthetical commas", and shouldn't really need additional examples. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 20:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]
  
• All of the examples provided are in prose, not article titles. I find titles like 2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash quite strange looking and they take me an extra moment to parse. I understand and accept the reasoning for this usage in running text and don't find it so jarring when I encounter it there. I acknowledge this doesn't have a strong basis in external style guides or WP P&G, but the mixed consensus in various RMs cited shows I'm not alone. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:50, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no reason to believe that article titles aren't the subject of the same guidelines/rules on spelling, grammar and (if present) punctuation as phrases. Do you really mean that, for the article on the election in the proposed example, the comma should be cut out? That doesn't make much sense to me, and sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT.

  The mixed consensus maybe due to editors not paying enough attention to punctuation and/or not being aware of MOS:GEOCOMMA, and the mixed RM outcomes may be due to a simple vote count by the RM closer instead of checking the guidelines.

  There are numerous cases of missing closing commas in phrases in Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we don't correct it. (Editors have questioned that too, even fought against it.)

  I have tagged some editors that opposed a previous RM that added the comma, but they have not responded. Probably because they now realize what the guidelines actually says. HandsomeFella (talk) 14:00, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I raised this because the discussion is presented as specifically pertaining to articles titles, and as the RM discussions referenced show, title-specific arguments are frequently made and consensus doesn't always land at including the comma. I agree with Amakuru's statement below—frequently editors are making a very reasonable and precedent-supported argument that titles are different. No doubt, as you suggest, it is sometimes also a result of ignorance, sloppiness, or inappropriate majority-rule !vote counting. Should our MOS have a separate GEOCOMMA rule for article titles? I'm not so sure, and I don't quite know how it should be formulated or limited. I'm not advocating for one although I think a useful version of an exception is possible. My point is that the discussion here, and the proposal to add another example from running text, does not actually address concerns specific to article titles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus at RMs is generally against adding the comma when it's pointed out to editors how ridiculous it looks. While omitting the comma isn't ideal, editors generally regard it as the lesser of two evils and it isn't entirely without precedent, as found in the sourced analysis done when we were discussing this previously. In a title, the placename can be treated as a single proper name, the way we would for a work of art - "I have the painting Knoxville, Tennesee hanging in my living room".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In the title of your painting, the comma is part of the title, serving a role within it but no role in the context of the rest of the sentence. "Knoxville, Tennessee" is the name of the painting. (It's made clearer by the convention of italicizing the title.) In "I visited Knoxville, Tennessee, in 1997", the name of the city is "Knoxville", which is being qualified as "which is in Tennessee" or "the one in Tennessee". The commas are serving a grammatical role within the sentence. If the whole name were "Knoxville, Tennessee" and the comma weren't meant to be fulfilling the ordinary grammatical role, then why would there be a comma at all? The name of the city could be "Knoxville Tennessee", comparable to "George Washington". In fact, with US postal abbreviations, that IS what we do: the prescribed format is "Knoxville TN". Largoplazo (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please explain to me what is illustrated or explained by the new Portland example, which isn't 100% covered by the Chattanooga and Irvine examples already present? If someone can come up with a construction with a comma [which] modifies a noun or compound noun which is not a variation on the themes already illustrated, that might be worth including, but AFAICS the Portland example adds precisely zero given what's already there. EEng 02:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Portland example is the only one where the place is a modifier. Here, you could replace Portland or Portland, Oregon with an adjective or other modifier, like the big election or the hotly-contested election or the historic mayoral election, and the sentence is still grammatical. Adjectives can't replace Chattanooga, Tennessee or the University of California, Irvine in the other examples. This is a distinct use case, and I suppose fine to include, but I agree that it adds very little to the understanding of the guidance and, as I stated above, does not address controversies specific to article titles. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:09, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it needs to be included is that some editors allege that you can't put a comma "between an single adjective/attributive and a noun" because it "is awkward and very unusual" (and variations thereof), see #Oppose rationale above. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:55, 19 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As Welsh English maintains the Late Middle English diphthong /iu̯/ as a falling diphthong (/iu̯~ɪʊ̯/), keeping you /juː/, yew /jɪʊ̯/, and ewe/U /ɪʊ̯/ heterophones, shall we write an euphemism, an European, an university, etc. in the Wikipedic articles of Wales or Welsh entities? 西城東路 (talk) 07:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do Welsh newspapers and publishers do that? I'd rather assume they don't. Gawaon (talk) 07:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why not advise them to do so? 西城東路 (talk) 07:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. DrKay (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Written Welsh English is indistinguishable from other varieties", so no. —Kusma (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Iao Valley#Requested move 24 July 2025 that may be of interest. Station1 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion at Talk:Google#First line "Google LLC" or "Google" about whether or not to include "LLC" in the name of the company in the first sentence. It seems that it's quite common to include the business form (or is it the legal name?) in the first sentence, e.g. Penguin Random House says "Penguin Random House Limited", Y Combinator says "Y Combinator, LLC (YC)". But why? Is there a policy or guideline regarding the inclusion of the business entity form of a company or business in the first sentence? (Not the article title, that's covered by WP:NCCORP.) — Chrisahn (talk) 08:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This recent news article says Google, not Google LLC. The article is named per WP:COMMONNAME and the opening sentence follows this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was not helpful. This is about general policy, not about Google. And if you believe opening sentences have to use the same name as the page title, you're quite mistaken. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:03, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It simply makes sense for an article to mention any alternative names (including the legal name) in the first few sentences of the article… both to inform the reader and so users searching for one of those alternative names know they have arrived at the correct article. Blueboar (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's reasonable and widespread to give the full name in the first sentence (in bold), so including such legal entity identifiers. Gawaon (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptrnext had the answer: MOS:FIRSTCORP. Quote: "Regardless of the page title, the lead sentence of an article on a company or other organization should normally begin with its full legal name." That settles it. Thanks! — Chrisahn (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The second hatnote at Breaking Bad (Better Call Saul) says:

Not to be confused with Better Call Saul (Breaking Bad), the 2009 episode of Breaking Bad.

As a result the title "Breaking Bad" is not italicized. Is that appropriate? 50.78.178.33 (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the intended behaviour. All news organisations use this method. FaviFake (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After a bit of discussion at UBE template talk (and discussions listed in the table there), I feel there's some pretty divergent readings of MOS:COMMONALITY, so I feel it might be helpful to see what consensus (if any) looks like atp.

First, the scope or domain of MOS:COMMONALITY is either the class of English varieties or dialects (call it E), or is the class of terms and phrases of any particular English variety or dialect (call them V_x for dialect x). And the test of MOS:COMMONALITY is either boolean, or is if-else formed.

So we have four readings of MOS:COMMONALITY from what I gather:

1. boolean over E: where dialect x either meets or does not meet MOS:COMMONALITY, and so is fit or not fit for use on Wikipedia, as judged per its V_x.
2. if-else over E: null.
3. boolean over V_x: where a term or phrase in V_x either meets or does not meet MOS:COMMONALITY, and so is fit or not fit for use on Wikipedia, as judged by how universal it is in E.
4. if-else over V_x: where a term or phrase in V_x either is or is not universal in E, and if not, either is to be avoided (in favour of its more universal equivalent, if available and meaning or context allow) or else is to be glossed (otherwise).

I feel MOS:COMMONALITY is pretty straightforwardly meant to be read as 4 above, but have now come across a good number of editors seemingly reading MOS:COMMONALITY as 1 or 3 instead (so I might be way off!). These are all substantively distinct readings (with different consequences each), I feel. Might be helpful to see editor preferences/thoughts re these readings :)

Ps some editors also seem to include informal or non-written terms or phrases in V_x when testing MOS:COMMONALITY over E or over V_x, but this seems like a straightforward mistake (rather than a distinct reading of MOS:COMMONALITY), as these are already outside the scope of all of MOS by dint of Wikipedia's being a written encyclopaedia. But if not, we'd have even more than 1–4 readings of MOS:COMMONALITY!

Pps - Ohconfucius and Beland, I feel like you might both be using reading no 3? And Jonesey95 sounds like a no 1 reader to me. Apologies if I misclassified!

- Asdfjrjjj (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I do not understand all of your mathematical jargon. MOS:COMMONALITY is pretty self-explanatory. It doesn't say anything about whether a given variety of English may be used, only what to do in cases where words have different meanings or do not appear in different dialects. MOS:TIES has a non- comprehensive list of dialects which must be used for at least some articles, and requires use of any given dialect's formal register. -- Beland (talk) 06:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that, like Beland, I'm not really sure what you're getting at here aside: my Ph.D. is in mathematical logic, but on the other hand I haven't worked in the field for a while and it's also late and I'm tired, so apologies if I ought to get it, but it seems to me that you're overthinking this. Basically it's just saying strive to use words that readers from most Englishes will recognize and not be jarred by (so for example generally use while in preference to whilst even if the article is in British English; use alternative in preference to alternate when they mean the same thing, even if the article is in American English). This doesn't need to be the subject of a law-school dissertation; just keep all readers in mind and use common sense. --Trovatore (talk) 07:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aww geeez my bad, the above is just word salad tbh (long day, lots caffeine I fear). But Trovatore and Beland pretty much cleared by doubts, thank you :)

For future readers - I think I was trying to see whether (by consensus) it ever follows from MOS:COMMONALITY that this or that dialect is unfit for use in Wikipedia, or that this or that dialect's regionalisms are likewise unfit (rather than just to be avoided if uncommon/jarring, or else glossed if avoiding is not possible). These claims seemed to come up quite a bit in vars TfD and related discussions regarding vars {{Use X English}} templates, is why. Case seems settled in negative though!

- Asdfjrjjj (talk) 08:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, stuff like that does come up. I think we've had several iterations of discussions over lakh and crore, which I think mean one hundred thousand and ten million respectively, though I could have that backwards. It's a difficult problem, because understandably Indian editors can be a bit offended at the idea that they should be banned, but on the other hand most non-Indian readers really don't know what they mean, whereas I'm pretty sure Indian readers do understand one hundred thousand and ten million. --Trovatore (talk) 08:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CRORE -- Beland (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For sure, and that's like healthy debate, and the intended/straightforward reading of MOS:COMMONALITY imo! Just goes a bit awry or gets a bit muddled (imo) when some editors go from (for eg) "Whoa, Indian English has lots of these jarring/uncommon regionalisms" to "Indian English fails MOS:COMMONALITY so is unfit for Wiki so let's delete {{Use Indian English}}". I wasn't really seeing how MOS:COMMONALITY could be blanket failed at all [outside of context in article prose]!, and the claim seemed to go unchallenged quite a bit in vars TfDs. Prolly the latter made me doubt my initial reading, won't happen again :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 08:59, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I don't understand a bit of what is laid out above. I do find it enjoyable that mathematical language unintelligible by even pretty smart readers is being used to open a discussion on the talk page for MOS:JARGON. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:NOTUSA says "Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes)." My impression is that "USA" is very common in addresses (for example, "1 Harbor Drive, San Diego, California, USA", or "a pasture in Middle-of-Nowhere, USA" or "a hill in southern Nevada, USA") where the writer includes the country—more common than "US" or "U.S."; therefore, the policy should be altered to allow or even encourage "USA" in these contexts.

When used as an adjective (for example, in "I am a US citizen."), I agree that "USA" is quite rare, and have no objection to implementing a rule against it in that context.

When used as a noun that is not part of an address (for example, "I visited the USA."), I encounter both "US" and "USA" often enough that I believe that both should be allowed. — LucasBrown 08:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Might be due to established usage in Chicago MOS, or AP Style, or Strunk & White, or one of the those? Those are all American, so I feel this'd for sure be covered there, and then MOS followed whatever they recommended. (Or else this might've been WikiProject United States project guidance that then was adopted by MOS.) So practice seems pretty entrenched in and out of Wiki (regardless of informal/postal use of "USA")! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 09:20, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a rationale listed for clashing with the abbreviation for US Army (vs USN for the navy and USAF for the air force).  Stepho  talk  12:18, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How frequently do articles contain international mailing addresses or casual remarks like "I visited the USA"? That latter doesn't even sound to me like something someone would say except in an affected way. The closest I think an article would come to it would be "In 1905, X visited the United States", in which the name would be spelled out and both US and USA would be inappropriately informal. Largoplazo (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia serves a global audience, including people in foreign countries who are less likely to know, for example, that Vermont is a state in the USA; therefore, when an article specifies an American location, it is usually encouraged to include an indication to that effect when the location's American-ness has not already been established. For example, Shiprock, New Mexico begins "Shiprock (Navajo: Naatʼáanii Nééz) is an unincorporated community on the Navajo reservation in San Juan County, New Mexico, United States.", and its short description is "Town in New Mexico, USA" (and I was not even the one who made that edit). Also, infoboxes for buildings and the like often contain street addresses; the one at White House goes so far as to contain "U.S.". — LucasBrown 12:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to have it read "USA" and I don't see any reason to change that. The short description should be revised. Largoplazo (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am intrigued to find such a lively debate about the ‘A’, when nowadays it’s the ‘U’ that seems so incongruous? MapReader (talk) 15:24, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just change it to TCFKAUSA (The country formerly known as ...). Gawaon (talk) 19:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with User:LucasBrown's point. I ingest an enormous amount of English-language written content every week from a vast variety of sources around the world and have done so for over 30 years. I'm not seeing any trend towards USA. U.S. has always been the preferred usage in formal written English, especially American English. The Simple English Wikipedia was created to serve those who lack sufficient training in formal written English. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Manual of Style loosened its long-standing objection to "US" in the 2014 edition. I haven't looked since, but the trend is definite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

I have been looking into the history of British education in the 20th century for over two years because I keep noticing British English partisans trying to insert their bad ideas into the WP Manual of Style, and they point to American style guides like CMOS which have been picking up those bad ideas. I have come across numerous published secondary sources documenting the history of primary and secondary education in the United States, especially the teaching of English language arts. (For example, see this article about English Education in the United States.) ELA teaching as practiced in the United States is a conservative and occasionally cruel enterprise. Its conservatism explains why American English grammar evolves relatively slowly compared to other English dialects. It is true that ELA doesn't really work for half the American population, the ones who are illiterate or barely literate. But it works well enough for the other half, in the sense of producing some of the finest writers on Earth.

After searching multiple times on the public Internet and in two of the largest research university library systems in the United States over the last two years, I have not yet found any corresponding works for England, in the sense of an objective history of how schoolchildren in England are taught how to read and write and how that has evolved during the 20th century. I see polemics, I see reports, I see primary sources, when I'm looking for a high-level published secondary source that dispassionately connects the dots and gives me a forest instead of the trees. The fact that no one apparently has any interest in writing that secondary source speaks volumes about the quality of British English today. It is something to be ashamed of. It is not an example to be emulated. --Coolcaesar (talk) 16:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, interesting statements. I can summarise your points as a) systems different to mine can be labelled as "bad ideas", b) looking for non-US sources in US libraries found nothing and c) no sources means too embarrassed which means it must be bad.

If you want sources for learning the English language in England then please look at the end of Language education in the United Kingdom and perhaps Language education by region. There are also numerous articles and categories starting with "Language education in" that you can type into the search box that will lead you to many articles with appropriate references at the bottom.  Stepho  talk  01:17, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• U.S. seems the most adequate form, while U.S.A. or USA is just extending the obvious. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:44, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not my impression. Here in Canada, people usually either say "the States" or "the U.S." But we don't get anywhere leaving it with impressions. Ngrams is pretty unreliable, but this gives us a hint. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:42, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Use Cameroonian English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pineapple Storage (talk) 20:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See here. It would be helpful if more people participate in that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist An issue came up at Wikipedia:Peer review/Julio and Marisol/archive2 where I provided both the English and Spanish versions of a quote:

"I love you, but not enough to die for you / Te quiero mucho pero no tanto como para morir por tí"

from a comic strip published simultaneously in both languages. MOS:FOREIGNQUOTE doesn't seem to apply since it's not something that appeared in Spanish and I'm providing a translation for our readers' benefit. Both the English and Spanish versions are from the original text and neither is secondary to the other. Any suggestions on how to handle this? RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To put it on the record, my (not particularly strong) suggestion was to lead with the English, as we know our readers can understand that, and do something like saying "I love you, but not enough to die for you" (in Spanish, "Te quiero mucho pero no tanto como para morir por tí"). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:43, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be OK to move the foreign-language version into an explanatory note, or to drop it altogether. Gawaon (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same. Just use the English quote alone. Similarly, just use the Spanish quote in Spanish WP. This is what we do for preferring English language references in English WP.  Stepho  talk  04:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FOREIGNQUOTE says foreign lang original must be provided if quote was translated by the Wikipedia editor, else may be provided. But this one was translated by the source itself, so may or may not include imo (but agree it'd look better in a footnote). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In a recent TfD, the following readings of MOS:COMMONALITY were both deemed acceptable readings by quite a few editors:

(1) It follows from COMMONALITY that some English dialects are not suitable for Wikipedia.

main thrust: COMMONALITY advises that uncommon terms or phrases be avoided, and nothing else.^[1]

(2) It does not follow from COMMONALITY that some English dialects are not suitable for Wikipedia.

main thrust: COMMONALITY advises on the use of uncommon terms or phrases (avoid or gloss [note the or here]), and nothing else.^[2]

Notably:

• (1) and (2) seem to and do contradict each other.
• (1) seems to contradict MOS:ENGVAR: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others."
• (1) seems to contradict at least some other related policies or guidelines (eg WP:TITLEVAR).
• (1) seems to contradict at least some TfD consensuses (eg this EngvarB one).
• Possibly, (2) seems to contradict at least some other related policies or guidelines.^[3]
• (2) seems to contradict at least some TfD consensuses (eg this UCamE one).

I personally (and strongly) believe COMMONALITY should not be ambiguous between (1) and (2), and that rather one or the other should be excluded as an acceptable reading (eg with explicit text to that effect in COMMONALITY). I feel the current ambiguity (and/or its non-disclosure in COMMONALITY and related policies or guidelines) might be doing more harm than good.^[4]

As I really doubt we might reach consensus on one of (1) or (2) here,^[5] I'll be adding explicit language to disclose the current lack of consensus on (1) or (2). I'll add this text to either COMMONALITY only (Proposal 1) or to COMMONALITY and all related policies or guidelines (eg ENGVAR, TITLEVAR, etc; Proposal 2). Unless someone objects? Or has a preference for Proposal 1 or Proposal 2?

– Asdfjrjjj (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC) Asdfjrjjj (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as with the other large blocks of text posted by the above editor, I don't really understand the logical reasoning here. I don't think MOS:COMMONALITY is confusing. It says to write in a way that would make sense to any educated reader of English, and not to use dialectical constructions that would be seen as ungrammatical or uninterpretable by most readers of English. An example that I gave in a discussion about Euro English and Ugandan English was the sentence, apparently acceptable in the Ugandan dialect, "They told me to come and you give me the package." MOS:COMMONALITY says not to use phrasing like that in English Wikipedia articles, except when glossing or explaining them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:11, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Jonesey95: Ohh geeez, I'll try to rephrase but honestly might need another editor to put this into better terms if this doesn't work :/

• You and others claim: (A) "There are some national varieties of English which are unsuitable for Wikipedia."
• I and others claim: (not A) "There are no national varieties of English which are unsuitable for Wikipedia."

These stances cannot both be true at the same time, and so they are contradictory stances. Claim (A) is often made with reference to COMMONALITY in particular (by saying something like "this dialect fails COMMONALITY" or just "this dialect is unsuitable per COMMONALITY"). And claim (not A) is often upheld even with reference to COMMONALITY. So, the contradictory stances seem to be due to distinct readings of COMMONALITY, in which case these readings themselves are contradicting one another, if that makes sense? (Or Pppery seemed to recognise the distinction so they might be able to help here, if possible? But in case this was a good explanation, would you oppose Proposal 1 or Proposal 2, or have a preference? :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Putting words in my mouth without providing links is not a great practice, especially on a MOS talk page, where arguments should be more precise than in other places on Wikipedia. I do not think that either (1) or (2) follow logically from MOS:COMMONALITY, although I find the double negative in (2) a bit cloudy. Please link to where I have claimed that "There are some national varieties of English which are unsuitable for Wikipedia." I may have said that a given article about an English dialect provided no guidance about differences, or supplied only differences that would be viewed as ungrammatical or misspelled by most educated English speakers, but I do not think that (A) or either of the propositions at the top logically follows from such a statement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Jonesey95: I'm really sorry if I misread, but both Pppery and I took your 29 Jul nomination ("These recently created templates recommend the use of a dialect of English that is not suitable for Wikipedia, per MOS:COMMONALITY.") in the linked TfD to be based on COMMONALITY.^[6] If that was not the intention then, again, I'm really sorry!

For the record though, at least one of (1) or (2) must be an acceptable reading of COMMONALITY, just logically I think.^[7]

Also for the record, I'm not seeking consensus on (1) nor (2) here! And I'm not saying stance (A) or (not A) is good/bad/whatever! It's just the lack of consensus on (1) or (2) (or (A) or (not A)) that I feel oughtta be disclosed per Proposal 1 or Proposal 2.

Finally, for the avoidance of any doubt, here are the comments I could find in support of stance (A). At least some of these seem to explicitly or implicitly (and partially or fully) be based on COMMONALITY imo.^[8]

• 29 Jul 2025: "These recently created templates recommend the use of a dialect of English that is not suitable for Wikipedia, per MOS:COMMONALITY." [links preserved] (in this TfD)
• 13 Aug 2025: "I continue to object to the creation of both templates whose talk pages direct to this page, per MOS:COMMONALITY." [link preserved] (in this UCarE talk)
• 3 Aug 2025: "I disagree with the change to remove mention of unusable dialects; it is needed to avoid creation of useless templates like the recent {{Use Cameroonian English}}." [link preserved] (in this UBE talk)
• 20 Nov 2024: "Indian English#Spelling says that British spelling is used, and any Indian-specific vocabulary would not be usable because MOS:COMMONALITY says not to use regionalisms: Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences." [links, colour preserved] (in this EngvarB talk)
• 23 Nov 2024: "Neither Indian English#Spelling nor Pakistani English makes any substantiated claims that the spelling of those variants of English are different from British English, and we would not use dialect-specific vocabulary here at Wikipedia, per MOS." [links preserved] (in this EngvarB talk)
• 22 Nov 2024: "The rest of the article explains the differences in pronunciation (not relevant since Wikipedia is a written medium) and regionalisms (also not relevant because MOS:COMMONALITY says not to use regionalisms: Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences)." [link, colour preserved] (in this TfD)
• 22 Nov 2024: "Ugandan English explains that this dialect makes use of phrasing that would not be acceptable here on Wikipedia per MOS:COMMONALITY, and uses misspelled standard English words. We would never accept those misspellings here, so these templates should probably go away." [links preserved] (in this TfD)
• 26 Nov 2024: "How is Ugandan English different from British or American English in a way that is applicable here on Wikipedia? We can't accept misspelled words or non-standard phrasing that would not be understandable by the majority of English speakers, so this template is not usable as a guide for writing articles." (in this TfD)
• 5 Dec 2024: "The Ugandan English article provides examples of English usage that would be considered incorrect here at Wikipedia." (in this TfD)
• 29 Jul 2025: "Most usage of this variant on WP will be subsumed per WP:COMMONALITY." [link preserved] (in this TfD)
• 29 Jul 2025: "the relevant phrases are inappropriate for use in articles in any case" (in this TfD)
• 13 Aug 2025: "Propose deletion of this template which encourages the use of terms which are not suitable for use on Wikipedia in line with MOS:COMMONALITY." [link preserved] (in this TfD)
• 13 Aug 2025: "It is not practical to expect every known English dialect to be used when editing a corresponding article. Nor would it be helpful since articles should be written in commonly used English." (in this TfD)
• 8 Aug 2025: "Without disparagement on my part of the numerous varieties of English that exist in the world, I don't see it as practical to designate an article to be written in one of the few varieties that, together make up the bulk of English used internationally, and that typically are even the varieties used formally in places with their own variety. Should an article restrict itself to Cameroonian English or Philippine English or Roatan Island English, it would effectively place a sharp limit on who can contribute to it or copyedit it, excluding anyone who has no idea what that variety entails." (in this TfD)
• 14 Aug 2025: "This template is an attempt to establish a new 'variety' of English in the MOS through an inappropriate route (i.e., it is bypassing a MOS discussion). First gain recognition at MOS for this as an ENGVAR variant that may be used." (in this TfD)

- Asdfjrjjj (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Asdfjrjjj (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that exhaustive work. I think my view continues to be summarized by one of my statements above: "Ugandan English explains that this dialect makes use of phrasing that would not be acceptable here on Wikipedia per MOS:COMMONALITY, and uses misspelled standard English words." I see that as distinct from "(1) It follows from COMMONALITY that some English dialects are not suitable for Wikipedia." Phrasing and spelling differences that are far enough from standard English to be seen as errors by most native English speakers should not be used on the English Wikipedia. That's not really part of MOS:COMMONALITY; it's more like MOS:COMMONSENSE. If an article about a dialect provides only examples of differences between that dialect and American or British English that are likely to be seen as errors, then that is a dialect for which a Use X English template should not be created, since we would be giving guidance to editors that is contrary to MOS. I think I need to step away from these Use X English conversations, since they tend to be a mud pit where everyone wrestles and nobody ends up making any progress. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment which seems to be in support of stance (A):

• 15 Aug 2025: "please stop creating language templates without consensus. ... We have to discuss each in turn because some have much less merit than others." [shortened] (in this TfD)

Notably, this editor recommends establishing consensus before creating new {{Use X English}} templates. The 14 Aug comment from the same TfD^[9] seems to agree, further adding that consensus ought to be established here, in MOS talk. I feel other editors might share this view, so this stance oughtta be recorded here imo. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC) Asdfjrjjj (talk) 07:11, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I find confusing here is that "dialect" largely refers to the spoken language, while Wikipedia is a written work. So any "dialect" that's chiefly spoken, but hardly ever written, is automatically unsuited for Wikipedia, simply due to its character as a written work. Can we agree on that? Gawaon (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's true that "dialect" largely refers to the spoken language... In my experience, most varieties of standard English can be found in written form somewhere (or at least, analysis/description of the written variety can be found in the literature). It might be less easy to find formal written texts in English-based creoles, which are often more vernacular to a particular place, but this is irrelevant here as creoles and pidgins shouldn't be used on the English Wikipedia as they aren't necessarily mutually intelligible with any variety of standard English (they're their own languages). Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right. But per ENGVAR, it seems clear enough that any variety of written English that is used as the standard written form in any English-speaking country is eligible for Wikipedia, and I can't remember anyone having said anything else. So I'm frankly not convinced that the disagreement sketched by Asdfjrjjj does actually exist. Actual conflicts are rather about the question of when a standard written form used in some place is sufficiently distinct from other standard forms to get its own name. To give a made-up example, one can doubt that the English written in California differs sufficiently from that in Oregon to treat Californian English and Oregonian English as different varieties. So in practice we don't do that, instead just using the label "American English" for both. But there is no conflict about the meaning of COMMONALITY or ENGVAR (nor is the use of "Oregonian English" forbidden), it's simply a question of when a variety of written English is sufficiently distinct to get its own name and template. Gawaon (talk) 08:11, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this TfD? Because the argument being made by the nominator was exactly that the standard variety of English in Cameroon, where English is an official language and the national variety (ie. dialect, per my comment below) is Cameroon English, should not be used on Wikipedia. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't read it before. I have skimmed it now, but would rather interpret Jonesey95's argument as meaning that Cameroonian English is a variety that's spoken or maybe used in informal writing – not but a clearly distinct written form used in Cameroonian newspapers or other formal sources. Did I miss something? Gawaon (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, and maybe that was was the nominator originally thought, but during that discussion we established that Cameroon English does have its own spelling rules/patterns/standards when written down (including in formalised written sources)—I just couldn't list all of them with beyond-reasonable-doubt confidence because the only exhaustive source is a dictionary that isn't available online. Pineapple Storage (talk) Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was your conclusion, but did everybody else in that TfD agree with you? I have some doubts. A single dictionary is also not particularly convincing proof, especially since it might focus on the spoken and informal language rather than, or in addition to, the formal written register, and it probably won't reveal how many of these forms are distinct from those used in neighbouring countries. Gawaon (talk) 08:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I interpreted this comment as conceding that CamE was a distinct variety but just arguing that there shouldn't be a template for it, and this comment pretty much underlined the fact that the delete !voters hadn't given any evidence that CamE is identical to any other variety.

I agree that one dictionary shouldn't be the only source in consideration; I did provide other (reliable, formally published) sources that discussed examples, but these were seen as not exhaustive enough. Anyway, even if the dictionary only documents spoken usage, the spellings that are used in it (because a dictionary has to be written down) will shed some light on the spellings in use in written CamE. But this isn't a discussion about CamE specifically, so I'd rather not get back into that debate now! :) Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The question "does MOS:COMMONALITY ban some English dialects?" is a bit vague, and as I mentioned can be answered "clearly yes" and "clearly no" depending on the definition of "dialect".

If we sharpen the question and ask "do recent TfD results indicate that the standard English of some English-speaking countries is unacceptable because of MOS:COMMONALITY?", I would object to writing "there was no consensus about that" into this MOS page because I think those discussions were about non-standard varieties and what to tag articles for the convenience of editors than about the acceptability of standard national varieties. Having a list of TfD discussions on this topic is useful for future discussions on this family of templates; perhaps there is a better place to document that than the MOS, like an internal category or navigation template?

There's an underlying question about whether the standard English of a given English-speaking country is indistinguishable from say, British English, either before or after MOS:COMMONALITY is applied. As the above discussion highlights, this is an empirical question to which the answer is "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, more research is needed to show that this is in fact true for at least one country in the world". Whether or not given country or collection of countries (like the Caribbean and South Asia) even have a distinct local standard variety in the first place is also an empirical question that has been answered for some but not all.

Then there's the philosophical question of whether to call the resulting words "Cameroonian English" or "British English" if writing in formal standard Cameroonian English preferring commonalities with British English produces the same words as writing in formal standard British English preferring commonalities with Cameroonian English. As a practical resolution to avoid offending nationalist sensibilities and align intuitively with MOS:TIES, we may simply allow people to tag articles with either of those labels to and program our spell checkers to use the same dictionary for both tags. Or we may agree on a single neutral tag that better describes the desired style of writing. What I think would not be helpful is to let a debate over tags become a whiff of "some editors are trying to ban the standard English of certain countries" into the MOS when that's definitely going to offend some people and is kind of an oversimplification or arguably not really what's happening. -- Beland (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Gawaon (talk) 10:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of the difficulty with relying on TfD discussions (exclusively) to identify ENGVAR consensus is that there are two different questions:

1. Is X variety of English suitable for use on Wikipedia?
2. Does there need to be a {{Use X English}} template?

TfD discussions are meant to be answering question 2; some respondents try to do this without addressing question 1 (eg. by saying "X variety is basically the same as Y variety, which we already have a template for so we don't need this one"), while others do it by addressing question 1 (eg. "this template shouldn't exist because X variety shouldn't be used on Wikipedia"). Really, to properly get a sense of consensus about question 1, there needs to be a discussion independent of question 2, so that we're all addressing the same question; this is why I'm glad this discussion has been started.

Also, just a minor point about terminology: it feels unfair to label people who object to the deprecation of certain varieties as being "offended"—this word carries connotations (nowadays especially). I'm sure some people would take offence, especially if their native variety is specifically excluded (for instance, if they have to learn an unfamiliar set of spelling rules to avoid their contributions being "corrected" as misspellings) but this is far from the only argument against deprecating certain varieties.^[10] Personally, I've spent hours and hours researching the issue and arguing the case for inclusion of CamE even though I don't speak (or write) CamE and have no connection whatsoever to Cameroon; I'm not offended by the idea of CamE not being allowed on Wikipedia. Rather, I have strong opinions on the issue because (1) as a linguist and a Wikipedian, I care about both Wikipedia and the English language; (2) I believe Wikipedia's use of English should represent its global focus and reach; and (3) I know that the way Wikipedia works (and progresses) is through community discussion, so I want to contribute to this process. If we approach these discussions with the assumption that the only reason why anyone would object to certain (standard, written) World Englishes being deprecated is because they take offence (ie. feel personally insulted), we run the risk of overlooking the other arguments against deprecation (eg. countering systemic bias), which don't deal with personal emotions etc. but with broad, project-wide principles of Wikipedia, and with the practicalities of managing a reference work whose authors are from all over the world. Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's actually any serious effort to ban standard formal Cameroonian English from Wikipedia, nor to change MOS:TIES in such a way that it says articles about Cameroon should be allowed to violate the local standard English spelling and grammar rules (e.g. by using American spelling sometimes under MOS:RETAIN). That would be egregious and I can't imagine that ever getting consensus support, and I think implying that there is such an effort would needlessly upset some people. What did happen was a debate over whether to tag Standard Cameroonian English as Standard British English because there is no practical difference for Wikipedia purposes.

I have never believed that the only reason someone would object to say, tagging Standard Cameroonian English as Standard British English is because they are personally offended. "Actually there are practical differences between these dialects" is certainly one of those reasons, and that fact violates the assumptions of the above scenario. I'm just pointing out that national identity is a sensitive topic and that some people can be offended by even something as simple as how we name things, so even if there are no practical reasons to do something, we might benefit from doing it anyway for the sake of editor harmony. -- Beland (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That would be egregious and I can't imagine that ever getting consensus support It's very refreshing to hear this, thank you. Unfortunately, as I see it at least 4 of the ~7 participants in the CamE TfD were arguing that CamE shouldn't be used on Wikipedia. I got this impression from some of the statements made in that discussion:

• "the use of a dialect of English that is not suitable for Wikipedia" (here)
• "Being inclusive might be nice but [...] There is no practical way that certain articles can be written using terms that contradict EN or US usage. Also, there would be no practical benefit from such a system." (here)
• "how can I venture into an article expressly written in Cameroonian English?" (here)
• "if none of this is codified, we can't really enforce a 'Cameroonian English'." (here)
• "I don't think you could get consensus that these are anything but typos to be fixed [...] regardless of their use in some countries." (here)

For the reasons I discussed above, I think the context of TfD pretty much took all the nuance out of the conversation re ENGVAR, which is why the wider conversation should happen somewhere else (ie. here, in an MOS discussion). I also agree with you absolutely that editor harmony is an important consideration when it comes to sensitive topics like this. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think editors there were considering much beyond automated spell checking, where having a dictionary is necessary and most of the concern was about not encouraging editors to use an informal dialect.

As for spellings like "truely", are these mandatory in Cameroonian Standard English, or are Standard British English spellings also accepted? If they are mandatory, it seems we'd have to accept them per MOS:TIES. Getting a complete list of any such exceptions would be helpful for automation purposes. -- Beland (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the unique spellings are mandatory, as BrE spellings are also widely used in CamE; I think "truely", "occured",^[11] etc. are just valid alternative spellings. I ordered the CamE dictionary when the TfD was closed and I'll update Cameroonian English once it's arrived. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC) Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:07, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, using the same spellings as the UK does isn't forcing Cameroonians to write about their own country using spellings that are invalid Standard Cameroonian English, so I don't see the problem in using the international spellings. MOS:COMMONALITY says the most common spelling in the national variety should be used, so it's possible that technically the unusual local spelling should be preferred. Is that easy to determine?

It might actually be worth changing this to say that where two variants are equally acceptable but only one is present in other national standard Englishes, the international one would be preferred. This could prevent confusion over editors trying to fix typos that aren't typos, and also lessen the distraction for readers to which the local variants look like errors. -- Beland (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is that easy to determine? Probably not, unfortunately, beyond getting access to a corpus, as most studies don't address minor spelling differences explicitly. Preferring more international spelling variants is sensible; thankfully this is already covered by MOS:COMMONALITY, but I agree that the MOS:TIES application could be emphasised—for instance by explicitly saying something to the effect of "just because X Standard English variety has multiple acceptable patterns, most of which are shared with another variety, this doesn't mean X variety shouldn't be used or that MOS:TIES shouldn't apply to that variety". Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:58, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where the existing verbiage in MOS:COMMONALITY says to prefer international spellings over local ones? It says that about word choice explicitly. Are you implicitly extending that to spelling as well? I read the "most commonly used current variant" as explicitly saying not to prefer the most international spelling if it's not the most common local one. -- Beland (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred

I read the most commonly used as meaning the one that's most common generally, ie. shared by multiple varieties, rather than most common to that particular variant. If this interpretation of it is wrong, and there is consensus for the latter reading, then I think that wording needs specifying. Otherwise, if a consensus hasn't yet been established about that specific point, then maybe that's a discussion to be had? Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Beland: I might get us that list of TfD and ENGVAR discussions soon-ish, as I also could've really used such a list when I first waded into this part of MOS :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 23:47, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you for starting the conversation @Asdfjrjjj, I think it's definitely one that needs to be had at some point.

Unsurprisingly I have quite a few thoughts on this issue! Since the CamE TfD (this one) I've been doing some research about World Englishes and have been gathering sources at User:Pineapple Storage/Bibliography/World Englishes (still very much an incomplete work in progress; I also can't claim to have read all the sources there, it's basically a reading list) so I feel like I'm saturated in WP:ENGVAR thoughts at the moment, and I will likely add comments to this discussion about multiple different aspects of the issue as they occur to me—apologies in advance for this.

One thing that springs to mind following @Gawaon's comment above is that ENGVAR maybe shouldn't even refer to varieties at all, but should instead refer to dialects. Variety (linguistics) says:

[Varieties] may include languages, dialects, registers, styles, or other forms of language, as well as a standard variety.

I would argue, the fact that ENGVAR only mentions varieties rather than dialects is probably a result of the prejudice/misconception described in the lead of Variety (linguistics):

The use of the word variety to refer to the different forms avoids the use of the term language, which many people associate only with the standard language, and the term dialect, which is often associated with non-standard language forms thought of as less prestigious or "proper" than the standard.

This perception (of "dialect" meaning a non-standard variety) is clearly a misconception; it's linguistically inaccurate, and can be easily dispelled by reading the first two sentences of the article Dialect.

When we discuss ENGVAR, what we're actually discussing is dialect, because register and style are already dictated by WP:ENCSTYLE; this is an encyclop(a)edia, so the style is encyclop(a)edic and the register is formal (but not excessively/performatively formal, because it needs to be accessible to a very wide audience).

I think ENGVAR should be altered to replace variety with dialect (and maybe to add an explicit mention that the formal register of any dialect should be used in articles, to clear up any ambiguity). What do people think about this? Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "variety" should stay for just that reason: if a dialect, or variety, is chiefly spoken, but not written, that it's not eligible for Wikipedia – not out of prejudice, but since Wikipedia is itself a written work. "Variety" seems better suited to get that across. Gawaon (talk) 08:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or, in words cited above: any standard variety of English is suitable for Wikipedia, but not any dialect, register, or style. Gawaon (talk) 08:18, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth pointing out here that the word "dialect" can be used in at least three different ways. As our article Dialect points out, sometimes it exclusively means non-standard varieties. In that sense, there are no dialects which are suitable for Wikipedia. Perhaps what Gawaon is getting at is that non-standard varieties (which are more commonly spoken than written) are unsuitable for a written encyclopedia - and yes, I think that it generally agreed upon. I should also say that simply because a dialect is commonly written doesn't make it suitable for Wikipedia. People in Yorkshire may commonly use Northern colloquialisms when writing letters, emails, text messages, business signage, or when transcribing spoken language. But we're not interested in just any writing, we're interested in writing in what they consider their standard written dialect, which would be Standard British English - the sort that appears in newspapers and generally intelligible formal documents not written in legalese or other technical dialect.

I tend to use "dialect" in the primary sense defined by the article Dialect, which includes both standard and non-standard varieties. In this sense, Standard American English is the dialect I happen to speak, it is the one spoken on national news broadcasts and written in national newspapers, and it is the (only) appropriate dialect for writing articles with strong ties to the United States. In this sense, some dialects are appropriate for Wikipedia.

Asdfjrjjj seems to be using "dialect" to mean "national variety". In this sense, all dialects are appropriate for Wikipedia, because as ENVAR says: "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others."

Using the second sense, I'd say each English-speaking country can have multiple native dialects, and only the standard one is suitable for Wikipedia. -- Beland (talk) 08:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and when I talk about "written variety" etc, I mean the formal version of the variety as written in eg. newspapers, books, and other formalised publications, rather than informal contexts like personal communications (or advertising, blogs, etc) as these are more likely to reflect vernacular (informal spoken) usage, per Written language#Relationship with spoken and signed language. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still though, I think ENGVAR in its current state leaves an ambiguity in the minds of some editors, who might then feel it necessary to proscribe certain dialects as being "too informal" when actually the standard written register of that dialect is perfectly acceptable. Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with changing "variety" to "dialect". The whole reason linguists use "variety" is to avoid controversies in the definition of dialect. That includes the question of whether "dialect" has a connotation of informality, and also more commonly the question of whether two or more varieties are different dialects or different languages. I do agree ENVAR could be improved with some clarification; I'll come up with some verbiage. -- Beland (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If "variety" is still going to be used, then ENGVAR should make it very clear that any country's standard written variety can be used (unless of course consensus turns out to be that only some standard written varieties are acceptable, which I would find disappointingly predictable). Pineapple Storage (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There should probably also be a discussion about how we're defining "standard"... Does a "standard written variety" need to have been formally codified in order to be allowed on en-wp, or is attestation/description in other (non-dictionary) reliable sources sufficient? If a consensus can be reached on this, then ENGVAR should probably make it clear. And how are we defining "codified"? Does a single published dictionary count? If so, does the dictionary being unavailable online (as discussed in the CamE TfD) make the variety ineligible for use? And if a single dictionary doesn't count, how many dictionaries must exist? This would all ideally be made clear—if not in WP:ENGVAR, then somewhere else. Pineapple Storage (talk) 09:22, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:TIES requires that the English of a specific nation (which I think means "country" in this context) be used for any article with strong ties to an "English-speaking nation". Our article English-speaking world defines that as "the 88 countries and territories in which English is an official, administrative, or cultural language". So I would infer we care about matching the expectations of English speakers in Cameroon, for example, but not France.

I think the requirement here is to produce articles that are 100% compatible with the article-local standard English, and intelligible to everyone else (with glosses if necessary) even if there are spellings and other quirks that are not allowed in the reader's local standard English. It is not a goal to produce articles that demonstrate unique aspects of the article-local standard English. The question of whether unique constructions exist in standard contexts and would plausibly be used on Wikipedia is relevant to tagging and spell-checking, but if the answer is "no" I think it is not right to say that a given country's standard dialect is "not allowed" on Wikipedia. It just means that articles happen to be 100% compatible with the standard English of multiple countries.

It's worth pointing out that MOS:COMMONALITY doesn't "ban" all localisms and by implication the national standard dialects they come from. It just requires that those that can't be avoided should be glossed for intelligibility. For example, even though for articles about Nigeria we prefer constructions that it has in common with British English, sometimes it is impossible not to use localisms that refer to elements of local culture, like danfo (which is a specific type of shared taxi and has no equivalent phrase in British English with the same precise meaning). I think we would also prefer local Nigerian expressions such as senior wife to refer to the primary polygynous spouse, whereas in American English we would say "first wife" which does come up for example in Mormon families.

Reading Codification (linguistics) carefully, it appears that process is a process of establishing social consensus for a set of spelling and grammar and vocabulary preferences, which by definition has already happened in standard varieties. It sounds like by "formal codification" you mean someone has written down these social rules.

Thinking about how we resolve questions of Standard American English in US articles, we often simply rely on native speakers of that variety to know what is and isn't correct grammar and spelling. That would imply we could rely on local editors to know the correct forms for a standard English that does not have a dictionary or written rules of grammar. I think that's fine; by definition there will be lots of documents in a standard written variety they can point to for attestations if there's a dispute. No version of English has a single official authority that sets the rules, so while dictionaries and books from grammarians can be very helpful in settling these disputes, they don't always agree with each other or the actual current social consensus. It's up to editors to decide if disputed practices are OK, like ending a sentence with a preposition, or how to deal with something that only one editor or maybe less than 1% of American English speakers consider an error is worth changing, presumably depending on the available alternatives. Even in the US and the UK we have turned to attestations to argue some disputes, like whether it is OK to refer to a ship as "she".

We might think not having written dictionaries and grammar rules for a national standard English would make it difficult to write articles about that country in cases where there aren't a lot of local English speakers active on Wikipedia, but in practice targeting Standard British English seems to result in compatible outcomes. (That's the advice I've gotten for grammar-checking Indian English.)

I'm not sure we need to put specific guidance about this in the MOS. I think editors know what it means to say, "use standard formal Cameroonian English", and how to research what the rules are for that variety, disputed and undisputed. -- Beland (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's very refreshing to hear this take. Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, WP:ENCSTYLE and WP:TONE are in Wikipedia:Writing better articles, which is an essay, not a guideline. But the main Manual of Style page points there, and it is certainly explaining a real consensus. -- Beland (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To editor Pineapple Storage: Oh wait I'd missed User:Pineapple Storage/Bibliography/World Englishes, looking pretty good! I'd also written WP:CARIB/E for Caribbean English (more as a descriptivist overview than a bibliography). Maybe we might sort of consolidate these similar to how the big/well-known Englishes are consolidated in the various Comparison of forms of English articles (though these prolly oughtta stay in project namespace to focus exclusively on description of only formal, written English, or to focus exclusively on bibliography). Might add sources from Caribbean English to your page soon-ish if you don't mind :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asdfjrjjj For sure, this sounds like a good plan! The World Englishes bibliography I've been putting together is very much a work in progress, but I plan to keep going basically until I've got sources about all the places (and their national varieties—or not, in cases where English is an official language but sources say a distinct variety hasn't yet emerged, such as in Sudan, South Sudan, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, among others) currently covered by Template:Ties/sandbox.

Absolutely, feel free to add any sources (and new sections etc. as needed) to User:Pineapple Storage/Bibliography/World Englishes, and also feel free to incorporate any sources I add there into WP:CARIB/E if you find them useful!! There are a bunch of sources about Caribbean varieties that I've bookmarked but haven't yet done full citations for, so I'll hopefully add those soon. Pineapple Storage (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how the EngvarB closure could be read as saying anything about which dialects are or are not appropriate for Wikipedia. It's mostly a decision that "EngvarB" is not a good name for a template, and the choice of whether to always tag language as specific country varieties or to use tags that posit a country-spanning variety of some sort was left open. -- Beland (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A dialect is not defined as a set of words/phrasing that are different or unique when compared to whatever default is implicitly implied in that definition. If a word or formulation is common to that dialect as well as to the implied default, then it is a part of that dialect as it is the implied default. CMD (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well put. This is why "avoid the unique features of this dialect" is not the same as "this dialect is banned". -- Beland (talk) 11:37, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The original question didn't give examples, but I am happy to. We would avoid terms such as "lakh" or "krore" because they wouldn't be readily understood by most Wikipedia users. This doesn't mean we are banning Indian English, we are just going for common (COMMONALITY) features. cagliost (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion so far, here's my proposed clarification:

• Change "The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others." to "All national varieties of Standard English are equally acceptable on English Wikipedia, which uses a formal, encyclopedic register or tone."
• Change "conventions of a particular variety of English" to "conventions of a particular variety of Standard English"
• Change "within a national variety of English" to "within a national standard variety of English"
• Change "(formal, not colloquial) English" to "standard (formal, not colloquial) English" for consistent terminology.

-- Beland (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support these changes. For MOS:TIES, maybe adding links might be helpful, eg. "standard (formal, not colloquial) English"? Or maybe "standard (formal, not colloquial or vernacular) English"?

Also, after the list of example articles and varieties, currently TIES says:

For topics with strong ties to the Commonwealth of Nations, or multiple Commonwealth countries or other former British territories, use British spelling.

The way this is currently worded, it's pretty much a direct contradiction of the principle of TIES. What about something more like:

For topics with strong ties to one or multiple Commonwealth countries or other former British territories, if there are no relevant national Standard English varieties, use British English spelling.

(Note the altered link targets.) Any thoughts on this idea? Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to the first suggestion of adding links.

The second suggestion doesn't make sense to me, as there are standard English varieties in most if not all of those places.

Can you gave an example or two of where it would contradict MOS:TIES? I think the language about the Commonwealth of Nations ended up this way because {{Use Commonwealth English}} was deleted and replaced with {{Use British English}} in articles where there weren't clearly ties to a specific country. It had previously said that Commonwealth and British orthography were nearly indistinguishable for encyclopedic writing. -- Beland (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading of the current wording of TIES, it basically says "If a country is in the Commonwealth or used to be a British territory, use British spelling" but doesn't make any exceptions for Commonwealth nations or former British territories that have their own national variety of Standard English. So if we were to follow only that sentence (and not the rest of MOS:TIES), articles with ties to every country and territory listed at List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom would have to be written in British English, regardless of whether a local national Standard English exists. This clashes with the first sentence of TIES, which says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation." The change I'm suggesting is basically to alter the sentence so that it allows local varieties to be used for ex–British-territories that have their own national variety. For example, currently, articles about Malaysia use British English, but with the new wording they would use Malaysian Standard English, in line with the first sentence of TIES. Pineapple Storage (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just from the list of Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations there are four that don't have English as an official, national or recognised language (Cyprus, Gabon, Mozambique and Togo) let alone any non–English-speaking countries or territories at List of countries that have gained independence from the United Kingdom.^[12] Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's not clear from the wording, but if an article is only about one country, this clause isn't supposed to apply. It's only when an article has ties to multiple countries or the actual Commonwealth of Nations organization. For example, Australia–Malaysia relations or Canada–United Kingdom relations.

Both to clean up which countries we're referring to and to cover multi-country cases which don't all use UK-derived spelling, would it be better to say something like:

• For articles with strong ties to the Commonwealth of Nations organization, use British spelling.
• For articles with strong ties to multiple English-speaking countries, either:
  • Pick one of the related national standard varieties. (For example, Australia–United States relations uses Australian English.)
  • Use a variety common to at least some if not the majority of countries. (For example, Five Eyes uses British spelling.)

-- Beland (talk) 15:26, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's where the ambiguity was. These suggestions seem sensible! What about cases like Gabon and Togo, which are Commonwealth countries without national varieties whose articles don't currently have a variety template? Should this apply to them, or should they be governed by MOS:RETAIN? Also, the wording you propose would remove any mention of former British territories. Should these be mentioned explicitly as being treated the same way as Commonwealth nations? Or should they just be assumed to fall under the main MOS:TIES clause? Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:46, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added "former British territories" because not all of the English-speaking countries that have standard written dialects close to British English are still members of the Commonwealth of Nations, like Ireland and Zimbabwe. But that's also a bit odd because the United States is also a former British colony that does not use British spelling. I think we were just looking to say "it's OK to just say we're using British spelling for topics with ties to multiple countries that have almost identical spelling to the UK" and not bother trying to make an exception for Canada when it's in a group of British-spelling countries. So maybe the intended group is more like "English-speaking countries that don't use American spelling".

Yes, MOS:TIES clearly already applies to articles about individual English-speaking countries regardless of their Commonwealth or former British colonial status. The above clarifying language only applies when we're talking about more than one of country, and if the article is about two former British colonies that still have British spelling in common, then British spelling is a valid choice, as is either national standard variety.

According to English-speaking world, Gabon and Togo are not English-speaking countries, so I think they should be governed by MOS:RETAIN. They are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, but an article has to have strong ties to the organization, not one of its member countries, for the Commonwealth clause to apply.

I do also intend "country" to include UK dependencies that are not part of the UK, like Bermuda and Pitcairn. -- Beland (talk) 17:21, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, all sounds good to me.

I'm glad you mentioned UK territories actually, as most do have their own varieties named and described in the literature.