![]() | A fact from 1794 Treason Trials appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 June 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Ced8213,
Jerlu41,
Cbabeshobo,
Aberrant mushroom.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
American spellings should not be used in an article such as this.
Whether the logic is flawed or not, the use of American spellings in this case does appear to be counter to Wikipedia's policy in that the article has strong ties to Britain.
seems to be the operative part of the sentence in this case, so the article as it stands would appear to be contrary to the rules.
Having said that, the spelling system employed should reflect the cultural sensitivities of the country to which the events described relate. Or to put it another way, if I were to write a Wikipedia article about colonial New York or the music of Chicago, I would not be surprised to see my spellings converted to the American standard in very short order, nor would I be inclined to complain about it.
As far as dialects are concerned, I am not sure whether you mean regional variations in vocabulary and grammar, or accent. Possibly you mean all of those things. I can tell you that regional accents are generally no longer considered to be class indicators in this country. You only need to listen to a BBC broadcast to hear announcers, interviewees and personalities speaking with every type of British regional accent and with accents from all over the world, including North America. But what these people have in common is the ability to speak in Standard English, the lingua franca of the Anglophone world. However, variations in vocabulary and grammar and an inability to converse in Standard English might be a basis on which to classify people as uneducated.
Wikipedia is a collaborative venture so you can expect that people will edit your work.
Wouldn't it be better to link directly from the lead to Radicalism (historical) (from some part of "the British radical movement of the 1790s" for example), rather than relegating it to a "See also". Doesn't the manual of Style suggest such sections should generally be avoided in favour of integrating the links into the article content? David Underdown 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, there were meetings in Copenhagen Fields in October and in November 1795. For John Gale Jones, I'd be interested to know of anything dating this print more accurately. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from 1794 Treason Trials appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 27 June 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Peer reviewers:
Ced8213,
Jerlu41,
Cbabeshobo,
Aberrant mushroom.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
American spellings should not be used in an article such as this.
Whether the logic is flawed or not, the use of American spellings in this case does appear to be counter to Wikipedia's policy in that the article has strong ties to Britain.
seems to be the operative part of the sentence in this case, so the article as it stands would appear to be contrary to the rules.
Having said that, the spelling system employed should reflect the cultural sensitivities of the country to which the events described relate. Or to put it another way, if I were to write a Wikipedia article about colonial New York or the music of Chicago, I would not be surprised to see my spellings converted to the American standard in very short order, nor would I be inclined to complain about it.
As far as dialects are concerned, I am not sure whether you mean regional variations in vocabulary and grammar, or accent. Possibly you mean all of those things. I can tell you that regional accents are generally no longer considered to be class indicators in this country. You only need to listen to a BBC broadcast to hear announcers, interviewees and personalities speaking with every type of British regional accent and with accents from all over the world, including North America. But what these people have in common is the ability to speak in Standard English, the lingua franca of the Anglophone world. However, variations in vocabulary and grammar and an inability to converse in Standard English might be a basis on which to classify people as uneducated.
Wikipedia is a collaborative venture so you can expect that people will edit your work.
Wouldn't it be better to link directly from the lead to Radicalism (historical) (from some part of "the British radical movement of the 1790s" for example), rather than relegating it to a "See also". Doesn't the manual of Style suggest such sections should generally be avoided in favour of integrating the links into the article content? David Underdown 15:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know, there were meetings in Copenhagen Fields in October and in November 1795. For John Gale Jones, I'd be interested to know of anything dating this print more accurately. Charles Matthews ( talk) 09:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)