Talk:Non-fiction

Title

 * I find this term astonishingly inadequate and weak. With all the brilliant folks who dedicate their working lives to this genre, its criticism and its perfection, isn't there a better term to define what we mean when we say 'non-fiction'?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevewaller (talk • contribs) 01:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * can anyone compare and contrast fiction and non-fiction? 23:55, 30 August 2004 User:205.188.116.7
 * why is this called non-fiction? Why not factual? Or Reality?
 * Should we call newspaper advertisments "non-editorial"? 17:53, 16 January 2006 User:DoomProof
 * can anyone tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction? 00:08 to 00:12, 17 September 2008 User:68.80.56.55
 * can anyone tell the correct definition of non-fiction? 00:23, 16 September 2008 User:72.131.89.31
 * Should this article mention the Bible? Edward 16:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep in find, complete lies are still non-fiction, if that is the format they present themselves in.  Hitler's propaganda was non-fiction, in that it was not a work of imagination.  Instead, it was untrue, but still had a non-fiction format.  The reason it was untrue was not because it was imagined, but instead it was because it was a product of misinformation, ignorance, and what is largely considered evil. Superm401 21:26, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "composed of facts, true or untrue" is something of a problem. A fact, by definition, is something that is true; if it is untrue, it is not a fact.  I'm going to change this to "an account or representation of a subject which is presented as fact.  This presentation may be accurate or not; that is, it can give either a true or a false account of the subject in question."  This should make it more clear that "nonfiction" is a format rather than something that is necessarily true.  JHCC (talk) 13:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC) what does mean like non fiction

"Non-fiction" vs. "Nonfiction"
I know I'm quibbling here, but don't you think that Nonfiction has made it's way into common language now, even though non-fiction was grammatically correct back then? I propose a move. --Anarkial 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree! --128.113.228.66 18:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, a re-direct and a text addition, 'or; Nonfiction'.Book M 10:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree about using "nonfiction" with a re-direct from "non-fiction"; the copyeditor's bible, the MW 11th edition dictionary, prefers "nonfiction." Nonanon 15:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Came here for this reason alone. I agree. ImpIn | {talk - contribs} 00:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This article should never have been renamed without a WP:RM. It appears to be a WP:ENGVAR issue, so should not have been renamed. If you wish to rename it you should file a move request. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 06:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Moving to "nonfiction" without hyphen
With all due respect to the discussion above (now 9+ years old), one finds this article in its current form has 26 instances of "nonfiction" compared to 8 instances of the hyphenated form (not counting the title itself, nor the Category name). Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster both treat the hyphenated form as the "alternative spelling" and the Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming. A bold move is in order. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 06:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The correct ngram sytanx is overwhemingly "non-fiction" for both American English 2019 and British English 2019 going back 500 years.
 * While 's syntax doesn't presently work (I believe that it did back in 2019), you are incorrect about the syntax, and his findings are essentially correct. I've explained this elsewhere (see Special:Diff/1134172987); I won't ping you again because I've already pinged there. —Alalch E. 10:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your possible correction. Never-the-less, not how it was taught in American schools 50 years ago. Recentism.

Picture
I thought the Chicken Soup for the Soul image was fine for this article... Instead of just removing it, you should've replaced it with a "better suited" one. These pages and images show on Facebook profiles too, you know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.24.219 (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The Puzzle as a Literary Genre
Full disclosure: I am the author of The Puzzle as a Literary Genre (niquette.com/books/sophmag/puz-lit.htm), which has received many thousands of visitors over the past three years. No surprise. A simple Internet search on "puzzle" turns up hundreds of millions of 'hits'. Nevertheless, the Talk Page for the Puzzle entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Puzzle) has shown no interest so far in this proposed new literary genre.

Permit me to call attention to a distinguished feature as described in the 2010 essay as follows: "Puzzles can be fiction but their solutions must be nonfiction!" It seems to me that an External Link would be appropriate in this article or some other. Of course, I shall be pleased to support research on this subject by literary experts. Paul Niquette (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitional inconsistency
The article begins by saying that non-fiction is a subdivision of prose, whose article defines the latter as having sentences and paragraphs. But then the present article goes on to include as non-fiction examples such things as cave art, blueprints, photographs, and diagrams. I think that if these non-prose examples are to be retained, the opening sentence should be broadened so as not to preclude these. 208.50.124.65 (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting wider attention
I felt article Islamic_literature is in bit of neglect so I added my note on talk page there, requesting to take note of Talk:Islamic_literature. If possible requesting copy edit support. Suggestions for suitable reference sources at Talk:Islamic_literature is also welcome.

Posting message here too for neutrality sake

Thanks and greetings

Bookku (talk) 07:50, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

An unintelligble sentence in the lead is now hidden
I have just put the last but one sentence in the lead into hidden text, as it does not make sense to me: "(for example,. Most literature is a form of nonfiction, providing information and analysis about works of fiction." - Of course, if somebody wants to improve its meaning, they are perfectly welcome to put it back in an intelligible way. Munfarid1 (talk) 14:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about the title of the article
What should the title of this article be? "Nonfiction" or "Non-fiction"? Οἶδα (talk) 07:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Comments
 * This is not an RfC matter. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was informed at WP:CFD that such a consensus was required. If not an RfC matter, what route should I seek? Because I am not looking to rename the page. I am trying to make a consensus for the opposite. Οἶδα (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Just as the title of an article is not an RfC matter, it's not a CfD matter either - and I have no idea why you think that it would be. WP:RFCNOT shows that for renaming pages (other than categories), you should see Moving a page or Requested moves. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I was told at CfD some time ago by admin that in order to rename any categories from "non-fiction" (of which there are hundreds) to "nonfiction" that a consensus would first be needed for this main article because the page was boldly moved from "Non-fiction" to "Nonfiction" without a consensus. And unless I am mistaken, the traditional avenues of moving pages does not fit because I am not looking to move the page. I am looking for a consensus on keeping this article at its current title, which I was told I needed. Οἶδα (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Οἶδα Please show us the diff for that statement from Fayenatic, as it's the reason for the discussion below which someone else has just claimed is unnecessary! Thanks. Pam  D  10:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * and I made this request at CfD in May 2021. Fayenatic replied, and then edited their reply with: "Oppose speedy as not uncontroversial. Even though the article move was back in 2019, it was done boldly without discussion. As there was consensus for the current name at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_3, a full discussion would be needed." Because of how convoluted and untraditional this type of "move" is, I resigned even approaching the subject at the time. Οἶδα (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * So as the "Speedy" was opposed (the eligibility for "Speedy" being opposed, rather than the proposal itself, I think), the discussion should have taken place at Categories for discussion. Why not try again there now? I don't read Fayenatic's opposal as saying there needed to be a full discussion of the title of this page, but a full discussion (as opposed to a speedy move) of the name of the category and its large number of subcategories.
 * The discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_3 is worth reading. Pam  D  21:36, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This move, if it worked through to all the subcategories, would involve thousands of articles, so its very magnitude makes it inappropriate for any sort of Speedy decision, to my mind - see Category:Non-fiction writers by century as just part of the tree of categories which would need to be changed for consistency if the top level category was changed. Would need wideranging discussion including WP:WikiProject Biography, WP:WikiProject Books, WP:WikiProject Literature, etc.  Pam  D  21:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh okay, yeah, what was suggested was just a regular CfD as opposed to speedy renaming. Certainly warranted. —Alalch E. 21:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the confusion, I misconstrued their words as suggesting the bold move was the primary issue and needed proper consensus at this talk page. Also, I am very conscious of the scope of this overdue task, which is why I believed an RfC was one appropriate avenue considering the attention it attracts. I will attempt a regular CfD. Οἶδα (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries! —Alalch E. 22:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The very first reply I receive at CfD completely sidesteps the topic of categories to instead take issue with this article title, dimissing the consensus described below and oversimplifying it as an Engvar issue. So I am at a loss for what path is to be taken here. Οἶδα (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, if the consensus is that we keep the categories at "non-fiction" then we will next need a RM to discuss moving this page back to its long-standing title. I'm not sure there has ever been a consensus supporting that move. Of those first two replies one says it is ENGVAR, one says it is not. Let's wait and see how the CfD developes. Might be sensible to alert relevant Wikiprojects.   Pam  D  09:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks for the response! Οἶδα (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There are only two possibilities here: Nonfiction and Non-fiction. Someone who believes that the title should be Non-fiction should propose the move as long as they believe there is a realistic chance of success. They would then open the discusion with arguments for why Non-fiction is a better title, which is the right way to conduct an RM. —Alalch E. 15:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 16 January 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Procedural close – not moved as this is a misuse of the Requested move process and, in addition to that, it is not consistent with Wikipedia policy. This Requested move discussion concerns a request not to move when the Requested move process exists to facilitate proposing moves, and it is therefore a misapplication of said process. This idea to use RM to provide formal confirmation to the present name is counter to policy; it was initiated based on a concern that there is no consensus behind the present name which resulted from a bold move in 2019. Our policy is as follows: ''Be bold in updating articles, especially for minor changes, fixing problems, and changes that you believe are unlikely to be controversial. Previous authors do not need to be consulted before making changes. Nobody owns articles, so if you see an improvement you can make, make it.'' This is further developed in WP:BOLD. Bold moves, like bold edits, are permissible in general. The issue of whether to use the more standard (without a hyphen) or the less standard spelling (with the hyphen) is a minor and noncontroversial and completely self evident naming issue (we don't need a discussion for what the preferred spelling is, we all have access to a dictionary); for a reason such as that, articles are routinely moved without discussing. Permitting and recommending bold actions means that they are considered contributive to the collaborative encyclopedia-building effort which is based on consensus. Wikipedia consensus usually occurs implicitly (WP:EDITCON), through uncontested bold actions. If bold actions did not contribute to forming a consensus it would mean that they are ineffectual in said collaborative effort and are discouraged. But they are encouraged, and they are effectual, and are consensus-creating, implicitly as explained. With the above in mind, there is consensus for the present title, evidenced in the fact that for years no one suggested moving the article back to the hyphenated name – or reverted the move without discussing. For this reason it is deeply against the Wikipedia philosophy to consider the 2019 move to the non-hyphenated title as non-viable regarding consensus formation, and to seek a purely "ceremonial" confirmation so as to arrive to a consensus, when one clearly exists. It is formalistically bureaucratic when Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It also risks a "no consensus" outcome which would create an false "formal truth" that there is not a consensus, but a "no consensus" formal outcome can happen just because there wasn't enough participation or people were confused about the process, and this discussion is very confusing. Undermining in this way a normal bold action is not consistent with policy. If someone wants the name to be changed, they can start a Requested move discussion with a proposal to move to a certain name, or an open-ended discussion with a proposal to move to some not-yet-determined name after consulting various options during the debate, but a "Requested move not to move" is not a possibility. This close can be challenged at Move review. I waive the requirement that the matter be discussed with me first. (non-admin closure) —Alalch E. 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC) —Alalch E. 19:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Nonfiction → ? – Firstly, this is not a traditional move request. I am hoping to reach a consensus to oppose moving this page from its current title. In the interest of overdue category renamings, a consensus is first needed on this article's title.

The page was boldly moved from "Non-fiction" in 2019 by User H ip L ibrarianship. Among the reasons cited above were that "Wiktionary and Merriam-Webster both treat the hyphenated form as the "alternative spelling" and the Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming". Google Trends also demonstates that "nonfiction" predominates. Site-specific Google searches further demonstate "nonfiction" to be the preferred format by preeminent English-language publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, TIME and literature-focused publications such as The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews. Major literary prizes in the genre further emphasize the unhyphenated predominance: Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, American Library Association's Award for Excellence in Nonfiction. The trend continues among major publishers such as Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Scholastic and booksellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble. Οἶδα (talk) 08:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Procedural close. No request to move being made so nothing to discuss. Bold actions which have not been and are not contested are subject to WP:EDITCON, and don't need a formal(istic) "convalidation ceremony". —Alalch E. 10:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E. The proposer of the move says that they were told by an admin, Fayenatic, to demonstrate consensus for the undiscussed page move from "Non-fiction" to "Nonfiction". This RM seems a reasonable way to do so.  Pam  D  10:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing the background, it's also evident from this talk page. Still, I would really like to see the diff where said admin suggested this. There's a strong possibility that the admin made a mistake. Consensus is consensus be it implicit or explicit. This consensus has lasted for years, and can be taken to be more firm than a fresh instance of explicit consensus. The mere fact that no one requested a move in the intervening period is evidence of consensus. If we questioned our decision making-process like this all the time, we would greatly undermine it's economy and sanity. It's also bureaucratic. —Alalch E. 11:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comments: Firstly, I think it would be helpful all round if this move request specified the alternative under consideration: no-one is suggesting "Non fiction", or "nonfictional literature", it's a discussion whether to use "Nonfiction" or "Non-fiction". Leaving it open just offers scope for confusion.
 * I haven't made my mind up on this, but here is some background info I've found which may save other people looking it up themselves:
 * Category:Non-fiction was created in 2006; a redirect from Category:Nonfiction was added in 2010.
 * The Oxford English Dictionary (full online edition) has an entry for "non-fiction" (as noun and adjective), to which you go if you search on "nonfiction", but doesn't explicitly mention "nonfiction" even as a variant - though of the five quotes illustrating the use as a noun, the more recent two (1951 and 1995) spell it without the hyphen, as "nonfiction".
 * We should aim for consistency across Wikipedia. I think I'm beginning to come down on the side of reverting this page to the hyphenated title, ie supporting the RM, but will mull it over further. Pam  D  10:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 1 February 2023

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. I'm convinced that this is an ENGVAR issue, and per policy, we go with the first variant of English used, which is British English. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Nonfiction → Non-fiction – Restore after a contentious WP:BOLD move by without discussion. This was contrary to previous Requested Moves:
 * 1) 2006-06-21 23:44:02
 * 2) 2010-04-05 06:19:19
 * 3) 2015-01-31 09:36:04


 * There were strong objections to the related Category:Non-fiction request for renaming at WP:CFD, made by the same editor who began the immediately above fake-RM topic (resulting in a procedural close).
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * from the CfD, as the others have recently posted here.
 * still active from the previous CfD.
 * Result no consensus at recent CfD to change from non-fiction to nonfiction.


 * Oppose per "*The correct formatted Ngram evidence comparing actual usage is overwhelming". Google Trends also demonstates that "nonfiction" predominates. Site-specific Google searches further demonstate "nonfiction" to be the preferred format by preeminent English-language publications such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The Wall Street Journal, The Atlantic, TIME and literature-focused publications such as The New Yorker, Publishers Weekly, Kirkus Reviews. Major literary prizes in the genre further emphasize the unhyphenated predominance: Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction, National Book Award for Nonfiction, National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction, American Library Association's Award for Excellence in Nonfiction. The trend continues among major publishers such as Penguin Random House, HarperCollins, Hachette, Macmillan, Scholastic and booksellers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble."


 * The current title is generally more common. The article uses "nonfiction". The bold move by Hiplibrarianship made in August 2019, and since uncontested, was completely justified and appropriate. The hyphenated version is favored in British English, but the non-hyphenated version is also frequently used (The Guardian exclusively uses it, for example, under their guidelines), while the hyphenated version is considered quite outdated in American English, and not used in mainstream publications anymore. About this article belonging to BE or AE so that WP:ENGVAR could possibly have some bearing -- it never belonged to either; it was created a long time ago when in both English language varieties both forms could be found (especially the hyphenated form in AE), and over time the content of the article solidified on the current form, and so did the title. No reason to move. —Alalch E. 19:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect.
 * Google ngram shows that for 500 years, "non-fiction" predominated, and continues to dominate everywhere in the world other than the US.
 * Google trends shows that "nonfiction" is primarily in the US (compare blue and red heat charts). Note this is for Google searches, and has a US sampling bias. Many searches are with iPhones that do not have a hyphen on their virtual (screen) keypads.
 * In the US, non-fiction was taught at least until the 1980s (personal knowledge).
 * Oxford English Dictionary is "non-fiction".
 * Collins is "non-fiction" and has plenty of Guardian examples up to 2016, and another in 2019.
 * Cambridge is also "non-fiction".
 * The article began as "non-fiction", and was moved a couple of years later to "nonfiction". Within days, folks copy and pasted the text back into "non-fiction". The history had to be merged. This is why MOS:RETAIN says: An article should not be edited or renamed simply to switch from one variety of English to another.
 * William Allen Simpson (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not really disputing points 1 (however I wouldn't quite say that non-fiction currently "dominates" in British English actual usage, too strong a word; I also don't know how you can say that it dominates elsewhere in the world), 3, 4, and 5, while I am agnostic about 2 regarding the iPhone hypothesis, and a bit skeptical. Yes, British dictionaries have it as non-fiction. I don't see how this informs a decision to move the article however. Overall, nonfiction is more used in English, and this is not an article for which it can be said that a specific variety needs to be retained. —Alalch E. 20:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Per my quoted rationale and further rationale by Alalch E. above. Οἶδα (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support. This is an ENGVAR issue: Ngrams shows that non-fiction is preferred in British English and nonfiction in American. Per MOS:RETAIN: When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety, which was the British title. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC) (updated from lean support to support on 04:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC))
 * I don't have access to old editions of dictionaries, but maybe someone can check if the editions of American dictionaries that AE users would refer to the most commonly (so, not necessarily always the newest editions) twenty years ago favored the hyphenated or the non-hyphenated form. If the latter is the case, or it's a mix, I really believe that it neutralizes ENGVAR because it would mean that originally it was not a page written in the British variety -- meaning -- it was neutral with regard to variety. Maybe it isn't correct to use today's prescriptions to interpret a situation from that long ago, when things are pretty fluid. —Alalch E. 23:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Doesn't ngrams answer exactly that question? The x-axis gives us historical usage, not just today's, and I don't see a change in American English over the last 20 years – it seems quite consistent. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC) William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per detailed rationales offered by Οἶδα and Alalch E. : the article title should conform to globally common usage. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 03:23, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Adding rationale: the Merriam-Webster entry no longer mentions the legacy (hyphenated) variant. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 00:15, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be American usage, would it? American usage and global usage are not the same things. I would also point out that the Oxford English Dictionary uses the hyphenated version and doesn't even mention the non-hyphenated version! -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support There is no good reason to change the title from the original article title, whose use is supported by its use in the category hierarchy, unchallenged, for many years. The undiscussed move should be reverted. Pam  D  08:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support, Revert,  In ictu oculi (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure where I fall on this (Olivaw-Daneel seems to make a good policy-based argument) but interestingly the Guardian's style guide recommends no hyphen (seems to be a trend across the style guide) though I can find examples of a hyphen being used on the website today. Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Likewise at the New York Times and Washington Post in the past year. I've found examples at the Washington Post where the headline reads "nonfiction" one day, then "non-fiction" the next. Real American writers use "non-fiction".
 * As a former National Merit Scholar, checked whether the standards had changed from the 1970s. The College Board uses both nonfiction and non-fiction in their many Advanced Placement guides. The National English Honor Society specifies: "Always hyphenate non-fiction. Capitalize “Fiction” when “Non” is capitalized or in a heading." Real American students who compete for scholarships use "non-fiction".
 * Seems like evidence for how this isn't an WP:ENGVAR issue meaning that there is no reason to move the article. The truth of the matter is: this article was never written—or titled—in British English. It did not belong to one or the other variety originally to be able to speak now how a particular variety needs to be preserved. —Alalch E. 17:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:RETAIN: When no English variety has been established and discussion does not resolve the issue, use the variety found in the first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety.
 * It isn't a variety of English, it's just a variant spelling. —Alalch E. 17:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Early in the recent CfD, I'd also thought it wasn't American versus British. It seemed to me that this is educated versus ignorant. But I've been convinced by evidence that this is Apple cell phone missing hyphen plus ignorant. This is an encyclopedia. We should encourage education, and not adopt forms that will prevent students from competitive scholarships.
 * For example, if the title is now changed to non-fiction under MOS:RETAIN because somehow we have "identified a variety" based on this single variant spelling present in both AE and BE publications, MOS:CONSISTENT would dictate that the sentence presently in the article: "Audience is important in any artistic or descriptive endeavor" be changed to "Audience is important in any artistic or descriptive endeavour ". Are you aware of this? —Alalch E. 17:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a problem.

William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The hyphenated version is most definitely preferred in British English. No reason for the move. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * British usage and global usage are not the same things. — H ip L ibrarianship talk 18:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * As the heat maps showed earlier in the discussion, this is actually American versus "the world". This is American versus Canadian. This is iPhone versus Android (Gboard has '-' and '_').

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment Note today's announcement of the new Women's Prize for Non-Fiction. With hyphen. Pam  D  14:39, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Compare:
 * Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction
 * National Book Award for Nonfiction
 * National Book Critics Circle Award for Nonfiction
 * YALSA Award for Excellence in Nonfiction
 * — H ip L ibrarianship talk 18:28, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This comparison only further underlines the British vs American divide, since every award you've listed is American while PamD's is British. (A few more British awards with "non-fiction" categories: British Book Award, Samuel Johnson Prize, British Fantasy Award, British SF Award). Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)