AWikipediaarticle title is the large heading displayed above the article's content, and the basis for the article'spage name andURL.[a] The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles.[b]
The title may simply be the name (or a name) of the subject of the article, or, if the article topic has no name, it may be a description of the topic. Because no two articles can have the same title,[c] it is sometimes necessary to add distinguishing information, often in the form of a description inparentheses after the name. Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called inreliable sources. When this offers multiple possibilities, editors choose among them by consideringseveral principles: the ideal article title precisely identifies the subject; it is short, natural, distinguishable and recognizable; and resembles titles for similar articles.
This page explains in detail the considerations, ornaming conventions, on which choices of article titles are based. This page doesnot detail titling for pages in other namespaces, such ascategories. It is supplemented by other more specific guidelines (see the box to the right), which should be interpreted in conjunction with other policies, particularly the three core content policies:Verifiability,No original research, andNeutral point of view.
Article titles are based on howreliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title byconsensus based on the considerations that this page explains.A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:
Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.(See§ Precision and disambiguation, below.)
Concision – The title is not longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.(See§ Concision, below.)
These should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others. This is done by consensus. For instance, the recognizable, natural, and concise titleUnited Kingdom is preferred over the more precise titleUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.(For more details, see§ Use commonly recognizable names, below.)
When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent. Look to the guideline pages referenced. When no previous consensus exists, a new consensus is established through discussion, with the above questions in mind. The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists.
Redirects should be created to articles that may reasonably be searched for or linked to under two or more names (such asdifferent spellings orformer names). Conversely, a name that could refer to several different articles may requiredisambiguation.
In Wikipedia, an article title is anatural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article; as such, the article title is usually the name of the person, or of the place, or of whatever else the topic of the article is. However, some topics have multiple names, and some names have multiple topics; this can lead to disagreement about which name should be used for a given article's title. Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject'sofficial name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority ofindependent,reliable, English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit thefive criteria listed above.[e] When there is no single, obvious name that is demonstrably the most frequently used for the topic by these sources, editors should reach aconsensus as to which title is best by considering these criteria directly.
Editors should also considerall five of the criteria for article titles outlined above. Ambiguous[f] or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. Neutrality is also considered; see§ Neutrality in article titles, below. Article titles should be neithervulgar (unless unavoidable) norpedantic. When there are multiple names for a subject, all of which are fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.
Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedicregister, as well as what names are most frequently used.
The following are examples of the application of the concept of commonly used names in support of recognizability:
In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. Asearch engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".[g] When using Google, generally a search of Google Books and News Archive should be defaulted to before a web search, as they concentrate reliable sources (exclude works fromBooks, LLC when searching Google Books[h]). Search engine results are subject to certain biases and technical limitations; for detailed advice on the use of search engines and the interpretation of their results, seeWikipedia:Search engine test.
Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight toindependent, reliable, English-language sources ("reliable sources" for short) written after the name change. If the reliable sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, reliable sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established namewhen discussing the article topic in the present day, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, as described above at§ Use commonly recognizable names.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We do not know what terms or names will be used in the future, but only what is and has been in use, and is therefore familiar to our readers. However,common sense can be applied – if the subject of an article has a name change, it is reasonable to consider the usage following the change inreliable, English-language sources. This provision also applies to names used as part of descriptive titles.
Conflicts often arise over whether an article title complies with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. Resolving such debates depends on whether the article title is aname derived from reliable sources or adescriptive title created by Wikipedia editors.
When the subject of an article is referred to mainly by a single common name, as evidenced through usage in a significant majority of English-language sources, Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g.Alexander the Great, or theTeapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply bea name commonly used in the past; it must bethe common name in current use.
Notable circumstances under which Wikipedia often avoids a common name for lacking neutrality include the following:
Trendy slogans and monikers that seem unlikely to be remembered or connected with a particular issue years later
Colloquialisms where far more encyclopedic alternatives are obvious
Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readerswill type as a first guess and balance that with what readersexpect to be taken to. Thus, typing "Octomom" properly redirects toNadya Suleman, which is in keeping with point 2, above. Typing "Antennagate" redirects the reader to a particular section ofiPhone 4, which is in keeping with points 1 and 2, above. Typing "Great Leap Forward" does not redirect, which is in keeping with the general principle.
In some cases a descriptive phrase (such asRestoration of the Everglades) is best as the title. These are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect aneutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoidjudgmental and non-neutral words; for example,allegation oralleged can either imply wrongdoing, or in a non-criminal context may imply a claim "made with little or no proof" and so should be avoided in a descriptive title. (Exception: articles where the topic is an actual accusation of illegality under law, discussed as such by reliable sources even if not yet proven in a court of law. These are appropriately described as "allegations".)
However,non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be usedwithin a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources. (Example: Because "Boston Massacre" is an acceptable title on its own, the descriptive title "Political impact of the Boston Massacre" would also be acceptable.)
Wikipedia has manynaming conventions relating to specific subject domains (as listed in the box at the top of this page). In rare cases, these recommend the use of titles that are not strictly the common name (as in the case of theconventions for medicine). This practice of using specialized names is often controversial, and should not be adopted unless it produces clear benefits outweighing the use of common names. When it is, the article titles adopted should follow a neutral and common convention specific to that subject domain, and otherwise adhere to the general principles for titling articles on Wikipedia.
"MOS:PRECISION" redirects here. For the precision of numbers, seeMOS:UNCERTAINTY. For the precision of geographical coordinates, seeWP:OPCOORD. For the precision of statements about dates, seeWP:PRECISELANG.
Usually, titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that. For instance,Saint Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, asMother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. On the other hand,Columbia would not be precise enough to unambiguously identify theColumbia River.
Exceptions to the precision criterion may sometimes result from the application of some othernaming criteria. Most of these exceptions are described in specific Wikipedia guidelines or by Wikipedia projects, such asPrimary topic,Geographic names, orNames of royals and nobles. For instance:
Bothell is already precise enough to be unambiguous, but we instead useBothell, Washington (seeGeographic names), seeking a more natural and recognizable title which is also consistent with most other articles on American cities.
Energy is not precise enough to unambiguously indicate the physical property (seeEnergy (disambiguation)). However, it is preferred over "Energy (physics)", as it is more concise, and precise enough to be understood by most people (seePrimary topic, and the concision and recognizabilitycriteria).
It is not always possible to use the exact title that may be desired for an article, as that title may have other meanings, and therefore may have been already used for other articles. According to theprecision criterion, only as much detail as is necessary to distinguish one topic from another should be used. For example, it would be redundant to title an article "Queen (rock band)", asQueen (band) is precise enough to distinguish the rock band fromother uses of the term "Queen". This may result in acceptable inconsistencies; the article on chickens is found atChicken, but the article on turkeys is atTurkey (bird) to disambiguate it from the countryTurkey.
As a general rule, when a topic's preferred title can also refer to other topics covered in Wikipedia:
If the article is about theprimary topic to which the ambiguous name refers, then that name can be its title without modification, provided it follows all other applicable policies.
Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in Englishreliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title, is sometimes preferred. However, do not use obscure ormade-up names.
Example: The word "French" commonly refers to either the people or the language. Because of the ambiguity, we use the alternative but still common titles,French language andFrench people, allowing natural disambiguation. In a similar vein,hand fan is preferable tofan (implement). Sometimes, this requires a change in thevariety of English used; for instance,Lift is a disambiguation page with no primary topic, soElevator is the title of the article on the lifting device.
Comma-separated disambiguation
With place names, if the disambiguating term is a higher-level administrative division it is often separated using a comma instead of parentheses, as inWindsor, Berkshire (seeGeographic names). Comma-separated titles are also used in other contexts (e.g.Diana, Princess of Wales uses a substantive title as part of the usual conventions fornames of royalty and nobility, not as a disambiguating term). However, titles such asTony Blair andBattle of Waterloo are preferred over alternatives such as "Blair, Anthony Charles Lynton" and "Waterloo, Battle of", in which a comma is used to change the natural ordering of the words.
Adding a disambiguating term in parentheses after the ambiguous name is Wikipedia's standard disambiguation technique when none of the other solutions lead to an optimal article title.
Example: The word "mercury" has distinct meanings that do not have sufficiently common alternative names, so instead we use parenthetical disambiguation:Mercury (element),Mercury (planet), andMercury (mythology).
Descriptive title
Where there is no acceptable set name for a topic, such that a title of our own conception is necessary, more latitude is allowed to form descriptive and unique titles.
Ambiguity may arise when typographically near-identical expressions have distinct meanings, e.g.iron maiden vs.Iron Maiden, orfriendly fire vs. the other meanings listed atFriendly Fire. The general approach is that whatever readers might type in the search box, they are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques ashatnotes ordisambiguation pages. When such navigation aids are in place, small details are often sufficient to distinguish topics, e.g.MAVEN vs.Maven;Airplane! vs.Airplane;Sea-Monkeys vs.SeaMonkey;The Wörld Is Yours vs. other topics listed atThe World Is Yours.
However, when renaming to a less ambiguous page name can be done without wandering fromWP:CRITERIA, such renaming should be considered:
And a well-known concept may still be the primary topic for a variant or incorrect spelling, even if a much less well-known subject uses that spelling:
The full name of Fiona Apple's 1999 album is 90 words and 444 characters long, but it is abbreviated in sources (and in its Wikipedia title) toWhen the Pawn... (see alsoWP:SUBTITLES).
For examples of Wikipedia practices regarding consistency in article titles, seeWP:TITLECON.
To the extent that it is practical, titles should be consistent among articles covering similar topics. However, there has been a history of consensus among editors regarding several areas where consistency doesnot control titling:
It is not considered important for article titles on the English Wikipedia to be consistent with the titles of corresponding articles on Wikipedia in other languages.
On the English Wikipedia, article titles are written using the English language. However, it must be remembered that the English language contains many loan words and phrases taken from other languages. If a word or phrase (originally taken from some other language) is commonly used by English-language sources, it can be considered to be an English-language word or phrase (example:coup d'état).
The English-language names of some topics may differ according to how names are anglicized from other languages, or according to different varieties of English (e.g. American English, British English, Australian English, etc.).
For the policy regarding non-English sources, seeWP:RSUE.
The choice between anglicized and local spellings should follow English-language usage, e.g. the non-anglicized titlesBesançon,Søren Kierkegaard, andGöttingen are used because they predominate in English-language reliable sources, whereas for the same reason the anglicized title formsNuremberg,delicatessen, andFlorence are used (as opposed to Nürnberg, Delikatessen, and Firenze, respectively).
If there are too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage, follow the conventions of the language appropriate to the subject (German for German politicians, Portuguese for Brazilian towns, and so on). For lesser known geographical objects or structures with few reliable English sources, follow the translation convention, if any, used for well known objects or structures of the same type e.g. becauseRheintal andMoseltal are translatedRhine Valley andMoselle Valley, it makes sense to translate lesser known valley names in the same way. For ideas on how to deal with situations where there are several competing foreign terms, see "Multiple local names" and "Use modern names" in the geographical naming guideline. Such discussions canbenefit from outside opinions so as to avoid a struggle over which language to follow.
Names not originally in aLatin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names,must beromanized. Established systematic romanizations, such asHanyu Pinyin, are preferred. However, if there is a common English-language form of the name, then use it, even if it is unsystematic (as withTchaikovsky andChiang Kai-shek). For a list of romanization conventions by language, seeWikipedia:Romanization.
Wikipedia generally uses the characteræ to represent the Anglo-Saxon ligatureæsc. For Latin- or Greek-derived words (e.g.Paean,Amoeba,Estrogen), usee,ae, oroe, depending on modern usage and thenational variety of English used in the article.
In deciding whether and how to translate a foreign name into English, follow English-language usage. If there is no established English-language treatment for a name, translate it if this can be done without loss of accuracy and with greater understanding for the English-speaking reader.
Otherwise, all national varieties of English are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer one in particular.American English spelling should not be respelled toBritish English spelling, and vice versa; for example, bothcolor andcolour are acceptable and used in article titles (such ascolor gel andcolour state). Very occasionally, a less common but non-nation-specific term is selected to avoid having to choose between national varieties: for example,soft drink was selected to avoid the choice between the Britishfizzy drink, Americansoda, American and Canadianpop, and a slew of other nation- and region-specific names.
Thearticle title appears at the top of a reader's browser window and as a large level 1 heading above the editable text of an article, circled here in dark red. The name or names given in the first sentence do not always match the article title.
By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. If there are three or more alternative names – including alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historic names, and significant names in other languages – or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended. Alternative names may be used in article text when context dictates that they are more appropriate than the name used as the title of the article. For example, the city now calledGdańsk is referred to asDanzig in historic contexts to which that name is more suited (e.g. when it was part of Germany or a Free City). Likewise, even though the title ofColor omits theu, the title ofOrange (colour) does not.
All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made toredirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term. Note that the exact capitalization of the article's title does not affect Wikipediasearch, so it is not necessary to create redirects from alternative capitalizations unless these are likely to be used in links; seeNaming conventions (capitalization).
Piped links are often used in article text to allow a subject with a lengthy article title to be referred to using a more concise term where this does not produce ambiguity.
Abbreviations and acronyms are often ambiguous and thus should be avoided unless the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation and that abbreviation is primarily associated with the subject (e.g.PBS,NATO,Laser). It is also unnecessary to include an acronym in addition to the name in a title. Acronyms may be used for parenthetical disambiguation (e.g.Conservative Party (UK),Georgia (U.S. state)). For more details, seeWP:Manual of Style/Abbreviations § Acronyms in page titles.
Nouns andnoun phrases are normally preferred over titles using other parts of speech; such a title can be the subject of the first sentence. One major exception is for titles that are quotations or titles of works:A rolling stone gathers no moss, or "Try to Remember". Adjective and verb forms (e.g.elegant) should redirect to articles titled with the corresponding noun (Elegance) or disambiguation pages, likeOrganic andTalk. Sometimes the noun corresponding to a verb is thegerund (-ing form), as inSwimming.
Do not use titles suggesting that one article forms part of another: even if an article is considered subsidiary to another (as wheresummary style is used), it should be named independently. For example, an article on transport in Azerbaijan should not be given a name like "Azerbaijan/Transport" or "Azerbaijan (transport)"; useTransport in Azerbaijan. (This does not always apply in non-articlenamespaces;seeWP:Subpages.)
Follow reliable sources for names of persons
When deciding whether to use middle names, or initials, follow the guidelines atWP:Middle names, which means using the form most commonly used by reliable sources (e.g.John F. Kennedy,J. P. Morgan,F. Scott Fitzgerald), with few if any exceptions. See also theConcision section above.
There are technical restrictions on the use of certain characters in page titles, due to how MediaWiki stores and matches the titles. The following characterscannot be used at all:# < > [ ] | { } _
There are restrictions on titles containingcolons,periods, and some other characters, which may be addressed throughTemplate:Correct title. Technically, all other Unicode characters can be used in page titles. However, some characters should still be avoided or require special treatment:
Characters not on a standard keyboard (use redirects): Sometimes the most appropriate title containsdiacritics (accent marks), dashes, or other letters and characters not found on most English-language keyboards. This can make it difficult to navigate to the article directly. In such cases, provide redirects from versions of the title that use only standard keyboard characters. (Similarly, in cases where it is determined that the most appropriate title is one that omitsdiacritics, dashes, and other letters not found on most English-language keyboards, provide redirects from versions of the title that contain them.) However, avoidcombining diacritical marks, which are difficult to type and interfere with adjacent characters.
Quotation marks (avoid them): Double ("...") and single quotation marks ('...'), as well as variations such as typographic (curly) quotation marks (“...”), "low-high" quotation marks („...“),guillemets («...»), and angled quotation marks or backticks (`...´) should be avoided in titles. Exceptions can be made when they are part of the proper title (e.g."A" Is for Alibi) or required byorthography (e.g."Weird Al" Yankovic,Fargesia 'Rufa').
Symbols (avoid them): Symbols such as "♥", as sometimes found in advertisements or logos, should never be used in titles. This includes non-Latin punctuation such as the characters in Unicode'sCJK Symbols and Punctuation block.
Characters not supported on all browsers (avoid them): If there is a reasonable alternative, avoid characters that are so uncommon that not all browser and operating system combinations will render them. For example, the articleFleur-de-lis carries that title rather than the symbol ⚜ itself, which many readers would see as just a rectangular box.
Fractions: SeeMOS:FRAC. Templates and LaTeX-style markup cannot be used in article titles.
The titles of articles, chapters, songs, episodes, storylines, research papers and other short works instead take double quotation marks. Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible,the Quran,the Talmud). Many of these titles should also be intitle case.
Italic formatting cannot be part of the actual (stored) title of a page; adding single quotes to a page title will cause those quotes to become part of the URL, rather than affecting its appearance. A title or part of it is made to appear in italics with the use of theDISPLAYTITLE magic word or the{{Italic title}} template. In addition, certain templates, includingTemplate:Infobox book,Template:Infobox film, andTemplate:Infobox album, by default italicize the titles of the pages they appear on; see those template pages for documentation. SeeWP:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) § Italics and formatting on the technical restrictions page for further details.
Other types of formatting (such as bold type and superscript) can technically be achieved in the same way, but should generallynot be used in Wikipedia article titles (except for articles on mathematics). Quotation marks (such as around song titles) would not require special techniques for display, but are nevertheless avoided in titles; see§ Article title format above.
Article titles follow standard English text formatting in the case of trademarks, unless the trademarked spelling is demonstrably the most common usage in sources independent of the owner of the trademark. Items in full or partial uppercase (such asInvader ZIM) should have standard capitalization (Invader Zim); however, if the name is ambiguous, and one meaning is usually capitalized, this is one possible method of disambiguation.
"WP:AND" redirects here. For the Manual of Style guidance on the use of the word "and" vs ampersands, seeWP:&.
Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases: for example,Endianness covers the concepts "big-endian" and "little-endian". Where no reasonable overarching title is available, it is permissible to construct an article title using "and", as inPromotion and relegation,Hellmann's and Best Foods,Tropical storms Amanda and Cristobal andPioneer 6, 7, 8, and 9. (The individual terms – such asPioneer 6 – should redirect to the combined page, or be linked there via a disambiguation page or hatnote if they have other meanings.)
It is generally best to list topics in alphabetical order, especially those involving different countries or cultures, as inCanada–United States border. However, when a conventional or more logical ordering exists, it should be used instead, such as atyin and yang. If one concept is more commonly encountered than the other, it may be listed first, as inElectrical resistance and conductance. Alternative titles using reverse ordering (such asRelegation and promotion) should be redirects.
Changing one controversial title to anotherwithout a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged. If an article title has been stable for a long time,[j] and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed. Consensus among editors determines if there does exist a good reason to change the title. If it has never been stable, or it has been unstable for a long time, and no consensus can be reached on what the title should be, default to the title the article had when the first major contribution after the article ceased to be astub was made.[k]
Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised atWikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made. Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to helpimprove Wikipedia.
In discussing the appropriate title of an article, remember that the choice of title is not dependent on whether a name is "right" in a moral or political sense. Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both theBattle of Stalingrad and onVolgograd, which is the current name of Stalingrad.
Although titles for articles are subject to consensus, do not invent names or use extremely uncommon names as a means of compromising between opposing points of view. Wikipedia describes current usage but cannot prescribe a particular usage or invent new names.
^Specifically, it is the<h1>HTML element that appears at the top of the article's page. Itshould be the only<h1> element on the page, but because editors have the ability to add any level of heading to a page's text, that cannot be guaranteed. An additional=Level-1 heading= found in an article body should be converted to==Level 2==, and any subsections under it adjusted to compensate.
^The title displayed as the article's main heading is usually identical (and always similar) to the stored title by which the page is referenced in category listings, recent changes lists, etc., and that appears (suitably encoded as necessary) in the page'sURL. For technical details, seeWikipedia:Page name.
^It is technically possible, but undesirable for various reasons, to make different pages display with the same title.
^When an article's title is changed, its database entry is altered but not actually moved. For this reason, a title change is sometimes called arename, althoughmove remains the most common term.
^This includes but is not limited to usage in the sources used as references for the article. Discussions about article titles commonly look at additional off-site sourcing, such as frequency of usage in news publications, books, and journals."Common name" in the context of article naming means acommonly or frequently used name, and not necessarily acommon (vernacular) name, as opposed toscientific name, as used in some disciplines.
^Ambiguity, as used here, is unrelated to whether a title requiresdisambiguation pages on the English Wikipedia. For example, "heart attack" is an ambiguous title, because the term can refer to multiple medical conditions, includingcardiac arrest andmyocardial infarction.
^No clear consensus has been found for a timeframe, seeWikipedia:Stable version to revert to (and the talk page). The content change after the move is also relevant, as well as the time a previous move was made. If significant changes have been made after a move, several months may be considered "stable". Otherwise, significantly longer is generally required.
^This paragraph was adopted to stop move warring. It is an adaptation of the wording in theManual of Style, which is based on the Arbitration Committee's decision in theJguk case.
External links
Google Book Ngram Viewer, a graphic plotter of case-sensitive frequency of multi-term usage in books over time, through 2022
.png)