Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

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

A new editor, User:Glardenc, created their account on December 8, 2025, and as of this post has made 170 edits []. 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 [], 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 of Wikipedia: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. []

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to: Courtesy ping: WikiOriginal-9; Courtesy ping: EEng; [[Courtey ping|Magnolia677}}; Courtesy ping: Mark and inwardly digest. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Try again: Courtesy ping: Magnolia677 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

It's the difference between restrictive 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 and which can both introduce a restrictive clause, ... Which is the word used to introduce a nonrestrictive clause, .... Largoplazo (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the info from M-Webster. But even if which & that are 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)

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.. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:56, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Thanks Mr SB. I wonder if Glardenc is any relation to the "comprised of" guy? Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

You can actually ping more than 1 person using {{Courtesy ping}}. For example, {{Courtesy ping|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Example}} returns Courtesy pings: Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, Example. FaviFake (talk) 19:20, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Don't you mean, "My retort included the truth which their (specific/one) opinion of my usage of grammar is not dissuasive"? – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 13:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Edit summaries which call "which", who" and "the" "more descriptive conjunctions" do not inspire confidence in the editor's opinions; perhaps they could quote a style guide or English grammar instead. The current Fowler'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 in Glardenc's edit, correct to state that they are, The university also confirmed that the removal of the statue. It does quote, approvingly, Fowler himself in 1926:

The relations between that, who, and which, 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.

NebY (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

"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.

Can you cite a style guide that supports your approach? NebY (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

(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)

Gosh, was your high school English teacher WP:MISSSNODGRASS? EEng 00:45, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Glardenc, one of the foundational principles of Wikipedia is that we use Reliable sources. Other editors in this discussion have referred to Merriam-Webster, to Fowler's, and to The 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)

Here is a breakdown of the changes in Glardenc's edit to Texas A&M University:

1. To Aggies who (correctly) point out that 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.

2. a higher proportion than that 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.

3. The university also confirmed that 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".

4. university president M. Katherine Banks implemented university-wide administrative restructuring that involved several changes to academic unit names -> university president M. Katherine Banks implemented university-wide administrative restructuring which 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.

5. Dozens of buildings are visible including one that is domed -> Dozens of buildings are visible including one which 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.

6. In 2021, The Washington Monthly assessed Texas A&M 21st nationally based on their criteria that weigh research, community service, and social mobility -> In 2021, The Washington Monthly assessed Texas A&M 21st nationally based on their criteria which weigh research, community service, and social mobility.

   This is a valid correction; we don't want the restrictive "that" here.

7. Texas A&M works with state and university agencies on local and international research projects to develop innovations in science and technology that 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 technology which 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.

8. the Texas A&M University System was the first to explicitly state in its policy that technology commercialization could be used for tenure -> the Texas A&M University System was the first to explicitly state in its policy technology commercialization could be used for tenure

   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.

9. the dogs in question were given several experimental treatments to improve or cure a genetic condition that also affects humans -> the dogs in question were given several experimental treatments to improve or cure a genetic condition which 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.

10. the university announced on 9 February 2024 that 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.

11. a series of twelve arches that allude to the spirit of the 12th Man -> a series of twelve arches which allude to the spirit of the 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.

12. an all-male choral group not affiliated with the Corps of Cadets with about 70 members that was founded in 1893 -> an all-male choral group not affiliated with the Corps of Cadets with about 70 members which was founded in 1893

    Same as above; the change is fine but not really needed.

13. lights a candle to symbolize that 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.

14. Students who die while enrolled at Texas A&M are honored at Silver Taps, a ceremony that 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 ceremony which 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.

15. The song is not played to the east, symbolizing that 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".

16. The rivalry was renewed in 2024 when the Longhorns joined the SEC, ending the hiatus that began in 2011 -> The rivalry was renewed in 2024 when the Longhorns joined the SEC, ending the hiatus which 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)

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)

• @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, finding sources 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 the WP: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)

  Glardenc confuses its and it's, hypercorrects hyphens into places they don't belong, doesn't know a hyphen from a dash, thinks which and who are conjunctions, and indulges in comma splices (for all of which see ). Meanwhile (see above in this thread) they commit blunders such as I 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 think grammatic is an impressive synonym for grammatical (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. EEng 06:38, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  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)

  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. EEng 22:55, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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 ~ talk 18:01, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  Killjoy. EEng 22:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• @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 this is semantically different.
• 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16 (changing "that" to "which") - In American English, "that" is used to denote a restrictive 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 text The 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.

– Epicgenius (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

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 be sure 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 must always imply a restriction?

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

1 is the sort of thing I routinely fix when I see it. Of course, because of pragmatics, 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 of a 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)

(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 is improved 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 be significantly 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’s Writing 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: Include that 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)

Yes - is there any reason they can't be banned from making edits of this sort? Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I guess only the ANI could decide on sanctions of such a kind. Gawaon (talk) 12:56, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

I point out THAT they haven't edited in two weeks, so it appears THAT the issue is moot. EEng 13:13, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Take THAT, pronouns! Talk Like That might be a song they hate. – The Grid (talk) 13:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Can we all band together and finish undoing the misguided edits? I just spent an hour fixing George 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)

Sorry for the late commentary on these examples. Gosh, looking at just a few of these:

• I'd say 2 is wrong. "Than" is used to compare comparable things. A proportion is not comparable to a college or a university. It's comparable to another proportion, that of any other college or university in this case. Example 1 is more or less the same problem.
• Example 3 creates a garden path sentence. "Confirmed" can be transitive, so my immediate tendency was to understand the removal was being confirmed. The rest of the sentence then doesn't make sense, causing me to have to back up in my parsing and realize that the entire clause after "confirmed" is its object.
• Example 4 just reads wrong to me with "which". Same with 5.
• Example 6 I agree with except that there should be a comma before "which".

And so on. Largoplazo (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Oh, this is funny. I forgot that I did respond last month. Well, here's some more food for thought. Largoplazo (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

"Which car?" "That car...!" That Girl, etc. I edit under the ambit of "Prosody and nuance" often enough, but this is an inane idée fixe if ever there was one. No sense of proportion. kencf0618 (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The word that is perfectly legitimate and does not mean the same as which. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Mike is correct about there being WP:ENGVAR issues here. The article on That 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 approach Harold Ross, who adored Fowler's on this point, mandated for The 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 of that is actually "wrong". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

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 the The Paris Peace Conference 1919-20 Spinney Hill (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

@Spinney Hill, have a look at the first two bullet points in User:WhatamIdoing#That, which, and who. The examples might answer your question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

None of those examples cover the situation that I am talking about. Consider the sentence "There are simpler ways of saying something (particularly in conversation) that can avoid using the issue" To my ear either "which" or "that" could be used and I would probably use "which". There's no rule to this in my view; just the way it sounds. However, this kind of construction is frequently changed by editors without a reason being given or by one word "grammar." I can see no reason to change it either way.Spinney Hill (talk) 09:44, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with everything said in the paragraph you point me to but there is one piece of "older and more formal English" has been missed out. Its from the Book of Common Prayer: "Our Father which art in Heaven,hallowed be thy name" Spinney Hill (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

That is, however, simply outdated grammar, just like "art". Gawaon (talk) 10:58, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

No, it's modern grammar and Fowler compliant: "Our Father, which is in Heaven..." If it were written as "Our Father that is in Heaven...", we'd start wondering where the father that isn't in Heaven is, and how many of such non-Heaven-located fathers there might be. (If you really modernized it, you'd use who, which is used for both restrictive and nonrestrictive clauses.)

@Spinney Hill, making a distinction is not as popular in British English. There's also – at least according to https://aceseditors.org/news/2018/lynne-murphy-how-american-editors-are-different-from-british-editors – some difference in the overall goals of editing someone else's work. It's likely that those rule-imposing other editors are accustomed to the American styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

I was taught - from the King James Version - "Our Father, which art in Heaven, ..." (Matthew 6:9; Luke 11:2). Round about 1972 we were told that such wording was "old-fashioned" and we should use the New English Bible. I now own one of those, also a New International Version (two copies: one about eight times the size of the other) and a New Revised Standard Version. Other versions exist - which one is correct? But anyway. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Or, in the parlance of our times: "whomst art". pburka (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I've never heard "whomst" art? I always hear it recited, in the present day, "Our father who art in heaven." I don't know when people switched from "which" to "who" (and who knows which is which and who is who?), or if "which" was just some KJV linguistic idiosyncracy (the KJV was written in deliberately archaic language that resulted in a style of English that never actually existed at any time). ~2026-13001-64 (talk) 22:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

(It was a joke, but see wikt:en:whomst.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Let he whomst amongst us has never been whoosh't cast the first lol. – ⓣⓡⓢ⑨ⓚ 16:34, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Since I am English and living in England that figures Spinney Hill (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

The Greek text might indeed be translated literally as "Our father (the [one] in the heavens)", distinguishing him from our ordinary mortal fathers. (Of course, Jesus would have been speaking in Aramaic and deriving fine theological points from a Greek version written long after the event is high-risk. One modern translation "Our father in heaven" works pretty well.) NebY (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Behavior is similar to blocked user Mepperelf. (There's a slight chance it's the same person, but according to the Editor Interaction Analyser, the accounts never edited the same article, and they "fixed" different "issues".) — Chrisahn (talk) 10:27, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason to favor unrestrictive over restrictive clauses. See English relative clauses § Restrictive or non-restrictive relative clauses. Some reliable sources regarding this:

• "'That' vs. 'Which'". Merriam-Webster. 2025-07-08. Retrieved 2026-02-27.
• "Purdue OWL®". Purdue University. Retrieved 2026-02-27.
• ""Which" vs. "That": When to Use Each". “Which” vs. “That”: When to Use Each. 2023-05-15. Retrieved 2026-02-27.
• "Which vs That: Understanding the Difference". Oxbridge Editing. 2024-04-03. Retrieved 2026-02-27.
• "Research Guides: English as an Additional Language: That vs Which". Research Guides at University of Saskatchewan. 2014-07-31. Retrieved 2026-02-27.

Personally, I prefer "that" restrictive clauses over "which" unrestrictive clauses. Why? Because that is shorter than which, which takes at least one & usually two commas. I know that is a potential savings of a whole three characters, but if you are trying to fit a sentence into a caption, brevity can help. BTW, as someone with a BA in English & Psychology & an MLIS, I feel pretty confident in saying that there is no valid reason to favor one or the other unless you have a specific need for a restrictive or unrestrictive clause. Peaceray (talk) 23:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

The following provided example strikes me as being unreasonably confusing:

Do not use the legalism Smith J for Justice 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.)

Anybody care to clear this up? Fabrickator (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

• . EEng 00:27, 7 January 2026 (UTC) P.S. I hope you don't feel I've abandoned you at NANP. I just haven't got the bandwidth right now.
• “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)

  It usually indicates a judge, but it's not uncommon as a given name, either. In fact, Justice Smith is a well known actor and not a jurist. The old text which EEng linked to was clearer. pburka (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  How about something like "Do not use the legalism Smith J for a justice surnamed Smith"? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  I seem to have read EEng's diff backwards. The new text is clearer. pburka (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  I've recalled the killer drone. EEng 01:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  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)

  I now want to know where this comes from. Specifically, is this style related to "Victoria R", to mean Queen Victoria? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

  "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 King Spinney Hill (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

  I don't know the origin, but the use the J suffix and other rules related to titles are discussed quite extensively in Judge#Titles and forms of address. pburka (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Currently there is no MOS section anywhere for simply abbreviating (not initializing) names of things (as in "the Church" for the Catholic Church). I would include this either at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations or here at Wikipedia: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 a named 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)

Describing these as abbreviations is misleading ISTM. MapReader (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

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..."

But perhaps it is better called a shortening Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

This is already covered in MOS:INSTITUTIONS. Don't capitalize "church". pburka (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Don't capitalize common nouns. "The king and the archbishop are both powerful figures in the church.' pburka (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

The Church in the instance is a proper noun (abbreviation of Anglican Church) Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

Thanks. This applies to all proper nouns, not just institutions Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

So does that chapter of the MOS. I just linked directly to the most relevant subsection for your example. pburka (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

I see no prior discussion per WP:RFCBEFORE and no indication that this is a matter that needs an RFC to resolve any disputes. Procedural close? NebY (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

+1 MapReader (talk) 13:45, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes Czarking0 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Is there a provision anywhere in the MoS about using the word "expatriates" (see Roatán, 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

There's definitely a class distinction, but I agree that "immigrant" implies some permanence. Low-income expatriates are often termed migrant workers or guest workers. pburka (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

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)

All good points above. I can only imagine Lionel Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo being constantly referred to as migrant workers. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

As WP:LIVESCORES (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Snooker#Mid-match frame and match scores) says, a 2014 proposal to specifically add such rules to the general "What Wikipedia is not" policy page failed to gain consensus, as some feared that enforcing such a policy would result in escalated edit warring between established editors and well-intentioned edits by newcomers. What harm's being done now that's so severe we should override the strong objections in that discussion? NebY (talk) 13:35, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I guess someone who wants to update everything in real time will just say "but that's snooker, not X".

I do think we should do something to make this a bit wider spread. It ties in more to WP:NOTNEWS than anything else Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

This doesn't belong in the style guide. If such a guideline belongs anywhere, I think it would be in WP:NOT. pburka (talk) 14:07, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

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 a WP:NOTNEWS matter, not a style guide matter. Largoplazo (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

Agree with Govvy 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 remove WP: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)

@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)

@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 with WP:LIVESCORES indicating that the page should only be updated with the scores after 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)

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)

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.

FWIW, I would support a "Wikipedia is not a scoreboard" policy, where we have something for not updating whilst in play. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Well, for anything that takes longer than a couple of hours, occasional live updates don't seem so inappropriate. Gawaon (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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 (like Eventing) 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)

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)

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)

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)

There may be people flocking here to update the scores, but are people flocking here to look at the scores from minute to minute? Do people use Wikipedia as a resource for that? I'm betting not because they wouldn't expect 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 on WP: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)

@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)

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 like Kesha 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)

WP:TITLE: "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's CJK Symbols and Punctuation block." I'll be bold and just move it. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Aaaand I can't because there's a redirect. I've requested it as an uncontroversial technical request. — An anonymous username, not my real name 02:47, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Not by me, but this has been moved Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:32, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

This frequent discussion was last seriously considered here in the MOS space almost four years ago, with a narrow majority in favor of a change but understandably no change resulting. I think it should be considered again. Instead of fully listing the previous arguments such as sexism, quaintness, source rarity, disrecommendation by usage authorities, confusion to non-native speakers, I will try for some more obscure rationales that may not have been as appreciated:

• Extends Wikipedia:Systemic bias by creating an arbitrary distinction with "it" being more prevalent on pages for non-Western vessels e.g. North Korean submarine Hero Kim Kun Ok, Chinese submarine Changzheng 6, Russian submarine Yury Dolgorukiy
• Creates a blurry philosophical line between "ships" and other objects for which "she" is MOS-disallowed. Submarines are "ships", but what about submersibles, hovercraft, uncrewed naval drones etc.
• "she" for nations is disallowed as far as I know and the rationales are similar

Doeze (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

No, let the matter rest. We have a working compromise, that's good enough. Gawaon (talk) 08:21, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

the compromise being that we are technically allowed to use "it" for objects but never on important pages? you'll forgive me if it's seen as unreasonable to ask for a reconsideration after four years. Doeze (talk) 01:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

That's not how I read MOS:SHIP. If you want to change established usage on a specific page, you should seek talk page consensus first, as for similar potentially controversial changes, but such discussions belong on the talk page of the page in question, not here. Gawaon (talk) 08:29, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Like many compromises on here (see e.g. MOS:ERA, MOS:CITEVAR, WP:TIES), the issue is that there are two sides with strong opinions, but neither is able to gain consensus that one is right and the other is wrong. The usual approach in this situation is to allow both valid approaches, and (generally) to set the rule for each article by that article's first established style. It isn't perfect, but it's the least bad compromise when it's not possible to gain consensus for a hard rule one way or the other. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:46, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

• Seems to me I posted this somewhere recently, but hey, why not? WP:ELIZABETH EEng 12:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• Having been around a while, each time the subject has been brought up, I think there's been more support for change. Each time it has come up though, the arguments have been harmful and some have made it personal and some have taken it personally. If we could just have a !vote every four years I could support that, but the fight is painful to watch and I hope we can avoid that. SchreiberBike | ⌨  13:48, 20 February 2026 (UTC)
• Consensus on matters frequently discussed doesn't usually change because some more obscure rationales, as you put it, are presented or we hear from one or or two new voices that missed out on the previous discussions. For the MOS, changing the editing community's ideas about what's best for the encyclopedia usually takes a change in the profile of the community or for the community to perceive a change in the wider world. Four years isn't long enough for either in a matter such as this, in which case re-opening discussion merely revisits dissension. NebY (talk) 14:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

From MOS:PUNCTSPACE documentation: "Some editors place two spaces after a period or full stop (see Sentence spacing); these are condensed to one space when the page is rendered, so it does not affect what readers see."

Is this still true? I can see when two spaces exist after a period on a Wikipedia article. So, I don't think this is technically correct. --Engineerchange (talk) 13:52, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

• Are you sure? I can't see that. pburka (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
  • Okay. You're right, disregard. I guess I just see it in an edit summary, and it bugs me. Whoops, lol! --Engineerchange (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2026 (UTC)
    • Searching here with Firefox 147.0.4 shows all multiple, double to 16-times, spaces in Pburka's line as search results, although they are indeed shown as single spaces and cut/paste as such. More worryingly, inspecting the HTML source also shows them. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

      Searching here with Firefox 147.0.4 shows all multiple, double to 16-times, spaces in Pburka's line as search results

      Firefox seems to normalize whitespace on search (Ctrl+F). Try putting a tab or a no-break space, and you'll see it still works. — W.andrea (talk) 02:37, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

      Multiple spaces in the HTML source code are collapsed by default in the rendered page. So if they are in the source, that's harmless and expected. It shouldn't affect anything that normal readers see. Gawaon (talk) 08:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

      It's worrying? What impact does it have on the reader?

      From the fact that you checked the source to try to verify what the documentation says, I'm gathering that you'd understood it to mean that it's Wikipedia that condenses consecutive space characters when sending the HTML to the browser. It's not, it's the browser that does it. Browsers have been condensing ordinary space characters (except between <pre>...</pre> tags or, more recently, when styled with one of CSS's properties that provide for preserving spaces) at least since they implemented the 1997 HTML 3.2 specification. Largoplazo (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

      That's indeed what I understood "condensed to one space when the page is rendered" to mean. I now know it's the browser. What worries me, though not much, are the space considerations. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

      By "space considerations" do you mean how much additional storage is used? In comparison with the entirety of the space taken up by Wikipedia, it's going to be a molecule in a bucket. Largoplazo (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

      I think it goes back before HTML 3.2, to at least HTML 2.0 or even SGML. Browsers treat a sequence of one or more whitespace characters as if there were a single space in their place. Whitespace characters, in this case, being tab, linefeed, carriage return or space - ASCII 8, 10, 13, 32. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

      I checked the specs before I wrote, I didn't see it in 2.0. But, even so, it may already have been how Netscape (!) or Mosaic (!) or Internet Explorer were handling things, since standards often incorporate actual practices of some parties in the interest of espousing uniformity among all. Largoplazo (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I was recently reverted here because I caught an article which had, in my opinion, an unnecessary use of a pipe for a wikilink that made it less clear where the link went to (and also made the link unsearchable on the article itself). Was I wrong in thinking this wikilink was confusing and violated MOS:EGG (albeit less strongly than some cases)? Tduk (talk) 14:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with what you changed it but there was no reason to change it to that. The existing link was off in one respect, but it wasn't an Easter egg problem. It's that the word "character" should have been inside the link, considering that the target article is about the character of that name, not about the phrase "of that name". If the link had been to "character of the same name", the link would have been going to exactly where a reader would expect it to be going: to the article about the character of the same name as the series. In fact, I'm gonna go fix that now. Largoplazo (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

That's a great point. Personally I still would prefer no piping in the link at all, since the piping isn't necessary and only makes the article look nicer to some people. If I'm looking for a link to the Wonder Man character, it's much easier to move my eyes around the page or do a search for the text "Wonder Man", which has capital letters, than to have to process all the text and find whatever arbitrary phrase someone decided to throw behind a pipe. Unpiping it improves the readability for me, in my opinion more than piping the article can improve it for anyone. I'm also operating on the assumption that others may feel similarly, for the same or different reasons. As I understood MOS:EGG, it discourages any piping that isn't necessary, and this piping isn't. Am I off in that interpretation? Tduk (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand your issue with it but that has nothing to do with WP:EGG, and I think that turning to an article to scan it for a link to another article is a very minor use case for our readers. Largoplazo (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

As I said below, I mistakenly included the policies immediately following MOS:EGG when considering it. Really, I don't think the policy takes a stance on this kind of thing; it just seemed to me to make sense to remove these things in the spirit of the other policies. Basically, even if it is a minor case, why not make the minor case less difficult? Tduk (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I've seen many similar piped links ("of the same name", "its namesake", etc.) and never found them surprising. I think it's no more surprising than seeing a blue link with the same name as the page you're reading, but linking elsewhere. pburka (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether any individual finds them surprising. As I understand it, the policy was there so the article was a clear as it can be. Others may not have the same comprehension skills. Tduk (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

MOS:EGG is all about surprises. And we shouldn't assume our readers lack basic comprehension skills. The original link wasn't surprising, but Largoplazo's version is even clearer. pburka (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake, I was mentally including all the policies immediately after MOS:EGG about piping. I felt that in the spirit of all those entries, it is just safer and less presumptive to not to put unneeded pipes. I prefer not to assume anything about the readers' abilities or disabilities personally. Tduk (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

How do you write anything without making any assumptions about the reader's abilities? I mean, here, for example, we definitely assume that readers have a substantially larger vocabulary than is required to use Simple English Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we can't make any assumptions. I just think it's better to avoid making them as far as clarity and usefulness of content is concerned. Tduk (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you not understand what "character of the same name" means? I disagree that for anyone who can read Wikipedia at all, that that phrase is a challenge. Largoplazo (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Right, and it's standard in such cases. Not to use it would likely be more confusing than to use it, and make for awkward reading. Gawaon (talk) 16:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I do find it distracting and it does require more thought on my part. It's something I can live with but I like to consider others with different POVs than myself. If no one agrees, that's fine. This may seem silly, but it's possible there would be a wikipedia list of characters who have the same name as other characters. Again, I don't see why overcomplicating as well as increasing the text size (marginally) it improves things, but others apparently disagree. Tduk (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

For me, it's too repetitive: "Superman is a 1978 film featuring the superhero Superman from the Superman comic book" just sounds clunky. (Although we should also try to avoid excessive elegant variation.) pburka (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree it sounds clunky, but in my opinion you've answered your own issue there. I feel like phrasing being clunky is the least affecting problem we could come across when this comes up, and I feel like the alternatives that do involve elegant phrasing are potentially more damaging - not to many, but to some. The example you provided is also not quite in line with the MOS; to my eyes, "Superman is a 1978 film featuring the superhero Superman from the Superman comic book" is probably how it would appear in the article about the film, of course if it were even true - Superman first appeared in Action Comics, but I'm not here to distract from your point, which is a good one. Better phrasing (such as "the 1938 comic book Superman" may also help. Generally, though, I personally have been suffering from "hover link fatigue", and whenever I'm looking at a vaguely eponymous article, I dread having to figure out where all the links go and which ones are the ones that I am looking to click on. On a case by case basis it may be easy, but the Superman article is a good example (see for example where love interest goes). Additionally, if you're looking for articles about proper nouns relating to the article, it is very unhelpful if the wikilink is not capitalized, for instance. Tduk (talk) 09:21, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I believe your description of the existing text as "damaging" is out of proportion and your use of an article to look for links is unusual. Articles are written primarily to be read. If you're looking for an article on a topic, you can do so by running a search, not by scanning another article till you find a link. (Even to do that, your browser has a Find function.)

However, I agree that "love interest" shouldn't be linked, in part because it does lead to a redirect with a target that's ridiculous for the purpose for which it's being linked here, but also because of WP:OVERLINK. Largoplazo (talk) 14:05, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I just went to unlink the "love interest" phrase in Superman and discovered that you'd misrepresented what it was linked to. You linked it to Love interest which redirects to Innamorati, and that's what I was reacting to above. In fact, it links to Superman and Lois Lane—which is an Easter egg because one would expect it to lead to an article about love interests. If a phrase "relationship between Superman and Lois Lane" were linked to the article, that would make sense. But the link in question is, besides and Easter egg, a matter of WP:OVERLINK as well. Largoplazo (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

In Re https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style&oldid=1342096953. @EEng:

It seems to me that “considered” is exactly the right way to express the actual state of affairs. “Is avoided” also implies that these considerations are followed, or alternately merely implies a pattern of behaviour that doesn’t necessarily extend to Wikipedia, which would render the clarification unnecessary. Anselm Schüler (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

No idea what you're saying. I'm happy to let our esteemed fellow editors work this out. EEng 01:57, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

• Keep "considered". Make MOS Great Again. Wh1pla5h99 (talk) 02:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)