Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

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

(newest on top)

• Template talk:WikiProject Manual of Style#Updating template – updating wording on a widely-used template
• Talk:New Zealand#Use commonly understood words – On the applicability of current discussions here concerning ENGVAR and COMMONALITY to articles written in New Zealand English
• Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Flags and coats of arms - Usage of flags and coats of arms in infoboxes relating to entities with them
• Talk:Carleton S. Coon#Birth and death places - a discussion pertaining to MOS:IBP (April 2025)
• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/The term committed suicide – A perennial unresolved usage debate has returned, with a variety of proposals (March 2025)

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

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

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

Try MOS:PARA (in MOS:LAYOUT): Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose, each dealing with a particular point or idea. Single-sentence paragraphs can inhibit the flow of the text; by the same token, long paragraphs become hard to read. That's not massively prescriptive, but then the MoS generally isn't on matters of style, and it would be difficult to pin down a general rule that applies to all cases, sentence lengths, subject matters etc. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:09, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:19, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Added this.[2] Let's see how many seconds it lasts. I don't want to mention their name, but I know who is going to revert it. Viriditas (talk) 20:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Please, my blushes! E Eng 03:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm not going to revert it, but I think it's too schematic expressed like this. I'd prefer a more cautious "rule of thumb"-style expression. Gawaon (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Can you modify what I added? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Well I tried, but of course I can't prevent the reverting if it happens. Gawaon (talk) 21:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ok, looks good. Now, using the Hawaii article linked below as a guinea pig, you see the excessive paragraphs. What do you do? Cut them back first, or leave a message on the talk page? I'm asking because going straight to cutting them back could upset the primary editor. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I thought you were the primary editor, so ... do you mind? Gawaon (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, I explicitly invited you below! I was talking in the abstract, in terms of approaching this elsewhere. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah, you got me a bit confused there! No, I didn't, and wouldn't ask for permission. Paragraphs aren't owned by anyone, and this is basic copyediting work. Gawaon (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Got it. Viriditas (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My personal rule of thumb: if a paragraph has more than 210 words, it's probably too long and should be spit. Conversely, if two adjacent paragraphs are very short (no more than three to five sentences together, say), they might be suitable for merging. But that's just me, you won't something quite like this in the MOS. Gawaon (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thanks. Two questions: the 200 word rule appears to be quite common when you go looking for it off-wiki. 25 years ago, 150 words was considered the maximum in academic journal articles (not sure which countries, but assuming US). Newspaper articles are much smaller, around 40-70 words or so. But with the rise of social media, we've had a major change in the expectations of paragraph size, with younger readers expecting smaller, not larger paragraphs. A discussion from last year on the village pump asked people to check their mobile phones as a rule of thumb (most of our readers are mobile). Is there a historical reason as to why we can't seem to nail this down? It appears that 200 words is the upper limit outside of Wikipedia, yet I'm dealing with a 242 word paragraph on wiki at the moment, and this is more common than not. Second question: is adding a general range of words to the MOS out of the question? We do that elsewhere for many different things. For example, adding 30-200 words seems reasonable for a standard paragraph on Wikpiedia. Viriditas (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It might very well be a good idea for Wikpiedia, but here at Wikipedia we're better out without such one-size-fits-all misguidance. ;P E Eng 03:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Like I said, I'd split such a paragraph if I encountered it. I don't think I've ever been reverted for splitting a long paragraph (but of course, one never knows). Gawaon (talk) 20:23, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think I've ever been reverted for splitting a long paragraph – That's the most obvious reason (though there are other compelling reasons as well) that any kind of rule on the subject is a bad idea -- see WP:MOSBLOAT. E Eng 03:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, today is your lucky day! I wrote Hawaii series by Georgia O'Keeffe and need to be admitted to rehab. What's the longest paragraph there you ask? I hesitate to tell you. Send help immediately. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

So why, uh, did you write it like that? Gawaon (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Experimenting with different styles, mostly. I do that a lot. I wrote that article in May of 2024; it passed GAN in early 2025. I only got on the paragraph bandwagon several months ago when I was informed by three younger editors that their generation does not read long paragraphs like that, mostly due to their experience growing up with social media. Since then, I've been trying to cut my paragraphs back to accommodate them, but haven't yet touched that one. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I've fixed some of it already. Gawaon (talk) 21:42, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Looks good. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I haven't touched the part from "Departure and return", if you or anyone else wants to continue the work. Gawaon (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Glad to be a guinea pig. Viriditas (talk) 21:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Done.[3] Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I found a few more. Think it's fine now. Gawaon (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Much obliged. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

younger editors ... their generation does not read long paragraphs ... mostly due to ... social media. ... I've been trying to cut my paragraphs back to accommodate them — As an editor of an encyclopedia, I find it disturbing that social media might be setting the standard for our writing. I know that we write for our readers, but surely the paragraph length should be dictated by the content, not by the apparently limited reading skills of social media users. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Second question: is adding a general range of words to the MOS out of the question? We do that elsewhere for many different things: is this true? Off the top of my head, I'm struggling to think of guidelines that make a quantifiable ruling on a matter of style, rather than general recommendations. We have MOS:LEADLENGTH, but that's been whittled down from a much more prescriptive length recommendation which proved more frustrating than useful in practice. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I was referring to WP:SIZERULE. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Ah, yes, of course. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:45, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

We also have MOS:MILSECTLEN: Overly lengthy continuous blocks of text should be avoided; sections which are so long as to impede reader understanding should be broken down into subsections. There remains some disagreement regarding the precise point at which a section becomes too long, so editors are encouraged to use their own judgment on the matter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I'm glad you brought this up because the lengthy Carl Borgmann#Academic career section has been bugging me. I want to leave it as it is, but subsections might be required. What do you think? Is the section too long? Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I know! Let's have a bot that roves through article space, calling on ChatGPT to merge and split paragraphs throughout thousands of articles per day. Problem solved -- with no thinking, consideration of the material (or of anything else for that matter) needed! E Eng 03:51, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• See also Wikipedia:Readability tools, which is mostly about word length (number of syllables) and sentence length, but whose principles apply to paragraph length, too. I suggest that when the length of a paragraph is not obvious based on content, you consider having varied lengths (alternating shorter and longer paragraphs instead of always having all paragraphs about the same lenth). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

I don't know about easy, but I copy "suspicious" paragraphs into a word processor to check. That also makes it easy to find a suitable split. Gawaon (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The easiest way is to install an extension in your browser. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Good answer. That got me on the track. Thank you. Nurg (talk) 00:20, 4 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

There is no template "box quote", it's a redirect to {{Quote box }}. As for {{Quote box }}, the second sentence of the documentation reads "However, this use is only rarely appropriate in articles." (It doesn't, annoyingly, enlighten us as to what those rare cases are.) The following sentence leads to the MOS:BLOCKQUOTE guideline you mentioned, where it states "Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}." This can be taken at face value, without it needing to list all the ways not to do it. Largoplazo (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My point was that editors are continuing to create box quotes, so the MOS is not as clear as it could be. The MOS page says, at the top: New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue. Which seems to cover this situation. The existing guidance "Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}." doesnt mention box quotes at all. It says that "block quote" should use the block quote template. It does not say "large quotes" should use block quote template. Editors may read that and think "Well, my quote is a box quote, not a block quote, so it does not apply". My question is: Is there a benefit in adding a small footnote to MOS? Noleander (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I assume that editors continue to create box quotes for the same reason that most edits contrary to the MOS are made: because the editors aren't familiar with the MOS or with specific provisions. In those cases, it won't matter how specific the guideline is. After all, as you note, they're using that template, which generally won't mean the template's documentation isn't clear enough, it'll mean that they haven't read it.

Regarding long quotes, in general, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE already begins "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation". In other words, don't format a long quote as a box quote. That aside, if a user thinks that a box quote is something different from a block quote, then they won't be looking at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE. So, to solve that problem, maybe there should be a tiny separate section with its own heading and shortcuts MOS:BOXQUOTE and MOS:NOBOXQUOTES with a single sentence telling editors not to use them in articles. Largoplazo (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There's an important sentence on WP:PAGS which I think applies here: the policy and guideline pages are not the policy and guidelines in and of themselves. The actual policies and guidelines are behaviors practiced by most editors. The page where the prohibition appears is neither policy nor guideline -- it's a documentation page -- and its instruction that box quotes are only rarely appropriate in articles does not follow practice. It's common enough to use them in Featured Articles in place of an image -- for example, for an apposite quotation from a work or a subject's works (see e.g. Ezra Pound or The Sun Also Rises ), or for an illustrative quote about the subject (e.g. Liz Truss). Indeed, I remember one fairly recent FAC where it was specifically requested. If anything should change, it should be the documentation page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 16:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Interesting! If that's so, adding a short note mentioning this options to the MOS sounds like a good idea to me. Gawaon (talk) 16:53, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Template documentation is neither policy nor guideline but, ideally, reflects it? For context:

• There was an RFC on pull quotes that I'm not going to read all the way through, at least not just now, but that covers related matters include quote boxes.
• @Herostratus updated the documentation in January 2017 to reflect the outcome of the RFC, yielding a version that summarized the situation as "However, this use is not advised in articles."
• @Charcoal feather, in August 2023, removed the language.
• A few days later, @EEng, explaining his intent in his edit summary, filled the void with the language that's there now.

Pinging them all herewith for any insights they care to bring to this. Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That RFC included EEng supporting the deprecation of repeating text in pull quotes with the understanding that the generic concept of "quote boxes" is not being affected and the proposer Herostratus confirming that, and adding in the threaded discussion "Based on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184, there is some support for formally permitting Quote box (but maybe not the others) for regular quotes". Maybe that RFC wasn't the basis for the template documentation after all. NebY (talk) 17:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It does seem that of ~852,000 uses of {{Quote box }}, ~24,500 are in articles.[5] NebY (talk) 17:04, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

To be clear, the documentation says they're rarely appropriate, not that they're rarely used. Largoplazo (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Sure. In the first place, I just wanted to check how trivial or significant actual usage might be. Picking up on UndercoverClassicist's point though, it seems we have about ~24,500 instances of disagreement with the documentation. NebY (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Or 24,500 instances of people not having read the documentation. Largoplazo (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

There could also be an element of survivorship bias. We don't know how many people refrained from using the template precisely because of what's said in the documentation or the MOS. What if it's 25 million? Then the compliance rate is over 99.9%. Largoplazo (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Indeed, the documentation page needs to be updated to reflect the actualité of editorial practice and say something different—probably the opposite—to what it does now. — Fortuna, imperatrix 17:48, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

B (disregard this choice- superseded below) Block quotes and box quotes are both permitted, but block quotes are generally preferred.

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

I don't think either needs to be placed into the MoS -- it would be instruction creep. There isn't a persistent misunderstanding or problem -- there's just a documentation page which is out of sync with practice. Largoplazo inadvertently made the point well -- if thousands of people (including our reviewers and writers at the highest level of quality control) are either ignoring the documentation or, in its absence, do the opposite of what it says, that means the documentation needs to be changed. Once it's changed, there will be no conflict and so no need to legislate on exactly when to use block quotes vs box quotes: both remain options for editors to use as they see fit. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:27, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If it's B, then, however, MOS:BLOCKQUOTE is clearly in need of tweaking too, as it currently says a number of things that contradict it. Gawaon (talk) 20:54, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Does it? What do you have in mind? The bit about pull quotes doesn't apply -- that's about repeating part of an article as a quote in a box/blockquote, and avoiding that is common practice and good sense (for the reasons on the page). While we're at it, I'm not convinced It is conventional to precede a block quotation with an introductory sentence (or sentence fragment) and append the source citation to that line is actually true, but that's another discussion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I believe the MOS text that @Gawaon is referring to is "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}." Personally, I have cited this green text three times in the past year in an FA review, when I told a nominator that box quotes are discouraged. Extrapolating, I presume that hundreds, or thousands of editors are concluding that box quotes are discouraged. If the consensus here is that box quotes are acceptable (approach (B)) then would you agree that this MOS guidance (in green) should be adjusted to let editors know that box quotes are an option? Noleander (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That, and also: "Block quotations using a colored background are also discouraged." {{Quote box }} uses a light gray background by default; the background colour can be set to something else, but the template doesn't seem to offer an easy way to turn off background colouring altogether, as would be needed for MOS:BLOCKQUOTE compatibility. Gawaon (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

That is excellent input, thanks. I think the "leave the MOS as is" approach would not serve the WP community well. It is clear there is confusion over quote boxes: Are they interchangeable with block quotes? Or discouraged, but tolerated? Or prohibited in all but rare cases? No one knows. What if we add a footnote to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE (which currently says that block quotes should be used for quotes over forty words), and the footnote says:

• Both block quotes and box quotes are permitted
• Block quotes are preferred over box quotes, in general
• If a box quote is used, it must be: relevant, informative, especially noteworthy or insightful, not duplicated in the body text, and does not need context that body text could provide.
• Box quotes should not be used if: merely decorative, or would overemphasize a point of view, or require context that body text could provide, or would be misleading.

I realize this tentative footnote text is rather verbose... I'm only tossing it out as a starting point. I'm sure those points could be condensed. Noleander (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is probably the last I can say on this without repeating myself, but I still think this is CREEP. The MoS is usually wisely silent on matters of taste, and doesn't need to legislate for everything that's good sense or normal practice. At the moment, the MoS says that blockquotes are usually the best option for long quotes -- that's true -- and that no template should be used for pull quotes -- that's also true. The other points about box quotes needing to be useful, needing to be clear, and not breaking DUEWEIGHT are all covered by other PAGs. Nothing in Wikipedia should be misleading or overemphasise a point of view -- why single out box quotes when we don't have a demonstrated pattern that they are currently being used in this way? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Correcting clear conflicts between the MOS and actual usage is not CREEP, it's a way to keep us sane. "It's OK to do that despite MOS:BLOCKQUOTE clearly saying the opposite in at least three sentences" (see discussion above) is not a healthy way of dealing with the MOS. Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't see that block quotes and box quotes are the same thing, and therefore don't see a conflict -- blockquotes shouldn't have coloured backgrounds, for example, but that applies strictly to blockquotes rather than to box quotes. If other readers do think that MOS:BLOCKQUOTE applies to box quotes, then perhaps a note to clarify would be helpful, but again we should be reacting to an existing misconception rather than proactively trying to get ahead of one that might arise. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:17, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

"Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." – That leaves no way to format quotes with more than about forty words as box rather than block quotes. But maybe you were talking about very, very short box quotes (less than 40 words)? If so, I'll have to admit that you're technically right. Gawaon (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, precisely -- and applying the usual caveat that the MoS is always a guideline rather than an absolute rule. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:37, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Now I'm really confused :-) It looks like editors are reading "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." in two ways:

1) Box quotes discouraged (Under 40 words (削除) characters (削除ここまで): use in-line quotes)

2) Box quotes acceptable (Under 40 words (削除) characters (削除ここまで): use in-line quotes OR box quotes)

I have no opinion on whether (1) or (2) is better. MOS front page says "New content added to this page should directly address a persistently recurring style issue." But since that green guidance can be interpreted two wildly different ways, what is the harm in adding a footnote explaining whether (1) or (2) is the intended meaning of the green text? Noleander (talk) 12:44, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

40 words, not 40 characters. So I read it as:

• If you have a quote under 40 words or so, do what you like with it -- put it inline, in a blockquote or in a box quote.
• If you have a quote over 40 words or so, you should probably put it in a blockquote by preference to the other two options, but as with all guidelines there's flexibility here.
• The stipulations of MOS:BLOCKQUOTE apply only to block quotes unless the phrasing makes clear that they don't.

We could definitely soften the language to a "usually", "general rule" etc. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 12:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

(Thanks for pointing out my words vs characters mistake). You say We could definitely soften the language to a "usually", "general rule" etc That is all I'm asking for: a small tweak to assist editors: so they do not conclude that the statement prohibits box quotes. It could be a change to the wording or a footnote. It could mention "box quotes" explicitly or not at all. Anything is better than what we have now :-) Noleander (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Personally, I don't see a valid reading of "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides. that includes "box quotes are discouraged for quotes under about forty words". It's a bit like saying "travel by train for long journeys" -- that passes no judgement about how you should travel for short journeys. I think it might be a good idea to put some concrete suggestions together in a subsection below and see where the consensus is. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 19:14, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

[Silence] on matters of taste is indeed wise, though perhaps readability is another matter. Only one person's opinion, but mine is that the {{Quote box }} format is often more readable on mobile devices (and looks better too). Since most of our readers are on mobile devices, this does seem like a relevant consideration for this discussion. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The discussion above has pointed out many confusing and contradictory ways that "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." can be interpreted. The purpose of this Talk page discussion is to see if it can be clarified. Some editors think that text implies "No box quotes"; others think it means "box quotes are okay any size"; others "box quotes are okay only under 40 words"; It sounds like you feel box quotes are acceptable ... particularly for mobile devices. That is fine by me ... I have no opinion, I'm just looking for clarity. Do you object to adding a clarifying footnote to the MOS? Something like "Box quotes are acceptable, especially when they improve readability on mobile devices ". Noleander (talk) 12:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I agree with Noleander on that one. For me, Option B is the right answer.

There is another case where I consider box quotes can and should be used, like we use images at the side, where it is a particularly apposite quotation. (Bearing in mind the risk of undue prominence to a particular perspective but that's by the by for this discussion.) I refer readers to Brexit and the Irish border where there are two such boxes and in my view this is the best form in which to present the quotes and {{blockquote }} would work much less well. --JMF (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC) revised --JMF (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Perhaps "B" could be amended to read Block quotes and box quotes are both permitted (although block quotes were once generally preferred, box quotes may improve readability on mobile devices). -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 06:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As Hawkeye7 says below,

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

— Hawkeye7

Blockquotes are used in the running text, for example to give more obvious attribution than a simple "according to Hawkeye7, block quotes... etc". Box quotes go at the side, they supplement the text like an illustration does. The quote should be particularly germane to be used in this way. So no, in my view anyway, box quotes should neither be preferred nor deprecated – maybe we should say more clearly that they should be used very sparingly and only when particularly important. Of course on mobile, the distinction is a little less obvious (削除) but they are boxed (削除ここまで) but, on my Android at least, the blockquotes have a line at the left and the box quotes are boxed (and presented in sequence as images are). JMF (talk) 14:22, 14 October 2025 (UTC) revised --JMF (talk) 14:39, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I don't think block quotes should be 'discouraged . . . (because who knows and we are not saying)'. That does not mean we can't have guidance on their use. It should be phrased that way too, not 'don't' but 'when'. For example, editorially in a bio, if someone is known for what they have said or written or thier quote, goes along way toward explaining them/their life, a box quote could be used well, imo. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Did you mean to say "box quotes" in your first sentence? Noleander (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Block quotes form part of the text. Box quotes are separate, like the images. They serve different purposes. Length is immaterial, although excessively long quotes are discouraged.Conformance to the MOS is strictly optional, but generally preferred except when utterly absurd. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:25, 13 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• My historical understanding of the existing MoS guidance at MOS:BQ is that 'box quotes' were discouraged in favour of block quotes. In fact, I have specifically avoided using the box quote template in places where I would have preferred using it for this very reason. I made the presumption that our venerable MoS regulars had created this guidance for some specific purpose. If there is no evidence of a justification for the current guidance, it seems reasonable to adapt it to explicitly allow either block or box quotes as a matter of style. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 00:00, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  MOS:BQ doesn't have anything to say about box quotes. The relevant discussion was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 184. The consensus was: guidelines are generally to reflect consensus and common practice, not the other way round. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:56, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You say this, but if one seeks to add a 'long quote' into an article, one will inevitably wonder how to format it in line with MoS guidance. Upon consulting the MoS, the only method mentioned as acceptable is to use the block quote template. As has been evident in this discussion, the present text can be interpreted in different ways by different people; this, in and of itself, is reason enough to consider amending it. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 01:04, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• I would be sceptical regarding the idea of adding a blank permission of box quotes. They may be appropriate in some contexts (an excerpt from a work in an article on a novel or other work of fiction, a well-known saying from a person in an article on that person), but in other contexts they could easily be an NPOV violation or UNDUE (say if in an article on a controversial historical event, one historian's analysis is box-quoted giving the impression of it being more important and correct than what others might have said). Gawaon (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Agree. I going to propose a potential clarification to MOS:BLOCKQUOTE below, but I'm not sure that proposal should go into detail about when box quotes are appropriate. Clearly there are some situations where they are not good (as you list above) but putting those details into the MOS could take weeks of painful deliberation, and would probably never achieve consensus :-) So, that may be best saved for another discussion. For now, I'm just trying to improve the wording of "Format a long quote (more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) as a block quotation, indented on both sides." so it is less confusing. Noleander (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Another issue is how to quote within lists. Neither {{block quote }} not {{quote box }} respect the indentation level. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

My understanding is that they're essentially outside of the normal text flow, like images, so that's not really an issue. Gawaon (talk) 10:01, 14 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

To summarize the comments above:

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

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

A) Keep MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as-is, but add a new footnote after the the green "Format a long quote..." sentence which says: A box quote is an alternative to an inline quote or a block quote. Box quotes should be used with care, because they lack the context supplied by the flow of the body text, and might present POV or UNDUE issues. [optional: Mention that box quotes are similar to images, and are best used for especially noteworthy or stand-alone quotes that do not require context from body text.]

B) Same as (A), but the new footnote is presented directly as a sentence in the MOS body text.

C) Change the MOS:BLOCKQUOTE green "Format a long quote..." sentence to something like: For short quotes, use inline quotations (or box quotes[fn]); for longer quotes (more than about forty words, or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length) use a block quotation, indented on both sides. Block quotations should be enclosed in {{blockquote}}. And [fn] is the footnote described in concept (A) above.

D) Keep MOS:BLOCKQUOTE as-is, but add a footnote to the green "Format a long quote..." sentence (above) that says: This guidance does not restrict or discourage box quotes in any way.

F) ... other? Any other suggestions are welcome.

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

• I'd consider something along the lines of B (mention in the actual text of MOS:BLOCKQUOTE that box quotes are allowed, but must be used with caution) the best solution. Gawaon (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• I prefer a mention in the actual text, rather than a footnote. B seems like a good starting point. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 07:37, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]
• B would require an edit to the template documentation page, which I would support regardless of the outcome of this discussion. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:08, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Are you referring to Template:Blockquote or Template:Quote box? or both? Both of them have some introductory text that is rather confusing & could stand some word-smithing. Noleander (talk) 18:13, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Quote box: This template can be used for block quotations (long quotes set off from the main text). However, this use is only rarely appropriate in articles. We would want to make the MoS and the documentation as similar as possible in language and meaning. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  Okay, yes, that makes sense. Noleander (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• B is too permissive as proposed -- just saying "block quotes are generally preferred" will open the quote-box floodgates. Quote boxes definitely have their place, but the warning needs to be very strong, especially with regard to quote boxes in running article text (as opposed to in the margin) -- we should give criteria, and examples of appropriate and inappropriate use. E Eng 18:12, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

Above, user @UndercoverClassicist pointed out that the instructions in Template:Quote box also need to be updated, to be consistent with the MOS consensus. That template is protected, so I submited a change request atTemplate_talk:Quote_box#Template-protected_edit_request_on_19_October_2025_Suggestion. I'm not sure of how quickly that will get processed; we should check back in a week or so to make sure it got implemented. Noleander (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Update: I was able to improve the guidance within Template:Quote box ... apparently the "documentation" can be edited by anyone. So, that task is complete. Noleander (talk) 17:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Thank you for your addition. I am happy to see this matter clarified. Yours, &c. RGloucester — ☎ 23:44, 19 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

That second sentence is pretty long... I'm having a hard time parsing it, and I've been thinking about this for the past week :-) Is there some way it could be a bit plainer, so casual editors could grasp the points more readily? Noleander (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Could we split: noteworthy or important quotations. When presented without the context they would enjoy if integrated into the text of the article proper, quotations can create point-of-view or undue-weight issues. Because of this...}? The current text suggests that there's such thing as a quote that's so important or noteworthy that its notability makes it immune from PoV or DUEWEIGHT issues, and I'm not sure that's totally true (especially on the first part). UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As quote boxes always present quotations with less context, and because some readers might not understand "enjoy" at first glance, perhaps noteworthy or important quotations. Quote boxes can create point-of-view or undue-weight issues, because the quotations are not integrated into the text of the article proper and put in context. They must therefore be used with particular care. or some such? NebY (talk) 09:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This wording from Neby is very easy to understand. It also removes the peculiar word "enjoy". And it also removes the "high bar" wording which I don't think is consistent with the above discussion (vs the phrase "use with care", which is more consistent with the above discussion). Noleander (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

Does MOS:HEAD apply to talk page messages?

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

Indeed, thanks for the clarification. FaviFake (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

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

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

Are you asking that something be added to the MOS, or just trying to clarify what you, right now, should use in some specific article(s)?

I am loath to add a rule in the MOS for every rule that exists in English, and this seems to be a case where "we use proper English" (of some form) ought to be good enough. The examples at Apostrophe should suffice for settling any reversion arguments. To wit: one hour's respite, two weeks' holiday, a dollar's worth, five pounds' worth, one mile's drive from here.

I guess if we decided we absolutely needed explicit guidance, it could go in at MOS:GRAMMAR somehow, but, again, ick. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 21:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

• See WP:MOSBLOAT. Has editor time been wasted arguing about this, or are errors along these lines so prevalent that Wikipedia is brought into disrepute, our editors are humiliated, and the gods become angry? E Eng 21:46, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

  I was asking -IF- guidance should be added to MOS, as I really don't know. I can't speak to the prevalence or amount of time wasted arguing about it from an over-arching POV because we often edit in isolated silos. I was, in part, hoping to learn if this was a wider point of contention with a decidedly 'right' practice to be followed (which might benefit from MOS inclusion), or more of a non-issue for most. I can say I have encountered differences of perspective leading to edit reversions and discussions after the initial investment of good faith edits toward what other resources indicate is a more encyclopedic voice (assuming better grammar=more encyclopedic voice, which may not be accurate). If WP doesn't see that as the case, and it's more of a personal preference situation, then I'm not feeling overly inclined to invest more in similar edits or 'argue' on their behalf. Leaving affected articles "as-is" requires much less effort and saves ruffling feathers and discussing opposing POVs concerning those edits. Based on the points presented here so far (especially WP:MOSBLOAT), I'm hearing that may be the (at least de facto) consensus here, which is fine. Thanks for the input. ShoneBrooks (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

@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年11月14日4 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 (削除) second (削除ここまで) 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 ]

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

My edits to the Male Mahadeshwara Hills, Murshidabad, Faizabad, Gurgaon, Koraput district, Koraput, Mekedatu, Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, Male Mahadeshwara Wildlife Sanctuary and Kamsale articles have also been reverted simply because I added macrons to some terms.-Baangla (talk) 10:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

On which basis did you add those macrons? Do you have good evidence that these places are more frequently written with macrons than without? Gawaon (talk) 10:41, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just a caution re "more frequent": there is a culture war in New Zealand over the Māori names of places. Most English language sources do what they do everywhere and discard all diacritics. The dispute is over attempts to reassert the 'correct' spelling – i.e., with Macrons. So minefield alert! JMF (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This reliable source (for example), mentions Farīdābād with the macrons but my edits at Faridabad and other articles where I added macrons have been reverted because other sources do not use diacritics. However, in the scripts of the local languages, everything is written with the correct pronunciation (in this case फ़रीदाबाद). I agree with JMF that this is a minefield but I am wondering if the reverts are justified, simply because I added terms/place names with macrons.-Baangla (talk) 11:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You added macrons to every mention of Faridabad in that article, which is not justifiable as help[ing] get the reader to understand the correct pronunciation. You did so in 54 edits, your WP:ECP right has been revoked for WP:GAMING, and you are on the point of being topic-banned from any edits related to the region of South Asia (which would include this thread) so saying "reverted simply because I added macrons to some terms" doesn't quite give editors here the full picture. NebY (talk) 12:01, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am not topic banned yet (see this) but I want to know if those reverts were justified (I had added terms/place names with macrons which were reverted).-Baangla (talk) 12:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Vowel length is non-phonemic in English, so, even if the fundamental principal here is that we write names the way they're normally written in English reliable sources, writing "Kolkātā" isn't going to change the way most English speakers pronounce the name of Kolkata in English. Consider that even with the macrons, there's no indication of which syllable to stress. Nor need there be: the spelling is what it is, it isn't a pronunciation guide, especially in a language with largely non-phonetic/non-phonemic spelling like English. Largoplazo (talk) 12:14, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am glad you brought up that place's name. The locals (Bengalis) are able to write and pronounce that just fine but others, especially foreigners cannot.-Baangla (talk) 12:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

For your information, adding macrons to Kolkata will make the pronunciation wrong.-Baangla (talk) 12:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I see I chose a bad example. I was misinterpreting the spelling of the name in Bengali. Let's do Agra. At least going by Agra, it's pronounced [ˈaːɡɾɐː] and spelled आगरा in Hindi, but in English it's "Agra", not "Āgrā". I'm looking at the result of a Google images search on agra signs and not a single sign has a macron on it. So we're going to help the reader by writing it as it's spelled in English, not as a representation of how it's pronounced in Hindi. Largoplazo (talk) 12:29, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, thanks.-Baangla (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

English terms with diacritical marks doesn't mention it (of course, I did not check the citations used in that article).-Baangla (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

What do you mean by "English alphabets"? English uses only one alphabet. Largoplazo (talk) 14:46, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I mean ã, ā, à, á, â, ä etc.-Baangla (talk) 16:02, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

English doesn't use those, or only very rarely in exceptional cases. For how other languages such as French, German etc. use them, you'll have to look at the orthography and phonology descriptions of each specific language. There is no international standard. Gawaon (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Those aren't English alphabets, they're non-English letters from non-English alphabets. Largoplazo (talk) 16:33, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

About a hundred years ago, they were used in English also - it is only now that we skip using them. I remember seeing some old Oxford dictionaries in the British Library with alphabets using diacritics like that but I want to find something online if possible.-Baangla (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The wikipedia article about Diacritic doesn't give the pronunciation. Very sad.-Baangla (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

No they weren't (with rare exceptions, like née, café, coõperate). Where are you getting that from? And you still seem to think that each letter is called an "alphabet", which is making it harder to figure out what you're looking for. Largoplazo (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

You perhaps meant 'coöperate' with a diaresis, not a tilde?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 17:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I mean words like that with such diacritics. I want a link to something that explains the pronunciation.-Baangla (talk) 17:27, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is interesting.-Baangla (talk) 17:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is about the diaresis.-Baangla (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

This is also about the diaresis.-Baangla (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes, I certainly did! Largoplazo (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Yes to what Largoplazo?-Baangla (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

To the person whose comment mine is immediately indented under, Trappist. Largoplazo (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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

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

I might not put this quite so categorically. I would note that, though there are lots of English-language sources that use the spelling "Lanai", our article is, I think correctly, at Lānaʻi. Of course you can also find English-language sources that spell it that way, but I doubt that was the only criterion considered. --Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

The Lānaʻi spelling appears to be part of a deliberate effort to make the Hawaiian language more prominent. Our articles on topics with names in the Japanese and Arabic languages also often use macrons. Nevertheless, Mathglot's advice to avoid these for topics with English-language names is in general good. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That could be the case. While this ngrams chart shows a steady gain in the ratio (green line) of the accented over unaccented versions, Lanai (red) is still far more popular in books than Lānaʻi (blue). That does seem to support the view that other criteria were deemed more important than a 7x majority of Lanai in English sources. (The link is case-sensitive; thus confusion of Lanai with the patio sense should be minimal.) If the "other criteria" were "a deliberate effort to make the Hawaiian language more prominent", overriding five policy-based WP:CRITERIA, then that would seem to me to be unwarranted ethnonationalistic WP:RGW; or is there some legitimate reason for it? Mathglot (talk) 20:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I meant deliberate on the part of Hawaiians, in how they name their places, rather than on the part of Wikipedians. Our coverage reflects those efforts rather than being part of those efforts. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:34, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Oh, I see; no doubt about that. But how much, if at all, should Wikipedians be influenced by that kind of deliberate effort by a vocal offline minority? It's hard to argue that official government policy or local language considerations should override what a clear supermajority of English sources do about a Hawaiian place name, but not an Indian one. I suppose consensus, in the form of a well-attended Rfc with a clear outcome, would override article title policy, but it has to be based on something more than WP:I just like it. Otherwise, we have a situation where Lānaʻi, an official government spelling based on a local minority (American) language beats WP:COMMONNAME, but Vārāṇasī, an official spelling based on a local minority (Indian) language (which might actually not be a minority) loses to WP:COMMONNAME (as used mainly by non-Indians), maybe only because most editors are American? One could also argue here that not only is Lānaʻi an WP:AT violation, it is also an WP:NPOV violation, with respect to the clear difference in the outcome of title disputes on accented American places vs accented Indian places. Even if consensus (legit, or of the IJLI variety) overrides AT policy, consensus notably does not override NPOV. This looks like systemic bias to me. This is no way to run a wiki; something has to give. (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

It's comparable to the way the Turkey article still hasn't been moved to Türkiye. The existence of a campaign among some Turks (spearheaded by the president) to get English-speakers to call it the country "Türkiye" doesn't overcome WP:COMMONNAME or WP:NAMECHANGE and it won't until the campaign is successful as measured the new name having achieved predominance. Largoplazo (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am talking of, "archaic" English. This is more detailed about it.-Baangla (talk) 18:36, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I unfortunately made my comment before I saw that you are currently involved in this thread at AN/I. As it appears that a TBAN on South Asian topics is imminent, it will probably be best if you do not respond to this thread anymore, or at the very least, avoid saying anything having to do with Indian English or anything related to it, even remotely. I did not mean to draw you in towards that topic, as I was unaware of the AN/I thread at the time. I would avoid further commenting on this page if I were you, unless you are very confident you can do so while strictly observing any editing restrictions, but as you are a new editor, that is risky. Probably your best response here, is no response. Best regards, Mathglot (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, thanks. I will follow your advise.-Baangla (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

In the case of "archaic" English... in most cases you are talking about non-English words that were in the process of being adopted into English. Example: Nee/Née... this is a French word that English speakers adopted. So, originally they wrote it in FRENCH - the French way (using the accent) - but over time it was anglicized, and the accent was dropped. Today we tend to write Nee. Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Okay, thanks.-Baangla (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

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 ]

• 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 ]

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 ]