This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Ok, say you have an article, in this case called yoghurt. If you mention soyog(h)urt - how should you spell it? Does the guideline that consistency should prevail succumb to what is more popular? -- daniel folsom 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The only slight change of meaning might concern the status of the "original contributor", but I'm unsure that it has actually changed anything (the variety chosen by the original contributor is favoured in the early stages of an article; more generally, the variety that an article has predominantly evolved with is favoured—probably the same).
I've removed the sermon-giving tone, the opening negativity, and the fluff.
The new is at the top; the existing version is below it.
It is quite possible for someone to create a stub of an article that uses one version of English, that is changed when the article is changed from a stub into an article. Up to now it has been considered acceptable for the English to be changed to another version by the first major contributor that turns a {{ stub}} into an article. This was formulated to stop the preemptive creation of stubs to lay claim to an expanded article being in one specific English. As many see that as not in the spirit of this MOS section, and it can lead to disputes -- speedy deletion requests etc, etc. So it was, and I think should still be, emphasized that stubs should do not dictate the form of English to be used for the article. To give an example articles like " Gasoline" or " Petrol", " Tram" or " Streetcar" may be created as a stub so that when an article is created the national variety of English is already dictated. Up to now it is generally considered OK for a person who is creating a real article to move it to the name they prefer. So removing mention of a stub in this guideline has a profound effect on the creation of articles and the use of stubs. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly like using Lord of the Rings as an example of a subject that has "strong ties to a particular national region". Can we use a more cut and dry example, such as River Thames or London Underground? i.e. a subject that is obviously primarily of interest to people in a certain region? Kaldari 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Philip, I removed the Maltese and Hiberno English (or whatever it's called), because it was always kind of silly to include dialects; otherwise we'd have to start mentiong Estuary English, and Scots English, and of course there are different dialects of Scots too. There'd be no end to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This is to make clear that European institutions, treaties etc are conducted in British/Irish/Maltese English and such articles should be written in the language used by those institutions. The three are mentioned because they are all states in the European Union. I have no objections to removing Irish and Maltese, from the English used as they are all using the same formal English, (but I think that others would object to this). I would be equally happy using Commonwealth English in place of British English, but the example of European institutions should stay as it is just as valid as the other examples given. -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confused. This is nothing to do with Maltese English/British English differences, it has to do with the English used for articles on European Union institutions. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I an easy on whether Irish and Maltese or British is mentioned (any or all can be included) but the EU should be mentioned because as Joeldl writes "It is because of the special interest British/Irish/Maltese people have in [EU] institions they are under the jurisdiction of". All this has been said before in the archives ... -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Slim's removal of the EU example, and have re-removed it:
"* European Union institutions—(British, Irish and Maltese English)
These are guidelines not just examples in an essay. Please read the archives there are good reasons for including the EU because of the shared sovereignty and the close national interests tied up in this issue, further because of the shared sovereignty the EU is in the unique position of being an international institution that does to a limited extent have some sovereignty. It is precisely because we can not "expect[] that readers know all about the EU" that is should be included. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are only objecting to the three nations use of English. Then why delete the whole entry? Why not just delete two of them?
But to address your point, obviously the one to use [that] you describe is dictated by is the one used by the EU, as for example European Central Bank. So you are not objecting to the EU entry, only the use of the mention of three versions of English. Surly if there is a difference in the English used in an EU article then the differences between English, Irish and Maltese English can be sorted out on that specific page, although as the spelling and the the use of English is very similar that is not likely to be a problem. As you are objecting to the three I will reinstall it with only one version of English. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It was to address the point made by Tony "Does it, for example, suggest that in this list of EU institutions, every title should be rendered in all three varieties" that the one to use in this case is dictated by the one used by the EU. (I agree what I wrote above is not clear -- children were distracting me)
I could not give an example of a difference between written Maltese Irish and British English, but I will not dismiss Maltese English as any less valid than the English used by other English speaking populations. However in this case there might be a way to drop Irish English and Maltese English, as both Maltese and now Irish are both official languages of the EU, it can I believe be argued that the English used is British English within the EU (See European Commission Directorate-General for Translation "For reasons of stylistic consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its instructions and advice is that spoken and written in the British Isles."). But if there are any differences in the written English used by the Irish or Maltese their use of English is just as valid as British English in Wikipedia articles about EU institutions and treaties.
So to sum up, I think the EU should be remain in the list and not be deleted. I think that only British English needs to be mentioned, but I will not object if others think that all three states that use English within the EU should be included. -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Are exact addresses unencyclopedic, that strike me as a bit Yellow Pagey/Travel Guidey. Seems coordinates would have the most meaning for a reader, only someone in the location would find the address (and probably the street name for that matter) useful. Is there a general consensus about this? Is there a guideline you can point me to? I don't usually include exact addresses myself. IvoShandor 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes overlinking? It's a little annoying to read an article with tons of blue links, also should common cities like New York City and London even be linked? I doubt there's anyone out there who speaks English and has never heard of New York City, particularly if they're using a computer. Marcus Taylor 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 75 | ← | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | Archive 82 | → | Archive 85 |
Ok, say you have an article, in this case called yoghurt. If you mention soyog(h)urt - how should you spell it? Does the guideline that consistency should prevail succumb to what is more popular? -- daniel folsom 22:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The only slight change of meaning might concern the status of the "original contributor", but I'm unsure that it has actually changed anything (the variety chosen by the original contributor is favoured in the early stages of an article; more generally, the variety that an article has predominantly evolved with is favoured—probably the same).
I've removed the sermon-giving tone, the opening negativity, and the fluff.
The new is at the top; the existing version is below it.
It is quite possible for someone to create a stub of an article that uses one version of English, that is changed when the article is changed from a stub into an article. Up to now it has been considered acceptable for the English to be changed to another version by the first major contributor that turns a {{ stub}} into an article. This was formulated to stop the preemptive creation of stubs to lay claim to an expanded article being in one specific English. As many see that as not in the spirit of this MOS section, and it can lead to disputes -- speedy deletion requests etc, etc. So it was, and I think should still be, emphasized that stubs should do not dictate the form of English to be used for the article. To give an example articles like " Gasoline" or " Petrol", " Tram" or " Streetcar" may be created as a stub so that when an article is created the national variety of English is already dictated. Up to now it is generally considered OK for a person who is creating a real article to move it to the name they prefer. So removing mention of a stub in this guideline has a profound effect on the creation of articles and the use of stubs. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't particularly like using Lord of the Rings as an example of a subject that has "strong ties to a particular national region". Can we use a more cut and dry example, such as River Thames or London Underground? i.e. a subject that is obviously primarily of interest to people in a certain region? Kaldari 18:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Philip, I removed the Maltese and Hiberno English (or whatever it's called), because it was always kind of silly to include dialects; otherwise we'd have to start mentiong Estuary English, and Scots English, and of course there are different dialects of Scots too. There'd be no end to it. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
This is to make clear that European institutions, treaties etc are conducted in British/Irish/Maltese English and such articles should be written in the language used by those institutions. The three are mentioned because they are all states in the European Union. I have no objections to removing Irish and Maltese, from the English used as they are all using the same formal English, (but I think that others would object to this). I would be equally happy using Commonwealth English in place of British English, but the example of European institutions should stay as it is just as valid as the other examples given. -- Philip Baird Shearer 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I think you are confused. This is nothing to do with Maltese English/British English differences, it has to do with the English used for articles on European Union institutions. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I an easy on whether Irish and Maltese or British is mentioned (any or all can be included) but the EU should be mentioned because as Joeldl writes "It is because of the special interest British/Irish/Maltese people have in [EU] institions they are under the jurisdiction of". All this has been said before in the archives ... -- Philip Baird Shearer 10:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Slim's removal of the EU example, and have re-removed it:
"* European Union institutions—(British, Irish and Maltese English)
These are guidelines not just examples in an essay. Please read the archives there are good reasons for including the EU because of the shared sovereignty and the close national interests tied up in this issue, further because of the shared sovereignty the EU is in the unique position of being an international institution that does to a limited extent have some sovereignty. It is precisely because we can not "expect[] that readers know all about the EU" that is should be included. -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If you are only objecting to the three nations use of English. Then why delete the whole entry? Why not just delete two of them?
But to address your point, obviously the one to use [that] you describe is dictated by is the one used by the EU, as for example European Central Bank. So you are not objecting to the EU entry, only the use of the mention of three versions of English. Surly if there is a difference in the English used in an EU article then the differences between English, Irish and Maltese English can be sorted out on that specific page, although as the spelling and the the use of English is very similar that is not likely to be a problem. As you are objecting to the three I will reinstall it with only one version of English. -- Philip Baird Shearer 19:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
It was to address the point made by Tony "Does it, for example, suggest that in this list of EU institutions, every title should be rendered in all three varieties" that the one to use in this case is dictated by the one used by the EU. (I agree what I wrote above is not clear -- children were distracting me)
I could not give an example of a difference between written Maltese Irish and British English, but I will not dismiss Maltese English as any less valid than the English used by other English speaking populations. However in this case there might be a way to drop Irish English and Maltese English, as both Maltese and now Irish are both official languages of the EU, it can I believe be argued that the English used is British English within the EU (See European Commission Directorate-General for Translation "For reasons of stylistic consistency, the variety of English on which this Guide bases its instructions and advice is that spoken and written in the British Isles."). But if there are any differences in the written English used by the Irish or Maltese their use of English is just as valid as British English in Wikipedia articles about EU institutions and treaties.
So to sum up, I think the EU should be remain in the list and not be deleted. I think that only British English needs to be mentioned, but I will not object if others think that all three states that use English within the EU should be included. -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Are exact addresses unencyclopedic, that strike me as a bit Yellow Pagey/Travel Guidey. Seems coordinates would have the most meaning for a reader, only someone in the location would find the address (and probably the street name for that matter) useful. Is there a general consensus about this? Is there a guideline you can point me to? I don't usually include exact addresses myself. IvoShandor 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
What constitutes overlinking? It's a little annoying to read an article with tons of blue links, also should common cities like New York City and London even be linked? I doubt there's anyone out there who speaks English and has never heard of New York City, particularly if they're using a computer. Marcus Taylor 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)