This page falls within the scope of theWikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across theManual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This page may fall under thecontentious topics procedure and be given additional attention, as it may be closely associated to thearticle titles policy andcapitalisation. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review theawareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
I see "upcoming" or similar phrasing all the time for commercial media works that have been confirmed to likely be released though may not have a firm time frame when they are expected. If the release timeframe is known, then the wording tends to be "is expected/scheduled/planned for release in/on (date)" as to avoid the SINCE issue. But as soon as a date is reported with a reasonable assurance of verifiability, any "upcoming" should be changed.Masem (t)04:01, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, you would say, for example:Album Title is the upcoming album fromArtist, to be released ondate byrecord label. would be improper per the Manual of Style, then?livelikemusic(TALK!)04:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes see that inmonth-year, it was announced thatalbum title would be released ondate. It's a bit wordy and a little less emphatic than our usual practice for well-sourced statements, but it is durable.NebY (talk)17:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Upcoming" sure seems fine and unproblematic in such cases. No need to make things more complicated and wordy than they have to be.Gawaon (talk)09:13, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do counts of of different, but related things count as comparable numbers for these purposes? In particular, I'm thinking of when death and injury counts are given for disasters. Would these be comparable or these purposes? Or would that only apply if we were comparing, for instance, death tolls from different events/locations? For instance:
"The attack killed 3 people and injured 26."
"The attack killed three people and injured twenty-six."
Opinions will likely differ, and I suspect this is left to editor consensus per article. My personal preference is for the first of your 3 bullets, but I consider the second acceptable if that is preferred by others. The third looks awful, and unnecessarily hard for the reader to parse.Dondervogel 2 (talk)09:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my view this is a very silly rule, which I ignore: single digit normally spelled out (unless with an ISO unit, etc); two or more digits numerals.Tony(talk)10:39, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deaths and injuries are usually comparable things, often added together as a single metric, 'Killed or seriously injured' (|KSI). In general I'd use one of your first two examples, but if the numbers were grossly dissimilar, it would be strange to impose consistency ("Only one person was killed but 2,173 were badly injured" is better than either alternative). It would then be more a matter of writing good English, rather than of Wikipedia's style choices, and I'd hope we wouldn't needWP:NUMNOTES to dive into differentiating between comparable things and comparable magnitudes.NebY (talk)11:16, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've even seen it applied differently within the same paragraph (actually edited from one I added):... killing four people and injuring 88... But a few lines down:... heavily damaging 30 government and residential buildings ... 5 of which were destroyed.TornadoLGS (talk)17:57, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Three vs. 26 may still be a borderline case but i think with four vs. 88 it's very clear that we are NOT talking about "comparable numbers" anymore, hence writing them differently is very reasonable. You can compare anything if you really want to, but I would understand "comparable" in this context to mean fairly close to each other, which is not the case when they differ by an order of magnitude or more.Gawaon (talk)02:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of "comparable" inComparable values near one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently: patients' ages were five, seven, and thirty-two or ages were 5, 7, and 32, but not ages were five, seven, and 32 is comparable in nature, not in value.Dondervogel 2 (talk)18:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to? The examples you quoted yesterday are fine. Gawaon's right to point to one pair differingby an order of magnitude or more but what would be the significant benefit of determining and laying down a precise boundary?NebY (talk)19:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing Tornado's point. Some of us are interpreting "comparable" as referring to thenatureof the quantities, while others interpret the same word to refer to theirvalue.Dondervogel 2 (talk)20:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
TornadoGLS's initial examples are pairs that are comparable in both senses ofquantity- that which is measured, and the amount of it. A later example was of strikingly dissimilar amounts, perhaps another one would be of strikingly dissimilar things. The word "comparable" serves us well in both cases. However, TornadoGLS's initial query was explicitly in terms ofdifferent, but related things. It's true that your initial responses didn't address that, but does that mean the MOS has an ambiguity that needs clearing up?NebY (talk)20:50, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dondervoge is right about the point I'm making. I gave an example that was comparable in nature and quantity. But this discussion raised a second matter: the sense of "comparable" is ambiguous as to how it should be if the values are comparable in nature but not in quantity, as in the example of four deaths and 88 injuries.TornadoLGS (talk)21:11, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparable absolutely means comparable in nature, not in magnitude. I've expanded the range of values in the "ages" example to help make that clear[1]. (I considered changing the example to "5 officers, 32 enlisted men, and 842 civilians" to make the range even wider but I was reminded (by a hidden note I placed in the wikitext twelve years ago!) that I had chosen to use ages as the example exactly because questions about how represent ages come up over and over.)EEng01:40, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That idea sounds neat in theory, but doesn't always work in practice. I recently came across this sentence in a book: "Only one in all these three groups was born before 1800, thirty-one were born in the first half of the nineteenth century, and 162 in the second half." Per our usual rules, we would more likely write the middle number as 31, but should we seriously suggest writing either 1 or one hundred sixty-two in this case? I for one certainly wouldn't, and I consider it best to accept that while nature matters, magnitude can't be totally neglected either.Gawaon (talk)09:25, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why they wrote out 'thirty-one', as it avoids confusion with the date immediately preceding it. To me that sample passage reads OK.Skeptic2 (talk)10:33, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to ask about chapter numbers, but it seems similar to this discussion, so sticking it here. What's the right thing to do about chapter numbers in running text? InCarlisle & Finch, I recently wroteChapter 1 described how to build track from steel rails ... which I think is fine, but it's not explicitly covered in the MOS (at least not that I can see). Book and volume numbers seem similar, although I seeThe Lord of the Rings usesBooks III and IV which I think is also fine since that follows the original. This seems like something that needs clarifying in the MOS.RoySmith(talk)15:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Don't worry too much about it. We have about a million rules here and no one is expected to know them all.Do what looks right to you and get back to work. If someone disagrees, they can make a change. If you disagree with that (and it really matters to you), discuss it on the article's talk page. If you can't work it out there, and you both still really care (some people do just like to argue), take it to dispute resolution or ask around. Really though, don't worry about little things when you have bigger things to do. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 17:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a seven-game series in a sports matchup, and there is no consensus in the sources, would it be game one or game 1 when referring to that game?Conyo14 (talk)09:33, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If no other guidance supersedes and sources are inconsistent, then I think we default toMOS:NUMERAL and spell it out:game one. But as you have already implied, we defer to sources.Mathglot (talk)21:48, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two points
Sources are (almost) irrelevant because we do not defer to sources on matters of presentation. The whole point of MOSNUM is to facilitate uniformity in such mattersregardless of sources.
The outcome depends on context and there's not enough context here to provide a clear choice. My advice is to seek consensus on the article talk page. If that consensus is not forthcoming, consider reporting back here.
Disagree that "sources are irrelevant". If sources discussing, say, MLB World Series games invariably refer to the individual games as "Game 1", "Game 2", etc, insisting that Wikipedia write it out as "game one", "game two" etc because that is how we would typically write those numbers, is unreasonably dogmatic, and gains us nothing other than a reputation for being unrealistically dogmatic. (Or maybe extreme stylistic uniformity makes it easier for editors that run style bots to mass edit thousands of articles, I funny know? I don't agree that's a good reason, anyway).~2025-42413-82 (talk)07:47, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we also write stuff like season 3, episode 7, all the time when covering TV series. I think (not sure) that was meanwhile legalized by the MOS, but in any case it's widespread and (in practice) accepted.Gawaon (talk)09:32, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise version 2, year 4, item 5 and paragraph 6. If we had to add something toMOS:NUMNOTES, I suppose we might talk of compounds that function as names, or some such.NebY (talk)14:00, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles for schools list a composite SAT score in the text and / or in an infobox as a four-digit number, without a comma. Many newcomer edits I've seen have people adding a comma in an SAT score as inthis edit, where "average SAT score for students is 1190" had a comma inserted to make it "1,190".
This style guide fromEmory University says to "Use a comma in numbers of 1,000 and above, unless they appear in an address or SAT score",this one fromPortland State University saying "SAT scores are an exception: Ripley’s SAT score was 1390." andthis one fromUniversity of Colorado Boulder that says "Use a comma for numbers with more than three digits unless they represent SAT scores or years.... His combined SAT score was 1235."
Most persuasively, these sources are all from universities, which are all frequent consumers of SAT scores as part of their admissions practices.
Can I suggest that we build this into the Manual of Style for Dates and numbers, that four-digit SAT scores are an exception to the general rule and should NOT have a comma?Alansohn (talk)19:54, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule perMOS:DIGITS is in fact already that commas arenot required in four-digit numbers, though they are allowed. ("Numbers with exactly four digits left of the decimal point may optionally be grouped (either 1,250 or 1250), consistently within any given article.")Gawaon (talk)04:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We already do not permit a thousands separator for four-digit years and page numbers. In line with the style guides cited above, we should extend that rule to SAT scores.Joe vom Titan (talk)09:11, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Our beloved Manual of Style is already too long and we shouldn't make it any longer unless we must. I agree that years and SAT scores and lots of other things should be formatted without commas, but I don't think we need to make a rule about it. If somebody is going throuh the encyclopedia and adding commas to four digit numbers, they are not following our style and should be corrected, gently. Such discussions can take place on the article's talk page, or if it becomes a behavior problem on their user page. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 13:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We will end up with endless content disputes on article talk pages about whether or not SAT scores should or should not have a comma, when these debates can be resolved with a trivial change and a reference to our beloved MOS that would put an end to the discussion.Alansohn (talk)18:13, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Are we having endless content disputes on article talk pages? The bad news is that editors who are inserting commas as anewcomer copy-editing task, as inthe diff you provided, aren't likely to be checkingWP:MOSNUM anyway; the good news is that they usually accept partial or complete reverts, especially if supported by even a minimal edit summary such as "no commas in SAT scores".NebY (talk)20:03, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The only addition I could possibly see as being worthwhile is something like "there are some usages of four digit numbers that are consistently formatted without commas. Commas should not be added to such instances, regardless of the presentation of numbers in general in an article." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)14:47, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Without further explanation as towhich numbers are meant (at least by example), I think this could leave the reader confused rather than enlightened.Gawaon (talk)03:37, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
True. I should have specified such. After more thought, I believe the difference is that SAT scores, years, addresses and such function more as labels. If you are counting, commas may be used with 4 digit numbers ("1,472 cars were stolen"). If you are labelling, commas should not be used with 4 digit numbers.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)12:26, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But SAT scores are actually used for comparison and similar purposes? House #77 is not inherently better than house #65, but a higher score has a meaning.Gawaon (talk)14:17, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike years, addresses and such, SAT scores can be meaningfully averaged; more broadly, they're the results of calculations and used in calculations. There might not be a tidy universal rule for four-digit numbers.NebY (talk)15:18, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And in the other direction: US patents are just labels (though sequential, so there's some sense of time), yet they are usually presented with commas. So there is, indeed, no simple answer.EEng15:57, 6 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not the first 9999 of them. But that's not my point, which is that the "labels" concept isn't dispositive. I need to bring the discussion back to theWP:MOSBLOAT test already mentioned: is significant editor time being wasted debating this, or undoing someone's mass-insertion of commas in SAT scores (or similar items)?EEng18:55, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Figures as figures: Use a figure when the figure itself (its glyph, shape, etc.) is meant is the closest relation but feels unclear and would need clarification if that is its intention i.e. that statements specifically referring to the number itself should always be written as such. The examples suggest it is not and exclusively applies to the typography of numbers.
My suggestion is the remove the phrase in parentheses—which is made redundant by the opening two examples—and add two examples to the list present:
Figures as figures: Use a figure when the figure itself is meant:a figure-8 pattern;in the shape of the numeral6;Cristiano Ronaldo wore the shirt number 7;she was ranked world No. 1.(SeeWikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting § Words as words.)
I would argue that is an example of a figure itself being a noun, but it may be more suitable elsewhere. To my knowledge, it goes uncovered throughout the MOS despite being a very common construction.MB243716:38, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this isnot about "figures as figures", but seems to be case of "cardinal used with ordinal meaning after a noun", which we also commonly use in expressions such as "season 2, episode 9". These are widespread, if not standard throughout Wikipedia, despite still technically violating the MOS, I think. At some point we should indeed fix the MOS accordingly. But "figures as figures" is not the right label for it.Gawaon (talk)02:49, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I suggest the first stop, before considering adding anything about this to MOS, is theWP:MOSBLOAT test: is editor time being wasted debating this?EEng18:57, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Single-digit sport numbers are pretty widely discussed in article space and the MOS presently suggests to write them as words. I feel it is worth noting. The same goes for constructs such asworld No. 1, which have assumednatural consensus but also feel contradictory to the present guidelines in NUMERAL.MB243720:59, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am working onJames Thurber, and have found myself using a lot of season names (as the sources do). I've been through and converted some to "mid-year" and so on, but there are some usages that I would like to keep, but which are not called out as exceptions byMOS:SEASON.
spring semester andfall semester. These are standard terms in discussing US colleges and it would be odd to refer to them as the end-of-year semester or first semester of the year.
That year they summered near Geneva,They spent the summer on Martha's Vineyard, andto escape the Parisian winter. Here it's not the dates that are relevant, it's the season -- the point is that they did this during the hot or cold weather.
They spent the summer and autumn of 1955 in Europe, arriving in Paris in May: here I hope the month serves to let the reader know that this is a Northern summer, and prevents there from being any ambiguity.
More generally, is it possible to establish within an article that one is talking solely about one hemisphere and not the other, and so make the use of season names acceptable because they are unambiguous? I worked onGerald Durrell, who traveled all over the world, and it wouldn't have been possible there, but the action inJames Thurber never leaves the US and Europe, so the season terms are not ambiguous. It would be nice if a conventional way of establishing that could be agreed. 14:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)14:50, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The examples you've given above look fine to me. The context makes the meanings unambiguous and any changes would be awkward. Clearly you've thought this through. Problems come about when people assume everyone shares the same assumptions, but you've avoided that problem. I'd not worry about it unless someone tries to change it, then, usually a courteous discussion on the talk page will resolve the issue. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:26, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bit concerned that this part of the MoS might be enforced without regard to this kind of exception, but it sounds like that's not intended to be the case. If a conversation on the relevant talk page can't reach a consensus I might come back here for more discussion. Thanks.Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)22:25, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A counterpoint from an Australian (ie Southern hemisphere). Every time you say "spring" I naturally think of Sep-Nov (which is correct for the southern hemisphere), then have to stop my chain of thought, figure out if I need to add or subtract 6 months (will it be in the prev/same/next calendar year) to make it "autumn" and then continue. Same deal for the other seasons. For us in the southern hemisphere it makes reading northern hemisphere information almost like a foreign language that has only been learnt at a beginner level. Very tedious.
So, unless the point is that they spent time in the cold, please avoid things like Parisian winter (your example dealing with the temperature, so this example is fine). Yes, it is unambiguous, but it is very tedious for us to read and we are spending as much brain power figuring out which time of year you mean as understanding the rest of the sentence. Worse, it causes us to do a context switch - which almost always causes information to be forgotten and requires re-reading.
Or to put it another way, unambiguous doesn't mean that it is simple to read when the reader's worldview is the opposite of the author's. Stepho talk23:39, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Stepho-wrs: I agree; thanks. There are probably twenty season references inJames Thurber; it sounds like at least a couple are OK, but I'm sure some are not based on what you say. How would you feel about letting me know which ones need to be rewritten, and providing some ideas about what rephrasing could work? I sometimes get stuck trying to find phrases that both sound natural and give the reader the information intended.Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)02:28, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I looked over the article (searching for spring, summer, autumn, and winter). A lot of the usages were of the sort where the climate would be more central than the date. And most of those were explicitly connected to Northern Hemisphere locations (Europe, New York, etc). I found the following usages that probably do need changing:
1) He was eventually accepted that winter.
2) The Dispatch did not rehire Thurber, but he was paid his work for the Scarlet Mask that winter,
{Note that there should be a "for" between "paid" and "his work".}
3) Over the winter of 1941–1942 he had an affair with a secretary,
The following mention more specific dates that help to clarify the intent, but still may or may not be considered ideal phrasings
1) In the winter of 1938–1939 he wrote "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty"; the story was published in the March 18, 1939
2) He and Helen had hoped to stay in Cornwall over the winter of 1942–1943, but the fuel oil they needed to heat the house was unavailable because of wartime rationing, so they returned to New York in January.
3) The Thurbers spent the summer and autumn of 1955 in Europe, arriving in Paris, in May, before going on to London,
Thanks! This is really helpful. I'll make some changes in the next day or so and will ping you to the article talk page rather than continue here, since this is article specific. I don't thinkMOS:SEASON needs a how-to section, but some input like this is certainly helpful for me.Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)19:22, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
i haven't checked the sources, but I am assuming they use similar language; it would be very unnqtural and awkward use of English for biographical sources to write things like "[they] doesn't May through late December 1955 in Europe" or "he wrote the "Secret Life of Walter Mitty" between December 1938 and March 1939." That, and it would be WP:OR for us to be giving specific months when the sources only mention the seasons and years. Also, in your second example, the weather does seem central to the point being made, that they were forced to return to New York in January due to lack of heating oil. I think that sentence would be MORE confusing to a Southern Hemisphere reader without mentioning "winter", because for them January is summer and it would be very odd to be forced to leave the place you are for lack of heating oil in the middle of thedog days, no?~2026-59608-1 (talk)05:46, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AtMOS:DATE#Formats, the MOS says that abbreviating months is allowed. It uses the examples of2Sep 2001,Sep2, 2001,2Sep,Sep2, andSep 2001 and says that such abbreviations are allowedin limited situations where brevity is helpful […] For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc. As a tangent ofthis discussion at{{death date and age}}, I just want to get confirmation that the extant allowances are… correct and accepted consensus, I guess. I want to make sure I'm not operating there from a misunderstanding of this page. Thanks, all! —Fourthords |=Λ= |20:36, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's birth and death date in the infobox on them should not be abbreviated for sure. We are not as limited of space as that. Theremay be situations in infoboxes where an abbreviated month name is OK (not that I could think of actual examples), but that's not one of them.Gawaon (talk)21:02, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Language along these lines goes back to at least 2013[6]:Abbreviations [such as "Feb"] are used only where space is extremely limited, such as in tables and infoboxes. I think Gawaon has it exactly right: the intent was that abbreviation months would be used in tables, infoboxes, references, and so onsometimes, but not routinely; indeed, the current text Fourtholds quoted reads, more fully:in limited situations where brevity is helpful […] For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc. ... By default, Wikipedia does not abbreviate dates.Personally, I think routinely abbreviating months in infoboxes would be in keeping with what infoboxes are for -- compact presentation of basic data, but neither do I feel that abbreviating months would be some great step forward either. And... I'm pretty sure that a lot of people would find it jarring, and be upset if suddenly birth and death dates in a zillion of articles are suddenly being abbreviated because of a change in a template -- don't do that without an RfC, I urge you. Beyond that I leave this in y'all's capable hands.EEng00:08, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, for references, the{{Use mdy dates}} and{{Use dmy dates}} templates allow the specification that an article's references will automatically be converted to "short" dates with abbreviated month names, by using the "s" settings in the cs1-dates= parameter. These options appear to be very infrequently used. A quick search finds some 34 articles using either cs1-dates=s or cs1-dates=ss (everything short), and another 18 using cs1-dates=ls (publication dates long, access-dates short). The number of references with cs1-dates=ly (numeric access dates) is much larger. —David Eppstein (talk)01:06, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only asking if the "limited situations" is still applicable. I'm not suggesting we abbreviate where it's unnecessary. I and others previously used{{death date and age text}} to abbreviate in just such limited situations, but with its recent redirection to{{death date and age}}, that functionality was lost, and I was told that despite this MOS, there was no consensus allowance for such occasional abbreviating. —Fourthords |=Λ= |16:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking generally, I've both used them (and seen others do so) when an overlong rendered date & age (possibly as long 32 characters) caused varible or parameter lines to overflow outside editors' control (which can then have additional knock-on effects on infobox presentation and rendering). If you're asking for specific and extant uses of abbreviated months in infoboxes: I'm sorry, but I don't know how to check/search for those. FWIW, I gave a quick and tiny example of why one might want to, as allowed by this MOS, inthis hastily-conjured screenshot. —Fourthords |=Λ= |18:59, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't see a convincing case here. Two-line entries in infoboxes are normal and optimizing an infobox for a specific appearance is bound to fail anyway since that depends on what system people are on, which font size they use etc. So, by all means let the poor Mr. Public have his full September death date, he deserves nothing less.Gawaon (talk)19:51, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't mean to suggest my screenshotted example was emblematic of ways that{{death date and age text}} was and is used. It's just something I threw together to illustrate another discussion. Like I said, I don't know how to find places the template was used in the wild for this (or any other) purpose. As forconvincing, do we know what discussion led to the current coified consensus? That might have the examples orsituations for which you're looking. —Fourthords |=Λ= |19:58, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus exactly are you talking about? I'd reiterate my earlier point that{{death date and age}} and similar templates shouldnever abbreviate the month. I don't think we have a consensus that they may; that option is meant for other situations when there are lots of dates and space is limited (maybe lists of dated events or publications).Gawaon (talk)21:16, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus exactly are you talking about? I just mean whatever consensus, either explicit or observational, that resulted in this page (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers) allowing abbreviations in "in limited situations where brevity is helpful […] For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc." I don't know how it came about originally, but it'sapparently been in place since 2013. As for your more-limited interpretation thereof, if that's the consensus understanding, we should change the MOS to reflect that (though it's not in line with my experience). —Fourthords |=Λ= |21:41, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "limited situations" are already there and must, of course, be taken into account whenever the use of abbreviated dates is to be considered. So I think the wording is fine, only its application must be considered on a case-by-case. It's not a blanket permission to use abbreviated monthsanywhere in an infobox or table.Gawaon (talk)09:02, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct! It's an allowance to use abbreviated months where brevity is helpful, including sometimes in infoboxes. You're also correct that local consensus is the crux upon which any individual use hangs. I'm not trying to change anthing, I'm just making sure that the MOS still reflects consensus that abbreviating months in infoboxes is still allowed sometimes—merely for the purpose of continuing (or not) to reference it in another discussion. —Fourthords |=Λ= |13:06, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While “Some precomposed fractions may not work with screen readers, and not all fractions are available precomposed”, there are times when one wants to have the Unicode fraction to quickly cut and paste, especially in the article about the fraction in question.
You've also added 1.33333... to that line.[7] I've corrected it but it's still veering into breachingWP:D2D andWP:DABLONGDESC. Broadly speaking, each bullet of a disambiguation page should be a brief link to an article, with sufficient detail to distinguish that target from the others listed; it shouldn't be a substitute for an article.NebY (talk)18:16, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
