Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MOS)

Welcome to the MOS pit[Humor]


    Style discussions elsewhere

    [edit]

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

    Current

    [edit]

    (newest on top)

    Pretty stale but not "concluded":

    Capitalization-specific:

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


    Move requests:

    Other discussions:

    Concluded

    [edit]

    DOUBLESPACE

    [edit]

    MOS:DOUBLESPACE currently says that Some editors place two spaces after a period or full stop (see Sentence spacing); these are condensed to one space when the page is rendered, so it does not affect what readers see. However, it does not explicitly prohibit some editors from writing ...one.  Another... (or, say, ...one. Another...) to simulate "double spacing" in the rendered text. Is this covered somewhere else? If not, it will be useful to mention in that section. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Has this been a problem or source of conflict in your experience? If not, it would probably just be WP:CREEP. pburka (talk) 22:22, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't remember conflicts, but a simple search for .  shows over 2000 pages, indicating that this practice is not uncommon. Discouraging it in the MOS should help in preventing it and will allow to request an uncontroversial bot task to normalize such spaces. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 22:56, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure how you're searching for that. Can you point to a specific example where it's being misused? pburka (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "insource:/\.\  /" gives these 2000 examples. Some of them are obvious errors (NBSP added before a regular space instead of replacing it) but most look like intentional "double spacing". — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:33, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. The articles I sampled from that search each only had one instance of the problem, suggesting that these aren't being added intentionally or methodically. For the Olympics page, I identified this edit where the error was introduced: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympic_Games&diff=prev&oldid=1123626153. An editor removed the ellipsis from . ... , leaving the previously-correct non-breaking space. In my opinion, the MOS already says that we display single spaces, so I don't think it would be controversial to request a bot to fix cases where we don't. pburka (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I too would suspect that these are accidental problems, not something editors deliberately do. So they can be fixed, whether by bot or otherwise, but there's no need to address them in the MOS. Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there are about 200 articles with at least five "double spaces". For example, a whole paragraph in Eleanor Roosevelt § Cultural references and depictions ("In 1979, ...") definitely uses them deliberately. Regarding "fixed, whether by bot or otherwise", doing over 2000 pages manually would be quite tedious and ineffective, and will constitute bot-like editing, so it requires the same level of confidence.
    As for the need to address this in the MOS: what is the need for the current statement that "some editors place two spaces"? It is an observation (like "some editors make typos") rather than a guideline. Moreover, "does not affect what readers see" can be interpreted as "thus, if you what two spaces rendered, ...". Rewriting that paragraph to say that WP uses single sentence spacing, but double spacing is allowed in the source code because this does not affect the rendered results would make more sense. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine with me, especially if the whole section can be made a bit simpler (rather than adding more instructions). Maybe something like this to replace the current sentence: "Words and sentences are separated by single spaces. Extra spaces in wiki source are permitted so long as they don't affect how the page is presented to readers." pburka (talk) 20:32, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds plausible. Gawaon (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest retaining the link to Sentence spacing (to justify covering this question in the MOS – that article says that it "is often debated" – and that the decision is consistent with most modern style guides), but otherwise I think that your wording is much better than what we currently have. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
     Done pburka (talk) 22:40, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I object strongly to this change and have reverted it. There is no justification for specifying a standard in the source that has no effect on the rendered page, and that stigmatizes a style many editors prefer. --Trovatore (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The new wording was meant to clarify that you can write the source however you want as long as it renders a single space. Was the wording ambiguous? pburka (talk) 11:42, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's possible I overreacted. I read it as an attempt to weaken the point that double-spacing in the source is OK. I get very irritated when people change double spaces to single. It seemed like the old wording led with the fact that double-spacing in the source is OK, and the new wording deferred that to a bit that was less likely to be read. --Trovatore (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The old wording only stated what some editors do, without saying whether it is OK or not. The new wording explicitly says OK to any number of spaces (I personally did see triple spacing). Anyway, if you find it offensive, please suggest your wording that will address the problems that I've explained above. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    How about this? "Words and sentences are separated by single spaces (see Sentence spacing). Double spaces or newlines may be used to separate sentences in wiki source, provided they render as a single space (see Help:Newlines and spaces)." It's a bit more explicit, but technically more restrictive as it disallows triple spacing, or double spacing between words. It also explicitly allows newlines, which are also often used to separate sentences. (It's also starting to get a bit long.) pburka (talk) 21:17, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    From the discussion below, looks like this wording isn't going in, but if perchance it does: Double spaces or newlines may be --> Double spaces, or newlines, may be to avoid the implication that double newlines are contemplated. EEng 15:16, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever you do, limit this to articles; there's little benefit to regularizing this elsewhere, and you risk screwing something up. What exactly are we searching out and destroying? EEng 00:37, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The first sentence of the MOS says that it applies to articles, so what do you mean by "elsewhere" and why mention it here? The answer to "what exactly" is given by the code examples in the second sentence of this topic (then many real-world examples are given by the search link, which is of course limited to the Article namespace). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular, the MOS does not apply to the MOS, which is in the Wikipedia space. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:15, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Please explain the purpose of your comment. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    H7's emphasizing what I was emphasizing: assuming this needs doing, it should be done only in article space. EEng 22:38, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What was the purpose of emphasizing obvious things? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 23:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    To be absolutely certain it's obvious. Gnomes often miss the obvious in their quest for uniformity and order. EEng 15:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    "When technically minded folk with a penchant for order, consistency, and control get caught up in the zeal of a systematization crusade, un­pleas­ant­ness can result." – A Fellow Editor
    @Mike Christie, regarding your revert, it doesn't happen automatically if a user uses more than 2 newlines, or if they use other types of spaces such as non-breaking spaces. The wording was meant to clarify that whatever method editors want to use, it should always render as one single space. FaviFake (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I see now what you're trying to achieve, but I don't think it's worth the additional complexity. It's rare for someone to use a newline in running prose with the intention of having it render without the newline. I don't think we need to cover that corner case in the MoS, any more than we need to list any Unicode characters that might happen to render as a space and say not to use them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not complex. Before, it said nothing about what you can and can't do. Now it clearly says you can use whatever as long as it looks like a double space, to avoid someone interpreting Some editors place two spaces after a period or full stop to mean they can use a non breaking space + a normal space. FaviFake (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. The old wording didn't provide any guidance whatsoever: it was just an observation about what some editors do. pburka (talk) 14:56, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    It's rare for someone to use a newline in running prose with the intention of having it render without the newline. Nothing wrong with single newlines – they act as a single space and do not mess up the rendering. I often start a sentence on a new line so that a preceding reference is at the end of the previous line and so more visible in the source — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:30, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Line breaks are extensively covered by WP:NEWLINE. Can we please keep this discussion focused? — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it may be resolved by now. Gawaon (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Removal of the nbsp+space

    [edit]

    There was a bot request placed to remove the instances of   in the ~2k pages that have it. I just wanted to split off this specific question from the discussion above (which is somewhat fractured but still talking about good things) to ascertain whether there is a consensus among folk here that these "forced" double spaces should be removed in the article space. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah that's a good idea. I can't think of a valid reason to use a visible double space. FaviFake (talk) 11:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I guess they could appear in a pre or code block, where the double space would be displayed. These could be left alone, but simply replacing all "forced" double spaces with normal double spaces might be the safer option. pburka (talk) 12:41, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    An important clarification: the request was to remove   (or replace it with a regular space) from the instances of .  (notice the preceding period). Because "instances of   " could be parts of an unrelated problem and should be dealt with differently (even though such usage is also incorrect, simply removing/replacing NBSPs in these cases will break things). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Hyphen example images

    [edit]

    Does the hyphen example need three joke example images (Four-year-old children / Four year-old children / Four-year old children, A man eating fish / A man-eating fish, Officials help dog-bite victim / Officials help dog bite victim) and a picture of an airport sign that got it wrong? They're all illustrating the same idea basic idea that changing hyphens can change meaning. One joke would be enough, if we need any at all: perhaps just one picture of a man eating fish, noting in the caption that he is not a man-eating fish.

    Their current placement means that mobile users must scroll past all the images before they can read the section's text, and desktop users are shown a somewhat cramped bullet list with the 400x700 pixel block of jokes taking up potentially half of the page width. Belbury (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh the scrolling! Oh the narrow bullet list! Oh the horror! THE HORROR!
    These examples illustrate three things:
    • That hyphens matter;
    • That using them correctly can be tricky (especially the children series of examples);
    • That amusement and pleasure may be found in unexpected places, such as an encyclopedia's manual of style, and that Wikipedia isn't controlled by super-serious people bent on taking all the fun out of life.
    Those are all important things -- especially the last one. EEng 17:59, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a single well-captioned picture would be funnier, in this case. Repeating basically the same joke three times has diminishing returns when it's not a comic triple.
    The readability downsides of a large gallery on the text are not "horrifying", but they do exist. Belbury (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    The "children" example illustrates something completely different from what the fish example illustrates, so there's no duplication there. Admittedly, the dog-bite example essentially duplicates the fish example, but they're both so good it would be criminal to omit either. Indeed, part of the amusement here springs from the realization that someone with too much time on their hands (that is, moi) actually went to the trouble of finding all those images and triumphing over WP's inscrutable multiple-image template.
    If you think a single example is funnier than several, then I suggest you look only at the first example.
    Finally, since you mention it: the rule of three is absolutely irrelevant here. And I got an A+ in Wit and Humor, making me a qualified expert on the subject. So there. EEng 22:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say the rule of three was present within the children example: two examples of likely confusion, followed by the unexpected and less likely "four-year old children". It's not there within the higher-level pattern of the three children/fish/bite examples. If repeating the same kind of joke three times doesn't end in any particular payoff on the third, it may be better to cut some of it. Brevity is the soul of wit.
    I don't know. If we're aiming for humour, just showing the man eating fish (captioned "this is not a man-eating fish") seems equally funny, and possibly funnier. I doubt the reader would realise that all the images were added by the same person, and appreciate it on that level; I assumed I was looking at instruction creep by multiple editors. If we're trying to illustrate the adjacent text of the MOS, including eight images suggests that the section is largely about avoiding misplaced hyphens in various ways, when that's only a very small part of it. Belbury (talk) 10:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    First you said it's not a comedic triad, now you're saying it is; make up your mind. And since you seem to want to get all scholarly about it: the wit in Brevity is the soul of wit isn't humor or amusement; it's intelligence.
    The collage of images take advantage of a rare opportunity to inject some color into the largely (and necessarily) drab expanse of MOS's endless provisions. You're overthinking this. Can we please stop now? EEng 21:48, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm saying the children joke by itself is a comedic triad. The three higher level examples of children then fish then dog bite is just repetition.
    Reducing it to a single-image fish joke would keep the colour, and have more wit in all senses. If the MOS needs lightening up with more images, better to add them to other sections than repeat "and here's another one" this many times in the hyphens. Belbury (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    There aren't many visual jokes in Wikipedia; most of the time they wouldn't be appropriate. In the MOS we can be a bit more relaxed, and as EEng has already implied, the editor who has to scroll past them will maybe even learn something. They aren't strictly necessary, granted, but leaving them in feels nicer than sacrificing them to the gods of quick scrolling. Gawaon (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Shall I wire the money to the usual numbered account? EEng 22:35, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I very much want to keep all three. — LucasBrown 19:11, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    MOS:USA correction/clarification

    [edit]

    The last part of MOS:USA currently reads:

    Do not use the spaced U. S. or the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting.

    Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes).

    I don't think this means to say we should use spaced U. S. in quoted material. This contradicts the guidance at MOS:CONFORM, which says to remove spaces before periods and allows other "silent" corrections to punctuation and spacing. I propose we reorganize this along the lines of:

    Do not use the spaced U. S.

    Do not use U.S.A. or USA except in a quotation, as part of a proper name (Team USA), or in certain technical and formal uses (e.g., the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, FIFA, and IOC country codes). Do not use the archaic U.S. of A., except when quoting.

    I'm not married to the particular way I've arranged this. If I'm missing something, and we should retain the space in quoted material, should this exception be noted at MOS:CONFORM? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks good to me. pburka (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like it says somewhere, quotations are not facsimiles. Silently removing the space from U.<space>S. eliminates something that catches the reader's eye as odd, while doing no violence to the source material. EEng
    • I think the intent of the guideline was to additionally discourage "US of A" in Wikivoice: I would suggest keeping that prohibition with the periods removed. Otherwise, Thinking on it, I think this would be a new thing, so better to discuss elsewhere. Good change. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:46, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does MOS:CONFORM allow changing "U. S." to "U.S."? I tried to find such a rule there, but failed. It allows to "Remove spaces before punctuation such as periods and colons", but this would be a case of removing a space after a period. So unless I'm overlooking something I think the spelling "U. S." should indeed be retained in quotations. Gawaon (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      That's a (non-exhaustive) list of examples: the key guidance is Formatting and other purely typographical elements of quoted text should be adapted to English Wikipedia's conventions without comment. So as long as our conventions (here MOS:USA) say that "U.S." is fine but "U. S." is not, MOS:CONFORM supports the change, since it only requires the adaptation of purely typographical elements. UndercoverClassicist T·C 07:28, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, it's true that the section says "for example", but I would nevertheless be sceptical about "purely typographical" changes not explicitly mentioned. Is it OK to change "home page" to "homepage" or vice versa? May one add or remove commas, change commas to semicolons or semicolons to periods? Personally I'd say "no" to all these arguably purely typographical changes (at least if one takes "make no difference when the text is read aloud" seriously) and hence plead for a strict reading of MOS:CONFORM where anything not explicitly discussed is better avoided. Gawaon (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Given the words "for example", I don't think that is a strict reading -- in any case, I can't see an argument that removing the space in this case (leaving aside e.g. homepage, which I agree is more doubtful) changes anything other than typography. UndercoverClassicist T·C 10:23, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Fair enough, and I see no particular reason to object to that interpretation. But I would still suggest that this should be made explicit, by adding after "Remove spaces before punctuation such as periods and colons" something like: "Remove spaces after periods in initialisms, e.g. U. S. → U.S. Gawaon (talk) 10:32, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree with UndercoverClassicist—the examples at MOS:CONFORM are not exhaustive but highlight common or representative cases. I would consider home page vs. homepage a spelling variant more than a typographical one. That may be splitting hairs. That particular example seems insignificant but I would lean towards preserving these differences when in doubt. I may have to think more on that. Spacing and use of periods with abbreviations and initialisms strikes me as purely stylistic/typographic. If a quote mentioned J. R. R. Tolkien or MLK Jr., I think we could adjust the spacing and periods to conform with the surrounding text or our house style. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Possibly, but would you consider changing "U.S." to "US" acceptable as well, since you mention "use of periods"? MOS:CONFORM explicitly says that ENGVAR spelling changes such as "labour" to "labor" or vice versa are not allowed, and I'd consider the addition or removal of periods a similar issue. Gawaon (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I would see it as acceptable to swap US and U.S. in quotes to conform with the surrounding text and I read the MOS as supporting this. I would see this as akin to using a single space after a period instead of a double space, converting apostrophes and quotation marks to house style, or switching between italics and quotation marks for the title of a published work. There may be exceptions where it is especially important to preserve or even emphasize original usage. I think that would be rare, especially in running text. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm, I don't, because I consider typography and use of punctuation not quite the same. Normalizing quotes, dashes, and the amount of spacing is one thing, completely removing or adding punctuation or whitespace is another. Gawaon (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you object to changing a double space to a single space after a sentence-final period? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course not, I already said that changing the amount of spacing is fine. Gawaon (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I guess I'm not clear on the distinction between changing the amount of spacing and removing or adding… whitespace. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      If I change "home  page" (two spaces) or "home page" (thin space) to "home page" (normal space), that's changing the amount of spacing. If I change "home page" to "homepage", that's (completely) removing the whitespace; if I change "homepage" to "home page", that's adding whitespace where there was none before. I'd say the first is fine and unproblematic, while the other two should generally be avoided in quotes. Gawaon (talk) 07:54, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Gotcha, thanks. As for completely removing or adding punctuation, would you object to normalizing periods after abbreviations for titles like Mr., Mrs., Dr., St., etc.? I hope I'm not coming off as difficult. I want to make sure I understand where the line is. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      You mean changing "Mr." to "Mr" (or vice versa)? No, I wouldn't do that in quotes. That's seems largely an ENGVAR issue, and the MOS explicitly says changing "labour" to "labor" (or vice versa) is not allowed. I would treat adding or removing periods the same way. Remember, a quote is not a genuine part of the surrounding text, and there's no reason it must match that text in every stylistic detail. Gawaon (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      I would not see replacing "U.S." with "US" in quotes as acceptable. Some readers might not notice; others may see anachronism or other deviation from the source's style, and quite reasonably mistrust the whole quotation accordingly (especially in these days of AI hallucinations). There's no need for quoted text to conform to Wikipedia house style in that way and making such changes may often at least disturb editors who care that our quotes be accurate. NebY (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      The counterpoint is that mixing styles within an article may distract or disturb readers. It can appear sloppy or may suggest that the purpose is to call attention to such variation in cases where it is irrelevant. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      It's no more distracting or irrelevant than using the original spelling, and any readers that find it disturbing that the world didn't follow Wikipedia's MOS or spell according to the twenty-first century's Merriam-Webster will not be well served by us fostering any such illusion (see also WP:V and WP:NPOV). NebY (talk) 17:34, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      But why, then, should we enforce conformity with use of dashes, spaces before a period, archaic glyphs and ligatures, all-caps, etc.? —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 17:53, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Changing glyphs and ligatures improves legibility, which changing "U.S." to "US" doesn't. The uses of spaces is a more minor typographic convention, not an obvious corruption of text such as you're proposing. Ah well; I'll leave it there, unless you do ever propose such a change to the MOS. NebY (talk) 18:12, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Alright, well I'm not trying to bludgeon or belabor the point but I am genuinely trying to understand why in some instances the spacing is a minor typographic convention that can be freely changed but in the case of changing between {US; U.S.; U. S.} such changes amount to an obvious corruption of text. I don't read MOS:CONFORM as exhaustive but as providing general guidance that could reasonably be read as allowing—or requiring—changing the variant of US. If that is prohibited, while I might disagree, perhaps the underlying logic could be clarified or this could be listed as a one-off exception. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
      Personally, I still think it's best to regard anything not explicitly mentioned as better not done. That way, conflicts between editors about what is and what isn't allowed can be resolved easily, and there will be no confusion about "surprise" changes in quoted text. Gawaon (talk) 07:13, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per pburka: Looks good to me. Tony (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    ENGVAR question

    [edit]

    On 1 December 2005, an IP created B70 Sicilian, Dragon variation. On 13 December 2005, Sim man moved the page to Sicilian Defense, Dragon Variation with this edit. Two months later, on 21 February 2006, Fetofs moved the page to Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation with this edit. Twenty years later, on 20 May 2026, Ihardlythinkso made this edit, which has created a situation in which the title of article uses British spelling but the rest of the article uses American spelling. This seems to me to be a breach of MOS:ARTCON. What should be done in this situation? (There has already been some discussion of the issue here: Talk:Sicilian Defence, Dragon Variation#ENGVAR.) Khiikiat (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding of Engvar in such cases is that the article should use the first identifiable variety of English. There is no exception for the article name if it's not a proper noun. If the first variety can be identified as American English then the page should not have been retitled with a British spelling, and vice versa. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking back to the page creation, it used the American spelling of 'defense' in the article body on creation:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sicilian_Defence,_Dragon_Variation&oldid=29805953
    Therefore, the article is in American English and the article title should conform to that (if the word 'defense' is indeed needed in the title), unless it can be shown that editors made a decision to change the English variety to British English or similar. Reading the talk page discussion you link to, I can see that some editors make a case for changing the variety to British English, as is their right. But unless they can achieve a consensus then it must remain in American English. Dgp4004 (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh scratch that! Apologies, I should have read the history fully. If the page adopted British English twenty years ago and nobody challenged or reverted it then I think that has to be considered a new consensus. The onus is now on the advocates of American spelling to make the case for changing to American spelling. But in the absence of such a consensus then the article should remain in British English, including the title. Dgp4004 (talk) 11:10, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if the same spelling was fairly consistently used for 20 years or so, that's a clear case of EDITCON, so changing it to anything else now would require talk page consensus. Gawaon (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, is there a rule of thumb for how many years have to elapse before a new consensus is considered to be achieved? Dayshade (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    No, and of course "consensus" in these cases is normally humbug - "nobody noticing or bothering to complain" is more like it. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1356046428"