# Talk:English language

In Special:Diff/1287719185, because of the {{use British English}} template in the article's source and the {{British English}} templates in the edit notice and this talk page, I had intended to get the article to use British English.  However, my edit was reverted in Special:Diff/1287722404 possibly because of how @CAVincent understood my comment, when I had intended to make the changes listed in the British English templates for this article.  One of the changes made was changing to the British spelling of "percent", "per cent".  I am curious as to why the article's prose uses "percent" and not "per cent".  According to Wiktionary, per cent is Commonwealth English.  Commonwealth English includes British English as a variety, but not the other way around. Z. Patterson (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

This is actually an interesting question: Which national variety of the English language should Wikipedia's article on English language use? I'm strongly inclined to say that should be American English, for the reason that it is the most widely used variety. I can't see any good reason for this article to use British English, other than that it has had a tag for a long time. I would also argue that the article should have dates as MDY for the same reason. (That said, I hadn't been thinking of the British English tag when I made my revert, and I would be fine with reintroducing your changes pending a discussion to not use British English. I just tried self-reverting, but it failed due to subsequent changes.) CAVincent (talk) 13:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Firstly, does an article have to specify at all which English it should use? Secondly, if it does, I would prefer British, because of where the language originated, not where it is most widely used. Thirdly, just for fun, many British people used MDY, not so long ago (in my living memory, at least). But let's not have a storm in a teacup. Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:02, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
So would I.  I would think that British English would apply for these reasons. Z. Patterson (talk) 16:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Current British English is no more the original form than current American English; all of the major contemporary national varieties of English descend from Early Modern English. So, no, preferring British "because of where the language originated" is not a compelling argument. That said, MOS:Retain IS a compelling argument, though I haven't checked the article history to see what that would favor. CAVincent (talk) CAVincent (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
MOS:Retain explains why the existing variety should be retained - i.e. British English. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:17, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
Did we clearly indicate which form of the word I should use? Just double-checking so I don't gratuitously do America all over the article, it's percent right? Remsense 🌈 论 11:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
MOS:PERCENT says BrE indicates "per cent". So does American and British English spelling differences. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2025 (UTC)
Right, this was one of those cases I wasn't clear on, where a form might be accepted if not the most commonly used within a given English variety. Thanks! Remsense 🌈 论 14:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
As a compromise, I like to spell it per​cent with U+200B ZERO WIDTH SPACE, so that it breaks across lines. 😜 —Tamfang (talk) 05:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The map omits the United Arab Emirates as a country with English as an official language. 76.171.54.253 (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

That article says otherwise. —Tamfang (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

It has been a little bit since this article was last reviewed, so I took a look and noticed the following:

There are lots of uncited statements in the article, including entire paragraphs.
At over 14,000 words, some sections of this article have too much information, making the article WP:TOOBIG. Should some of this information be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed?
Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 18:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Right! I'm committing myself to this one. Anyone else? Remsense 🌈 论 18:02, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I've no expertise in language or grammar, but I am happy to look for some missing citations. I think we could go for GAR when some work has been done, as GAR is just added pressure at this stage. Tony Holkham (Talk) 18:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
@Tony Holkham: If editors are working on an article, I won't send it to GAR. Z1720 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
I'll definitely be starting work on it—this is one of the article I'd like to think I won't allow to be delisted. Remsense 🌈 论 18:39, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Oh, @Sdkb, I assume you're still interested in that spoken version also—though I know barnstars are a bit pricy these days.  That might be a good capstone for me to try once I get this article to where I want it. Remsense 🌈 论 21:07, 1 July 2025 (UTC)
Honestly, at this point I think the spoken articles project needs to do some soul-searching around whether AI voices have made it obsolete before I could recommend adding more articles to it. Sdkb talk 05:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Haha, I thought about that a few minutes after I sent this reply. Happy for those who benefit from it, but alas. Remsense 🌈 论 05:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)
Can I poll any editors with interest in the ongoing work as to where they think the article is at? There's still a few apparently uncited passages left—while I'm most interested what the perception is of the article's length and the proportionality of its coverage after the slimming down I've done. Remsense 🌈 论 07:16, 9 August 2025 (UTC)
@Z1720 could I ask for your brief reappraisal in specific? Remsense 🌈 论 22:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
@Remsense: Sorry for the late response. I added citation needed tags to the article. I think some sections can still be reduced: typically, I recommend that sections have 2-4 paragraphs. Sections that are longer should consider moving information to the daughter article and summarising the information more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the rule of thumb for section length, and the concrete boxes to further tick off here! Helps a ton. Also, thanks generally for the work you do in ensuring our GAC and FAC are live, operative criteria. Remsense 🌈 论 14:37, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect English language. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 27 § English language. until a consensus is reached.  ArthananWarcraft (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

@PuppyMonkey, please ask here first before making further edits to this article that change the meaning of prose cited to a reliable source. It is not clear you check what the cited source says or doesn't say when you make these kinds of edits, and that means you sometimes make errors when you're effectively citing either your own knowledge or possibly just another Wikipedia article (see WP:CIRCULAR) and adding claims the cited sources no longer verify.
Given your restatement in the edit summary, most recently you simply misunderstood what the passage about Latin script adoption said to begin with. I ask you in the strongest possible terms given how many of your edits are substantive changes to cited prose in our most important articles, that you make an effort to follow those sources when you do so. If you cannot access sources, you cannot decide they are wrong or decide you knew what they probably said instead. Remsense 🌈 论 20:50, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

I'll do my best, @Remsense. PuppyMonkey (talk) 21:43, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Non-native English reading by Spanish native speaker 001.ogg
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2025 (UTC)