Talk:While

message: The article currently claims that "whilst" is no longer considered acceptable in formal English in the UK and cites style guides from the aforementioned newspapers as evidence.  A style guide is not a valid reference for such issues.  For instance, the style guides of these newspapers are written more to the purpose of consistency than grammar and so the disallowance of "whilst" is only meant to ensure their journalists do not use inconsistent wording in their articles.
In fact, the two words are completely interchangeable and it is irrelevant which of the two one chooses to use (at least in the United Kingdom).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoso Jade (talk • contribs) 22:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to a certain extent. Many publications spell through as thru and night as nite to save on space, but that doesn't make it the standard spelling.  Whilst is not commonly used in the U.S. (but it is used), so that's why American style guides might discourage it. General style guides should be used more than newspaper style guides in my opinion. Kman543210 (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the subtitle (link corrected, btw). The article takes a condescending tone toward those who would use whilst. Quite the opposite to the tone of the article, it's pretentious in the extreme to set yourself up as a grammar expert and then dictate how others should speak; especially considering its prevalence in the UK. Sheesh. Who invented English anyway? ;-) --Rfsmit (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whereas I personally think the purpose of pointing out internationally preferred forms is to eschew those forms adopted by one country alone as the standard from predominating Wikipedia and thereby making its content more inaccessible and purporting to speak to a minority audience.  If the UK is the only country to use "whilst," "while" should probably be preferred.  We can't all cater to a dominating orthography using a Cockney dialect, for example, just because a lot of working class Londoners may want to make edits.  Just an example.  Shiggity (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Utter nonsense interpretation of [[The Times]] and [[The Guardian]] style guides 

message: The difference between "while" and "whilst" is:
*A. "While" is for English since 1650, "whilst" is before 1650.
*B. "While" is American, "whilst" is Canadian
*C. None of the above
66.32.118.139 23:31, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the above! —JackLumber /tɔk/ 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't believe A is an acceptable answer, since at least one source (Michael Quinion's World Wide Words) claims that while is actually the older form, not whilst.  World Wide Words: While versus whilst 204.17.26.4 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

text: I vote A. The use of whilst is pretentious and archaic. If there really was a difference between the two words then each would have their own article. Instead, when you type whilst into the wiki search bar you are directed here because whilst is the archaic form of while. If there really was a difference between the words then there should be a separate article for that word. There isn't a separate article because its the same meaning, just one is modern and the other is archaic. // Mark Renier (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Proof by appeal to wikipedia, is that a documented logical falacy?  Oh, it doesn't have a WP page.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.89.96 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All of Wikipedia is user moderated, and based upon consensus, which up to this point has been that Whilst and While are synonymous enough to NOT warrant distinct articles. If you feel that they are distinct enough to have separate articles you are welcome to make that distinction.  Your fellow wiki contributors will weigh in and consensus will develop. It is not a proof but a process of building consensus. A case of a "logical falacy" (sic) has to be brought against one of the elements of that process. Don't be silly, anonymous, be a contributor. // Mark Renier (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Choice 

message: 'While' and 'whilst' can both denote the passage of time, but 'while' can also have the meaning 'although', or 'but', while 'whilst' cannot. (Semi-self-referential?)  Better still would be to avoid both when you mean 'although' or 'but'. Too Old (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  My idiolect 

message: The above-mentioned section seems very tautological. The first para is basically repeated in the second one.
I also disagree strongly that whilst is rare. Number of google hits is a pretty poor measure of this. Whilst might be less common than while, but it is not "rare or archaic".
Suggest just deleting both of the first two sentences of the second paragraph.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by JominyDave (talk • contribs) 20:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "While and whilst" section 

message: It always struck me as something distinctively Leeds in origin (I lived in Bradford for ten years and only ever heard people from the city next door use it). As for citations, does the Sisters of Mercy song "Nine While Nine" count as evidence? 77.97.189.110 (talk) 11:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I get what you mean, though I only have vague recollections of northern friends occasionally using it this way (wait here while X arrives, etc). Might be worth a mention. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Appen. Basic Broad Yorkshire by Arnold Kellet, , indexes p. 142: “while until”--Rfsmit (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of "while" to mean "until" 

message: This entire discussion/arguement is highly indicative of the linguistic tension between U.S.A and G.B. As ever cultural imperialism will win out eventually, us Brits had our chance!
As Homer Simpson said '"Pffft, English. Who needs that? I'm never going to England."Norwikian (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems Americans find whilst pretentious and British people just use it as everyday language interchangeably with while. 79.215.165.198 (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretentious? It's a perfectly cromulent word. They need to get over their reverse-snobbism. 193.63.174.10 (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: The English/American conflict

message: Landed here whilst ;) reading up on this, not sure which one to use for transcribing someone else's slightly muffled recording and deciding to use the objectively "right" word. For some reason, with a British cultural and educational upbringing, "whilst" seems the right one ("whil{e/st} the transformation is taking place") - it seems to "fit" the sentence better, in the same way that other words with multiple end forms do (e.g. "a" vs "an"), suggesting there's some rather deep and multiply-reinforced but nonspecific imprint of it been made on my mind somehow.
This would kind of fit in with what I saw from one of my other sources - on the first google search results page for "while whilst", but unfortunately a forum thread and therefore but a hop and a skip away from OR... can't remember if they cited THEIR sources... anyway, this other linguistical person's view was that "while" could be used both in the coincidental and the contrasting sense (the thing that leads to the confusion in the example sentence about playing and working), while "whilst" makes the clause an exclusively coincidental one. IE by using it, we emphasise that one child is working at the same time as another plays, rather than the alternate sense that, in general, one works BUT the other plays. This may explain why I initially "felt" it to be the correct choice for that sentence, too.
Any of our well-reviewed sources back this up? Unfortunately I have landed on google, wikipedia and the like because it's a lot easier than the walk across campus to go and find a dictionary that may help ;)   (it would however be a british one... I can only find american-standard ones online). 193.63.174.10 (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  a different angle 

message: Someone deleted this page, which has been stable for over seven years.  Such a deletion warrants a consensus via poll.  The information covered here is not in Wiktionary.  At the very least, the page should be migrated to a While vs. Whilst page if the consensus is that that information predominates the section. Shiggity (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no encyclopedic knowledge here, it's all about the term, when the term 'should' and shouldn't be used, it's pure dictionary land. Encyclopedic knowledge starts where terminology stops. - BigBodBad (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replaced page after deletion 

message: Not all English dialects have replaced thee and thou with you. In Yorkshire and Lancashire, for example, one can often still hear 'thee' and 'tha' used as singular second person pronouns. I think the clause talking about them should be removed from the While vs. Whilst section. Bazzalisk (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thee and Thou 

message: The websites worldwidewords.com and articlebase.com do not constitute reliable sources. The former, though an interesting read, is a hobbyist's blog, and despite claims otherwise does not appear to be a professional linguist, even were that so, an academic book of his should be cited rather than a self-published source.
The second is a mirror site of some kind and does not provide basic information such as the author's name, date or place of publication. Furthermore, the final paragraph in defense of which they are cited repeats the already over the top characterisation of "whilst" as outmoded. The vehemence against a simple word is almost funny, but nevertheless encyclopedic. It could be called an attack. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources & anti-whilst snobbery 

message: Seriously, this is the worst article I've seen in a long time, it needs a clean up. This looks like an attempt to destroy/homogenise culture by telling people that the way they talk is pretentious or archaic with a handful of tacky footnotes that don't apply to most of the planet. I'm from Australia and have used the word "whilst" since before I can remember and I'm a complete bogan. I still use the word when it seems appropriate and my beer swilling mates never bat an eye lid. My son uses it too, do you think a 5 year old is trying to sound pretentious when they use the words they hear around them?
There are some just plain stupid/offensive remarks in this article alluding to the idea that only people in the UK consider the word unpretentious, and even then only just. Also, the "both sides of the Atlantic" comment makes it seem like the author of this article only acknowledges the existence of the English language in North America and UK.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.105.16 (talk) 16:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So dig up an Australian style guide and add to the article. Everything appears to be referenced. I know of no American who would use the word "whilst" unless they were being ironic or think it makes them sound smart. To American ears, it's stuck up and pretentious sounding. It's a dead giveaway that the person is not an American English speaker. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 04:08, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

text: WP:SOFIXIT my Aussie friend. By the way, I do know that Americans occasionally use "whilst" in written communication, but almost never when speaking. If style guides say it's archaic, a Wikipedia article can't claim otherwise. If you find sources that disagree, the article would certainly benefit by describing alternative viewpoints, as long as they are reliably sourced. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up time 

message: I just edited Evolution of reptiles, saying that a certain sort of definition "includes birds while excluding mammals". I have surely used "while" in an acceptable way, though what follows is a participial phrase. The article should include an example of such use. Peter Brown (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "While" need not introduce a clause 

message: Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted.
Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia.
This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link.
If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting.
If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page.
If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta.
When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags.
The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true.
Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
*http://www.articlesbase.com/languages-articles/english-usage-whilst-or-while-795377.html
*:Triggered by \barticles(?:base|vana)\.com\b on the global blacklist
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 15:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page 

message: The word is not pretentious in Canadian English.  I had a penpal in British Columbia who used it frequently in her letters.
I also remember it being used in official travel guides from the Province of Ontario.Dyscard (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pretentious? 

message: Why does amongst redirects here though nothing is said about amongst in the article except that "Some publications on both sides of the Atlantic disapprove of whilst in their style guides (along with "amidst" and "amongst")" ?
81.67.30.80 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection from Amongst 

message: I've noticed in the past year or so more use of "whilst" in blogs and things, which seems odd.  Has anyone else this?  I did a search on Google ngrams and trends, but didn't come up with anything conclusive.  I can't find anything that might be a histogram across *all* webpages, not just searches.  (I presume Google *could* do that, as they scrape the entire public web) Has anyone else noticed this? Jimw338 (talk) 17:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It has ups and downs. Over a year or so timeframe you're likely to see ebbs and flows, like tides. I actually see it trending the other way, in which mainstream publications on both sides of the pond actively avoid it (see the style guides listed) while personal blogs and such seem to use it as often as they use other words (such as slang) that mainstream writing avoids. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "Whilst" getting more "popular"? (ca. 2019-2020) 

message: The redirect Amongst 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  until a consensus is reached.  Ollieisanerd (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Amongst]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]