Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Welcome to the MOS pit[Humor]


    Style discussions elsewhere

    [edit]

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

    Current

    [edit]

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

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


    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Concluded

    [edit]

    RfC: commas and ENGVAR

    [edit]
    NO
    Apparently someone's told RGloucester that adding a comma is an ENGVAR issue, which necessitated an RFC with an extraordinary eleven (11) paragraphs of text in the nomination statement. To nobody's surprise, the community comes to an overwhelming consensus that commas are not an ENGVAR issue.
    I realized part way through reading that this is a slam dunk and it wasn't really necessary to ask for an independent closer, but the misconception that even obvious RFC closes must be made by someone scrupulously uninvolved is persistent and ingrained.
    This RFC is framed as a question of what editors "may" do, but I want to be clear that the editing policy trumps the manual of style and always will. If you add or remove a comma and someone reverts you, you're still expected to talk to them. This RFC does not authorize counter-reverting.—S Marshall T/C 10:14, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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

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

    Introduction

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    Style guide review

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

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

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

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

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

    Details of the edits that brought about this RfC

    [edit]

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

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

    Survey (commas and ENGVAR)

    [edit]
    • No – Commas are outwith the purview of ENGVAR; even if they were, there is no evidence of a clear-cut distinction between allowable commas in British English and American English. Comma use in a given article is subject to editorial consensus and MOS:COMMA. If editors seek to remove unnecessary commas, they are welcome to invoke MOS:COMMA. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:54, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No – per RGloucester and because I, too, am not aware of any clear-cut, general ENGVAR distinction in this regard. Also because I find that, when in doubt, adding commas is usually better for readability than leaving them out. Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • My perception is that American English more strictly/readily uses commas after introductory phrases, such as "However,…" or "Last year,…" or "In 2023,…", whereas in British usage these are sometimes omitted so that formulations such as "However I disagree" or "In 2023 he died", or indeed longer such constructions, are more commonly encountered. Whether this reflects anything that has been formalised in any style guidelines, I do not know. MapReader (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant yes. The question this RfC asks depends on a more fundamental one: are there BrEng and AmEng styles of comma use? (And I think that should have been the question the RfC asked.) If there are, clearly ENGVAR can be cited for reverts. The problem with that question is that ENGVARs are not absolute -- there are some very clear differences such as colour/color, but I've seen reverts (though I can't lay my hands on one) where the distinction was less clear cut. I don't think that's caused a problem in the past and I don't think we should start legislating this sort of thing -- instead, if someone reverts and you don't agree, debate the issue on the talk page. So I'm at yes, largely because of WP:CREEP and the inherent fuzziness of ENGVAR; reluctant, because I don't want to see people arguing that anything they say is BrEng has to be believed. But overlegislating this would be more harmful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There appears to be no clear-cut distinction between British and American English in this regard. Graham11 (talk) 03:00, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some people use the Oxford comma in lists, other's don't. No, it's not an ENGVAR issue, but it is disruptive to switch an article that uses one style to the other without very good reason. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I guess, but please for goodness' sake don't edit-war over commas. (per voorts) Toadspike [Talk] 00:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. (Also: Someone thinks the Oxford comma isn't an acceptable British style?) I also question the MOS:COMMA assertion that "Modern writing uses fewer commas". Fewer than when? It basically didn't exist until the 16th century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Even were there some vague differences, Wikipedia should not be the business endorsing a strict style line. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion (commas and ENGVAR)

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

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

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

    References

    1. ^ "University of Oxford Style Guide" (PDF). University of Oxford. p. 12. Retrieved 4 October 2025.
    2. ^ "Commas". University of Nottingham. Retrieved 4 October 2025.
    3. ^ New Oxford Style Manual. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2012. p. 69. Retrieved 4 October 2025.
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Fewer commas

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Clear

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

    Awkward

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


    Nobody on their right mind needs to be told the second first sentence is clearer. Or that you can restructure sentences to have less commas.... FaviFake (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    FaviFake You mean the second sentence is (wildly) less clear. —Fortuna, imperatrix 11:04, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, fixed it. FaviFake (talk) 15:59, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect that we don't need that. It is a bit WP:CREEPY, and it's really about re-writing for clarity instead of being directly about the commas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree too. I doubt it'll be missed if we delete it. Gawaon (talk) 18:07, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I am fine with removal of this guidance. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:33, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    i've boldly removed it. FaviFake (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone else wants to ruin a perfectly good afternoon by arguing about commas, please see Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Discovery of the neutron/1. Also Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Could we change the 'Start' class article example? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    DOB but without year?

    [edit]

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

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

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

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

    As a side note, I've posted a neutral notice on WP:BLPN pointing to this discussion. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:14, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with the sentiment that a date without a year is generally not useful information. I can imagine situations where we might have a source about a notable historical person that tells us they were born on some festival day with uncertainty about the year. But (1) the source would probably still give an approximate year or range of years that could be used, and (2) we would have a sentence or two explaining this uncertainty, rather than simply stating the date in an infobox or the opening sentence with no further explanation. In contrast, if the source is an Instagram post saying something like "happy birthday to me" and we have no source for an approximate year then I fully agree that this does not seem to serve a useful encyclopaedic purpose. Mgp28 (talk) 08:22, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If we wanted the MOS to state something specific about this it might be good to have an example of a date with uncertain year that is treated well in an article. All the historical examples seem hypothetical. Does anyone know a real one? Mgp28 (talk) 08:35, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For a BLP example, Monica Rial has her birthday listed as "October 5" per what was once her official Twitter feed. But since her year wasn't listed on her Wikipedia page (her age is mentioned in this Houston Chronicle article regarding her involvement in the Country Playhouse's production of "Cabaret", which was published on July 25, 2002 (she was 26 at that time) and on Colleen Clinkenbeard's Facebook page where Colleen wished Monica Rial a happy 50th birthday on October 5, 2025), I removed it. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:30, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If, according to reliable or self-published (by her) information one could narrow down her birthday to something like "5 October 1975 or 1976", I'd consider it OK to add that information. But in that case a year is of course present, if with some uncertainty. So that's quite different from the pointless "5 October" info alone. Gawaon (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it is. Also for Luci Christian, the official HIDIVE account's tweet confirms her birthday as March 18, while the April 2, 2006 Abilene-Reporter News article explicitly confirms her age (33) at the time of their interview with her. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:43, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Commonality

    [edit]

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

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

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

    In other words, if you (collectively) can't tell what the article's established variety, go back until the first edit that maeks it longer than a stub, tag it with the variety used there, and make it consistent. UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. That's what MOS:RETAIN says. The article has never used British English, before or after the hatnote was added. The article seems to use a mix of Australian and American English, with Australian English having more MOS:TIES to the article because the car was sold in Australia but not the US, but with US English arguably having been used first. I don't care one way or another which one it uses. I will admit to having misinterpreted the earliest non-stub version as using Australian English when arguably there was a stronger precedent for US English, but once again I do not care either way so long as it is consistent. Changing the article to exclusively use US English or Australian English requires a few small changes to spelling and vocabulary. Changing the article to use British English would require substantial changes throughout the article which would contradict the entire decade-plus history of the page. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2025 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 20:06, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if there was no clear standard before the additional of the the first Use... tag, I'd say that the first Use... tag, hence "Use British English", prevails per MOS:RETAIN. If that was the first spelling variant actually standardized for the article, it's the one to keep. Unless consensus on the talk can be reached to restandardize on something else, of course. If you want something fairly "international", "Use Oxford spelling" is probably the best you'll get. Gawaon (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon:: The article uses the word "sedan" 66 times throughout its current version, and has consistently used said word since its inception. It definitively does not use British English. If it used British English it would use the term "saloon car" instead. I do not understand what is complicated about this. It feels like people are just deliberately gaslighting me at this point. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what dictionaries may say but I suspect that "sedan" in an automobile context is understood pretty much anywhere in the English-speaking world, while using "saloon (car)" would definitively leave some people confused. So in the interesting of COMMONALITY, "sedan" is the better term regardless of the variant of English otherwise used for the article. Gawaon (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon:: An article which otherwise uses British English but which incessant uses the word "sedan" to describe a car is not in British English but is effectively in Australian English, in which case the article should be tagged to use Australian English to avoid causing confusion. I don't care either way whether the article uses "sedan" or "saloon car", but I do care about avoiding causing confusion. It comes across to me as if people are just writing off the idea of changing the tag to specify using Australian English out of an obstinate desire to have a deceitful note that willfully misleads editors about which vocabulary term they should be using and readers about British English vocabulary. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if you want to restandardize on Australian English, I won't stand in the way. But you'll still need to get the agreement of the other user on the talk page. And if you can't get that, my advice would be to let it be. There is really no point in having long disputes about the variant of English used, and MOS:RETAIN was specifically developed to avoid them. Gawaon (talk) 22:22, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This probably will be considered heresy here on a talk page that attracts those who care a lot about style consistency… but… I would say that inconsistency is the norm here on WP. Perhaps it should be explicitly made an option when editors can’t agree on one variation over others. Blueboar (talk) 21:34, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very sad that, in my absence from this project for some years, the very handy EngvarB was abolished. Now people wage petty squabbles over nationalistic linguistic markings that provide no benefit to the encyclopaedia, creating artificial differences between standards where none really exists... Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My feelings exactly, which is why I was hoping that there might be a neutral/inconsistent/international/supranational/global option out there. Otherwise, someone will add a tag, and once there is a tag, then someone else will go in and "fix" the article. Of course I also recognize that there was a {{use neutral English}} tag, then we would have eternal arguments about whether "pavement" or "sidewalk" is the correct, neutral term.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:03, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there can be such a thing as 'neutral English', but some level of standardisation is possible. At least in regard to the Commonwealth varieties, there is a high-level of consistency in terms of spelling, if not in diction. This is where 'EngvarB' came into play.
    As is mentioned above, one is meant to determine which variety to use based on the content of the article at its first significant expansion beyond stub status. Of course, in the vast majority of cases, an article at such a stage may use -ise and -our spellings without having any other distinguishing features. Sure, one could tag the article as being written in 'British English', but it might just as well be written in Australian or Bajan or Indian. This is where EngvarB was useful, allowing for consistency in terms of spelling without forcing any artificial word-choice restraints on the article. Alas, the community decided that it was better to propagate strange WP:OR about different standard Englishes, using such 'productive' templates as Template:Use Ghanaian English and Template:Use Belizean English to mark various articles... Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:40, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. From now on, I will add "use Belizean English" to any and all new articles I create, in the spirit of Carthago delenda est.  Mr.choppers | ✎  12:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we also note which templates for the standard English ones (i.e. American, British, Australian) are being used in the talk pages so that anyone doesn't get confused about which specific types are being used in the article? sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean? Each {{Use ... English/spelling}} template has an accompanying template (without "Use") that can be added to the talk page. Gawaon (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you mean?: For example, if there's an article about an Australian topic that has the hidden {{Use Australian English}} template on the page (i.e. Sydney, Mad Max, etc.), we can always add the {{Australian English}} on the article's talk page. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:36, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly, we can and we should! Gawaon (talk) 08:46, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon: My thoughts, exactly. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Order of templates for maintenance tags & date format and English variety

    [edit]

    Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section organization says "... templates that indicate the article's established date format and English-language variety" go before "Banner-type maintenance templates, Dispute and Cleanup templates for article-wide issues".

    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Order of article elements says "Maintenance, cleanup, and dispute tags" go before "Templates relating to English variety and date format".

    Seems contradictory. Is there some subtlety I am missing? Nurg (talk) 09:21, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems weird to me that this guidance is copied (and inconsistently!) in "Section organization" at all. It's about elements that aren't part of any section. IMO, it should be deleted from "Section organization". pburka (talk) 23:50, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    "For some reason use of a slash is unavoidable"

    [edit]

    I don't understand the last bullet point of MOS:SLASH:

    A spaced slash may be used: [...]

    • to separate items that include at least one internal space (the NY 31 east / NY 370 exit), if for some reason use of a slash is unavoidable.

    There are 6 other bullet points before it that delineate exactly in which cases using a slash is allowed, but then the last one allows using every time it is "unavoidable"? "For some reason"? What led to this weird exception? I feel like it permits most slash usages, and I don't understand in which cases removign the slash would be "unavoidable", especially considering the many exceptions listed above it. FaviFake (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not familiar with that guideline (or its origin) but I agree that the wording is not very precise or helpful. Apparently it is trying to say "To separate items (gives an example here) but only use a slash as a last resort, when no other options can be used." But it would be more helpful to give examples of other, more suitable alternatives. Is there a "blame" tool in WP to find the specific edit that added the sentence? Noleander (talk) 00:18, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From its context within that section, it may apply to "expression[s] or abbreviation[s] widely used outside Wikipedia", but modified for the situation that there's a space in the expression. Gawaon (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it looks like we're talking about e.g. technical terms or proper nouns containing slashes, or perhaps a few other specialised contexts: this wouldn't apply in this specific case, but as an example, years of the ancient Athenian civil calendar, which ran from midsummer to midsummer, are written as e.g. 508/7 BCE. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This sounds like it should be added as an example to the 5th point then, instead of being so vague. For example:

    *in an expression or abbreviation widely used outside Wikipedia (e.g., n/a or N/A for not applicable or 508/7 BCE).


    ... and the seventh point removed. FaviFake (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    508/7 BCE is both a great example of a specialised use and if presented without comment or explanation, one that could be misunderstood as allowing the general use of slashes for date ranges. MOS:YEARRANGE has

    The slash notation (2005/2006) may be used to signify a fiscal year or other special period, if that convention is used in reliable sources.

    NebY (talk) 13:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, we have that too at MOS:/

    to indicate regular defined yearly periods that do not coincide with calendar years (e.g., the 2009/2010 fiscal year), if that is the convention used in reliable sources

    I guess the 7th bullet can just be removed entirely at this point. Every exception is and should be covered in the bullets above it. FaviFake (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, WikiBlame, which reveals "slash is unavoidable" was added in 2008. It's called by the "find addition/removal" link that's first of the external tools offered at the top of the revision history. NebY (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that the nutshell for this (and every) MOS page contains the language “…occasional exceptions may apply”. We don’t need to spell out every rare exception. Just the more common ones. Blueboar (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    YouTube video titles

    [edit]

    Is there any MOS policy pertaining to how YouTube video titles and other video titles should be formatted, i.e. whether they should be in quotes or in italics? I know that MOS:MAJORWORK states that a video feature released only on video tape, disc or the Internet is considered a "film" for these purposes and should therefore be italicized, but what about videos like Double Rainbow, Charlie Bit My Finger, or David After Dentist, all of which are very plainly not short films or "video features"? There are plenty of videos that I see mentioned throughout various articles but it seems like there's no consensus on whether to put them in quotes or in italics. benǝʇᴉɯ 16:30, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd put the video title in "quotes". If a formal reference is given, YouTube (the website) takes italics. Gawaon (talk) 16:39, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Gawaon (talk · contribs). Judgement is required in interpreting what is a major work and if there is disagreement, that should be worked out on the talk page. A meme seldom successful because of the amount of work that went into producing it. SchreiberBike | ⌨  20:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Anchor problem?

    [edit]

    MOS:NOBACKREF isn't currently navigating to the correct page anchor. It's a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#SECTIONSTYLE, and the SECTIONSTYLE page anchor is defined as:

    {{anchor|1=SECTIONSTYLE|2=Section headings (styling best practice)|Section headings (main styling reason)}}As a matter of consistent style, section headings should: {{Shortcut|MOS:SECTIONSTYLE|MOS:NOBACKREF}}

    ...but one of the recent changes seems to have rendered it inoperable, possibly because of nested templates. I'm no expert on template syntax: could someone please have a look? Other shortcut links might also be affected by the problem, I haven't checked yet. Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 07:42, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the 1= and 2= from the template and now it's working again. Gawaon (talk) 08:17, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Genius! Thank you. Wikishovel (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't try it, but I suppose adding an explicit 3= in front of the third parameter would have worked too. Parameters without an explicit name get 1, 2, 3 etc. as automatic names, I think, and so the parameter 1 was effectively specified twice (once with an explicit name and once without), confusing the template parser. Gawaon (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia mentioned in CMoS Q&A

    [edit]

    I thought MOS folks might be interested in this question from this month's Chicago Manual of Style Q&A. The gist of it is that they argue post–traumatic stress disorder should be written with an en-dash rather than a hyphen, since post- here modifies the open compound traumatic stress. They note that despite this reasoning, no one seems to use the en-dash here, not even Wikipedia, which tends to feature a lot of en dashes compared with other publications. I have my own thoughts on this construct but I thought I'd just share this and not digress further… —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not sure I agree with the premise that post modifies the "open compound tramatic stress". The disorder is the "stress" being suffered in the present, due to "trauma" that happened in the past. Therefore post- only modifies traumatic alone, and post-traumatic modifies stress disorder. I think that would mean the hyphen is correct. ~2025-33578-20 (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I tend to read it as {post-traumatic} {stress disorder} and not as {post–traumatic stress} {disorder}. I'm not sure I'd ever given it much thought but I suppose it is potentially ambiguous. DSM-5-TR uses the closed compound posttraumatic stress disorder while ICD-10 uses hyphenated post-traumatic stress disorder and ICD-11 uses the open compound post traumatic stress disorder. Per Ngram the closed compound posttraumatic is most common. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't seem right. The disorder is being suffered in the present due to stress, specifically traumatic stress, that happened in the past. It is not post-trauma stress disorder. The traumatic must be qualifying stress. So it's:
    {post {traumatic stress}} disorder
    But I'm just a proficient native speaker, and a grammar amateur. I'm also not familiar with the curly bracket notation so not certain if I have used it correctly, technically. Nurg (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong national ties to a topic

    [edit]

    MOS:TIES says An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the standard (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation. Why do we enforce that? It seems like a silly rule and detrimental to the encyclopedia.

    I learned American English. Surely that shouldn't disqualify me from writing about topics tied to, for example, the UK. But if doing so requires me to write in BrEng, I'd be lost. There's a few words for sure that I know I'm supposed to stick an extra "u" in (i.e. colour). I'd remember that "fetus" isn't right, but I'd have to go look up what the correct British spelling is. But mostly, I'm sure I would trip over all sorts of subtle variations of spelling, diction, idiom, etc without having a clue what travesties I was inflicting on a language I barely speak.

    I get that once you pick a variant for a given article, you should be consistent. But I don't at all get that we should force a particular variant based on the topic. It's almost like saying if I want to write about Charles de Gaulle, I should be forced to write it in French. As an American, I can read BrEng just fine, and I assume the same is true in the reverse. So why not let people just write in whichever flavor they are most fluent in and it'll be fine for everybody? RoySmith (talk) 16:24, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The only way I've been able to interpret this is that you can write in whatever English you're capable of writing in, but everyone else is free to make what would otherwise be objectionable nuisance edits if it weren't for the fact that they were conforming your content to the variety of English applicable to that article. In addition, don't correct other editors' contributions based on your own notions of grammar and usage because what you're seeing might be correct in the applicable variety of English. Because, at first glace, you're right: There's even a "Use Bruneaian English" template, but what fraction of Wikipedia editors are competent to write in Bruneian English? I refuse to interpret this as "learn Bruneian English or else consider yourself barred from editing Brunei-related articles". Largoplazo (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's basically been my understanding although I have wondered if it might be considered disruptive to add substantial amount of new content to an article using a different variety. I've also imagined a scenario where I want to make substantial edits but choose not to because I'm not confident I can follow the local conventions consistently. That said, I find ENGVAR quite reasonable. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because a priori readers would expect an article about American history to be written in American English and the same for British history. ENGVAR is a contested subject as it stands, but at least TIES ensures that for the very many articles tied to Britain or the Commonwealth, America, Canada, etc., the variety of English expected isn’t subject to debate. I’d also guess that articles on British topics tend to have more British readers, on US topics more American readers, and so on, so TIES does its best to match what most readers will be familiar with. MapReader (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know the history but I find TIES helpful. For most topics, there's not good reason to pick one written standard over another. Having a clear rule for certain topics saves time by limiting disputes. Regarding MapReader's comment above, I don't think there's anything weird about writing an American history article in British English or vice-versa, but it's nice not to have to argue about it. I suspect most readers don't notice and don't care unless they read an article in a variety different than their own, regardless of the topic. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the way I think we should think about RETAIN and TIES:
    • First, RETAIN is the main rule. TIES is a special carveout to it and should be applied only when it's clear.
    • However, RETAIN is not as scary as it might sound. It's not a prohibition on ever changing the variety of an article ever. If you have a good argument and you can get consensus for it, you can change the variety.
    • In this light, TIES is mainly a timesaver. When it's completely obvious what variety should be chosen, because of the connection of the topic to the country where the variety is spoken, you can just go ahead and boldly change it.
    Ideally that's the way things should work. Unfortunately there are enough editors who will try to stretch TIES to find some connection to a country (or who seem to think there's typically a "correct" variety to write a particular article in) that we get a lot of confusion and angels dancing on the head of a pin. I personally would be willing to junk TIES altogether over this and just let people argue their good reasons article-by-article; if the case is really clear then consensus should be achievable. It would involve some less-than-optimally-productive demands on editor time, but so does the current situation. --Trovatore (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • TIES was basically a compromise to prevent constant edit-warring over ENGVAR. Every petty nationalist wanted his bit of territory, and rather than having a free-for-all, it made sense to set up a rule to demarcate that territory by default. Personally, I think this is a ridiculous approach. American readers should be able to read articles written using American spelling, and British readers should be able to read articles with British spelling. The solution is simple: implement a converter like the one used for the Chinese Wikipedia, whereby the reader could easily switch between variants at his leisure. This would enable the writer to write in whatever English he wanted, without any impact on the reader. All ENGVAR disputes would disappear. Unfortunately, the English Wikipedia has historically shown little interest in such a solution, despite the fact that it is almost certainly technically feasible. Unlike in the Chinese case, the question of varieties of English, like most MoS matters, is treated as trivial by the community at large, and hence such a converter has been considered a waste of development resources. Alas, it is the reader who suffers for our indolence. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Marginally related, I think the {{convert}} templates should all go away. People should be able to set in their preferences "I prefer metric" or "I prefer that stupid shit we still use in the United States" and see whichever set of units they prefer. But that would make too much sense. RoySmith (talk) 01:27, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I would be completely against any sort of automatic conversion of English varieties. First of all, it wouldn't work, at least not without using a lot of AI. But even if it could be made to work, we shouldn't coddle that sort of thing. People should just learn to read different varieties. It's not our job to hide the complexity of the world from our readers.
      Automatic rendering of units is maybe slightly less bad, because at least the right answer is clear-cut. But still, people ought to learn about different systems of units. --Trovatore (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Units are much more delicate than the issue of ENGVAR. There are instances where the source units should be prioritised for verifiability reasons, and also instances where simple conversions impede comprehension, such as those from metric to decimal imperial, instead of mixed units (i.e. metres to decimal feet instead of feet and inches). Unit conversions should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Conversion between ENGVARs can work, without AI; the Chinese Wikipedia system is a clear precedent. You argue that people should learn to read different varieties, and perhaps that is true. However, forcing readers to engage with multiple different varieties and muddying the difference between them may have a knock-on effect on English usage outside Wikipedia, leading to the gradual displacement of minority usages. AI makes this problem all the worse. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, and should avoid influencing English language usage. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't like stuff that happens by magic. There should be one version of an article at any one time, not some sort of recipe for creating an article. (Tangentially, "abstract Wikipedia" is a terrible idea; fortunately it will never work.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:55, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      As far as I know, the conversion done on Chinese Wikipedia involves no more than the unambiguous one-to-one mapping between the traditional characters and the simplified ones. That's hardly at the level of difficulty that would be involved in a converter knowing to display "gaol" as "jail"—except in the case of Reading Gaol or other prisons with "Gaol" in their names; or knowing when to display "licence" for Brits and when to display "license" for Brits (one is a noun, the other is a verb; both are spelled "license" in US English). And so on. Largoplazo (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not correct. Please read the article I linked above. The different Chinese varieties also differ in diction, and these differences are accounted for by the converter. It is also capable of distinguishing between proper names and general terminology. The conversion tables themselves are edited by administrators, i.e. they are subject to editorial control. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:12, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see anything in your link that suggests the same text would be translated differently depending on its grammatical function in the sentence, which (at a minimum) an ENGVAR translator would have to do. (That said, I would be against it even if it were free and worked perfectly.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if you don't like 'magic', the other option is to adopt one variety as the standard, as is done by every other publication. I would support this irrespective of the variety adopted. We have already made similar decisions before, e.g. the logical quotation mandate. Better than the pell-mell we have now, as far as I am concerned. Of course, this well never happen, as Wikipaedists are a curmudgeonly bunch. Myself, most of all! Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the other option is to do what we do now. Except as I mentioned I wouldn't have a problem with getting rid of TIES, which seems to be an open invitation to nationalists, and just going with straight RETAIN. In practice the outcomes wouldn't change that much, because for clear TIES cases you ought to be able to get consensus. --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn’t really make any sense. Such consensuses would be argued out and settled on the basis of ties, so you might as well have TIES. MapReader (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's my point. You probably get to the same outcome most of the time. But you take away the invitation to say "but the guy who first theorized the existence of goztillium was Freedonian, so the goztillium article should be in Freedonian English, and I can change it to that without consensus". --Trovatore (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You probably get to the same outcome most of the time. We save time by being able to point to a documented consensus at WP:TIES for the majority of cases. We can't prevent some editors from making dubious claims of TIES but it's easier to explain why these are inconsistent with the actual guidance than it is to argue from scratch each time. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:43, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I said it was a timesaver, in my first comment way up above. The problem is that when you start elaborating nuances on a timesaver, people forget that it's a timesaver and start to think it's the main principle, and start arguing competing nationalisms.
    The main principle is RETAIN; TIES is a carveout that, used properly, should save time and avoid people filibustering to "no consensus". That's a reasonable thing to want to do, but if we start to say too much about it, people are going to reverse those, and start thinking of RETAIN as just a tiebreaker, rather than the main point. --Trovatore (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You then said you'd be OK with getting rid of TIES because these could be settled through individual page discussions, likely with the same outcome as with TIES in place most of the time. You then brought up the added benefit of removing the invitation for certain kinds of bogus TIES claims. I read that as suggesting that the time suck from those discussions might be greater than the time saved by having TIES in place. Pardon my misunderstanding. Thank you for clarifying. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The license/licence thing is exactly my point. I had no idea Brits used both of those for different things. So, if I'm writing an article about some British topic, people are going to come along and say, "You need to be using BrEng" and slap a {{use british english}} template on the article. And then, since I don't know how to write in BrEng, they're going to keep coming along and saying, "You idiot, you keep spelling things wrong". It all seems kind of pointless. Especially at WP:FAC when it becomes an excuse to oppose a nomination. RoySmith (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just use the good, old-fashioned Ohconfucius script. It will have your writing sorted in a trice. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 04:19, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    No one should be calling you an idiot for missing some nuance of a variety. Just do the best you can without spending too much stress on it, and let the gnomes clean it up. That's the sort of thing they live for. --Trovatore (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When adding new content, just make a good effort. The "use British English" template is a reminder to editors of new content to make that effort, and essentially forbids editors from replacing the existing British idiosyncrasies with American ones. If you get it a bit wrong, someone will probably come along and fix it and probably won't lambast you. pburka (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Agreeing with the above, I would add that there are far fewer differences among the national varieties in a formal, written register (“encyclopedic style”) than in colloquial speech or even informal writing. The spelling differences are mostly systematic, according to only a handful of rules, and differences in diction are pretty rare beyond a few technological topic areas, such as transportation. I would never fault someone for using the ‘wrong’ variety de novo—no more than for making a typo, anyway—which is very different from going around changing things willy-nilly to xyr preferred variety.—Odysseus1479 22:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This applies to national varieties established per MOS:RETAIN and is not specific to those governed by TIES. The script RGloucester shared appears quite useful. Perhaps this tool should be promoted among editors who work on and review Featured Article submissions. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are stressing unnecessarily. Firstly, the differences between English variants are, in the grand scheme of things, very minor. Secondly, the whole point of WP is that editors make their best effort and other editors will come along to improve it / fix it later. Finally, even if TIES didn't exist, RETAIN still means that you will sometimes find yourself editing in a different English variant from the one you usually use. Furius (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:TENSE and Egyptian Gods

    [edit]

    Over at the talk page for the Egyptian God Ra I've started a discussion after my changing of "was" to "is" was reverted. I believe that Ra (and by extension all the Egyptian Gods) should adhere to MOS:TENSE and be in the present tense, but two other editors disagree - although both also admit to mixing tenses in articles as well. I don't think this is a content dispute per se, more a difference of interpretation of MOS:TENSE, hence I thought I'd come here to ask for thoughts.

    My full rationale is on the talk page, quite happy to post it here as well if requested, but I don't want to hit the page with a wall of TL:DR. Pinging the other two editors out of courtesy: PharaohCrab and A. Parrot. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    To explain why I have trouble with consistent tenses, an article on a deity will include several types of statements:
    • Actions in myth (e.g., "Ra sends/sent his Eye to punish humanity")
    • Actions deities take within the world ("Ra sails/sailed his barque through the sky")
    • Specific verbiage used in ancient texts ("Ra is/was called 'far strider who came forth from Heliopolis'")
    • Imagery in ancient artwork ("Ra is/was portrayed as a falcon-headed man with the sun-disk on his head")
    • Acts of worship by ancient people ("Ra is/was worshipped in the form of the Mnevis bull")
    The first category is commonly rendered in present tense because mythic narratives can be treated in the same way as a plot summary. The last category is pretty clearly past tense, as these acts of worship do not take place anymore. The others are ambiguous. Both texts and artworks can be talked about in the present tense because those texts and artwork survive to the present, but they can also be in past tense because those texts and artworks were created in ancient times and are only a sample of what existed in the past (particularly for texts, where the same phrases were presumably often used in speech). I'd like to figure out some coherent way of handling these categories.
    I note that GAs on other ancient deities, like Athena, do use "is" in the lead sentence, but they don't seem to treat these categories of statements with consistent tenses either. A. Parrot (talk) 17:29, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, discussion on the talk page, but I should mention out that my main point is the lede intro: Ra is an Egyptian God, not Ra was an Egyptian God. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I ended up using "was" in the lead sentences for articles like Isis and Hathor because of the way I formulate those sentences: "Hathor was a goddess in ancient Egyptian religion". I write it this way because I want to emphasize the religion, not the mythology, which was only one component of the religion. The religion isn't practiced anymore, so I use "was". A. Parrot (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would agree with A. Parrot's approach. If no-one practises a particular religion anymore, then everything about it becomes past tense, including the gods. I think this is backed up by MOS:Tense which can be summarised, I think, as 'everything is present tense until it's past tense.' I think ancient Egyptian religion (the key word being ancient) has become past tense. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Once a god is dead you may speak of them in the past tense. But you need a death certificate or other reliable source confirming the demise, Nietzsche saying so is not enough. Gawaon (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I base it on what's more helpful to the reader rather than philosophy. Once a religion ceases to be practised and no-one is around to believe in it or its gods, I think it's more helpful to refer to everything about it in the past tense. If an alien came to earth and asked who is this 'Ra', I think it would be more helpful to say that Ra was a god in ancient Egyptian religion. To say that they are a god suggests that the religion itself is still alive and kicking. Dgp4004 (talk) 11:36, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether practised or not, the term is still present tense - unless there has been a reliably sourced consensus to remove Hathor from the ancient Egyptian pantheon, then Hathor is a goddess in ancient Egyptian religion. Chaheel Riens (talk)
    Our Ancient Egyptian religion article is in the past tense, quite rightly. It seems contradictory to refer to its components in the present tense. NebY (talk) 18:30, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    However, our articles on ancient Greek gods such as Zeus, Athena, Hermes, Perseus all seem to use the present tense. And our article on the Egyptian language, linked from the one you mentioned, says it "is an extinct branch of the Afro-Asiatic language family that was spoken in ancient Egypt", using the present tense to describe its existence despite the language family being extinct. By the same logic, writing "Isis is [present]] a major goddess in ancient Egyptian religion whose worship spread [past] throughout the Greco-Roman world" would seem logical enough and more in agreement with how we deal with similar subjects in other articles. Also, MOS:TENSE starts with "By default, write articles in the present tense, including those covering ... products or works that have been discontinued", which suggests that in cases of uncertainty (such as these ones) it's better to err in favour of the present, it being the default choice. Gawaon (talk) 08:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    1STOCC with acronyms

    [edit]

    There's a debate over how to format the article title at MS NOW. This TV channel was recently renamed but the name is also a forced backronym. 1STOCC doesn't seem to account for backronyms like this, where the backronym expansion is unintuitive and not the common name. Bringing here because the issue is at the MOS level, not an article-level issue. Pinging prior discussants @Nathan Obral, ClarkKentWannabe, and Samueldester1234:

    My Source [for] News, Opinion, [and the] World (MS NOW; formerly MSNBC) is an...

    MS NOW (My Source [for] News, Opinion, [and the] World; formerly MSNBC) is an...

    MS NOW[a] (formerly MSNBC) is an

    1. ^ A backronym for "My Source [for] News, Opinion, [and the] World"

    Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 17:25, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The third option with an explanatory footnote, and the footnote itself being cited, is preferable. The core difference between MS NOW and CNBC (another cable channel commonly owned by Comcast, being spun off to Versant) is that CNBC has always stood for "Consumer News and Business Channel" and is the actual channel name. "My Source for News, Opinion and the World" is only being used for marketing positioners and on the channel's digital on-screen bug, but is not the actual channel name. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 17:32, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the first option works best. The thing that is confusing here is that it technically aligns to 1STOCC, since the letters “MS NOW” is an acronym for “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World”. Despite the network primarily uses “MS NOW”, that doesn’t mean the name itself does not have a acronym. The acornym just being a “marketing slogan”, aruged by user Nathan Obral, doesn’t make sense, as multiple news articles refers “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World” a acronym. Samueldester1234 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The only reason why the marketing slogan (which it is) was drafted was to distinguish the channel from NBC, who had operated the channel for 29 years. It was a necessary marketing campaign given the channel's older demographics and those who are not media literate and aware of why it was losing its prior name. That being said, it is not the actual name of the channel, and unless there exists actual and definitive proof the channel is indeed named "My Source for News, Opinion and the World" and not "MS NOW", then 1STOCC simply cannot apply here. Nathan Obral • he/him/🦝 • t • c • 18:15, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Including “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World (MS NOW)” in the lead (not the article name just to be clear) is fully warranted and why dismissing it as “just marketing” doesn’t hold up. In its rebranding announcement, MSNBC states that “Later this year … MSNBC will take on a new name: My Source News Opinion World (MS NOW)."[3] establishing this phrase as the acronym’s full form. Multiple reliable sources such as PBS, CBS News, and the Associated Press also report the acronym in full form.
    Some outlets, such as The Guardian describes the acronym as “somewhat forced.” but that is a value judgment about the quality of the name, not evidence that the expansion is unofficial. Critique of a name’s aesthetics does not negate the fact that the full phrase is verifiably documented and used in coverage.
    Under 1STOCC, if an acronym is established, the full form should be given on first mention. WP:V requires that facts stated on Wikipedia be backed by reliable sources, and here we have multiple sources plus the network itself. WP:COMMONNAME governs the title of the article (which is correctly “MS NOW”), but it does not prohibit explaining in the lead what the acronym stands for when that information is reliably sourced. Including the expansion provides context for readers and is consistent with how similar cases are handled across other articles. Samueldester1234 (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, my stance is that the second option is the way to go. As I explained to Samueldester1234 on my talk page, MS NOW is a different situation from CNBC; CNBC originally utilized the full version of its name before eventually switching to the initialism, whereas both the long & short-form brandings for MS NOW were created at the same time. From what I'm aware of, "My Source News Opinion World" is the full branding MS NOW is going with, with several other outlets modifying it to either "My Source for New, Opinion, and the Word", or "My Source [for] News, Opinion, [and the] World" (formatting it to match the initialism). So, I'd be ok with Option 2. ClarkKentWannabe (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per SamuelDester's reliable sources, I think we have to go with Option 4 - report the actual name, as annoying as it is without the bracketed additions. (Or modified Option 1, if you prefer to think of it that way.) Option 2 is downgrading the actual name to an explanation, and Option 3 relegates it to a footnote, neither of which I like doing. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:23, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I visited the ms.now website and this so-called "full name" is featured neither on the start page nor on the About and Contact pages. If it really was the full name then, of course, it would appear prominently in all these places. Very clearly, the actual common and full name is MS NOW, neither more nor less. A single article claiming something else doesn't make it so. Gawaon (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Now look at their help desk FAQ page at https://msnow.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/41161833728283-What-is-MS-NOW. (The Help link on their own website leads to their Help site hosted by ZenDesk.) Largoplazo (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A full name is not buried three links down in a FAQ, however. A full name is used wherever you would expect it to be found, such as in the imprint/about section, while an ad-hoc explanation of the name's origin or meaning may well be found in the FAQ. Also, the version "My Source for News, Opinion, and the World" seems to be a Wikipedia invention? In their own articles, they use "My Source News Opinion World". Gawaon (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A full name is not buried three links down in a FAQ, however. Is this encoded in the law somewhere? If informing the public as to their full, formal name isn't one of their top 50 priorities, then why would it be any higher up on the website than this? They put it in the FAQ for people who really want to know the answer to that question. For everyone else, they deem MS NOW to suffice. Compare the IHOP website, https://www.ihop.com/en. If you visit the News link at the bottom of their home page, you'll see that their boilerplate self-identification at the bottom of any of their press releases has the heading "ABOUT INTERNATIONAL HOUSE OF PANCAKES LLC". It's also explained in their FAQ. That's their official name, even though you won't find it on their home page. Largoplazo (talk) 16:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly the material turned up here suggests that, when we do mention the expanded meaning, it should be referred to as My Source News Opinion World, so any of the above versions would be modified to suit. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:54, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, as far as my Google found it, "My Source News Opinion World" is mentioned exactly once on ms.now, in "A message to our community", while "My Source for News, Opinion, and the World" is also mentioned exactly once, in "What you need to know about MS NOW". So which one is official now? They don't even seem to know themselves. Gawaon (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gawaon While the network’s website may not prominently display it as full, Wikipedia relies on verifiable sources WP:V. Multiple reliable sources such as PBS, CBS News, and the Associated Press report the acronym in full form. In the link that Largoplazo put here that goes to their FAQ page, it even stated “ MS NOW (previously MSNBC) stands for My Source News Opinion World.”. Not all brands or networks would have its full acronym put up on its about page, It would be in a FAQ page because that would be frequently asked by people who are not familiar with the brand (as Largoplazo pointed out earlier) Samueldester1234 (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there other well-known cases where the full official name is only used in a FAQ? I can't remember of ever having come across such a case. Those reliable sources you mention all seem to be based on a single press release. I'd suggest to stand by for three months or so and check how often this so-called full name will show up in the future in either primary or secondary sources. If often enough, then sure, let's add it. Gawaon (talk) 19:08, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It has never been so painfully obvious—outside of, say, congressional bill titles—that a name was concocted to justify the acronym. Actually, that's probably the best example of how reliable sources—and, in turn, us—handle names of this variety. Ever heard of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001? No, but you've probably heard of the Patriot Act. The Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography And Marketing Act sounds obscure, but the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 not so much. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 20:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That certainly does happen. And, that having happened, those retrofitted, ungainly phrases become the full, formal names of those bills. The full, formal name of the Patriot Act is right there on the title page of the act, https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ56/PLAW-107publ56.pdf. Why they chose that name is immaterial to it being the name. It isn't a folk etymology made up after the fact by random people like "tip" = "to insure promptness" and "posh" = "port out, starboard home". Largoplazo (talk) 20:31, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if the MS NOW people do the equivalent of printing the name on the title page – mentioning it on the start page of their website or in other equally prominent places – then of course we should consider it official too. But that's not the case so far. Gawaon (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's weird to say that what a company says about what its own full name is is valid only if the places where they state it on their website meet your satisfaction. Largoplazo (talk) 03:11, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I already gave IHOP as an example. It took me about ten seconds for it to come to mind and I quickly verified that it was comparable. Largoplazo (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That one's not comparable at all since, as far is I can see, the full name is indeed frequently mentioned throughout its website rather than being buried deep down in a FAQ. It's not because the "full name" is contrived but because it seems to be essentially unused that I doubt it actually being the full name in any meaningful sense. Gawaon (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes PBS, CBS, and AP particularly reliable for answering the question "What is the actual official name for The Channel Formerly Known as MSNBC?? You know full well that "Generally Reliable" does not mean "Reliable for Every Factual Claim Under the Sun". So, why should they be deemed more reliable for what the channels actual name is than is the primary source: the channel itself? We may favour secondary sources, generally, but that does not mean that when a bunch of secondary sources copying one another publish claims that run contrary to the primary source(s) they are based on, that we still go with the secondary sources' claims anyway. Under such circumstances those claims in those secondary sources fail verification. ~2025-33846-04 (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The rebranding announcement itself already establishes the full expansion, the network directly states that the new name is “My Source News Opinion World (MS NOW).” Since that comes from the organization’s own announcement, it is already a strong, verifiable primary source for what the acronym stands for. The earlier sources I cited (PBS, CBS News, AP) simply reflect what the network itself stated; they are not inventing the expansion or contradicting the primary source.
    To add to that, a different outlet LA Times has reported the same thing: “MS NOW — an acronym for ‘My Source for News, Opinion and the World’ — is the result of the politically progressive network being spun off into a company called Versant.” This is significant because it shows the full acronym is recognized beyond just the initial wave of articles and is being repeated in new reporting, not just copied from a single source.
    The fact that the channel markets itself publicly as “MS NOW” doesn’t negate the existence of the acronym, it just reflects branding practice. We can’t simply ignore the acronym when it has been reported and reaffirmed by multiple outlets as well as the network’s own announcement. The documentation is clear that the acronym exists and is acknowledged in reliable coverage.
    That said, I agree with Gawaon that monitoring how often the full acronym continues to appear in the coming months will help solidify how it should be reflected in the lead. Samueldester1234 (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Unspaced slash

    [edit]

    Today's edit drew my attention to the section on slashes, MOS:SLASH

    First, a minor issue: it lists many situations in which unspaced slashes are the correct choice, but it misses the case where this formatting is a standard part of technical terminology or notation. An example is P/poly.

    Second, I think our guidance on how to use slashes in fractions conflicts with MOS:FRAC and is incorrect. Here, we say to use ÷ for elementary arithmetic and to prefer vertical fractions like to horizontal fractions like "in more advanced mathematical formulas". But the advice to prefer vertical fractions, without any additional qualification, is bad advice and MOS:FRAC does not express a preference between those two forms. Vertical fractions are often a good choice for displayed formulas like or simple inline fractions like but often a bad choice for inline text formulas with complicated numerators and denominators like because they extend above and below the rest of the text, making the text baselines uneven, and because they can lead to tiny tiny font sizes (like the exponent in the numerator of the fraction) causing readability and accessibility issues. And in situations where there are fractions in the numerators and denominators of other fractions, it is generally preferable to mix the two styles e.g. or (depending on context) instead of the horrific . We should follow MOS:FRAC and not express a preference for advanced mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    The first maths example in MOS:SLASH is "7/8", which aligns with what you want. The form is meant for when you have a standalone formula that is not part of running prose. Complicated formulae are best avoided in running text. Admittedly, the MOS could be expressed clearer.
    Note also that users can select from 7/8, 7⁄8 and ⁠7/8⁠, with increasing amounts of space being added above and below the line to accommodate the larger amount of space taken by these characters.  Stepho  talk  02:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The current wording of MOS:SLASH does not make the intended distinction between standalone (displayed) formulas and formulas in running prose.
    Note also that the raised-lowered middle form you suggest is not allowed in mathematics articles, although it may be ok for non-mathematical topics. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    are these already covered by the page linked to from that bullet point? FaviFake (talk) 12:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Simplier version

    [edit]

    Recently there have been a few attempts to add a link to {{simple}} versions of the Manual of Style. While there was a discussion about the {{simple}} template broadly, some people suggested evaluating it on a case-by-case basis, as (usually) the shorter a guideline is, the less likely it is to need a simpler version.

    In the case of the MOS, I think it's needed the most. While I suspect most people are redirected to a specific section of the MOS, I have to assume editors (especially newbies) opening it directly might not want to presented with such an incredible amount of detail. This is the goal of the {{simple}} template:

    The first link is most helpful to new users, while the second is a denser but still succinct summary. There's no harm in new editors browsing these pages as a first step, instead of simply closing the huge page we present them with. FaviFake (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    In [year]

    [edit]

    Hi, should there be a comma after phrases like "In 2021"? For example, "In 2015, Google changed its logo" vs "In 2015 Google changed its logo". I've been unknowingly "correcting" these sentences by adding a comma, but I'm not sure if I should have done that. Is it regional? Thanks. — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 02:19, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is allowed but not required; some styles will use it, others will not. Whether that is a regional difference is disputed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some style sheets (not WP's) require it, some (I suspect) forbid or discourage it (in this specific case), but unless you're working for a publication adhering to such a style sheet, it's a matter of rhythm and pacing (as it often is when it comes to commas). People who insist that only one way or another is ever right are engaging in WP:MISSSNODGRASSism. EEng 02:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Agreed; in general I’d say the longer what follows the date, the more likely a comma will be wanted to avoid a ‘breathless’ impression. If the above example is the entire sentence, I prefer the version without the comma. (OTOH in a full MDY date the year should always be set off by commas; I think some writers have somehow internalized that rule as “a year must be followed by a comma”.)—Odysseus1479 02:47, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • As established by the recent RfC linked above, this is not a regional difference. I concur with Mr EEng. In some cases, it may be beneficial to rewrite the sentence to avoid this construction altogether, given that it is a hallmark of WP:PROSELINE. I know that the editors here are wary of WP:CREEP, but given the recent RfC, perhaps we can consider adding a line of guidance to MOS:COMMA. Said guidance would specify that commas after introductory time clauses may be appended or omitted at editorial discretion, but that changes between the two stylings are discouraged without good reason. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 03:53, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This initial comma is much overused, especially after "in [year]" or month or whatever. The balance sheet for using/not using it should consider the length of the initial phrase (the longer the more likely a comma), and whether there's a numeral or capital letter after the year (more likely to use so the reader can separate them more easily). A comma must be present where followed by a nested phrase, like: "In 2011, more than two years after the earthquake, there were still missing persons ...". So it needs a little thought, and would be hard to legislate on. I tend to chop out the silly ones for the sake of our readers: In January the troops withdrew north. Without hesitation I approve of this proposition. On balance the government felt an inquiry was necessary. Since the 17th century our knowledge of plumming and sewerage has increased significantly ... . Tony (talk) 08:46, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The examples you have provided seem ripe for rewriting: 'The troops withdrew north in January', 'I approve of this proposition without hesitation', 'Our knowledge of plumbing and sewerage has increased significantly since the 17th century'. As I have said before, I tend to place a great emphasis on the prosody of any given text. I find it awkward to read 'In January the troops withdrew north' without pause. A matter of taste, of course. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 09:29, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Super interesting. I agree with RGloucester in that those sentences sound awkward to me, but I understand your (and others') reasoning behind omitting the comma for shorter sentences. — Awesomecat / ✉ / ✎ / 00:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It varies. It might be a good place to put a comma in otherwise unbroken text but if the text is already full of commas serving different functions, such as parenthetical, list, and Oxford, not to mention adverbial, adding one more, however justifiable, independently, can make the whole passage more difficult to read. NebY (talk) 12:44, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Deprecate use of the historic division symbol (÷)

    [edit]
    An obelus being used as a sign of subtraction in this excerpt from an official Norwegian trading statement form called «Næringsoppgave 1» used for tax purposes.

    At present, in Manual of style#Slashes, the text reads

    • in a fraction (7/8 or xn/n!), but prefer the division operator ( ÷ ) when representing elementary arithmetic in prose (10 ÷ 2 = 5) and a fraction bar () in more advanced mathematical formulas (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers §§ Common mathematical symbols​ and Fractions and ratios and Help:Displaying a formula);

    This is poor practice, as the Division sign article explains in its lead:

    The division sign (÷) is a mathematical symbol consisting of a short horizontal line with a dot above and another dot below, used in Anglophone countries to indicate the operation of division. This usage is not universal and the symbol has different meanings in other countries. Consequently, its use to denote division is deprecated in the ISO 80000-2 standard for notations used in mathematics, science and technology.[1] In older textbooks, it is called an obelus, though that term is also used of other symbols.

    and continues in the body to say:

    The ISO 80000-2 standard for mathematical notation in science and technology recommends only the solidus / or "fraction bar" for division, or the "colon" : for ratios; it says that the ÷ sign "should not be used" for division.[1]
    In Italy, Poland and Russia, the same ÷ sign was sometimes used to denote a range of values, and in Scandinavian countries it was, and sometimes still is, used as a negation sign:[2]

    Accordingly, I propose that MOS:SLASH be changed to read

    I realise that this proposal will be 'difficult' for those of us whose primary school days are in the dim and distant past, but that was then and this is now. The symbol is not even provided on any standard keyboard. Comments? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 11:20, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • Oppose this change: it's really not relevant for English Wikipedia if the symbol ÷ sometimes indicates a range in Italian or sometimes indicates subtraction in older Danish. For example, the symbol ; indicates a question in Greek, but that's not a reason to avoid semicolons in English. Doremo (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it does not. "The decimal sign is either a comma or a point on the line. The same decimal sign should be used consistently within a document". --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may be thinking of "ISO/IEC Directives, Part 2" (the rules for structuring and drafting ISO and IEC documents), which instruct technical committees to use the comma as the decimal marker in the standards themselves. That is their internal MOS, it doesn't over-ride the standards themselves. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In Italy ... the same ÷ sign was sometimes used to denote a range of values,
    I'm italian and I've never heard of this use. If an italian sees ÷, the only thing it can mean is division. I don't even know how one would use it to display anything else.
    And it's irrelevant; this wikipedia is in english, not italian or Norwegian. The ÷ sign is simpler and clearer (can't be confused with an "and/or" slash). FaviFake (talk) 16:38, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That it may occasionally have different meanings in other languages seems no good reason to deprecate it. Its usage in English is unambiguous and clear enough. Gawaon (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't deprecate but don't recommend We don't need to police usages of this symbol but it is definitely not preferable; the language that says to prefer it over the slash should be removed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was certainly the prefer the division operator ( ÷ ) when representing elementary arithmetic in prose (10 ÷ 2 = 5) that made me go woah! That variation is acceptable to me (and is one less MOS instruction, which is A Good Thing). Editors who want to use it must be assumed to have a good reason to do so since it means jumping through hoops to type it. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make. FaviFake (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I am agreeing with @Trovatore's analysis and accepting that it is a better proposal than mine. We should not "prefer the division operator ( ÷ )", but it will be enough simply to remove that assertion of a preference. Very few editors will want to bother using it in any case because it much easier just to press the slash key. Anyone who does choose to use it must have a good reason to do so, since it requires extra work – so deprecation here would be over-ruled locally in any case. Does that answer your question? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:03, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I'm more confused than before. how is the fact that that a character takes a few more seconds to insert related in any way to the creation of a local consensus that disagrees with the manual of style? FaviFake (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that's a side issue. If we agree on just removing the asserted preference for the ÷ symbol, we don't reach that issue. --Trovatore (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        what issue???? FaviFake (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        A hypothetical consequence of a proposal that I have withdrawn in favour of Trovatore's much-improved new proposal. It is now what Americans would call moot. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Typing ÷ is no more arduous than typing — or  . Regardless of that, I see no reason to prefer ÷ over /. Largoplazo (talk) 21:10, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Image used by it:Obelo
    Both. It depends on the grade level and the complexity of the problem. We use the division symbol (÷) in elementary schools for basic math (96 ÷ 3 = ?). In high school algebra we continue to use it to introduce basic algebraic notation (such as 2n ÷ 4 = 16) but is phased out as the problems become more complex and the slash is introduced. In higher mathematics, a slash is used exclusively. Blueboar (talk) 01:14, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    See section above, § Unspaced slash: the rest of this section's advice on formatting division is also bad. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ a b BS ISO 80000-2, "Quantities and units Part 2: Mathematical signs and symbols to be used in the natural sciences and technology", Section 9 "Operations", 2-9.6
    2. ^ "6. Writing Systems and Punctuation" (PDF). The Unicode® Standard: Version 10.0 – Core Specification. Unicode Consortium. June 2017. p. 280, Obelus.