This template is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom
This template falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style
This template falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
I don't know what the history of this template is, but it doesn't appear that enough testing was done on its formatting within articles for which GA/FA stars or spoken version icons are displayed, since the flag overlaps all of them. Until this is fixed, I think the template should be discarded from all articles for which this is a problem. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, nobody has bothered to test this with the other title templates. The FA stars and the GA symbol are set at 10px away from the right edge, the spoken article icon is 30px away, and the padlock icons indicating protected pages are 55px away. Any other flag icon is going to need to be placed to the left of the padlock icon. I have copied the code from the relevant templates here, so you should see all the relevant icons on this page's title.
This apparently will cause extra spacing on the right if this icon is the only one needed on a particular article (of course, the same issue occurs if only the padlock icon is shown). There is no other code or script that I am aware of that detects all the icons being used, and then adjusts their placement accordingly. Therefore, its either 80px or more away, or no flag icon at all. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:46, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the addition of the flag was made less than a few hours ago.[1] I'd still prefer to leave it out because of these issues. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that the flag was a recent addition—I thought I was nuts not being able to remember seeing it before. I propose that the flag be removed, partly due to the issue above, but mainly because while I appreciate the visual cue to alert readers that they should expect horrors such as "colour" and "practise" (and should not rush to edit to "fix spelling error"), the flag is intrusive. The deletion nomination was apparently induced by the flag, so I am not alone in my view. Johnuniq (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting removal of the flag. I'd also note that there are articles in which use of such a flag could be taken as POV (implying support for a British position), as it is not clear that it refers to spelling only. I'd note that there is also a flag at Template:Use Irish English, which I am now removing. Pfainuktalk09:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The other changes seem to be useful: it should add the template mentioned in the documentation, and categorisation by date is probably not useful. Peter E. James (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. The flags should be removed. Using the Union Flag is inaccurate ("British English" spelling is used outside the UK too) and may be provocativ. The same goes for the Irish tricolor. ~Asarlaí21:23, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As creator, I confess to having toyed with the idea of adding a flag, but was persuaded against it. It seems indeed that the flag is indeed causing a problem and agree with its removal. --Ohconfucius¡digame!15:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we need the all category? The all category is far more useful than the monthly categories. What difference does it make what month the article was tagged in? Wouldn't it be easier to put all the pages in one category? Also, the category was speedily deleted under the criteria for templates that have been deleted or retargeted. I don't think that was correct or appropriate, especially when the creator of the category (me, I think) wasn't even notified. McLerristarr | Mclay106:43, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Engvar script, which spurred my setting up this template, contains a list of spellings common to English, Scottish, Irish, Australian, South African. I do not intend to build anything any more complex than a common set of spellings that use the {{use British English}} template. Therefore, I do not believe we will ever need to use templates other than 'British', 'Canadian' and Oxford'. --Ohconfucius¡digame!13:37, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed in the past, and there is no consensus if the template should be placed on the top of the article or above the categories. The same question applies to templates like {{Use dmy dates}}, by the way, so any consensus building process will have to be centralized. Debresser (talk) 05:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Jonesey95: - Hi, would you be totally against swapping out the first copy paragraph in the usage section of /doc (beginning "This template adds ...") to something like:
This maintenance template adds articles to the hidden category Category:Use British English to denote or flag articles that:
This maintenance template may be used in articles whose:
subject has strong ties to the United Kingdom (per MOS:TIES), or
subject has strong ties to one or more Commonwealth countries (per MOS:TIES), or
subject does not have strong ties to any English-speaking country (per MOS:COMMONALITY), or
original author (or first author to de-stub the article) used the spelling, vocabulary, and grammar of the English variant of one or more Commonwealth countries (e.g. "centre", "rationalise", "footballer"; per MOS:RETAIN).
I feel like this makes use cases and MOS guidance a bit more clear than current copy? I'd also like to (if you wouldn't really mind, ofc) -
add a bit more copy re the Engvar script (eg options, encourage use),
note availability of {{Use Oxford spelling}} and its IUPAC option for chemistry stuff,
note availability of {{British English}} for talk page/edit notices,
request code update for {{British English}} (I feel like the flag and copy ought to be different for non-UK Commonwealth use?),
The MOS says Commonwealth countries "or other former British territories" which is probably worthwhile to include since not all British-style spelling dialects are hosted in Commonwealth member states.
The third point: "subject does not have strong ties to any English-speaking country (per MOS:COMMONALITY),". It seems like that's only true if a British-style variant has been used (in which case the fourth point already applies) or there's no discernible dialect and the editor is declaring one arbitrarily (which seems fine).
I'm a bit hesitant about Caribbean English; that article says that is not a specific dialect with a single set of spellings, and it is also not what is used in formal contexts. It is not what we would want people to write Wikipedia articles with (e.g. pronouns like: me, meh, mi, you, yuh, he, she, it, we, wi or alawe, wunna or unu, dem, day, I, mi, my, he, she, ih, it, we, wi, alawe, allayu or unu, den, deh). Belizean English seems to have similar formality problems, so I would just not create templates for those. No objection to the other ideas. -- Beland (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Beland: - Thank you! I'll fix copy and redirect templates accordingly :) Ps just as a note for the record - all English variants have informal/idiosyncratic registers, so that's not really a reason against creating {{Use X English}} templates for them imo - and Caribbean/Bzean English also have formal registers ofc (just maybe not covered in their Wiki articles), it's just that those registers are very similar (but not identical) to Brit Eng! - so really the case for redirecting these (and against creating templates) oughtta be (imo) both (1) their formal/encyclopaedic registers are too similar to Brit Engl (but so too are the Aussie/NZ Eng formal registers), and (2) there aren't enough speakers (and so not enough template users to maybe warrant a template, unlike with Aus/NZ Eng). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 22:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One basic problem with the proposed text is its repeated reference to the "English variant of one or more Commonwealth countries" and similar language. New Zealand, Australia, and Canada are Commonwealth countries that have their own templates and spelling differences. The proposed text is too broad. Something almost as broad as the proposed text might be workable after the dozen or so superfluous "Use X English" templates are deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Jonesey95: - Oh you're right, but instead of disambiguating within the copy (which would make it unwieldy imo), how about we add a final paragraph saying something like "Some Commonwealth countries or former British colonies have their own {{Use X English}} templates. See See also for those." and then split the "See also" into Commonwealth vs non-Commonwealth. I'll go ahead with this proposal (with copy modded as per Beland though), and with the other tasks I listed (soon-ish), but lmk if just the added disambig para would not work well enough! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend that you try to simplify, rather than complicate, your proposal. If it is a nest of ifs and buts and exceptions, people are going to misunderstand it and get lost in the text. These templates have caused enough confusion already. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still not quite sure what was going to happen with the third point; MOS:COMMONALITY has little to do with reasons to use this template. Maybe rather than trying to duplicate the language of the MOS here, we can defer instructions about when to use this template to the linked MOS pages. Which is pretty much what the current documentation does. I dropped the mention there of MOS:COMMONALITY, as it didn't make sense. -- Beland (talk) 01:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, that makes more sense. The existing phrasing sounded like it was talking about subjects which have no strong ties (like electron) for which MOS:COMMONALITY made no sense. I have tweaked the wording to try to make it more explicit. Thanks for noticing and clarifying! -- Beland (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Minor point for record – imo MOS:COMMONALITY advises (i) do not use idiosyncratic words or phrases, else (ii) use and gloss them, and applies to all variants of English (as they all have words/phrases in their non-formal registers not common worldwide). So doesn't really seem to imply x or y English variant is an "unusable dialect" for Wiki imo.
And re current copy –
current copy says "to denote articles that use British English spelling, vocabulary, and grammar." This seems untrue (and maybe even offensive?) to me, esp if {{EngvarB}} is to redirect here :/. (Imagine going up to an Aussie/Kiwi and saying, "Hey, you've written in British English!")
current copy says "Articles with strong ties to a national dialect which in its formal register and after application of MOS:COMMONALITY is indistinguishable from British English". But imo:
the advice to "[use] its formal register [and apply] MOS:COMMONALITY [first]" seems a bit like guidance more suited to MOS than here, maybe?
the advice to "[use] its formal register [and apply] MOS:COMMONALITY [first]" seems a bit arbitrarily (and so, possibly offensively?) applied, as this guidance applies regardless of dialect being used, not only in the case of non-UK dialects
the phrase "indistinguishable from British English" seems like a matter of opinion (and possibly offensive?) imo [eg imagine an American saying to an Aussie/Kiwi, "Hey, your writing is indistinguishable from British English!"]
the MOS:TIES use case for non-UK countries is missing, and imo is especially needed if {{EngvarB}} is to redirect here (or if we are to not create {{Use X English}} templates for them) :/
Other than those though, copy is much clearer/improved imo :). If no one objects, I'll modify/add to copy to address the above points (at some point later on)! - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For (2) point 4, if a national dialect is distinguishable from British English, then it seems to me that there should be a "Use X English" template for that country's dialect, and that template should be used for articles with strong ties to that country. Otherwise a spell checker would complain about words or spellings that aren't in British English. Formal Australian English, for example, is in fact distinguishable from British English and that seems a good reason why it has its own template. If that's true for other dialects like Cameroonian, it would be helpful to post some examples that would make a difference in real articles, so editors can be persuaded not to delete national dialect templates.
For (3), are you talking about something like American English or Cameroonian English? For the former, that's what the "See also" section is for. For the latter, that's what the "indistinguishable" line is for. Template:EngvarB does in fact redirect here, though it is deprecated and should be removed from all articles. -- Beland (talk) 07:33, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Beland: - ahhh ok I think maybe I misinterpreted the purpose of the {{EngvarB}} redirect to this template! I thought this template was meant for not just English variants indistinguishable ("literally cannot be distinguished") from BrE, but also for those more similar to BrE than to AmE (even if they're distinguishable). I think I got this idea from Jonesey95's comments in the {{Use Jamaican English}}, {{Use Antiguan and Barbudan English}}, and {{Use Trinidad and Tobago English}} talk pages (as these and other Caribbean English variants can quite certainly be distinguished from BrE in formal writing, but are nonetheless similar enough to BrE in formal writing [imo]). But after reviewing the resolved EngvarB and resolved MOS discussions which led to redirecting {{EngvarB}} here, maybe the consensus/intention was to have this template only for BrE and indistinguishable dialects, and not for distinguishable-but-similar dialects. In the latter case, copy is good as is!, and I'll create some {{Use X English}} templates for Caribbean and/or Bzean English (soon-ish, w/ use, spelling guidance ofc) instead of redirecting those here. In the former case though, points 1–3 would still stand imo, so will just wait for Jonesey95 guidance :)
Ps very minor point for record - If we distinguish a dialect's orthography from the dialect itself (the former being only one part of the latter), then I'm not so sure there are any dialects indistinguishable from BrE, even though there are loads of them with similar-to-indistinguishable orthography (eg AusE, NZE, etc)! Common distinction in linguistics iirc, and very minor if not for its potential to cause offence I feel (eg saying to a Jamaican, "Your formal writing uses British-style spelling!" seems mostly fine tbh, but saying, "Your formal writing is in [or is indistinguishable from] British English!" doesn't so much imo). It's sort of like the fine distinction b/w being Scottish/Welsh vs British in this sense, I think (ie many people might feel "Eh, pot-EY-to, pot-AH-to" about it, but many Scots/Welshmen would emphatically not).
You have mentioned people possibly being offended by this template. If you can provide an example of that happening here on Wikipedia, that would be helpful. As for the language of the documentation, I do not see any problems currently. We are linking to guidance from our guidelines and explaining when and where the template should be used, as template documentation often does. It appears that you are working toward understanding some of the long, murky history of this template and related templates, which is difficult work. If you have a proposal for changes to the language, I recommend that you make them here, as you helpfully did above. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Because I had the time, and for the record (ie for any hapless editors as confused as I was by {{EngvarB}} redirecting here :), see the discussions I could find which seemed relevant to this redirect in the table below.[1]
After aaaalll that, what I gather is, {{Use Caribbean English}} and {{Use Belizean English}} should not redirect here, but ought to be their own templates, in which case the current Usage copy here really is fine, and I shouldn't have even posted here in the first place! Very sorry for the mix-up guys!
But for the record (eg non-BrE editors who previously used {{EngvarB}}):
template guidelines (WP:TG, WP:TFD#REASONS) do not require a template have many uses (contrary to my 31 Jul comment starting: "so really the case for redirecting these (and against creating templates) oughtta be ...")
some editors require merely that an English variant exist to keep a {{Use X English}} template (eg that it be in use, be an official language, etc)
some editors require additionally that the variant be standardised (have a dictionary, have dialectal aspects sourced to reliable sources, etc), or that its orthography be significantly distinct, or that its vocabulary be significantly distinct, or that its orthography or vocabulary "not be unfit for MOS:COMMONALITY", etc
In which case, at least some editors might want any new {{Use X English}} template to:
be for an English variant that actually exists
have a good X English article spelling out the formal orthography and vocabulary which is distinctive to the dialect, else have this content in the template documentation
have examples of distinctive vocabulary which do not fail MOS:COMMONALITY[2]
source all content to reliable sources (even in template namespace)[3]
nominated because they don't display edit notices (like their X English template counterparts); consensus seemed to be: "these are non-displaying maintenance templates for bots or scripts or categorisation"
nominated because there is no Commonwealth English (templates prescribed a set of rules on English use not backed by sources, despite English use varying across Commonwealth); consensus seemed to agree
editor noted the X English wiki articles of vars {{Use X English}} templates did not note substantive spelling differences from BrE, and so might be redundant to {{Use British English}}
nominated because Hiberno-English spelling is British-like and regionalisms fail MOS:COMMONALITY, so templates were redundant to British English counterparts; consensus seemed to be: "IrE might look like BrE but is distinguishable from it, eg by use of Irish loanwords"
nominated because Ugandan English spelling or regionalisms fail MOS:COMMONALITY; consensus seemed to be: "UgE may not be standardised but is nonetheless its own Eng variant"
nominated after vars EngvarB talk discussions and because dialect-specific tags existed and were better; consensus seemed to be: "MOS:TIES articles should use dialect-specific rather than non-specific tags, and EngvarB is not a good name, and bots should respect dialect-specific tags or not be used, and articles with MOS:TIES conflicts should follow MOS:RETAIN or create and use a spelling-specific (rather than dialect-specific) tag like {{Use Oxford spelling}}"
editor asked for guidance after TfD; consensus seemed to be: "update {{UBE}} doc to explain and emphasise that {{UBE}} is not exclusively for articles with MOS:TIES to the UK, but rather any article with certain words and spellings"
It shouold be made very clear that these templates have nothing to do with pronunciations; local or dialectic words are entirely outside of the scope and come under WP:COMMONALITY. Although there has been a proliferation of these templates, they are at the outset merely pointers to the spelling variants between the main varieties of English, of which there are 4: British, British Oxford, Canadian, American, and there has been no enlargement beyond these 4 varieties because none have been identified or are identifiable notwothstanding the arguments involved. I would refer you to User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB. -- Ohc revolution of our times03:51, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To editor Ohconfucius: thank you, I was planning to yeah! but interesting that you also read COMMONALITY sort of like Jonesey95 does, and unlike I do! Might post about this on MOS talk as maybe I'm really off base in my reading, will tag :) - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The assumption that there are only four varieties may be incorrect. If this guide is accurate, Australian English actually prefers the American spelling in some cases. -- Beland (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that's the best way to go about keeping or deleting these templates and deciding how to phrase the guidance. The discussions are much too academic, in my view.
If a template is to be retained, then examples must be given of at least one spelling or term that would be incorrectly changed by a bot or a user without a specific language template.
For example, a bot would correct the Australian Labor Party to Labour Party if using British English, and program to programme, etc. But for most other words, British English is used. Therefore, it does indeed need its own template.
It's not just enough to have loan words from another language because those terms should be using the lang-x template. It would need to be a specific English word that a bot or user might incorrectly attempt to correct. Dgp4004 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Arguably, "crore" is not a word in American or British English at all, and should be flagged as a misspelling outside of South Asian English dialects? -- Beland (talk) 07:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given that there is already a policy on the use of crore, there should be no need to reinvent the wheel here.
Perhaps what is really needed is to add guidance to these templates that they only concern English spelling variants and they do not override any of the MOS policies, for example, MOS:CRORE. Dgp4004 (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, though I don't think we need any more guidance. I'm just saying if the question is how many spelling flavors there are that need to be recognized by bots, this (and perhaps other examples) implies there is a distinct South Asian one, at least. -- Beland (talk) 07:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the bots are all programmed by users, and I don't know any that are set to correct the use of crore based on a language template. I've certainly never seen it happen, and a user would be incorrect to do so because of MOS:CRORE.
But when you say 'and perhaps other examples', that is exactly what I think we need to move past. If specific examples of different spellings in English cannot be specified then we should err on the side of delete. Dgp4004 (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be correct to change crore to the thousands system in an article about Nebraska with an American English tag. Other examples: channan, prepone. -- Beland (talk) 08:07, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's set in the MOS:CRORE policy. We shouldn't try to reinterpret or enforce the crore policy using English spelling templates. Dgp4004 (talk) 08:13, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If articles are correctly tagged, the spelling templates can help bots enforce the crore rules. Likewise, "prepone" is an error in an article tagged with American English, and probably means one or more tags are required for South Asian dialects where they are not an error. -- Beland (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Crore is discouraged in MOS:CRORE anyway. So it's not like a South Asian English template would be enforcing CRORE. Quite the opposite - it would always be discouraged. MOS just recognises that some users are going to use it anyway. And 'an article's variety of English does not uniquely determine its formatting of numbers...choice and order of formats and conversions is a matter of editorial discretion and consensus at the article.' So a bot can't go about changing units anyway.
Personally, I would support the below templates for certain:
American English
British English
Oxford spelling
Canadian English
Australian English
And the below may be necessary for other, not so good reasons:
Hiberno-English (no other version could be enforced on those pages)
South Asian English (purely to accommodate the crore figure, though I still oppose it myself)
I suspect that any others would be superfluous. Remember, somebody has to program these differences into a bot. If we create really obscure templates, nobody is going to create bots for them. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:14, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're forgetting about "channan" and "prepone".
We have both fully automated bots and semi-automated detection and editing scripts. For example, I often add conversion to metric units from US, and make other edits like changing metric fractions like "1+1⁄2 cm" to decimal fractions. My scripts don't do that on their own; they just help me find and quickly fix problems. I do take context into account; for example, there are different rules for science articles, and sometimes there are false positives. -- Beland (talk) 09:22, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand. Are there any pages in prepone you can share please? Are you suggesting creating a 'Use Prepone dialect' template?
Oh it's a word is it! I've never heard of 'prepone'. It's in the Oxford English dictionary though. It's an extremely obscure word to create an entire template for. Dgp4004 (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A rabbit hole re "prepone": Languages change, and it's not limited to South Asian English anymore. I found it in four articles that are tagged with "Use American English", used properly, and understandable in context. "Prepone" is used in at least 300 articles with the meaning "to move earlier in time; the opposite of 'postpone'". Most of those articles are about South Asian films and cricket competitions, but you can see the word spreading to articles about a couple of US topics and cricket topics outside of South Asia. I expect to see "prepone" adopted by other varieties of English, something that often happens when a new word or meaning is created for a concept that does not have a single-word expression in an existing language. This has happened recently in American English with words like "cringe" and less recently with "schadenfreude". – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Prepone is an Indian English word, it's the antomym of postpone. Logical really, when you consider the pre- and post- prefixes. Such as, "Due to the recent developments I have decided to prepone next week's meeting to tomorrow". So it appears to be a perfectly cromulent word. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local words are not banned, but they must be explained and are sometimes unavoidable. "Oireachtas" is the standard term in Irish English for what as an American I call the Irish Parliament. Some of our articles do concern the craic. We definitely use crore in South Asia articles sometimes, and MOS:CRORE explains how to handle the local South Asian numbering system for readers with other native dialects. This matters more for word choice and meaning than spelling. For example, when talking about the parts of Sydney, we do need to primarily call them "suburbs" and not "neighborhoods". -- Beland (talk) 07:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors may be interested in proposals to edit the Manual of Style which is spinning into the realms of fantasy. At present they're discussing whether there's any merit in allowing templates for the overseas territories like 'Use Saint Helena English'... It's insane.
