Wikipedia's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and fromwhat is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reachedconsensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed.
Why does the Manual of Stylerecommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of “,”,‘, and ’)?
Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as" and') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings.
This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite the tendency of externally published style guides to recommend the latter. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American, though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with theprinciple of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate that has not changed this consensus.
Why does the Manual of Styledifferentiate the hyphen (-), en dash (–), em dash (—), and minus sign (−)?
Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The"Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters.
Why does the Manual of Stylerecommend apostrophe+s for singular possessive of names ending ins?
Most modern style guides treat names ending withs just like other singular nouns when forming the possessive. The few that do not propose mutually contradictory alternatives. Numerous discussions have led to the current MoS guidance (see discussions of2004,2005,2005,2006,2006,2007,2008,2008,2008,2009,2009,2009,2012,2013,2015,2016,2017,2017,2017 (the RfC establishing the present consensus),2018,2018,2019,2021,2022).
Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice?
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it iswritten for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preferencemay conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.
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.
This page is within the scope of theWikipedia Help Project, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's help documentation for readers and contributors. If you would like to participate, please visitthe project page, where you can join thediscussion and see a list of open tasks. To browse help related resources see theHelp Menu orHelp Directory. Orask for help on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you there.Wikipedia HelpWikipedia:Help ProjectTemplate:Wikipedia Help ProjectHelp
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 toConcluded when decided, and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.
Talk:Fun (band)#RfC on article tense – RfC (June–July 2025) on whether to refer to an inactive, but not apparently disbanded band in the present or past tense.Result: Modest participation discussion stalled, no conclusion.
RfC needed on issue raised atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography/2024 archive#British peer titles in infoboxes (June–July 2004, archived without resolution). Presently, the royalty/nobility wikiprojects have imposed putting British peerage titles in place of names in biographical infoboxes, againstMOS:BIO,MOS:INFOBOX, and the template's documentation. Either the community will accept this as a best practice and the guidelines changed to accomodate it, or it should be undone and the infobox used consistently and as-intended.
Talk:Second Italo-Ethiopian War#Flags in the infobox – aMOS:FLAGICONS matter (Nov.–Dec. 2024)Result: No formal closure, but article has been stable for a while with flag icons in the infobox, whether or not this conforms with the relevant guideline. This is the opposite of the result at "Battle of Tory Island", below.
Various simultaneously executed RMs by the same proponent all concluded against the desired over-stylizations (usually ALL-CAPS) – some by affirmative consensus against, some by no consensus to move.
Talk:Shays's Rebellion#Requested move 27 April 2024 –MOS:POSS: "Shays'" or "Shays's"?Result: "Shays's". No objective rationale was presented for an exception to the guideline, and evidence shows "Shays's" common in source material even if "Shays'" is also common, especially in older sources.
Template talk:Infobox university/Archive 23#Type – Should multiple entries be formatted as a list or a single phrase? (Apr.–May 2024)Result: 4:1 against proposed change to a list format; alternative idea at end neither accepted nor rejected.
Wikipedia talk:Image use policy/Archive 16#Collages in infoboxes – Primarily on a recent habit of military-conflict articles having collages of 4, 6, or even more images in their infobox. (Mar.–May 2024)Result: No formal closure, but a clear consensus against this practice; image galleries (when appropriate at all perWP:GALLERY) belong in the article body.
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Names of deceased trans people (moved from WP:VPPOL) – Yet another round of this long-term, multi-RfC process. Consensus about "deadnames" seemed possible this time but was mostly elusive. (Dec. 2023 – Jan. 2024)Result: no consensus to change the wording of MOS:GENDERID based on this proposal; consensus against changing "should be included" to "may be included".
Related: See numerous previous deadname-related and more general GENDERID discussions listed below.
Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 61#Request for comment on the relationship between WP:CRITERIA and WP:TITLEFORMAT – has stylistic implications (punctuation, leading "The", etc.) despite not being intrinsically an MoS matter (Nov. 2024)Result: "There is consensus that WP:TITLEFORMAT does not take precedence over WP:CRITERIA. Editors should continue to balance all relevant guidelines and policies when determining article titles, without giving inherent precedence to either section."
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 16#Making redundant table captions screen-reader-only – About use of{{sronly}} around table captions (which are primarily for screen readers) to hide them from the usual non-screen-reader view, only when their content repeats what is in the table headers. (Nov.–Dec. 2023)Result: Archived without firm resolion. As there was but one opposer of the idea, there is no consensus against doing this. If more opposition arose or some reason, open an RfC about it.
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks#Minor consolidation merge – To merge a line-item (about stylization of stage/pen names) out of MOS:INITIALS (where the one of the examples is only semi-pertinent anyway) and intoMOS:TM, leaving behind a cross-reference to MOS:TM fromMOS:NAMES. (Nov.–Dec. 2023)Result: Because of some things that apply to personal not corporate names, this ended up not being practical; intead the MOS:BIO material was cleaned up and cross-references between the two MOS sections was improved; description at:Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography#Minor overhauling. No objections or other issues have come up.
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#MOS style for odds – About changingMOS:RATIOS to specify a format (new or otherwise) for betting-odds ratios. (Oct.–Dec. 2023)Result: No formal closure, but apparent general agreement that the: style for ratios in general applies to odds ratio in particular like the rest, and MOS:RATIOS updated to say this.
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#Proposed change MOS:TERRORIST – On how WP uses terms like "terrorist/terrorism" and "freedom fighter", specifically to add a requirement "these words should only be used in quotations or referencing third-party use of the term". (Oct. 2023)Result: "nearly unanimously opposed".
Talk:2023 Hawaii wildfires/Archive 2#Use of Hawaiian symbols in names – InvolvesMOS:HAWAII and could have implications for what the guideline says due to wildfire news bringing many more editorial eyes to that page than toWT:MOSHAWAII. (Aug.–Sep. 2023)Result: Archived without closure or any clear consensus; the general gist seems to be that the state of Hawaii is named Hawaii, the island is named Hawaiʻi, and diacritics (ʻokina andkahakō) should not be suppressed in the more localized names (and the US Geological Survey, which sets official placenames, along with the Hawaiʻi Board on Geographic Names, which basically tells USGS what to do in Hawaii/Hawaiʻi, both agree).
Talk:Bayes' theorem#Requested move 23 August 2023 –MOS:POSS stuff. (Aug. 2023)Result: Not moved. Lots of invalid arguments, and confused attempt to pitWP:COMMONAME against MoS (COMMONNAME is not a style policy, never has been one, and never will be; every proposal to incorporate a style matter into a policy has failed).
Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2023 August 5#Hyphen vs. En dash usage (Wikidata)? andd:Wikidata:Project chat/Archive/2023/08#Hyphen vs. En dash to separate years of birth/death? – Relating to concordance between wikidata descriptions and enwiki "short description". (Aug. 2023)Result: Good summary: "as long as you choose a comprehensible form, your edits are fine. However, you should not change existing descriptions for stylistic reasons, and also not to unify desriptions for a given set of items"; also observations that various languages, e.g. Spanish, do not use an en dash for this purpose. So, Wikidata will not be changing away from hyphen as default, and any desire to have WD material, like automatically provided short descriptions, will have to do that change on our end.
Talk:SAG-AFTRA#Requested move 20 July 2023 – move toSAG–AFTRA likeAFL–CIO, or is there a reason to hyphenate asSAG-AFTRA? (July 2023)Result: Not moved. The closer actually misunderstood the guideline wording badly, and this has created aWP:CONSISTENT policy failure with titles of other such entities including AFL–CIO, and the Famous Players-Lasky decision covered just below. This probably needs to be re-done.
Talk:Famous Players-Lasky#Requested move 24 June 2023 – proposal to use dash instead of hyphen. (June–July 2023)Result: Use the dash perMOS:DASH; a followup RM to add "Corporation" to the title rejected that idea despiteWP:NCCORP supporting it, one of several recent RM incidents suggesting that at least some portions of the page do not enjoy consensus.
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 182#RFC: MOS:GENDERID and the deadnames of deceased trans and nonbinary persons – Primarily about "When should Wikipedia articles include the former name of a deceased trans or nonbinary person who was not notable prior to transitioning?" (May–June 2023)Result: "there is a consensus against using the former names of transgender or non-binary people, living or dead, except when of encyclopedic interest or when necessary to avoid confusion. Also, there is clear consensus that a former name is not automatically of encyclopedic interest. Where, exactly, the lines of encyclopedic interest and avoiding confusion are is not simple or clear and will likely need discussion on individual articles, although there is definitely space for more guidance in the MOS". This has let to a lot of follow-on discussion and dispute.
Talk:Nrx#Requested move 12 January 2026 – use all-caps for this disambiguation page name?Result: Uppercase, as nearly all listed topics are uppercased abbreviations
Talk:Major Labels#Requested move 27 July 2025 – is it sufficiently clear that this is an article about a book rather than a group of companies?Result: Not moved; title is suitable for a published work
Talk:Niviarsiat#Requested move 25 July 2025 – should either "Northeast Greenland" or "Southern Greenland" start with a capital letter?Result: The capitalization question is not relevant to the chosen titles
Talk:Blair Babe#Requested move 4 July 2025 – lowercase "Babe" or "Babes"? Result: uppercase retained (not the primary focus of the discussion and not commented on in the closing remarks)
Talk:F1NN5TER#Capitalization – Should the online persona be called "F1NN5TER", "F1nn5ter" or "Finnster"?Result: Discussion started 24 March 2024 went stale after comments on 4 April 2024 suggesting "F1NN5TER" to be the usual form
Talk:Fullbore target rifle#Major rework – Is it too risky to ask people who are carrying firearms to use lowercase?Result: lowercase "rifle" in most contexts, and other fixes
Talk:1925 Tri-State tornado#Requested move 26 December 2024 – Was this the "1925 Tri-State tornado" or "Great Tri-State Tornado" or something else? (closed, then close withdrawn and reopened after amove review, then closed and voluntarily reopened again, then closed again, thenanother move review, which was closed as "moot" when a parallel RM was closed.)
Talk:Washington (tree)#Requested move 30 April 2025 (18 articles) – if renamed to "[Something] tree", should "tree" be capitalized?Result: Moved to uppercase as nominated, but no clear consensus established on the capitalization
Talk:Fall of Saigon/Archive 1#Names section and capitalisation – capitalisation of Vietnamese language names and capitalisation of their English translations?Result: Archived after comments observing inconsistency, so generally suggesting sentence case for terms in Vietnamese and capitalization for translated named days (e.g. "Liberation Day") in English
Talk:Xkcd#Requested move 29 March 2025 – Should something different be done about the way this article tries to put its title in all-lowercase?Result: Not moved.
Talk:Tri-State tornado outbreak#Requested move 18 December 2024 – Was this a "Tri-State tornado outbreak" or a "tri-state tornado outbreak"?Result: Year added ("1925 Tri-State tornado outbreak"), but no explicit conclusion was expressed about capitalization (an initial move to lowercase was changed by the closer to uppercase the next day), then amove review was opened; closed as "endorse".
Articles about languages, or about their grammar, typically include examples of sentences in the language and their equivalents in English. Many languages don't make a gender distinction in their pronouns, so a sentence using the third person singular could equally well be talking about someone who, in English, would be referred to as "he" or "she" or singular "they". In several places,Greenlandic language uses "(S)he" for these cases.
Withthis edit,DdeWylvyn changed "(S)he says" to "They (sg.) say". While recognizing the omission made by "(S)he", I felt that, particularly since all the other examples "(S)he" were left intact, this made it look like the Greenlandic sentence couldonly be translated with the gender-neutral singular pronoun, that the Greenlandic equivalent to the sentence with "he" or "she" instead would have been something else. So Iundid their edit with the edit summaryWhile I've taken to using "they" as an indefinite singular in prose, this is too confusing, implying that the word is used ONLY for singular they and not for he or she. Also, you made it inconsistent with the other occurrences on the page. If anything, perhaps change it, consistently, to "(S)he or sg. they".
Tentatively, would it be worth footnoting the first instances of (S)he and he/she/it to the effect that in this article they stand for gender-specific, gender-neutral and impersonal third-person singular nominative pronouns such as she, he, singular they and it?NebY (talk)10:57, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for having left inconsistency in the article; I was in a hurry at the time and it slipped my mind to go through the rest of the article. I believe that use of "they (sg.)" is most natural and logical, as it includes all 3rd person arguments regardless of gender (though perhaps not including inanimate ones) without any clunkiness. (unlike something like "he/she", "(s)he" (both implying the existence of only two genders) or "he/she/they" (very long; is unclear as to number) ("/it" could also be appended, for including all possible 3rd person pronouns)
I find it use the word "one", as in substitutingOne can use "one" as a gender neutral pronoun" forThey (or she or he) can use "one" as a gender neutral pronoun sometimes useful. Unfortunately, it sometimes sounds awkward, but much of the time it works fine.
Informally "s/he" sometimes work for a generic person. It obviously does not suffice when referring to an individual who has identified a set of pronouns.
I don't think "one" really works as a replacement for a third person pronoun. Its use is (~was) as an impersonal pronoun, never referring to a specific person. English usually uses "you" for that now. ("Can one/you be acquitted for a crime they didn't commit?" (yes, that is a strange example sentence that I just came up with))
I generally use "they" for people, especially if I'm unfamiliar with them. If someone asks me to use something else, I will of course oblige.
My opinion is that the best option for gender-neutral language in English is something like "they (sg.)" I haven't ever really heard a better alternative, and "they" comes quite naturally to me.DdeWylvyn (talk)18:02, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted earlier, the problem with that is that it implies that the non-English sentence is likewise using an explicitly gender-neutral pronoun or suffix where a different pronoun or suffix would be used for sentences equivalent to English ones with "he" or "she". Since I don't know Greenlandic, I'll use Turkish, which also has no grammatical gender, to illustrate my point. If an example of Turkish were "Bana bir hediye verdi" (where ver- is the root for "give" and "-di" is the third-person singular past) and we translated it to "They (sg.) gave me a gift", that would imply that the Turkish sentence equivalent to "He gave me a gift" or "She gave me a gift" would be something other than the example given, that "verdi" is specifically for non-binary usage and Turkish uses one or more other third-person suffixes for male-identifying and female-identifying people. But that would be wrong. "Bana bir hediye verdi" means "He gave me a gift"and "She gave me a gift"and "They (sg.) gave me a gift". Writing only "they (sg.)" is just as misinformative as writing only "she".Largoplazo (talk)18:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since Modern English has only one second person singular pronoun, there's no analogy with the third person case with respect to the issue that I'm raising. (If this were Hebrew Wikipedia, where Hebrew does distinguish "you (m.sg.)" from "you (f.sg.), that would be another matter.) I'm also wondering whether you think my problem has to do with "(sg.)". It doesn't. If the pronoun that eventually came to be generally accepted for those who don't use "he" or "she" had been "ze/zig/zigs" instead of "they/them/their", and DdeWylvyn had made the same edit but with "ze" instead of "they (sg.)", I'd still be raising this issue.Largoplazo (talk)03:11, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the obvious difference is that singularthey is widely used and understood, whileze is not. And it's used asneutral pronoun, not just 'for those who don't use "he" or "she"'.Gawaon (talk)06:54, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My premise was that "ze" had attained the role for the singular non-gender-specific pronoun that "they" has in fact attained. So, in that scenario, it wouldn't be a difference at all, the scenario is defined by it being the equivalent situation.
You've just illustrated further what's wrong with it. My concern was already that it's misleading; you've just pointed out that it's ambiguous as well. Expecting readers to see "they (sg.)" in examples like these and to know intuitively that it's being used as a neutral pronoun for which "he" or "she" could just as well be substituted rather than as a non-gender-specific pronoun for which "he" or "she" could not be substituted is unrealistic, especially since in other situations, with other languages, it could be the other way around. The reader doesn't know which of these two equally possible meanings was intended. Since the point of the translation is to hone in on exactly what's going on in the other language, this fails the purpose of the translation.Largoplazo (talk)14:09, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which is another reason why just having "they (sg.)" is a problem. The reader doesn't know whether it's being used this way or the other way, and the difference is relevant to understanding what the sentence in the other language does mean and what it doesn't mean. My original concern was that this approach is misleading; it's even moreso because of this ambiguity.Largoplazo (talk)14:10, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using singular "they" usually works very well, butGreenlandic language does rather reveal English's problems. Some of the illustrative examples are translated using he/she/it, some with (s)he, and some with he/she/it/they, and Largoplazo asked for feedback here after you gave "They (sg.) say" instead of "S(he) says". That last highlights that if we use singular they, we have to change the English verb's inflection, or offer alternatives as also in the article, ""He/she/it/they love(s) us" and "He/she/it/they love(s) you (pl.)".
As someone that doesn't know Greenlandic, I worry that we might not always represent the language correctly if we made such changes throughout (e.g. is that a singular or plural inflection of the verb in Greenlandic?), and also that we might make it harder for general readers to follow all our examples in a long article if we phrase them at such length. What to do?NebY (talk)14:38, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to right great wrongs. We should follow what reputable sources like Britannica, BBC, or other reputable sources are doing at the time.Czarking0 (talk)16:14, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another issue with turning "(S)he says" to "They say" is that "They say" more often indicates plural than it does a singular. Would such a thing not cause confusion? Assuming, that is, that the word in Swedish is anexclusively singular, though gender-neutral pronoun?~2025-38703-06 (talk)23:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some say "God bless America, land that I love. / Stand beside her and guide her / Through the night with the light from above."NebY (talk)19:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's incorrect. "It" is the neuter pronoun used for inanimate objects. But these examples are generally about people so "it" wouldn't be an appropriate translation for the example in the other language.Largoplazo (talk)17:26, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is pertinent to this discussion to mention that thesingularthey was first used in 14th-century English,[1][2][3] although its use has been criticized since the 18th-century.[4]
When addressing people who insist "You can't use 'they' as a singular pronoun", sure, some respond by noting "Of course we can, it's been done since the 14th century." But that's not what this discussion is about.Largoplazo (talk)21:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Largoplazo has dismissed my comment as dismissive. However, I think that my comment is germane. My intent was to broaden the discussion.Peaceray (talk)18:33, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"... broaden the discussion" = "take it off topic". Do you mind not diluting a discussion someone initiated for a specific purpose by turning it into a free-association free-for-all so that the original purpose gets lost?Largoplazo (talk)19:32, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A new editor,User:Glardenc, created their account on December 8, 2025, and as of this post has made 170 edits [[2]]. Of those 170 edits, by my count 88 of the edits have either been:
(1) to eliminate the word "that" from articles, on the basis that it is an inferior word, permissible in oral speech, but not in written English, where there are "superior" words, such as "which" or "who" which should always replace "that" (e.g. in many edit summaries Glardenc states: "edited the ill-used conjunction "that", replacing with the grammatically preferred and better "which", "who", "the", "this" ");
(2) comments on Talk pages rejecting critiques of their usage. The most recent appears to be in response to a Note on their Talk page [[3]], where Glardenc states:
"And I don't have the faintest of cares about opinions regarding editing it. My form reads cleaner, more compact, polished. It's truly an indication of poor grammar and iq to use it widely."
I'm raising this issue here, rather than on ANI, because it seems to be a matter of style at this stage. Personally, I disagree entirely with Glardenc's wholesale rejection of the word "that" in written English, and do not think it is appropriate for one editor to attempt to impose their personal style preferences on Wikipedia in this way.
(Altho' I am concerned that the quoted comment is a rejection of consensus to resolve issues, and the assertion that anyone who disagrees with them suffers from "poor grammar and iq" verges on a breach ofWikipedia:Civility.)
As soon as I complete this post, I will leave a note on Glardenc's Talk page, and try to ping any other editors who have commented on particular pages.
ETA: have added note to Glardenc's Talk page. [[4]]
Their changes do not appear to be consistent with WP practices, nor with English grammar rules. The words "which" and "that" have two distinct meanings."the car which was red ... " vs "the car that was red... " are both valid, but have slightly different meanings."Which" means the redness is incidental/tangential;"that"means the redness was identifying/significant. As far as I can tell from the editor's change history, the editor is changing some "that"s to "which" - without validating that "which" is more appropriate in each situation. I think the editor should respond here and confirm they understand the distinction between which & that, and confirm that they are leaving "that" in place where it is appropriate.Noleander (talk)17:19, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's the difference betweenrestrictive clauses (with "that") and non-restrictive clauses (with which). But, conventionally, non-restrictive clauses are also demarcated by commas: "the car, which was red, ...". Anyway, this is a long-entrenched guideline, at least as I learned it in school and have seen it presented since then.
That's the traditional, prescriptionist view. As Merriam-Webster explains, "which" in fact appears interchangeably with "this" in restrictive clauses.That andwhich can both introduce a restrictive clause, ...Which is the word used to introduce a nonrestrictive clause, ....[5]Largoplazo (talk)17:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info from M-Webster. But even ifwhich&thatare interchangeable for the restrictive situation, doesn't WP have guideline that says that editors should not change the wording of an article merely to switch between two valid stylistic choices? Comparable to the rule that prohibits changing an article from UK English to/from US English; or metric to/from imperial?Noleander (talk)18:50, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:VAR:Edit warring over style, or enforcing optional style in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus, is disruptive and is never acceptable. Unjustified changes from one acceptable, consistently applied style in an article to a different style may generally be reverted..UndercoverClassicistT·C18:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your interpretation. I think this is a distinction which is only made in some regions and not others. It also is a distinction that depends on tone of voice.
Further, I think this distinction is only made in some localities, and this distinction depends on tone.
It is typically more active voice to say "You saw a red car." Is preferred over the passive "you saw a car that was red".
Maybe you have sources to support your argument?, but Largoplazo sources support me here.
The issue that I think Largoplazo is subtly introducing is if we should be prescriptionist. I think yes. What is the point of a guideline that is not prescriptionist? The guidelines are there to help create a uniform style not to document many different styles.Czarking0 (talk)16:29, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The comment about "not caring about the opinions of editing it" was specifically and only aimed to the derogatory comment of a member who assailed my stance as "horseplay", and attempted to discredit it in any substance as being proper or useful.
That is the context of that comment. In the thread of that comment, I gave the member specific examples showing where other conjunctions and determiners provided clearer usage above the word "that". Even after providing these examples, the member nonetheless attacked my grammatic position as unprofessional and sophomoric. My retort included the truth that their (specific/one) opinion of my usage of grammar is not dissuasive.
It is noted, though, that in this instance you alluded to one brief snippet, without mentioning the context in which it was delivered.Glardenc (talk)18:12, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean, "My retort included the truthwhich their (specific/one) opinion of my usage of grammar is not dissuasive"?–ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ13:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Edit summaries which call "which", who" and "the" "more descriptive conjunctions"[6] do not inspire confidence in the editor's opinions; perhaps they could quote a style guide or English grammar instead. The currentFowler's has four pages on the appropriate uses of "that". It notes, for example, that some omissions of "that" are feasible but does not go as far as recommending such removals as those inGlardenc's edit,correct to statethat they are,The university also confirmedthat the removal of the statue. It does quote, approvingly, Fowler himself in 1926:
The relations betweenthat,who, andwhich, have come to us from our forefathers as an odd jumble, and plainly show that the language has not been neatly constructed by a master builder who could create each part to do the exact work required of it, neither overlapped nor overlapping; far from that, its parts have had to grow as they could.
In the edit "The university also confirmed **that the** removal of the statue...", the sentence retains its full meaning. In this matter, the edit made the sentence more concise, without changing any connotation. Finding instances where connotation remains intact, while making the text itself less chatty/wordy, is a plus for the site and its articles. Of course there are instances where "that" is appropriate. It's not a wholesale assault on the word. It is, rather, the aim to increase the concision of existing text. In cases where the context remains firm with "that" removed, it proves "that" (in these instances) is both unnecessary and cluttery. It seems Wikipedia would prefer articles be as compact and polished as possible, while still getting the information of the article/topic expressed. I will sometimes find "that" expressed 4-5 times in the span of two or three sentences. This is not attaining the bar which Wikipedia surely wishes to achieve.Glardenc (talk)19:05, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"The university also confirmed that the removal..." can be parsed unconsciously and without hesitation, unlike "The university also confirmed removal...". We don't want to minimise the number of words we use; we want to minimise the time and effort readers have to put in to figure out what we mean.
(A) "Minimizing time and effort readers have to put in to figure out what we mean" is exactly the aim of my edits. (I haven't seen anyone mention it was/is about reducing the number of words - I specifically stated, "Finding instances where connotation remains intact, while making the text itself less chatty/wordy, is a plus for the site and its articles.") I am fairly new to WP in terms of looking to improve articles, and it is surprising how cluttery and overly wordy the majority of articles are. (B) Why prompt unconscious parsing by readers, when parsing can be done upfront via improved concision in how articles are written? Waiting for unconscious parsing is not proactively having the mindset of "minimizing time and effort readers have to put in to figure out what we mean." (C) I haven't yet come across a book written by my high school English teacher, who had three degrees: B.A.'s in English and History, and a J.D. in Law. She brought keen attention to the overuse of "that", and she was 100% correct - doesn't matter whether she wrote a book on it or not. It's something which sticks out like a sore thumb. In instances where its presence is plain/benign/unnecessary, it exudes, to be blunt, sloppiness and laziness - the antithesis of concision, and not a good look (in this current discussion, for WP).
It's much more acceptable in spoken/conversational English. In written grammar, "that" is often (not always) dispensable. In many instances, context is retained via simply removing it (the parsing & concision being talked about). Other times it has a plain/benign/vanilla presence, and the sentence is improved by (an)other option(s): (ex: "Brady is the only NFL player WHO **not THAT** has been on seven Super Bowl winning teams.") Of course, there are times it's right on the money, (ex: "In that time, he had 232 passing yards and the Stallions won the game, 21–14.").Glardenc (talk)20:53, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Glardenc, one of the foundational principles of Wikipedia is that we useReliable sources. Other editors in this discussion have referred toMerriam-Webster, toFowler's, and toThe Chicago Manual of Style, in support of their positions. Those are all reliable sources, accepted as good guides to English grammar, and anyone who wants to check what they say when cited as a source can do so, because they are publicly available. "My teacher told me" is not a reliable source. We don't know who your teacher was, and whether she should be accepted as a reliable source. None of us can check her statements up, either online or on hard copy, because she's a complete unknown. Therefore, citing her does not advance your argument. If you disagree with the reliable sources that have been cited in this discussion, please provide a reliable source that supports your position.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)15:34, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To Aggies who (correctly) point outthat they refer to "alumni" under the term "former students" ->To Aggies who (correctly) point out they refer to "alumni" under the term "former students"
This is a stylistic choice, and one I'd disagree with. I don't think it's technically wrong but I don't think this sort of edit should be made on a mass basis. Also, this is inside a comment, meaning there's very little value in fixing it.
a higher proportion thanthat of any other American college or university ->a higher proportion than any other American college or university
Again a stylistic choice, but I think this is more defensible. I might make this edit myself if I were copyediting an article, but again I don't think this is a good choice for mass edits.
The university also confirmedthat the removal of the statue would require approval from the Texas Legislature ->The university also confirmed removal of the statue would require approval from the Texas Legislature
I think this is a mistake, or at least a poor stylistic choice. Without "that" it takes the reader a split-second longer to parse the sentence, which could now be read as "the university confirmed that the statue had been removed" until the eye moves past "would".
university presidentM. Katherine Banks implemented university-wide administrative restructuringthat involved several changes to academic unit names ->university presidentM. Katherine Banks implemented university-wide administrative restructuringwhich involved several changes to academic unit names
I think this was done because of the that/which restrictive clause issue, but it wasn't necessary as there was no subsequent clause. Again this is a stylistic preference, not a correction.
Dozens of buildings are visible including onethat is domed -> Dozens of buildings are visible including onewhich is domed
Same as above. In this case I would agree; the version with "that" sounds a bit clumsier, but this is not a correction. I might have made this edit if I were copyediting.
In 2021,The Washington Monthly assessed Texas A&M 21st nationally based on their criteriathat weigh research, community service, and social mobility ->In 2021,The Washington Monthly assessed Texas A&M 21st nationally based on their criteriawhich weigh research, community service, and social mobility.
This is a valid correction; we don't want the restrictive "that" here.
Texas A&M works with state and university agencies on local and international research projects to develop innovations in science and technologythat can have commercial applications ->Texas A&M works with state and university agencies on local and international research projects to develop innovations in science and technologywhich can have commercial applications
This changes the meaning, and is not a grammatical correction; the sentence now says that the innovations may have commercial applications; with "that" the implication was that they were intended to have commercial applications. This change shouldn't be made without understanding the intended meaning; perhaps Glardenc checked the source in this case but I doubt it given what they say about their approach to these edits.
the Texas A&M University System was the first to explicitly state in its policythat technology commercialization could be used fortenure ->the Texas A&M University System was the first to explicitly state in its policy technology commercialization could be used fortenure
Stylistic again, and I think a poor choice; the reader's going to take a moment to understand that "policy technology commercialization" has an implied conjunction in its midst.
the dogs in question were given several experimental treatments to improve or cure a genetic conditionthat also affects humans ->the dogs in question were given several experimental treatments to improve or cure a genetic conditionwhich also affects humans
I assume this was done because of the which/that restrictive clause issue, but I think it's an error. The original version was restrictive and that seems likely to be the intended meaning.
the university announced on 9 February 2024that it would be closing its Qatar campus by 2028 ->the university announced on 9 February 2024 it would be closing its Qatar campus by 2028
Stylistic, and not a terrible choice, though to my eye it makes the sentence a touch less readable.
a series of twelve archesthat allude to the spirit ofthe 12th Man ->a series of twelve archeswhich allude to the spirit ofthe 12th Man
The restrictive clause issue; the change is fine but it wasn't necessary because the first clause is not being used to choose arches from an implied set of more than twelve.
an all-male choral group not affiliated with the Corps of Cadets with about 70 membersthat was founded in 1893 ->an all-male choral group not affiliated with the Corps of Cadets with about 70 memberswhich was founded in 1893
Same as above; the change is fine but not really needed.
lights a candle to symbolizethat although their loved one is not physically present ->lights a candle to symbolize although their loved one is not physically present
This is just wrong.
Students who die while enrolled at Texas A&M are honored at Silver Taps, a ceremonythat is held, when necessary, on the first Tuesday of the month ->Students who die while enrolled at Texas A&M are honored at Silver Taps, a ceremonywhich is held, when necessary, on the first Tuesday of the month
I agree with this change though again it's not strictly necessary because there is no sense that other ceremonies are being defined out of the clause. I might make this edit myself if copyediting.
The song is not played to the east, symbolizingthat the sun will never again rise on the deceased student ->The song is not played to the east, symbolizing the sun will never again rise on the deceased student
Stylistic, and to my eye this definitely hurts readability; a reader is almost sure to stumble on "symbolizing the sun".
The rivalry was renewed in 2024 when the Longhorns joined the SEC, ending the hiatusthat began in 2011 ->The rivalry was renewed in 2024 when the Longhorns joined the SEC, ending the hiatuswhich began in 2011
I'm a Longhorn myself so perhaps I should know this, but this changes the meaning and I don't know if it's correct. Were there previous hiatuses? And I'd rephrase anyway: perhaps "ending a hiatus which began", or make it absolutely clear whether there had been earlier gaps.
I'm sure others will disagree with some of my assessments here, but I think at least a few of these are clearly stylistic choices, and a couple clearly change the meaning and should not be done without reference to the sources. I don't think anyone should be making a project out of this sort of edit.Mike Christie (talk -contribs -library)23:14, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, I don't disagree with your analysis, Mike Christie; that's exactly the kind of careful, word-by-word analysis that I think is appropriate on Wikipedia. As opposed to " 'that' is a bad word in written English and needs to be replaced wholesale by 'superior' words."Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)01:00, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Glardenc - Even if your changes are technically correct, would you consider redirecting your energies to areas of the encyclopedia that are of more import? WP needs volunteers to help in many areas: creating new articles, adding missing material to existing articles, findingsources for articles that don't have footnotes, helping new articles get shaped into encyclopedic form, etc. Of course, WP has editors that focus on copy editing – such as theWP:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors – but if that is your desire, perhaps you could focus on articles that need major copy editing, such as articles that (which?) were machine-translated from other languages.Noleander (talk)01:08, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Glardenc confusesits andit's, hypercorrects hyphens into places they don't belong, doesn't know a hyphen from a dash, thinkswhich andwho are conjunctions, and indulges in comma splices (for all of which see[7]). Meanwhile (see above in this thread) they commit blunders such asI gave the member specific examples... Even after providing these examples, the member nonetheless attacked... (apparently forgetting, from one sentence to the next, who gave the examples), and seems to thinkgrammatic is an impressive synonym forgrammatical (maybe because it saves two letters?). So I don't think you've done them, or Wikipedia, a favor by suggesting that copyediting would be a good task for them.EEng06:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While not doing other people favors, might I suggest to Glardenc or others who want to make English simple by removing not needed words: we have a project for writing in simple English, simple.wikipedia.org. They might find a more welcoming home there. Or not. —David Eppstein (talk)06:44, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, DE (and I know you'll agree once I say this): Compressing information into a more parsimonious representation does not, in general, simplify extraction of the underlying content, but rather makes it more difficult, because a more complex algorithm, and more CPU (or brain) cycles, will typically be required for decompression.EEng22:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Simple English avoids unclear formulations like omitting “that”. So Glardenc’s changes would be highly detrimental on the Simple English wiki. —tooki (talk)14:26, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree with Glardenc. For the record, Chicago MOS says (I paraphrase) to use that unless there's a preceding comma, in which case use which. This person hasn't got a clue.Tony(talk)07:30, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That was my thought, also. 'That' qualifies the preceding subject whereas 'which' provides additional information about it, following a comma. Sometimes (but not always) there are simpler ways of saying something (particularly in conversation) that can avoid using these, but that doesn't make them incorrect to use. If someone is going to launch an editing crusade they'd do better to focus on usage that is actually incorrect, of which WP offers plenty of material on which to start work....MapReader (talk)09:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Let's cool it with the name-calling, maybe? In any case I agree that the word "that" is fine in most contexts and this proposal is unlikely to gain consensus.CapitalSasha ~talk18:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie, thanks for posting this analysis. I generally agree, with a few points that I'd like to make:
1.a higher proportion than that of any other American college or university -> a higher proportion than any other American college or university - This actually changes the meaning of the sentence. The first version means "a higher proportion than any other college/university's proportion"; the second means "a higher proportion than the college/university itself". Granted, it's not important in this particular article as most readers will assume the first meaning, but there are some cases where thisis semantically different.
5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 (changing "that" to "which") - In American English, "that" is used to denote arestrictive clause that is vital to the meaning of a sentence, whereas changing it to "which" (usually when preceded by a comma) makes it a non-restrictive clause and, thus, changes the meaning of the sentence. For example, the textThe rivalry was renewed in 2024 when the Longhorns joined the SEC, ending the hiatus that began in 2011 tells us that the hiatus began in 2011.The rivalry was renewed in 2024 when the Longhorns joined the SEC, ending the hiatus which began in 2011 tells us that there may have been one or more hiatuses, and that only one of these ended in 2011.
The article these edits were taken from is in AmEng, and I know AmEng tends to be much more rigorous on the which/that distinction. I don't fully agree with you, though as a native BrEng speaker I can't besure you're wrong about any of this. A couple of comments to see if we can understand each other:
1: I think you're only technically right. I can't imagine anyone actually parsing this incorrectly. But we agree it's a harmful change, so it's moot.
For 6, 7, 9, and 16: we agree the meaning changes as I commented above.
For 5, 11, 12 and 14: I'd like to suggest the meaning doesn't change, even if one insists on the that/which restrictive clause distinction. For example, in 11 --a series of twelve arches that allude to the spirit of the 12th Man -- there's no set of arches from which we are selecting only the ones that allude to the spirit of the 12th man. The reader can't say to themselves, "Ah, this is a series of twelve of these restricted alluding kind of arches, rather than a series of twelve arches which may or may not so allude". Well, perhaps the reader can, but I think the implication is so distant as to be safely ignored. Or am I underestimating the strength of an AmEng reader's expectation that "that" in this structure mustalways imply a restriction?
1 is the sort of thing I routinely fix when I see it. Of course, because ofpragmatics, we understand it in speech when someone says "the Xness of B is larger than C" but where academic-level writing is expected, it's sloppy. It should be either "the Xness of B is larger than C's" or "the Xness of B is larger than that of C". In the case ofa higher proportion than any other American college or university, "that of" is probably better than the contraction.Largoplazo (talk)14:35, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Native speaker of American English here.) I agree with your analysis. Among the ones where “that” is simply deleted, I can’t identify a single one that isimproved by the deletion. In every case, the sentence becomes more difficult to parse. Non-native or lower-skilled readers may find the version without “that” to besignificantly more difficult, potentially to the point of failure.
I used to work as a technical writer, and in that discipline, one always uses “that” to ensure clarity. Microsoft’sWriting Style Guide (intended for writing documentation, and overall an extraordinarily high-quality resource based on decades of experience in the pitfalls of writing documentation for end users) has a page on the topic:https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/a-z-word-list-term-collections/t/that-vs-which which includes the statement: “Global tip: Includethat even if the sentence is clear without it. It helps to clarify the sentence structure.” (“Global tips” are their recommendations for writing for an international audience.)
In short, I don’t see a single one of the edits to be an improvement; they are neutral at best and significantly worse at worst. I would argue that Glardenc has a very warped view of what “good” writing is, especially in the context of prescriptivist rules, as well as not fully understanding those and other grammatical rules, and should back off from doing any edits of the kind. —tooki (talk)12:34, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we all band together and finish undoing the misguided edits? I just spent an hour fixingGeorge W. Bush manually, since others had made subsequent edits, making a simple revert impossible. The sooner we fix whatever’s left, the better… —tooki (talk)14:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Which car?" "That car...!"That Girl, etc. I edit under the ambit of "Prosody and nuance" often enough, but this is an inaneidée fixe if ever there was one. No sense of proportion.kencf0618 (talk)14:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Mike is correct about there beingWP:ENGVAR issues here. The article onThat doesn't say much about British vs American styles. Perhaps putting the information in the Wikipedia article another way to approach this.
For myself, I normally follow the approachHarold Ross, who adoredFowler's on this point,[8] mandated forThe New Yorker, but I'm only concerned about other editors' choices if they make unfounded assertions that the correct and traditional (e.g., Shakespearean) use ofthat is actually "wrong".WhatamIdoing (talk)23:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes "which" and "that" sometimes do have different meanings but some times do not. An example given by an editor above :" I think this is a distinction which is only made in some regions and not others" However I have frequently seen "which" being changed to that. I have never seen a proper explanation . Can anybody explain a reason for doiung this? There has been an example of this recently in the article on theThe Paris Peace Conference 1919-20Spinney Hill (talk)20:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The following provided example strikes me as being unreasonably confusing:
Do not use the legalismSmith J forJustice Smith.
Is "Justice" intended here as a title or as a given name? (On its face, it appears simply as a case where the citation generator is unable to differentiate between a title and a given name.)
“Justice” in front of a surname usually indicates that the person is a judge. In legal articles and court decisions, that is often abbreviated by “J.” after the name. The guidance here is not to use that legal style for Wikipedia articles. Use “Justice” the first time the person is referred to in an article, and then just the last name for subsequent references to that person.Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk)01:12, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note here that the full British version of Smith J is Mr Justice Smith (or Mrs Justice Smith) not Justice Smith, which is American. I don't kow what the usage is in Canada,Australia or New Zealand.Spinney Hill (talk)20:46, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Victoria R" is Victoria Regina,Regina is Latin for "Queen" so I do not think the two are connected. I may be wrong. "Charles R" is of course Charles Rex,rex being the Latin for KingSpinney Hill (talk)20:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello stylish editors! Here's a question about capitalization of a title. In the article about the song "The 'In' Crowd", it says it was "originally performed by Dobie Gray on his albumDobie Gray Sings for "In" Crowders That Go "Go-Go". In the album title, should the word "that" be capitalized? I'm usingMOS:TITLECAPS to guide me, but I'm not sure what part of speech "that" is here. I'm thinking that it's a pronoun, and therefore it should be capitalized, but I'm really not sure.—Mudwater (Talk)01:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For the record,that isn't a pronoun; it's a [something or other --that can play a number of roles]. Anyway, I'd capitalize it in this context.EEng01:24, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a something or other, all right. But in this title, isn't it acting as a particular part of speech? For example, looking at MOS:TITLECAPS, if in this context it's a pronoun, it should be capitalized, and if it's a preposition, it should not be capitalized, if that makes any sense.—Mudwater (Talk)01:29, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so it sounds like, in this album title, "for" is a preposition and "that" is a relative pronoun. Therefore, based onMOS:TITLECAPS, the current capitalization is correct --Dobie Gray Sings for "In" Crowders That Go "Go-Go". Good, thanks.—Mudwater (Talk)11:34, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection (from many years ago) had been that it was about word length. I checked against chatgpt, and it cited several different style guides. Nearly all of them (if you trust AI) state that prepositions and conjunctions should be capitalized only if 4 letters or longer, while the MLA style guide simply saying not to capitalize prepositions and conjunctions. (I have left out the finer points, and of course with the caveat that it's "me" summarizing and paraphrasing AI.)Fabrickator (talk)00:54, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In this case that's irrelevant sincethat is a pronoun in the title in question.Our own style says that prepositions with five or more letters are capitalized, but shorter ones are not. Hencewith, butWithout. I think that's a bit odd, but it is as it is.Gawaon (talk)02:50, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it seem I have to withdraw my recommendation here, as it gets prepositions with four letters wrong in "Wiki" style: it capitalizes them, we don't.Gawaon (talk)03:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think I might vote for sentence-case titles! It would be consistent with how we capitalize our own articles and sections, although I can imagine it might be surprising to many readers, and would lead to an entire new category of wiki-lawyering (isLord of the Rings a personal title, and thus a proper noun, or is it a descriptive phrase, thusThe lord of the rings?) It would also introduce new ambiguity, as many pages about works are currently disambiguated by capitalization.pburka (talk)04:16, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The current "capitalize all words, except those on this list, unless these specific exceptions to the exceptions apply" rule results in titles that look exceptionally ugly to me. Aside from just being a silly rule that engenders all this discussion. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions)14:49, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Currently there is no MOS section anywhere for simply abbreviating (not initializing) names of things (as in "the Church" for theCatholic Church). I would include this either atWikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations or here atWikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations (though I don't know why the contents of this section can't be migrated to the Abbreviations page). I would suggest the following guidance:
After anamed referent has been introduced in an article by its full name, it can be abbreviated in subsequent reference. Abbreviations can be a shortened form of the name (capitalized), or a general descriptor (uncapitalized). For example, the Catholic Church might be abbreviated to "the Church" (shortened proper noun, specific), whereas the River Thames is more aptly abbreviated to "the river" (common noun, general).
Within each article, all abbreviations of the same name should consistently follow the same style. If abbreviations of the same name are inconsistent, consensus for which to use can be sought on the relevant talk page.Wh1pla5h99 (talk)12:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm following the Cambridge Guide to English Usage: "Capital letters in abbreviated designations and titles: After introducing a name or the title in full, most writers abbreviate it for subsequent appearances – it would be cumbersome otherwise. The word retained is often lower-cased. So the Amazon River becomes the river..."
I would add that the full name should be presented on the first instance of mentioning, so the reader understands the shorter version in context. So… “The Anglican Church is the largest Christian denomination in the UK. The primate of the Church is the Archbishop of Canterbury.” Etc.Blueboar (talk)13:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So are the King of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury. But we don't write "The King and the Archbishop both powerful figures in the Church."MOS:CAP is quite clear on this, and the Cambridge guide you quoted above also says that the shortened forms are usually lowercase.pburka (talk)14:01, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a provision anywhere in the MoS about using the word "expatriates" (seeRoatán, for example) rather than "immigrants"? I have an idea of the socioeconomic nuance behind the distinction and wondered what the sense was of the treatment of that distinction here. Or do we treat that as irrelevant and use whichever word is being used in the sources being referenced in an article?Largoplazo (talk)01:42, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the said expatriates in that article were various stripes of outlaws or other "unsavory" folk, pirates, buccaneers, and the like, and apparently a significant proportion of that islands population are their descendents. This is very different from what is usually meant when discussing "immigrants".~2026-20824-9 (talk)23:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think the distinction between expatriates, emigrants, immigrants, and settlers is one of perspective. Emigrants are the people who left one place; immigrants are the people who arrived in another. Settlers are people who arrived from elsewhere, when you're thinking of them as local people. Expats are people who arrived from elsewhere, when you're thinking of them as nonlocals (or when they're thinking of themselves that way). But really it could all just be the same people. —David Eppstein (talk)23:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The literal meanings cover different circumstances, anyhow. Someone who is ‘ex patria’ is away from their home country, implying that their circumstance is temporary, or at the least that they hold and retain the citizenship of their old country rather than their new location. Whereas immigration generally implies the opposite - permanency and acquiring new (or additional) citizenship.MapReader (talk)06:35, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As far as I'm concerned (and the definition I've always used for catagorisation purposes), an immigrant is someone who has settled (or intends/intended to settle) in another country permanently (maybe taking citizenship, although that isn't a requirement - many immigrants never do). An expatriate is someone who intends to go back to their home country after they've finished doing whatever they're doing in another country (and almost certainly doesn't acquire citizenship). --Necrothesp (talk)19:13, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's a matter of wealth and power. Americans abroad are always expats, while someone from Bangladesh is always an immigrant (or maybe even a migrant or guest worker, as pburka says). Europeans moving to Asian countries are usually expats, even if they want to stay forever (retirement expats), supposedly because their countries of origin are usually more wealthy than the destination.Gawaon (talk)16:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to find a circular link in the sectionWikipedia:Manual of Style § Third-person pronouns. Specifically, the part that saysThe she/her optional style does not apply to other vessel/vehicle types, such as trains. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns.)Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Military history § Pronouns is simply a section that links back to this part of the manual of style, I don't see any other relevant information there.
I dug through the history and it looks like it got merged at some point so that it's all on this page? The text was removed from the Military history page here[11] and the link was added to the Manual of Style page here[12]. I think the link to the Military history page should be removed. (I would make the edit myself but I don't have permission!)Zichqec (talk)19:50, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the cross-reference. It's possible that MILHIST could at some point expand their own guidelines to be more encompassing than the main MoS, and in that case we can always restore it.UndercoverClassicistT·C20:13, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please dear God, don't let the she-for-ships debate rise from the grave. Please dear God, don't let the she-for-ships debate rise from the grave. Please dear God, don't let the she-for-ships debate rise from the grave. Please dear God, don't let the she-for-ships debate rise from the grave. Please dear God, don't let the she-for-ships debate rise from the grave. Please dear God, don't let the she-for-ships debate rise from the grave. Please dear God, don't let the she-for-ships debate rise from the grave. Please dear God...EEng20:47, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Someone asked about this at theMOS:ACCESSIBILITY talk page at[13] in 2022 and got no responses, so let's see if I'll do better here. Inthis edit, @Erinius, in accordance withMOS:HEAD (and the technical limitations that it represents), removed{{lang}} tags that someone had placed inside section headings. But thenMOS:LANG is being broken. Rock meets hard place. Is there anything to be done? Has a consensus been reached before on which of those provisions wins out? Is there any way to jigger the parsing of section headings in link creation and so forth so thatMOS:LANG can be adhered to?Largoplazo (talk)13:50, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sureMOS:LANG applies there, since those section titles just include single letters. I'd originally just intended on removing the lang tags but I checked and it seemed transclusions of any kind don't belong in section titles. Would substituting lang or angbr templates be advisable in some section titles?
I'd also been sort of idly curious about howMOS:LANG & accessibility needs intersect with article titles that are in another language - there are a few of these in the Spanish dialects/variation sphere likeVoseo andYeísmo. What should be done there?Erinius (talk)13:57, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the case at hand, I don't necessarily disagree with you. I was on the fence over removing them myself forthat reason when I saw those tags inserted not many days ago.Largoplazo (talk)14:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Templates shouldn't be used in section headings, so removing them seems correct. MOS:LANG is supposedly more about running text and needs to stand back in case there are technical reasons against template use.Gawaon (talk)14:02, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In short,MOS:HEAD is more important because it's a technical problem. It saysThese technical restrictions are necessary to avoid technical complications and are not subject to override by local consensus. What if we make it clearer? For example:
These restrictions are mandatory to avoid technical complications and are not subject to override by local consensus or incompatible guidelines.
Ideally, the opening tags of the<h1>...</h1>,<h2>...</h2> etc. elements would include alang= attribute. This attribute, likeclass=,id= andstyle= is aglobal attribute, which means that it may be used on any HTML element, without exception. But MediaWiki doesn't provide us with the means to add attributes to these heading elements, however what we can do is to use a<span>...</span> element within the heading:
Ah! In the font used for preformatted text those look essentially indistinguishable from round parentheses to me, but I got it now. (And maybe I need new glasses?)Gawaon (talk)15:53, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BCE is indifferent to the choice of BC or BCE, urging that whatever system has been adopted on a topic be retained. In recent decades, however, most journals of ancient history, and (I believe) most university presses, prefer BCE to BC. On the BCE side, we have MLA, The Society of Biblical Literature, Journal of Roman Studies, and Classical Quarterly. It is a bit jarring to refer to some date in Ur III (2112–2004 BCE) in reference to an event that two millennia away.MarkBernstein (talk)18:48, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But WP is not an academic journal or university press, is it? This question often comes up. I suggest you readCommon Era for example: "In 2013, theCanadian Museum of Civilization (now the Canadian Museum of History) inGatineau (oppositeOttawa), which had previously switched to BCE/CE, decided to change back to BC/AD in material intended for the public while retaining BCE/CE in academic content.[1]" TheBritish Museum continues to use "BC", and so on. I've seen various queries on talk pages asking what on earth "BCE" means - usually I think from Indian readers, but never about what "BC" means. Non-first-language readers are I think generally not used to CE.Johnbod (talk)23:20, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand why BC should be more "jarring" in that context than anywhere else. It's essentially an arbitrary point in time, not really an "event" (it's generally thought that Jesus was born somewhere from 6 to 4 BC, if I recall correctly). Most people rarely think of the meaning of BC or AD (or BCE or CE for that matter); they just basically mean "negative" and "positive", with the unfortunate hiccup of the missing year 0. --Trovatore (talk)23:34, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As said above,WP:BCE allows both BC and BCE, favours neither and only insists that an article is consistent.
Academics journals do indeed favour BCE - including Christian journals.
But the general public (at least in Western countries) rarely know what BCE means and generally understand BC better.
If you think (2112–2004 BCE) is jarring, what would you replace it with. (2112–2004 BC) also references the same point in time. Other reference points are not well-known to the general readership. Stepho talk01:47, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But he did have an idea that he was 2200 years before the "common era"? I really don't follow the argument. Some respondents seemed to think you were arguing infavor of BC, so I guess they don't either. --Trovatore (talk)19:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it jarring? Do you find it jarring when people write aboutantebellum architecture even though the Civil War ("antebellum" = "before the war", with the Civil War being the one referred to by the term) hadn't happened yet as of the time the the structures to which the term applies were built? Or, likewise,pre-Columbian Mexico? It's normal today to talk about events and conditions with reference to some date or other event before which they occurred or prevailed. We're writing for people who are alivenow.Largoplazo (talk)20:26, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "Antebellum" makes sense in the time when the US Civil War could be anticipated, but not otherwise. "Pre-Columbian" is no longer used by Southwestern or Mexican archaeologists for precisely this reason.MarkBernstein (talk)23:09, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But going back to the question:2200 BC is jarring because good old Esarhaddon had no idea he was 2200 years before something. But, surely the ..CE is as equally jarring as ..C for Esarhaddon as he had no idea he was "before" either common era or Christ??DeCausa (talk)23:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whether the Civil War could have been anticipated at the time isn't why we call it that (it isn't as though a certain form of architecture evolved in anticipation of such a war), and I'm pretty sure that if "pre-Columbian" is no longer being used, it's because of rhetoric around "not centering" Columbus, not because there's something inherently jarring about situating events in history whose occurrencebefore some other particular event isof significance to whatever's being discussed, with respect that other particular event.Largoplazo (talk)23:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That last is pretty much what I said atTalk:Antikythera mechanism, which may have been what prompted the question to be raised here. I won’t reiterate except to point outthe second of the archived discussions I mentioned (from 2017), which I think is pretty typical of how these conversations go.—Odysseus147902:49, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid this, we should restandardize our calendar to use dates like 13,799,995,827 ABB (after theBig Bang). Unfortunately, that results in pretty long dates that might be hard to remember, but then, you can't have everything.Gawaon (talk)09:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the current compromise and even more I am frustrated by some people's inability to understand why it is a problem, but I've been here a while and I don't think change will happen. As problems in the go, it's one of the smaller ones, so I live with it and suggest others do too. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 16:30, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of articles about ancient history use terms that are unfamiliar to the general reader, so we use wikilinks likeBCE andMesolithic so that such readers are not left floundering. The many of us who are not Christians will resist any attempt to impose the Before Christ notation.MOS:ERA provides the wisdom of Solomon. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)16:32, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You've inadvertently triggered an unrelated hobby horse of mine here. Wikilinks are not there to avoid confusion as to what the text means. They're there to provide information for users who want to learn more about the topic. If BCE actually were confusing (I don't think it is) then a wikilink would not be a sufficient remedy; you should provide a gloss or explanatory footnote. --Trovatore (talk)19:15, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I was responding to the assertion that it is a term that is too unfamiliar and we shouldn't use it. For the majority of readers of ancient history, it is certainly not unfamiliar but for the others, the wikilink will clarify matters at the time and educate them for future reference.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)01:10, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) BCE certainly is unfamiliar and confusing to some readers, especially younger ones, non-Americans, non-college-educated, and non-native speakers. I see a trickle of talk page queries asking what it is. I think it is only taught in schools, if anywhere, in the US, and it is very rare in newspapers here in the UK. It isn't very obvious for 2nd-language speakers of English; where there is a local equivalent (not I think everywhere) it usually uses different letters. We can't assume our readership consists of "readers of ancient history"; obviously it doesn't.Johnbod (talk)03:11, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the currentDigging for Britain series on BBC, the script says "BC" but the background timeline (that shows the date of the site being excavated in the long-term historical record) uses BCE. I rather suspect thatAlice Roberts was ordered to say BC. (She uses CE rather than AD in her popular science books.)𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2026 (UTC)added info re AR's books. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)10:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The many of us who are not Christians will resist any attempt to impose the Before Christ notation. Well, I'm not a Christian (or an adherent of any other mythical sky pixie) and BCE still irritates the hell out of me! So, frankly, you're only speaking for yourself. It doesn't matter what you call it: it's still based on the supposed birth of Christ. Trying to rename it is simply mealy-mouthed guff. --Necrothesp (talk)19:06, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I emphatically concur and very much want this to be addressed programmatically rather than having these things in literal article text, though I believe Wikipedia decided long ago that literal text and inconsistency was better than the programmatic alternative. I would truly love to be able to read articles with the information presented consistently, with astronomical year numbering and SI number format and units of measure, and without any time format that considers {12, 1, 2, 3} or {24, 1, 2, 3} counting, US schizo-endian date format (middle,least,greatest, seriously?), or English units of measure. I gather there is technical argument against honoring the user’s format preferences, but I don’t assume it outweighs the problems of the current way.Stephan Leeds (talk)07:01, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your intuition about technical reasons is wrong. If every reader logged in then it could be put into a user setting and the problem indeed goes away (apart form teaching them how to set it, which is no easy task considering that many users still haven't figured out how to changeany settings).
The more problematic situation is for readers not logged in. Which one do we assume? The so-called religious zealot BC/AD ? Or the so-called BCE/CE which confuses many readers? The WP software would still have to arbitrarily choose one based on some parameters (location on Earth?), which puts us back in the same situation. Or just force it to one or the other. In which case why not just force it to be one of them always for every user. Since there are people that hate one and love the other and other people exactly the opposite, that is going to one lovely bun fight.
Lastly, we would use a template (like{{BCE}}). But now you have to use that every that we previously just said "1000 BC" or "1000 BCE". It takes ages to teach new editors to use any templates rather than just typing the text (converting newbie plain text references to{{cite news}} takes a lot of my time). A small point but one I'm not keen to spend my time on fixing up other peoples stuff. Stepho talk07:45, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have vanishingly little sympathy for anyone who wants information to be presented in only one way. I don't think we should consider that as a goal to be sought after here. Learn to convert. It's good for you. --Trovatore (talk)20:20, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can be too prescriptive with these things. I think editors should continue to be free to use either AD/BC or CE/BCE, provided it is consistent throughout an article.Dgp4004 (talk)12:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're reading it wrong! The mechanism inWP:ERA is clear and simple, but the few attempts to use it are usually so badly-argued that they fail. As various people have pointed out, you have produced a new and original crap argument all of your own in "one advantage of BCE is that it does not anticipate a (supposed) event that was far in the future", when obviously it does. The other bad argument that is normally produced is "this article is nothing to do with Christianity". Ancient Greece is an area where BC is pretty much the norm on WP, so it is probably harder there than in some other areas. As for Islamic, I used to use CE myself for new Indian articles, until I realized that fewer Indian readers (without expensive foreign educations) understand it than those from the ROW.Johnbod (talk)17:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps seeJoshua J. Mark andRobert Cargill (with explicit reference to Wikipedia). Britannica has shifted to BCE. Jared Diamond IIRC uses BCE. Graeber and Wengrow (Dawn of Everything) use BCE. TheUS National Park Service says " In the late 20th century, scholars began shifting to the use of BCE and CE, before common era and common era, which directly correlate to BC and AD but instead are secular."MarkBernstein (talk)20:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment caused me to look this up. It surprised me to learn that despite the name Brittanica is no longer British; it is currently based in Chicago. —David Eppstein (talk)08:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BC andAD are products of, and contribute to, religious bias. Wikipedia is meant to avoid religious bias.BCE andCE are the improvements to not perpetuate that bias. Wikipedia has a mechanism for the reader who hasn’t encountered the modern terms: {{BCE|5100|link=y}} and {{CE|1900|link=y}} produce, respectively, 5100 BCE and 1900 CE, linking to a perfectly clear, concise explanation.This is literally whathypertext is for. Unless I’m missing something, a rather simple bot could add one of these templates at first occurrence ofBCE orCE (or both) in each page that uses either. Using the biased terms to save some readers a trivial one-time effort perpetuates the problem – exactly the opposite of what this amazing, inspiring project is meant to do.Stephan Leeds (talk)13:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
BC/AD are indeed products of religion. But no, they do not contribute to religious bias. The average person just thinks of AD as counting from a long distant event. They probably know that it is the birth of Christ but beyond using it as a way to count years, think no more of it.
On the other hand, BCE/CE are known mostly by scholars and are not well known to the average person.
If you are really on an anti-religion crusade (pun not intended) then you may also try to change the days of week - which are based on ancient theology or astrology. Stepho talk07:28, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Few people have been endangered by Woden worshippers in recent centuries. There is not substantial movement in any major power to replace its constitution with Thorist Nationalism. There is little danger that Freyja worship will be made compulsory anywhere in the next few years. But aside from this, BCE/CE make explicit that this is merely acommon convention, and have nothing to do with it being the year of our lord.MarkBernstein (talk)15:32, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
See prior discussion atWikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking/Archive 21#Possessives as well as the current discussion I linked in the thread below for related background. There seems to be rough consensus that the possessive marker should not be inside the link but I don't know that there is strong enough consensus for the MOS to specifically recommend against this practice. —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:37, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hello MOS experts! I am under the impression that external links embedded in article prose should generally be avoided. For example, an article should not say "The Tedeschi-Trucks Band announced theirsummer tour", with the text "summer tour" linking to an external website. Instead it should use a footnote, like this: "The Tedeschi-Trucks Band announced their summer tour.[1]" But, I can't find that standard in the MOS. I don't see it atMOS:ELLAYOUT, or atWP:ELNO. Where can I find this guideline?
SeeWP:ELPOINTS: "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article." Links to scriptural verses seem to be a case where this rule isn't observed, and that actually seems reasonable to me because it serves as a space saver, so I'm not complaining. An additional problem with a link like that is it's effectively no different fromWP:ELMINOFFICIAL: The article shouldn't serve as a portal to the various sections of their website. Their home page can be linked from the "External links" section and the infobox, and people can then browse the band's online properties from there.Largoplazo (talk)15:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In my example I didn't use the band's official website, I used a third-party article, but WP:ELPOINTS is probably what I'm looking for. Though perhaps that guideline could be expanded a bit, to more clearly apply to the situation I'm describing. Which I guess is links to external websites that should not be in the External Links section either, they should be in footnotes.—Mudwater (Talk)16:00, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At WP:ELPOINTS it says "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an External links section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable." So, like WP:ELLAYOUT and WP:ELNO, it seems to be focusing on links that are, or should be, in the External Links section. But I'm talking about external links that should be in footnotes. Though on the plus side, you're right, it does say that external links should not be used in the body of an article.—Mudwater (Talk)16:35, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you know that they should be in footnotes, you already know that they shouldn't be outside of footnotes. If you don't yet know that, on the other hand, then the advice not to use them within the article body seems clear enough.Gawaon (talk)16:40, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A reference with a URL for a source is apart from external links as covered byWP:EL. The applicable guidelines are atWP:Citing sources. Yes, often sometimes who doesn't know or want to take the trouble to add a footnote will supply it as an external link. When I see such a case, Ai replace one with the other.Largoplazo (talk)17:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How about if we add on toWP:NOELBODY -- it's point 2 withinWP:ELPOINTS -- to say this? "With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an External links section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable,or in footnotes in the Notes or References section (i.e. inline citations, as mentioned in the previous point)."—Mudwater (Talk)19:05, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The suggested word could be interpreted as allowing URLs in footnotes that are not citations (say explanatory notes), which is wrong. Except for the places already mentioned in ELPOINTS, URLs are in factonly allowed in references, whether in footnotes or given in a Bibliography or similar section.Gawaon (talk)19:26, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
URLs are in factonly allowed in references, whether in footnotes or given in a Bibliography or similar section.: at the risk of being pedantic, this isn't quite true: they can also be used in "Further reading" or, well, "External links", both of which consist of worksnot cited in the article. But the broad point is correct -- they should be in the miscellaneous bulleted bits at the bottom of the article, not the important paragraphy bits that contain the actual content.UndercoverClassicistT·C19:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the wording I've suggested is not ideal. My point is that I think the guideline should be enhanced to call out what I said in the first post in this section. That's that links to appropriate web pages that support the statements in an article should be cited as footnotes -- not linked to from the text itself -- as shown in my example.—Mudwater (Talk)20:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
by removing two sentences that had many critics and seemingly no defenders.Gawaon (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2026
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The sectionMOS:COLON currently readsWhen what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter. To British eyes, this is unambiguouslyincorrect grammar but I gather that it is standard practice in US English. Clearly this is a case whereMOS:ENGVAR should apply.
So I propose that the sentence
In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, such as for a proper name.
be rewritten to say
In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. When what follows the colon is also a complete sentenceand the article is written in US English, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, such as for a proper name.
That sounds correct to me. The rule I was taught was was to start the word after the colon with a lower case letter unless the word that follows the colon is a proper noun or the text after the colon is a question that is a complete sentence.Hawkeye7(discuss)01:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Capitalising after the colon certainly surprises my Australian eyes (we follow mostly British grammar). Athttps://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/semi-colons-colons-and-dashes/ (University of North Carolina) they have some interesting comments in their "Should you capitalize the first letter after a colon?" section that says it depends on which style guide you are following. So it might not necessarily mean that US English means capitalise it. I would favour just dropping the capital (excepting for pronouns, etc). Stepho talk02:10, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which I interpret to mean that you agree withRGloucester's response below: delete the whole thing because the MOS has no interest in punctuation in the first place. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)10:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the passage should be changed. I'm also Australian, and in my dialect capitalisation after a colon is generally incorrect in such cases. I'm not qualified to comment on what is standard in American English, but your suggestion appears to accord with style guides:
Fowler:Note that in British English the word following a colon is not in capitals (unless it is a proper name), but in American English it is capitalized if it introduces a grammatically complete sentence.
Swan:In British English, it is unusual for a capital letter to follow a colon (except at the beginning of a quotation). However, this can happen if a colon is followed by several complete sentences. [...] In American English, colons are more often followed by capital letters.
Chicago Manual of Style:When what follows the colon is not a complete sentence [...] the first word following the colon is lowercased (unless it is a proper noun or other term that would normally be capitalized). When, however, a colon introduces one or more complete sentences [...] the first word that follows the colon should be capitalized.
Support: if the "US English" label is controversial, we could do something vaguer like "and the article is written in a variety of English which allows it", and footnote that British and Commonwealth Englishes generally don't.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding is mistaken. As I said below, I never capitalise the initial letter after a colon (except for proper nouns) and will not do in future, but this usage is allowed for in various British styles. For example, one may consultGrammar and Style in British English, a reputable style guide used in academic work. It provides the following example of capitalisation of the initial letter following a colon:When asked if it was easy to start her own business, she laughed: ‘You must be joking!’ The trigger, of course, being that a 'full sentence' is what follows the colon – in every other case, lowercase is preferred.The Guardianlikewise uses a capital letter after a colon when introducing a full-sentence quotation:A colon, rather than a comma, should be used to introduce a quotation: "He was an expert on punctuation."Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎10:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that this discussion will become academic ('moot' for US readers) if the proposal to delete completely is accepted but no, the proposal as it stand would not prohibit this usage. See the next sentenceexcept where doing so is needed for another reason. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)14:37, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Quotes need not be introduced with a capital letter after a colon, so what is 'necessary' is in the eye of the beholder. Your proposal would also eliminate the ability to use a capital letter after a colon when multiple sentences are introduced, something which is also allowed for in British styles.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎21:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before we decide on this, can we first see how this is treated in various style guides? If American style guides more or less unanimously prescribe the rule as we currently have it, while British or Commonwealth style guides equally unanimously advise something else (more lowercase), it might indeed make sense to treat it as an ENGVAR issue. But if not, then not. So where's the evidence please?Gawaon (talk)07:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
https://titlecaseconverter.com/blog/capitalization-after-a-colon/ summarises the major US style guides (no mention of Commonwealth styles). Most guides use lowercase after the colon unless the 2nd half introduces multiple sentences. Eg, "There are numerous guides: First is CMOS. Then MLA. And more. Now with free steak knives." Beware that many of the examples given are for headlines, which do tend to capitalise.
Paywalls don't make it easy so multiple contributions will be needed. I have The Economist style guide. It says nothing about capitalisation after colon but in the cases where it uses a colon, it does not capitalise. For example, it writes "American states: commas are usual after the names of American states when these are written as though they were part of an address."𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)09:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose andremove this guidance – I never capitalise the initial letter after a colon, but this is a matter of style, not ENGVAR. A cursory glance at our articles suggests that many of them do not follow this piece of guidance. It hasalready been determined that punctuation is not an ENGVAR issue, and there is no reason to make it one now. The real solution is to remove this piece ofWP:SNODGRASS guidance altogether.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎09:34, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly makes good sense to me and am happy to withdraw my proposal in favour of yours if it gains further support.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)10:02, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Certainly, as a British English writer I would not capitalise: but have we established that capitalisation is a standard US English 'thing' in the first place?MapReader (talk)10:21, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose andremove/revise this guidance per RGloucester and the links collected by Stepho-wrs. It seems that this isn't a clear-cut ENGVAR issue but that lowercase is fairly normal in all variants of English (except when a literal quote or something similar follows). American may have a higher tendency to capitalize, but it's clearly weak and can't justify a "capitalize when using US English" rule.Gawaon (talk)11:11, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I have investigated the origin of this guidance. It was first added to the MoSin 2020, followinga brief discussion on this talk page. It is quite obvious that the editors involved did not intend to impose a new rule like this – if anything, MrEEng's advice in 2020 is as sage now as it was then.Yours, &c.RGloucester —☎12:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm a bit surprised that this case isn't already covered atMOS:CAPS, where we discuss, e.g. hyphens. I think the primary guidance ought to go there. Generally, MOS is quite opinionated about minimizing capitalization. I think we should discourage capital letters after colons except in the case of quotations or other capital letters required by MOS:CAPS.pburka (talk)13:40, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is anyone actually arguing for the current guidance directing caps to follow a colon, or is this a clear WP:SNOW case that this guidance should quickly be deleted from the MoS?MapReader (talk)14:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Consider reassigning the shortcut toWikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation before quotations, specifically to the lineIt is clearer to use a colon to introduce a quotation if it forms a complete sentence, and this should always be done for multi-sentence quotations:, since that is considered good practice both sides of the Atlantic (and the other six seas too, I trust).
Whoops, the "current text" that I wanted to put to the sword is
In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it. When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter, but otherwise do not capitalize after a colon except where doing so is needed for another reason, such as for a proper name. When a colon is being used as a separator in an article title, section heading, or list item, editors may choose whether to capitalize what follows, taking into consideration the existing practice and consistency with related articles.
as it is either contentious, local preference or needless 'rules overload'.
I have scratched the second part of the revised proposal, I distracted myself. What I had in mind was whetherA colon may also be used to introducedirect speech enclosed within quotation marks needs anything more. I hope that clarifies matters. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)18:29, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence, about case after colons in headings, is important and should stay. I remember there was an RfC or similar that led to it being added. The first two sentences could be scrapped without much loss, I guess.Gawaon (talk)18:54, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: in prose,In most cases, a colon works best with a complete grammatical sentence before it is good advice, but of course one of its major roles is to seperate parts of a title/heading (e.g.Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping), and there it's quite unusual for the first part to be a complete sentence. We could amend "in prose, a colon generally works...", or simply remove it as duplicating most other style guides and so probably not needed in the specific Wikipedia MoS.UndercoverClassicistT·C18:59, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and that's why we have the ordinary articleColon (punctuation). How is it the function of the MOS to teach editors how to write grammatical English? The MOS is a style guide, not a grammar primer. What is thestyle issue?𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)20:27, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the presence of phrases like “In most cases” or “generally” in the MoS should always ring an alarm bell. The MoS is only guidance in the first place, not rules, although it’s guidance we’d like people to respect, and we do use it to settle disputes. But getting those matters that are unambiguous “always” bits of guidance respected is difficult enough - is there really any value in telling people something that is expressly not a general rule?MapReader (talk)22:07, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've just boldly removed the sentence in question, considering that it seems either trivial or wrong, depending on how you interpret it. Let's see whether anyone has strong feelings about its usefulness.Gawaon (talk)22:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's important, because otherwise lower-case would be required since we use sentence case (not title case) in headers. Or at least that's how some editors interpreted our rules in the absence of that sentence, which is why the discussion led to its addition to settle this thing per an "anything goes" compromise.Gawaon (talk)22:17, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than treat this as a dialect difference I would prefer that “When what follows the colon is also a complete sentence, start it with a capital letter” simply be removed. (I often agree withChicago but not on this. To my (US) eyes the uppercase-just-because-it’s-an-independent-clause thing often just looks awful.)Stephan Leeds (talk)11:21, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't understand what the text referring to article titles is supposed to mean.WP:TITLE forbids colons in article titles except "in the limited cases of subtitles of some creative works and lists split over several pages." Section titles are supposed to follow the same rules, but in practice colonsoftensometimes appear in those.pburka (talk)20:32, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it refers to section titles such as "1965–1978: The formative years" or something like that. The sentence makes it clear that a capital after the colon is allowed in such cases. Whether such section titles are good or bad style is not now for us to discuss, I'd say. In any case they occur, as you mention.Gawaon (talk)22:01, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Subtitles of works are already covered inMOS:CAPTITLE. If we're going to formally permit invented subtitles in section headings, we should do so explicitly inMOS:HEADING, not through implication here. I don't think we should have any guidance about capitalization in this section. General rules about capitalization should be kept together inMOS:CAPS. I'm leaning towards completely deletingMOS:COLON, or stripping it down to only the final sentence ("Except in technical usage (a 3:1 ratio), no sentence should contain multiple colons, no space should precede a colon, and a space (but never a hyphen or dash) should follow the colon.").pburka (talk)23:43, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Just removing that sentence resolves the most contentious element so I am content to give way to the consensus against further changes. Thank you all.𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk)10:12, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I promise I hesitated to (re-re-re-)open discussion of this topic, but one effect of the current guideline seems so awkward to me that I suspect the guideline has an unintended gap regarding, specifically, singular common nouns pronounced ending in/z/ and spelled ending in ⟨s⟩. I searched the archived discussions from the RfC establishing the present consensus forward and failed to find this narrow subset of the topic specifically addressed in discussion, though it is explicitly mentioned in the original proposal and there is much discussion ofproper nouns with/-z/ and ⟨-s⟩. Copious apologies if I missed it, but I’m not confident that consensus has ever really been reached on this narrow bit, especially given that the guideline’s examples include no/z/-final singulars spelled ⟨-s⟩ at all.
According to the guideline, the possessive of singular “series” is styled “series's”, which is pronounced/ˈsɪrizɪz/ and similarly, necessarily ending in/-rizɪz/~/-riːzɪz/, e.g. “the series's third season” rather than “the series' third season”. (“Ceres’s third rotation” feels less foreign to my ear, though I couldn’t naturally speak it any more than “the series’s third season”.)
So per MOS we have, respectively singular and plural: “the series's third season” (/ˈsɪrizɪz/) and “the series' third seasons” (/ˈsɪriz/).
I recognize that we can so deeply internalize language structures that we falsely believe most native speakers have internalized the same, and I may be doing precisely that here, but I have to ask: Keeping in mind that writing is primarily an encoding of speech or sign, not the other way around, is there really a substantial portion of native speakers for whom this construction is natural, who in a formal register would speak “the/ˈsɪrizɪz/ third season”, not “the/ˈsɪriz/ third season”?
The guidelineis clear and unambiguous on the question, but given the absence of a/-z/–⟨-s⟩ example and, I think, absence of discussion of this precise case, is this an intended result?Stephan Leeds (talk)05:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The specific exampleseries has another unique and possibly rlevant property: that the singular and the plural forms are identical. I think it would be reasonable to have an explicit exception for words ending in [s] whose plural and singular forms are identical, to use just an apostrophe alone rather than 's if singular and ' if plural. Writing "series's 3rd season" but "series' 3rd seasons" is totally absurd, and the MOS shouldn't force this; I can't think of any other such words atm, and it might be there aren't any, but "series's" is just plainly wrong and if the MOS mandates it that needs to be corrected.~2026-59608-1 (talk)01:23, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, the approach taken by POSS allows the reader to see whether or not we are talking about a single series, or multiple series. It’s the best and clearest approach fkr words like this.MapReader (talk)03:53, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
SinceThe World Factbook shut down a week ago, people have been editing the lead and whatnot to the past or present tense. PerMOS:WAS, products or works that have been discontinued are referred to in the present tense with the exception of "periodicals". DidThe World Factbook count as a periodical or the same reference work only continually updated? A magazine would count, but books with subsequenterrata surely wouldn't. Where do discontinued reference works lie?As of now, Wikipedia articles on discontinued reference works are not consistent in this matter:
It might be useful to think of this one as a website, as it was in its more recent editions -- and that website no longer exists. That would point towards past tense.UndercoverClassicistT·C07:32, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, whether one counts it as periodical (because of its periodical, originally annual, updates) or website, the past tense makes sense, since it's no longer updated and even the website no longer exists (with meaningful content). If, on the other hand, they had simply frozen the website, leaving all content accessible but no longer updated, the present tense would make more sense.Gawaon (talk)07:49, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A periodical has new content in each issue, different from the previous issue. TheFactbook releases a new edition every year, updating the old edition, but it's not a periodical. I don't care all that much but I do think it was rude to change it back to past tense after having been reverted. This should have been discussed after the first revert.GA-RT-22 (talk)08:19, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The CIA's website has a half-baked update. The main announcement talks fairly definitely about it being gone but the history page still says,Today, it continues to be an essential resource for the U.S. Government, institutions of higher learning, and countless private citizens who have come to rely on The World Factbook for timely and accurate reference materials about the world in which we live. It continues to evolve to meet the needs of our customers and represents a tremendous culmination of efforts from some of our country’s brightest analytic minds. ... It is an authoritative source of basic intelligence that has and will continue to be an essential part of CIA’s legacy.
I checked whether it was still in print but theGPO's book store doesn't seem to have it.
One issue might be whether it is still maintained as an internal classified document, as it was originally. The CIA still has to compile basic intelligence about the world, one supposes. Or has their management just decided to outsource to Wikipedia and AI chatbots?
Anyway, I'm inclined to favour past tense as use of the present tense would tend to mislead the general reader.
I'd say that almanacs are periodicals or at least sufficiently similar to them to be treated the same way (to cite an unreliable source: ourCategory:Almanacs is a subcategory ofCategory:Periodicals). The World Factbook is described as containing "almanac-style information" and it had originally an almanac-syle annual update model, so that seems to fit well enough. Plus, common sense applies: using the present tense would suggest it still exists, which is not the case in any meaningful way.Gawaon (talk)08:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Past tense; it's like a defunct company. The specific publications (e.g. the 1999World Fact Book) still exist and should use present tense, but the broader enterprise or organization is no longer operating.pburka (talk)16:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the list of similar-ish articles, one thing that jumps out to me is Physical vs. Digital. When physical publication of a, erm,publication ceases, the physical copies of the publication do not cease to exist. Your old encyclopedias don't vanish from your shelves, they're still there, taking up space, touchable. They continueto be. When digital publication of a publication ceases, there is the very real possibility (and high probability) that the publication will cease to exist. Presently, the World Factbook no longeris. It ispast.
I agree that with respect to tense the examples of articles on discontinued reference works are inconsistent. That's a separate issue from this discussion, but suffice it to say that's why we have a MoS.
Past tense makes sense to me because not only did the CIA cease the publication of the World Factbook, but they alsoremoved it from the Web. It’s gone. That makes it definitely past tense for me. -Dyork (talk)01:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Can we extract this policy and redirect from the Snooker project and make it a policy site wide please. I believe it can easily extend to all other sports from American football, soccer (real football!), tennis, Hockey, etc. Regards.Govvy (talk)12:14, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It can be applied to plenty of things, such as tracking financial indexes throughout the day (as opposed to year-end values), the air temperature from hour to hour in various locations (as opposed to monthly maximums and minimums for the previous twelve months), and so forth. It really should apply to any statistic that has a good chance of changing in the next five minutes. But this, as has been said, is aWP:NOTNEWS matter, not a style guide matter.Largoplazo (talk)14:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is more down to the current location of the policy where it sits as opposed on its usage. I do feel the venue of where we that text at current, well, and I agree it's not really so much a MoS issue. Regards.Govvy (talk)14:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agree withGovvy that this is a placement issue. Why should this be in the Snooker guidelines if people think it is a more generic issue?IF it is kept, it should be moved somewhere more broadly applicable.
Having said that, I agree with the comments here that this is NOT a style guide issue.Can we just removeWP:LIVESCORES?
I personally have never understood why editors were very concerned about this. Yes,WP:NOTNEWS, but if someone is so passionate about something that they are updating scores live… what is the harm, really? -Dyork (talk)08:41, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyork: Interestingly enough, I am not sure where the location was, but there was a conversation where the live updates constituted towards gambling issues and the fact that wikipedia is not a live gambling platform and at the same time in some regions it's an active service where gambling is illegal. Some kind of overlap, regards.Govvy (talk)10:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Govvy: Fascinating! I had not heard of that. I do recall that one time years ago I was updating some article with the scores for a curling game after each end was over, and some editor slapped me down withWP:LIVESCORES indicating that the page should only be updated with the scoresafter the game was over.
I didn't really care enough to contest his/her/their attitude on this but some time later I thought... "I am a long-time editor who has dealt with the strong views of other editors (and provided my own strong views at times) so this kind of thing doesn't really bother me,but what if I had been a new editor who just wanted to update curling scores? Would I have continued editing? Or might I have drifted away?" I increasingly think about things like that when we are thinking about how to attract and keep editors. And things like live-score editing just doesn't rise to the level that I personally care about it if someone wants to do it. -Dyork (talk)15:43, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I also worry that it's hard to decide where to draw the line. The rule for snooker seems clear enough, but would we forbid updating the score of the Superbowl at half-time? What about a multi-day cricket test match? Would we update results for each stage of the Tour de France, or only share results once the competition is complete? But I do think that some general guidance in NOT makes sense.pburka (talk)16:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't be updating games whilst they are in play. From the snooker point of view, we basically get people updating matches after every frame and it just causes endless edit conflicts. We aren't a news ticker tape, and it really is an issue in things like the World Snooker Championship every year where new editors flood to update individual scores. On larger events, there's sometimes constant updates, and articles should really be written as much as possible in a way that means that they don't have to be constantly updated.
There's also the issue that things will likely be out of date even if you update them. If the score is 3-1, but the score on Wikipedia is 3-0, then we're wrong. But, if we say don't update it until it's done, it is simply that the result hasn't been updated. On the new editor front, we do have a edit notice on pages where this happens a lot to help temper expectations.
Well, if we do mention something like the Test match Cricket, the difference between updating at the end of days play and updating every over or after every wicket is obvious to me.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)18:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with end-of-day scores in Test cricket, since there is a long break (typically more than sixteen hours) during which the score won't change at all. Nor do I see a problem with end-of-innings scores, which are fixed. I see that some Test cricket pages get updated at the end of each session: a session is usually two hours, a day is three sessions, the two breaks are for lunch (40 minutes in England) and tea (20 minutes in England) and thus there is a quiet period of at least twenty minutes with no possible change to the scores; I'm not sure about score updates at those two points. Similarly, I don't have a problem with recording the situation as at the end of the day for other sports that are spread out over more than one day, which might range in duration from two or three days (likeEventing) to several weeks (e.g.Tour de France). I suppose that it comes down to "how soon will it be, after I save my edit, that the scores change again?" --Redrose64 🌹 (talk)22:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with that either. As I mentioned above, what would be particularly useless is when the score is constantly changing so there's a significant chance of somebody looking for the current score being given one that was right five minutes ago but isn't right now because the latest update hasn't happened yet. There are plenty of places to go to get real-time updates. Wikipedia doesn't need to compete in that area.Largoplazo (talk)23:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Such real-time updates are certainly very silly, but is anyone (apart from the updaters themselves) coming to Wikipedia for live sports scores and disappointed if they're not totally up to the minute? Lee's mentioned endless edit conflicts as problematic for snooker matches; do we have similar problems for cricket Test matches or golf tornaments?NebY (talk)08:13, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Govvy would almost certainly have been talking about association football in the start of this thread, where this is also an issue. People DO flock to football articles, especially those in tense big events and update scores. We've had issues where someone has put a goal on and it's later been disallowed, updated tables before teams have finished playing, which can cause havoc and updating top scorer lists before the matches have finished, but for only one match so they are very unreliable. In that respect, football matches are only 2 hours long (at the most, 2:30) so don't need to be updated in real time.Lee Vilenski(talk •contribs)08:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There may be people flocking here to update the scores, but are people flocking here tolook at the scores from minute to minute? Do people use Wikipedia as a resource for that? I'm betting not because they wouldn'texpect it to be that sort of a source, plus they all already know proper venues for that. If that's correct, that no one is coming here to look at scores, then such constant updates aren't serving any purpose anyway.
We could also just fall back onWP:UNDUE: whether it's encyclopedically relevant, in the grand scheme of things, what the score of a given competition was at minute 14, at minute 15, at minute 16, etc.Largoplazo (talk)14:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Largoplazo: In some Asian countries, wikipedia is more up-to date in a real time way than their own websites, while those Asian countries block access of other websites especially gambling ones. A catch-22 so to speak. Still I honestly don't see the harm in moving the location of the policy and that's all I was really asking for, to bring it more inline wikipedia wide.Govvy (talk)09:56, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed some inconsistency here when working on pages related to theIsraeli–Palestinian conflict. There does not really seem to be consistency between "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Palestinian" and "pro-Israel" and "pro-Israeli". Searching indicates that "pro-Palestinian" is by far the more widely used variant and yet, conflictingly, so is "pro-Israel". Other countries seem to follow the Palestinian convention: searching, for instance, "pro-Canadian" yields a modest thirty results while searching "pro-Canada" yields none ("pro-Russian" and "pro-American" are also vastly favored over "pro-Russia" and "pro-US". I would go ahead and call this a simple case of "do whatever as long as it's internally consistent" but there may be additional reason to use "pro-Palestinian" instead of "pro-Palestine" (I still find the latter better sounding but my personal opinions are not that important) given the lack of a single, unified Palestinian state. I am curious if anyone else has input on this and thinks that the variant used (especially in the case of Palestine) should come down to anything more than personal preference / stylistic choice.— An anonymous username,not my real name04:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I hope this is appropriate page to ask this. I recently stumbled onto the article titled "♡ (EP)", about a music album with unusual name. I think it should be renamed to actual English words, in this case "Heart (EP)". As my argumentations, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, I belive its articles should be written down using English language and not emoticons and wingdings. Also, many artists and movies/tv shows also like to play with its titles by spelling them with wierd characters likeKesha spelling her name as Ke$ha,AC/DC as AC⚡︎DC, or similarly to this case,Bob Hearts Abishola as "Bob ♡ Abishola". However, depite this, articles on here defualt to using standard Latin script characters. The argument againt it that I could see is that almost all sources indeed call it "♡", however my counterargument is that similarly to this, there are numerous sourcess talking about "Ke$ha" or "Bob ♡ Abishola" using their non-standard spellings as well, yet we still write them in here with regular spellings. What do you think?Artemis Andromeda (talk)23:40, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping:WikiOriginal-9;
DoneFaviFake (talk)17:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect § Otherwise-implausible redirects originally intended as editor assistance (i.e. possessive redirects). —Myceteae🍄🟫 (talk)20:31, 24 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion atWikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Upgrade MOS:ALBUM to an official guideline.mdm.bla16:23, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]