Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
I don't understand...the word "dialogue" in the comparison chart is exactly the same in each column...why is it being compared? Calgary ( talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"Chambers also indicates dialog is less used in North America." With all due respect, Chambers is very much out of date on this point (and I doubt it was particularly true at the time). - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that, on the Chinese Wikipedia, they have a tab that allows you to alternate between Simplified and Traditional Chinese, while keeping local vocabulary in mind. In the edit field, they have templates where, if an instance of word X appears, it will change to word Y when a local variety of Chinese is used. For example, both Hong Kong and Taiwan use Traditional Chinese, but they have different words for "bus". I don't see why we can't do something similar on here, letting people choose between UK and US English and all. Pandacomics ( talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone move Canada to the second-right position? It would all be easier to read, then. Tony (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Australian and New Zealand English have almost exactly the same words in the word comparison table. Should we combine them? This, that and the other [ talk 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a bit confused by the rewording.
I agree that the (former) Cabinet Office website recommends the Concise Oxford Dictionary be used. But is the quotation ("ise is in common use...") from the dictionary, or from the website? I cannot find it on the website, and my Concise OED (11th ed) does not have the bit about "obligatory in certain cases". In fact, the "ize" spellings always come first in the dictionary. 81.98.251.134 ( talk) 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
British English with Oxford Spelling (-ize)
Spellings: centre, programme, labour, defence, organization, recognize, but: analyse
Why does it read "but:" before the analyse? Dream Focus ( talk) 15:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
story – storey: a story is a tale; outside of North America, upper floors of buildings are spelt "storey".[3]
In Canada, you will find "storey" referring to the floors of a building. 76.66.195.159 ( talk) 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
In Br Eng this seems to be a case of different spellings for different meanings: "routing" is the verbal noun meaning "partying" or "snoring", whereas "routeing" is the verbal noun for allocating to a route, etc. This is a very hasty paraphrase from the OED, so to make things plainer finishing off with their direct quote: "Delineation of routes, etc...Routeing is the better form to distinguish it from ROUTING vbl. n. and ppl". -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 10:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, do you really need a citation for that? Have you EVER read any modern (read: from 1920 to the present) document from the US Government using the words "labour," "defence," or "programme"? I do not think they call it American English for nothing. Maybe, perhaps, slightly likely, the American Government uses it. I will remove the "citation needed" mark. It is preposterous and almost arrogant, if you ask me.
The element alumin(i)um was named by Sir Humphry Davy (an Englishman) in 1809 when he prepared an iron-aluminum alloy. Hans Christian Ørsted first isolated raw aluminum metal it in 1825. Davy named the element he first identified "aluminum" but the British, including its Commonwealth and other European countries changed and use "aluminium" to maintain consistency with other elements eg. americium, barium, strontium, cerium, niobium, nobelium, etc.
What a fuss Humphry Davy made by leaving out an "i"?
-- Euc ( talk) 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Both are current in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.116.131.228 ( talk) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that the Canadian Oxford dictionary prefers "yogourt" over other variants, but clearly it does not prevail. See the entry on yoghurt in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences
Using a quick google search including the term "Canada" and one of "yoghurt", "yoghourt", "yogurt", and "yogourt", while excluding the other 3 in each search, (e.g. search for: "canada yoghurt -yoghourt -yogurt -yogourt") garnered the following results:
Canada + yogurt - 721 000 results
Canada + yoghurt - 228 000 results
Canada + yogourt - 23 800 results
Canada + yoghourt - 10 600 results
Although not completely scientific, the huge difference between these numbers cannot be ignored. In fact, since the "yogourt" spelling is also used in French, it is probably even less relevant in Canadian English than indicated by the numbers. The agenda of the now defunct Canadian Oxford should not trump all.
210.116.131.228 (
talk)
03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was founded by an American, then why must we bicker about spelling issues? I therefore propose that all words are to be in American English. If this can't be done, then why don't we just make separate Wikipedias for each of the variations of English. If Wikipedia can support many other languages, then this seems like it would be a fair thing to do. Furthermore, if the rest of the editors wish to keep some articles as mirrors, then some bots must be created to copy and then "translate" the offending words automatically. (Because the preceding is quite radical, I wish to sign my post as anonymous.)
I am quite content to live with the differences. I propose some sort of internal note (or maybe subtle external template) that would indicate which spelling is accepted. I contribute to articles with various spellings and don't mind when someone corrects my spelling BUT would like to make sure which predominates first. I just noticed an editor "correcting" the spelling in an article to American. This was most likely done unconsciously, not realizing the rules. I was about to revert it, but couldn't find any markers that would suggest that it was supposed to be UK to start with. So maybe changed by UK editor earlier! Editors need to be able to "claim" an article for spelling and be reassured they won't encounter spelling wars later, and won't have to become spelling historians to see who really owns the article. BTW, this would only apply to new articles without discussion, otherwise, we will have wars! :)
And, wishing for the moon, wouldn't it be nice if my Mozilla would recognize this template and give me spelling corrections/redlines for that variant! :) Student7 ( talk) 14:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
um, I have often wondered WHY google isnt used to determine COMMON usage. this would be the spelling which the greater number of people would then be exposed to. In general, there is one spelling which is MUCH greater than the other. this would, by definition, serve the greater number of web users.
The only solution I personally see to this long lasting UK/US English debate is this - have automated software check for words that are spelt differently in each variant, and transparently replace them for a user as appropriate based on the following hierarchy (top to bottom): A setting in logged in user's preferences (if set), the English variant requested by a browser's Accept-Language header (if any), IP address based choosing of the correct English variant, then if all else fails default to British English :D *waves flag patriotically* whichever variant of English is most commonly used throughout the world. Would such a system be prohibitively difficult to implement?
Xmoogle (
talk)
16:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Although this may be discussed elsewhere in this namespace, the above question about using Google to determine usage frequencies is predicated upon Google being perfect in its pages found counts (it is not) and upon the Web as publishing pages reflecting the actual usage of words in English speech (it does not). (At the very least, WP editors should restrict search engine results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".) David Spector ( talk) 17:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
For a better and significantly less disruptive proposal, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#American or British spelling? Neither. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised not to see the above in the comparison charts either here on on the American/British spelling page. I know that - particularly for British users - it has long been a bone of contention with spelling checkers in software packages that the "British English" version permits the former (US) spelling.
Should it be included here? Crimperman ( talk) 13:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a preference for one spelling or the other in Wikipedia? I thought I read that there was not, i.e. use your native spelling. However, I have seen examples of American spellings being changed to British spellings in Wikipedia, including at least one of my contributions. Rsduhamel ( talk) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I was about to add * User:Angr/Unified English Spelling under "See also", but decided to mention it here. -- Wavelength ( talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone make a colour chart explaining what the colour differences in the main table mean? -- Phoenix ( talk) 03:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have begun editing an article in which a rather bizarre minority spelling appears. I've checked the usual printed sources, and that spelling is not preferred in Britain, not preferred in America, and not preferred in specialized technical publications on the subject of the article online or offline. Right now, the article cites TheFreeDictionary.com as a source for the etymology of the word and for the bizarre spelling, but that seems odd, as the free online Merriam-Webster dictionary would be a reliable source for (American) spelling that is every bit as convenient (and more authoritative about etymology). What online spelling resources are usually preferred for Wikipedians working on articles? (I used to be a professional editor and a translator, and I have a home office chock full of all the usual print dictionaries and other reference books used in editorial offices.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 15:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Suggest that we use Oxford spelling in all Wikipedia articles, except in writing quotes or discussing spelling differences, as UN and its organizations all use Oxford spelling in their English official documents.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 05:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Commentators thought there should be notice here of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Using_local_terms_for_local_phenomena.
Question: is this national varieties policy relevant to naming articles, such as whether the river should be at Ganges (international usage) or at Ganga (national usage)? I think I know the answer (and certainly my own preference), but it isn't made explicit anywhere, which results in arguments on interpreting policy. — kwami ( talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"judgement vs judgment: judgement is preferred in British English (except in the sense of a judge's decision, in which case judgment is preferred), judgment in American English"-- I'm pretty sure that the quoted claim is incorrect. In modern american english, judgement is standard.--Rich Peterson 24.7.28.186 ( talk) 19:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of the Canadian spellings are correct, but I've always been taught to spell organisation and sceptic as such. Can anyone else confirm this? Ajraddatz ( Talk) 02:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be some agreement for standarisation of the spelling of racket (or racquet)
At the moment, all of the pages describing sports played with rackets (e.g. tennis) read like an absolute shambles. I'd suggest using racket, because it reads more easily with its more phonetic spelling and is in more common use globally (strangely, British English speakers almost never use the old english racquet, it's only American English speakers who use both). I'm happy to go around and standardi(s)(z)e this, but I thought It'd be better to share the idea for one way vs the other with the community first, and have a discussion as to which way it should go. Veggieburgerfish ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Brit here, the correct spelling (when referring to tennis etc) is certainly 'racquet', 'racket' pertains to a loud noise, or shady business practices. Usual US-bias on here. Please remember whose language it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.36.29 ( talk) 12:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
How should diatrics be handled? For instance, in an article with a title containing diatrics, should the article be consistent and use diatrics in every mention of the subject?
Please add a {{ Talkback| Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling}} to my talk page when you respond. ··gracefool ☺ 16:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but very few people in the UK spell jail as 'gaol' anymore. Although occassionally seen, it's bordering on archaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.202.106 ( talk) 15:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I raised the question of how to handle archaic spellings at the WP:Teahouse, and from the conversation there
The WP:Spelling page currently reads:
I'd like to promote this to its own section and add the following:
Comments?
Garamond Lethe (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Problem: Retaining archaic spelling used in titles of references may be baffling to casual readers, but modernizing the spelling may make locating the reference more difficult.
Example: Thomas Ady's book Hocus Pocus Junior (1634) was printed as Hocvs Pocvs Ivnior.
Suggestion:
Comments? Garamond Lethe (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The article currently gives the American usage as: "theater (building), theatre (stage productions)". Says who? In my experience it is the exact reverse: the building or the theatrical company may (or may not) be spelled "theatre", [6] [7] [8] but productions and drama in general are almost always referred to as "theater". [9] [10] [11] Comments? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't an article it is part of the Wikpedia Manual of Style Guidelines, but...anyway--- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
None of your sources say anything (except the single book reference). Just let me present my sources, they are as striong or stronger than yours.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have referenced the information. However the spelling is actually not what either of us may have thought. First "Theater" is not the prefered American English variation. There is no proper prefered version. Both are used and considered pretty interchangable. So, while it can be said (and should be mentioned) that indeed "theater" is often used to denote a structure or building and "theatre" used to refer to the art form, it also isn't set or firm. In fact, it appears (and I will return to this later today to add the information and source it with RS) that even the so called "British" version is not or was not always spelled 're'. It appears that Shakespeare is credited with the first use of "theater" to refer to a building and used the er spelling. (lost the source. My browser freaked out several times duing this) So I have only removed the "prefered" wording from the tables but have not returned the "building for 'er' and artform for 're". I have placed all the content in the prose below the tables and fully referenced everything. I didn't use any of the refs from this page as I felt your challenge of each one was enough to make me find other, more firmly worded reliable sources. It also helped to cite and fix some content that was already there and remove a great deal that was original research as well as some reather wordy material that wasn't really needed and was really too specific to individual, named theatres as examples of both spellings.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 11:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Moved from RfC Moved back. I will not move or touch you replies. If you want them moved do so. Stop moving my comments. This has now become disruptive.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Should WP:SPELLING maintain that "theater" and "theatre" have different meanings in U.S. English? Should it refer to the "theater" spelling as "preferred," "predominant" or neither of these?
First editor removed the text "theater (building), theatre (stage productions)" from the U.S. column of a spelling chart after finding no support for the assertion that these terms have different meanings in three dictionaries or the page's existing sources.
Second editor replaced the content and provided sources, which the first editor criticized as weak. First editor removed the content, claiming that evidence against including it was stronger.
First and second editor are currently working out the exact text for the spelling chart and a short prose section which would have enough room for statements about how common each spelling is, etc. Both invite further comment. 02:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Text recommended by first editor:
*theatre – theater/Theatre [1] : In U.S. English, "theater" is the preferred spelling but "theatre" is also used. [2] The term "theater" can refer to a building in which plays are performed or in which films are shown (a theater) while "theatre" may be used to refer to the performance itself (theatre arts), [3] but this distinction is relatively rare and most dictionaries list both meanings for the same spelling. [4] [5] [6] [7] Major American newspapers such as The New York Times use theater in their sections, while many stage and film venues use theatre in the establishment's name. [8] The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that "theater" is used except in proper names. [1]
04:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Text recommended by second editor:
*theatre – theater/Theatre [9] : There is no true standard spelling, [10] although the "British" variation is frequently used. [11] The term 'theater' can refer to the structure (a theatre) while 'theatre' may be used to refer to the art (theatre arts). [12] [10]
"Many believe that the place, a theater building, should be spelled with an er while the art form should be re".
Thomas S. Hischak "Theatre as Human Action: An Introduction to Theatre Arts" (2005)
Some major American newspapers such as The New York Times's use theater in their sections, while some local New York venues use theatre in the establishment's name. [13] The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that "theater" is used except in proper names. [14]
references
|
---|
|
Please do not put comments not immediately relevant to the RfC in the RfC section. That is for new editors to make contributions and provide new insights. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 06:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"Words ending in -re in British spelling usually end with -er in American spelling. Theatre is often spelled the british way".
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
How's this?
"Theater" is more common in American English than "theatre" is.[] According to the Columbia Guide to Standard American English, "theatre" is reserved for proper names.[] However, according to Words about Words: Rest of the Title, some publications use the term "theater" to refer to a building in which plays are performed or in which films are shown (a theater) and "theatre" to refer to the performance itself (theatre arts).[] Most U.S. dictionaries list both spellings and both meanings.[][][][]
There we go. Source A says X, source B says Y, and dictionaries say Z. The distinction is mentioned in a way that shows its proportional use in American English without claiming that it is standard American English. Since every source that mentions the distinction adds a qualifying phrase (Words says "some publications," Show says "consensus among my colleagues ... disputed," and Hickney says "many believe") the article text should have qualifying phrase as well, preferably the exact same one used in the source. I've used Words here because its qualifying phrase, "some publications" will made the distinction seem more credible to the reader than other phrases used. I could also get behind "a consensus among many theater professionals." Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Take two. Since we can't agree about how to interpret what the sources say, let's just tell the readers what the sources say:
Sources differ on whether "theater" and "theatre" have different meanings in American English. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English states that "theatre" is only used for proper names in American English, but other sources, especially sources written by or for theater professionals, state that the meanings of the words can differ in specific contexts. For example, The Show Must Go On: A single-site case study on dignity in the workplace among academic theatre collaborators by Laura Jo Thudium Zieglowski, states "There is no standard for spelling this word, although there is a colloquial understanding among my colleagues in this art form that 'theater' refers to a space and 'theatre' refers to what happens in that space." Words on Words: Rest of the Title by John B. Brenner states "some publications prefer theatre in generic reference to the performing arts, as in 'the Broadway theatre' or 'American theatre' or 'love of the theatre,' but the more common form is theater." Most dictionaries list both spellings and both meanings.[][][][]
Darkfrog24 ( talk) 14:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It is important to remember why this guideline contains the section this debate is about... we are not trying to give a complete list of every single word that shifts meaning when spelling shifts. We are listing a few of them... as examples of the phenomenon, so the reader can better understand our guidance. So I would like to ask... Is the "theater/theatre" distinction really a good example? Does mentioning it really clarify our guidance? I don't think so... Yes, a few US sources do use the theater/theatre spellings to distinguish between the building and the art form. However, I question whether enough do so to make it a good example for this guideline. Good examples are those that are clear and unambiguous... that don't require a paragraph of text to explain. So I have to question whether this is really a helpful example of the phenomenon we are trying to explain (words where different spellings are given different meanings). So... I suggest we simply omit it. Not because it is correct or incorrect... but because it isn't really a good example. Blueboar ( talk) 13:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
How about having it not really matter, both be correct, and if it has one spelling leave it be. It shouldn't matter that much if an article uses American or British spelling... in my opinion, a war over the spelling would violate WP:NPOV. iTAC ཏལྐ་ ཝོརྐ་ 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
By policy and guidelines the original change that was challenged should stand.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it is clear that nobody understands what the issue is supposed to be here. Feel free to try again but please make sure you ask a specific question or clarify whatever point we aere supposed to absorb from this in language that can be understood. Thanks.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
|
---|
Different meaning of?? --- UK & Ireland: -25 January 2012. -Thousand Million years (almost obsolete/Chuquet) or Milliard years (Pelletier) - Thousand -illion, -illiard --- South Africa: Same as UK... --- New Zealand Same as UK... --- Australia(Australasia) Same as UK... --- Malaysia/Singapore/India/Hong Kong. Same as UK... (uses Y/M/D in Chinese) --- Canada Same as UK... but different --- United States/Philippines - January 25, 2012, 25 January 2012 (not too common in the Philippines only!!) - Billion years. --- Obsolete (with ligatures) UK & Ireland/South Africa/New Zealand/Australia(Australasia)/Malaysia/Singapore/India/Hong Kong/Canada: -Praemium (never used) -Parametre/Diametre (never used) -Oeconomy (never used) -Aeconomy (never used) -Aesophagus (never used) -Encyclopoedia (never used) -Primoeval (never used) -Programme (never used in computers in British spelling whatsoever) -Shoppe (very rare usage for British spelling) -Poediatrics (never used) -Aegypt (never used) -Oegypt (never used) -Diarrhaea (never used) -Artaefact or Artoefact (never used) -Hoemophilla (never used) -Poedophile/Poedophilia (never used) -Personne (never used in English) -Chambre (never used in English) -Faetus (never used) -Foeces (never used) -Medioeval (never used) -Proemium (never used) -Reverce (never used) -Pickaback (rare) -Licencing/Licencee/Kinema (almost never used) -Defencive/Offencive (never used) -Cissy (rare var. of Sissy) 182.18.209.5 ( talk) 20:56, 2013/1/26 (UTC) |
It might be useful to have one list of all differences between the English language variants, including vocabulary and orthography. It might usefully be in the Article namespace.
Here are examples of common differences that are currently omitted from this section:
Boot/Trunk (auto), Elevator/Lift, Petrol/Gasoline
I can't find a complete and reliable source for this on the Web, but it would be very useful. David Spector ( talk) 16:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to mention all variants in the intros of articles and then carry on using one consistent type of spelling or something? I don't think people feel too good about Wikipedia if it insists on not mentioning multiple spellings at least in article intros (for example in Child labour, or Organizational behavior)???? Hendrick 99 ( talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia have a guideline about "publically" for "publicly"? Background information is at
Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Misspelling of "publicly" (version of
16:01, 22 July 2013).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
16:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting extremely peeved about the use of the Macquarie Dictionary as the be all and end all of Australian spelling. Other countries, like France for instance, may have dedicated bodies ratifying the correct and incorrect spelling of their language on a yearly basis... Australia does not. Please see this article as an example of the fact that various media institutions, universities, government bodies have their own style manuals for writing articles and which may or may not use the Macquarie Dictionary, dependent on who or what they are.
There's just been a quibble over the spelling of jail/gaol in the MOS. It appears that, at some point, someone has misrepresented the Macquarie as being held in the same regard as The Oxford Dictionary for the UK, or the Merriam-Webster in the US. In tertiary institutions, the Macquarie is only recommended as the spelling guide for courses in journalism on the understanding that, on working for the media, journalists will adhere to the style guide for the institution they write for. Please feel free to check the Go8 site. With regards to the writing of an essay, MA, thesis or encyclopaedic article, The Australian Oxford Dictionary is favoured.
Therefore, while 'jail' may be used more often in the popular media, schools and government bodies still use 'gaol' as the correct form of the word. Appropriate versions of The Australian Oxford Dictionary are often listed as the primary resource for both primary and secondary schools. Ultimately, that means that either variant of the spelling of jail/gaol is acceptable in Australian English.
Considering that The Australian Oxford Dictionary is the dictionary of choice for tertiary level writing, why is the Macquarie being promoted as being THE MOS spelling standard for encyclopaedic entries in Australian English when it isn't the standard in Australia? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I find no English dictionaries that use diacritical marks in their spelling of "clientele", "hotelier" and "discotheque", yet a few editors insist on "clientèle", "hôtelier" and "discothèque", claiming that they are valid English words. They sure look like French words to me. Besides causing inconsistency, a downside of using the diacritical marks is that it defeats the use of a browser's "find" function to find, for example, "discotheque" within an article. Am I looking in the wrong English dictionaries? Chris the speller yack 16:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ or just look it up here-- Saruman-the-white ( talk) 00:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This site ( www
.oxforddictionaries .com) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). You’ll find the OED at www .oed .com. You’ll need a subscription to use the OED fully. You may be able to use theOED at home through your local public library ...
– "The Oxford English Dictionary - Oxford Dictionaries Online". Retrieved 6 November 2013.
Spelling | American English | British English |
---|---|---|
clientele | Yes | |
clientèle | No | |
hotelier | Yes | Yes (preferred) |
hôtelier | No | Yes |
discotheque | Yes (preferred) | Yes |
discothèque | Yes | Yes (preferred) |
http://www.thewire.com/business/2011/10/once-and-all-its-spelled-protester-not-protestor/43558/ states that all major news sources' style guides prefer the spelling 'protester'. I couldn't find a prior discussion here. I'd like to know if this should be corrected. — Brianhe ( talk) 17:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on a featured article candidate at the moment and have run into a couple of issues about American English usage, which I hope someone here might be able to advise on. Specifically:
Why is "alright" even listed as a Canadian spelling when the Canadian Oxfored listed it as nothing but a disputed spelling of "all right?" I don't think it should be in the table, let alone listed as the most common spelling. I don't have the American and Australian refs, but they shoudl be checked too. Meters ( talk) 04:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In the United States, "all right" is used more than "alright" (
"alright". Merriam-Webster. It [alright] is less frequent than all right but remains common especially in informal writing.
) The New York Time style is "all right" (Paul Krugman (October 19, 2009).
"All right? Not alright, if you ask me". The New York Times.) —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
08:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thirding. I don't see a real benefit to keeping an incorrect spelling at worst and an informal one at best.
Sock
(tock talk)
14:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd dispute 'all right' being the UK spelling, seems to be an anachronism to me. Standard use is 'alright' and has been since at least the 70s. 188.220.36.29 ( talk) 12:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The MoS has a section "Preferred variants" that says "most of the time one variant is preferred over the other". OK, I agree, and can usually tell when one variant is preferred over another. But what to do about it? Is it permissible to change a rarely used variant to the preferred variant? Why do we even have such a section in the MoS if does not provide any guidance? Chris the speller yack 00:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Can "cancelled" be added as part of American English? It accepts both spellings of cancelled. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised the list doesn't include Cheque/Check. Antoniomagni ( talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't we write this as two words (under way) normally, and with one word (underway) only when it is an adjective preceding its noun (like: "The underway trip was cancelled.")? Or what is the preferred style in Wikipedia? This page does not address this. (don't talk secrets) ( talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In the Battle_of_York entry, harbour has been changed to harbor. When not referring to a proper name, is there a Wiki rule of thumb? TIA Natty10000 | Natter 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I was a little surprised to find "encyclopedia" and "diarrhea" listed as accepted Australian spellings, and doubly surprised that the former is actually listed before "encyclopaedia"! Unfortunately I can't check the citation, as I don't have the online Macquarie or an up-to-date paper version. (For what little it's worth, my old budget Macquarie doesn't list either spelling, even as variants.) Can someone check it out?
And while I'm not interested in arguing the question from further up the page, about whether the Macquarie should be the referenced standard for Australian, if it turns out that they do endorse "encyclopedia" and "diarrhea", I might just become interested... (That's not a "how dare they change my beloved spelling" complaint, by the way. It's an "I seriously don't believe that that's a true description of accepted Australian usage" complaint.) -- Perey ( talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopedia is listed as the primary variant in the Macquarie and always has been (in the Oxford dictionary as well). Diarrhea, however, is most certainly not.-- Saruman-the-white ( talk) 01:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Should spelled (AmE) and spelt (BrE) be included here? Similarly dreamed/dreamt, although I expect that word's use would not be that common. Bazonka ( talk) 08:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is "grey" listed as a spelling used in the U.S.? I've always seen it spelled as "gray", and we were specifically taught that "gray" was the correct spelling in the U.S. I think if the "grey" spelling is used, it is an import or an affectation. – Corinne ( talk) 13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I need help, we are debating whether gage or gauge is more appropriate under a Canadian wiki page. The context is "To gage/gauge interest and help determine..." Hawkeye75 ( talk) 07:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we add fulfil (Br. Eng.)/fulfill (Amer. Eng.) and enrol/enroll to the English Spelling Comparison Chart? – Corinne ( talk) 22:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Could someone tell me the correct British English spelling corresponding to American English "emphasize"? Is it "emphasise" or "emphasize"? I don't recall seeing "emphasise" anywhere. – Corinne ( talk) 17:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think honor/honour should be added to the table, but I don't have easy access to all the relevant dictionaries to check its various regional uses. I know that "honor" is the standard US spelling and that "honour" is the standard UK/commonwealth spelling but what I'm less sure of is which if any regions should list the other spelling as an acceptable alternative. Any suggestions for how to proceed? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
1) This article explains that there are lots of spelling variants. But it says nothing about which are recommended. Does this mean that a Wikipedia editor can use any spelling that they prefer? I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia specify preferred spellings. Just that this article should be clearer on what's permissible, or recommended.
2) I would think that there should be some guideline for consistency within a single article. So:
(a) Is it really permissible to have both British and American spellings within the same article?
(b) Even if so, it seems odd to allow a single word to be spelled in different ways within the same article. For example, is it really permissible for an article to have both "color" and "colour" within the same article? Or "organization" and "organisation"? Omc ( talk) 01:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for the Wikipedia guideline on words that have two or more common spelling variants that are not regional. As far as I remember it said that Wikipedia should not prefer one over the other if both were common in the sources, but should reflect the sources by allowing editors to use both. Can anyone direct me to where that guideline is? Thanks. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 09:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The MOS currently only has "jail" as the accepted spelling in New Zealand, however, it is coloured as if it follows the British spelling which also allows "gaol". I have found a few references to "gaol" and "gaolers" on New Zealand government sites, so it seems they also use both spellings. Would someone please verify this and make the necessary correction? I.e. either change the colour of the cell to match the US, or add the word "gaol". Danielklein ( talk) 05:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The Australian Macquarie Dictionary preferres the termination -our in word like colour and behaviour but lists the termination -or as alternative. It lists -ise as the entry with -ize as alternative. Australian English, like American English, also preferres program in all cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:18e9:1501:7cb9:c5eb:c89b:dc8b ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Buried in this review is an interesting discussion on coloration vs. colouration. I propose that is added here, as a universal spelling variant rather than regionally determined, pending some sort of consensus and presuming I'm correct (which I am, [lurches forward] fight me if you say different). cygnis insignis 04:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Gaol, Milliard, Trilliard, Quadrilliard, Shoppe, Aenigma, Amour, Oeconomy would have been the spellings of this. 124.106.130.227 ( talk) 01:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I call bullshit on the assertion that "ageing" is an attested variant in American English. -- Khajidha ( talk) 17:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I made this edit, because that statement gave the impression that is is okay to use that spelling in BrE articles (an impression heavily contradicted by this discussion), but it was reverted and I was asked for a link to a consensus for it. I provided one, but it was again reverted on the basis that it is in common use. In a related discussion, consensus seems to be that it is no longer in common use. So, I need to ask: was my edit a good one? Adam9007 ( talk) 19:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Question about MOS:TIES. If I wrote an article about a bug endemic to Mexico, the US and Canada, could I write it in Commonwealth English? Probably better to contribute there than here. -- The Huhsz ( talk) 21:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Currently, MOS:TIES only applies to articles with strong ties to nations, but MOS:DATETIES allows dates to be written as per the customary format used in that context (e.g., DMY dates for articles on the US Military). My proposal is to allow the same thing for MOS:TIES where it makes sense. For example, ISO, the IEC, the UN, and the BIPM are all international organizations which publish in a designated English variety (Oxford spelling in these cases), so those WP articles and any others relating to those organizations should be allowed to be written in the customary variety as per MOS:TIES policy. This is already somewhat implicit policy given that the MOS:TIES text refers to the Institutions of the European Union article being written in a specific variety, but I'm proposing it be made explicit. Thoughts?
PS: Why in the world does MOS:TIES say that the Institutions of the European Union article should be written in Irish or Maltese English, especially when the EU uses British or Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy ( talk) 02:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:-IZE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3#Wikipedia:-IZE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 10:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#Archaic spelling reads as follows:
When archaic spelling is used in the title of a work, modernize the spelling in the text of the article but retain the original spelling in the references. For example, the text of an article might read "Thomas Ady attacked the Demonology of King James..." while the citation should read Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogie, Diuided into three Bookes. By James Rx, 1597....".
Should we reconsider this guideline? It seems to be at odds with general Wikipedia practice: Such works as Opticks, Poor Richard's Almanack, The Compleat Angler, A General History of the Pyrates, and even the MOS example of Daemonologie are usually referred to by their original titles rather than modernized. — Phleg1 ( talk) 16:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ship-owner § spelling. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The coloured table section is a neat, concise summary of some differences. I can't help but comment on the futility of the dichotomoy: British or American English, though. At one rank in the table, the supposed American colour is applied to New Zealand, yet in the same rank the US assumes the British colour. So why was that colour ascribed the US English title then?
A lot of dialect animosity between Commonwealth and US English is often fuelled by misinformation, like with -ize words and aluminum. -ize words are decently expounded upon in this article, but a word such as 'aluminum' is pragmatically a US word yet not technically, as it was invented by an Englishman on a Latin pattern. In fact, many of the apparent US words are immemorial Latin-influenced versions, whereas the apparent English words are modern French-influenced versions.
Not a lot of convolution is wanted on a Wikipedia page, I get that. But in my opinion the the titles for the colours in the aforementioned table are oversimple. It should be a First Alternative/Version (often Commonwealth English), a Second Alternative/Version (often US English and miscellaneous non-Commonwealth states), and the third colour for a confluence of the two. Wooblo ( talk) 07:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I've done a little update to some of the Australian words, as per the current usage per the Macquarie Dictionary. Can give refs if needed. SHB2000 ( talk) 07:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Would USA prefer agism over ageism? 114.108.202.223 ( talk) 03:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm quite befuddled by this page, which is where I ended up after searching for guidelines on use of regional spellings. I would expect an article at this location to cover guidelines and conventions for which spellings to use, rather then a mere reference to regional variants. I eventually discovered this is covered in part at WP:SPELL, but in detail at MOS:ENGVAR.
Maybe this is just a general issue with the organization of the MOS, but I don't see why the intro of this article wouldn't cover this subject in summary or at least a link to the MOS:ENGVAR coverage, which is necessary reading before making use of the reference content here. I think the included MOS \{\{style\}\} template further confuses this by listing these sub-pages but not making it clear that there is also a primary page which should be referenced first, nor listing its sections, which really should be treated with as much if not more due importance than the sub-pages. (This is not helped by the new stylesheet which hides the TOC by default whilst showing the \{\{style\}\} "TOC" even on the page in question.)
Only after bouncing around these various pages did I finally notice there is in fact an existing link to the relevant section in the disambig section at the top; but it is not the first such link of the several included (I'm not clear why MOS:LEADSENTENCE is linked at all?), and more importantly I don't think I am unrepresentative of the typical reader in noting that my eyes usually glaze right over this "fine print" section unless I find the article content is obviously unrelated to the topic I was expecting: so, I would persist in arguing this is insufficient.
I may open another discussion on the deficiencies of \{\{style\}\} template, but in any case I think it's prudent that this page direct editors to MOS:ENGVAR in the introductory text, not merely a disambiguation. Walkersam ( talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
It might be me being stupid, but I can't tell any difference between the spellings of jail (aside from British and South African which includes the less commonly used gaol). If I am seeing it correctly, then what is the point of that row?- FusionSub ( talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Manual of Style | ||||||||||
|
I don't understand...the word "dialogue" in the comparison chart is exactly the same in each column...why is it being compared? Calgary ( talk) 05:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
"Chambers also indicates dialog is less used in North America." With all due respect, Chambers is very much out of date on this point (and I doubt it was particularly true at the time). - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 00:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I know that, on the Chinese Wikipedia, they have a tab that allows you to alternate between Simplified and Traditional Chinese, while keeping local vocabulary in mind. In the edit field, they have templates where, if an instance of word X appears, it will change to word Y when a local variety of Chinese is used. For example, both Hong Kong and Taiwan use Traditional Chinese, but they have different words for "bus". I don't see why we can't do something similar on here, letting people choose between UK and US English and all. Pandacomics ( talk) 14:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone move Canada to the second-right position? It would all be easier to read, then. Tony (talk) 00:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Australian and New Zealand English have almost exactly the same words in the word comparison table. Should we combine them? This, that and the other [ talk 23:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I'm a bit confused by the rewording.
I agree that the (former) Cabinet Office website recommends the Concise Oxford Dictionary be used. But is the quotation ("ise is in common use...") from the dictionary, or from the website? I cannot find it on the website, and my Concise OED (11th ed) does not have the bit about "obligatory in certain cases". In fact, the "ize" spellings always come first in the dictionary. 81.98.251.134 ( talk) 16:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
British English with Oxford Spelling (-ize)
Spellings: centre, programme, labour, defence, organization, recognize, but: analyse
Why does it read "but:" before the analyse? Dream Focus ( talk) 15:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
story – storey: a story is a tale; outside of North America, upper floors of buildings are spelt "storey".[3]
In Canada, you will find "storey" referring to the floors of a building. 76.66.195.159 ( talk) 01:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
In Br Eng this seems to be a case of different spellings for different meanings: "routing" is the verbal noun meaning "partying" or "snoring", whereas "routeing" is the verbal noun for allocating to a route, etc. This is a very hasty paraphrase from the OED, so to make things plainer finishing off with their direct quote: "Delineation of routes, etc...Routeing is the better form to distinguish it from ROUTING vbl. n. and ppl". -- Old Moonraker ( talk) 10:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Seriously, do you really need a citation for that? Have you EVER read any modern (read: from 1920 to the present) document from the US Government using the words "labour," "defence," or "programme"? I do not think they call it American English for nothing. Maybe, perhaps, slightly likely, the American Government uses it. I will remove the "citation needed" mark. It is preposterous and almost arrogant, if you ask me.
The element alumin(i)um was named by Sir Humphry Davy (an Englishman) in 1809 when he prepared an iron-aluminum alloy. Hans Christian Ørsted first isolated raw aluminum metal it in 1825. Davy named the element he first identified "aluminum" but the British, including its Commonwealth and other European countries changed and use "aluminium" to maintain consistency with other elements eg. americium, barium, strontium, cerium, niobium, nobelium, etc.
What a fuss Humphry Davy made by leaving out an "i"?
-- Euc ( talk) 00:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Both are current in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.116.131.228 ( talk) 16:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I know that the Canadian Oxford dictionary prefers "yogourt" over other variants, but clearly it does not prevail. See the entry on yoghurt in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences
Using a quick google search including the term "Canada" and one of "yoghurt", "yoghourt", "yogurt", and "yogourt", while excluding the other 3 in each search, (e.g. search for: "canada yoghurt -yoghourt -yogurt -yogourt") garnered the following results:
Canada + yogurt - 721 000 results
Canada + yoghurt - 228 000 results
Canada + yogourt - 23 800 results
Canada + yoghourt - 10 600 results
Although not completely scientific, the huge difference between these numbers cannot be ignored. In fact, since the "yogourt" spelling is also used in French, it is probably even less relevant in Canadian English than indicated by the numbers. The agenda of the now defunct Canadian Oxford should not trump all.
210.116.131.228 (
talk)
03:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
If Wikipedia was founded by an American, then why must we bicker about spelling issues? I therefore propose that all words are to be in American English. If this can't be done, then why don't we just make separate Wikipedias for each of the variations of English. If Wikipedia can support many other languages, then this seems like it would be a fair thing to do. Furthermore, if the rest of the editors wish to keep some articles as mirrors, then some bots must be created to copy and then "translate" the offending words automatically. (Because the preceding is quite radical, I wish to sign my post as anonymous.)
I am quite content to live with the differences. I propose some sort of internal note (or maybe subtle external template) that would indicate which spelling is accepted. I contribute to articles with various spellings and don't mind when someone corrects my spelling BUT would like to make sure which predominates first. I just noticed an editor "correcting" the spelling in an article to American. This was most likely done unconsciously, not realizing the rules. I was about to revert it, but couldn't find any markers that would suggest that it was supposed to be UK to start with. So maybe changed by UK editor earlier! Editors need to be able to "claim" an article for spelling and be reassured they won't encounter spelling wars later, and won't have to become spelling historians to see who really owns the article. BTW, this would only apply to new articles without discussion, otherwise, we will have wars! :)
And, wishing for the moon, wouldn't it be nice if my Mozilla would recognize this template and give me spelling corrections/redlines for that variant! :) Student7 ( talk) 14:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
um, I have often wondered WHY google isnt used to determine COMMON usage. this would be the spelling which the greater number of people would then be exposed to. In general, there is one spelling which is MUCH greater than the other. this would, by definition, serve the greater number of web users.
The only solution I personally see to this long lasting UK/US English debate is this - have automated software check for words that are spelt differently in each variant, and transparently replace them for a user as appropriate based on the following hierarchy (top to bottom): A setting in logged in user's preferences (if set), the English variant requested by a browser's Accept-Language header (if any), IP address based choosing of the correct English variant, then if all else fails default to British English :D *waves flag patriotically* whichever variant of English is most commonly used throughout the world. Would such a system be prohibitively difficult to implement?
Xmoogle (
talk)
16:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Although this may be discussed elsewhere in this namespace, the above question about using Google to determine usage frequencies is predicated upon Google being perfect in its pages found counts (it is not) and upon the Web as publishing pages reflecting the actual usage of words in English speech (it does not). (At the very least, WP editors should restrict search engine results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".) David Spector ( talk) 17:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
For a better and significantly less disruptive proposal, please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#American or British spelling? Neither. Getsnoopy ( talk) 08:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I was surprised not to see the above in the comparison charts either here on on the American/British spelling page. I know that - particularly for British users - it has long been a bone of contention with spelling checkers in software packages that the "British English" version permits the former (US) spelling.
Should it be included here? Crimperman ( talk) 13:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there a preference for one spelling or the other in Wikipedia? I thought I read that there was not, i.e. use your native spelling. However, I have seen examples of American spellings being changed to British spellings in Wikipedia, including at least one of my contributions. Rsduhamel ( talk) 15:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I was about to add * User:Angr/Unified English Spelling under "See also", but decided to mention it here. -- Wavelength ( talk) 16:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 20:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
Can someone make a colour chart explaining what the colour differences in the main table mean? -- Phoenix ( talk) 03:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I have begun editing an article in which a rather bizarre minority spelling appears. I've checked the usual printed sources, and that spelling is not preferred in Britain, not preferred in America, and not preferred in specialized technical publications on the subject of the article online or offline. Right now, the article cites TheFreeDictionary.com as a source for the etymology of the word and for the bizarre spelling, but that seems odd, as the free online Merriam-Webster dictionary would be a reliable source for (American) spelling that is every bit as convenient (and more authoritative about etymology). What online spelling resources are usually preferred for Wikipedians working on articles? (I used to be a professional editor and a translator, and I have a home office chock full of all the usual print dictionaries and other reference books used in editorial offices.) -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk) 15:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Suggest that we use Oxford spelling in all Wikipedia articles, except in writing quotes or discussing spelling differences, as UN and its organizations all use Oxford spelling in their English official documents.-- RekishiEJ ( talk) 05:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Commentators thought there should be notice here of a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Using_local_terms_for_local_phenomena.
Question: is this national varieties policy relevant to naming articles, such as whether the river should be at Ganges (international usage) or at Ganga (national usage)? I think I know the answer (and certainly my own preference), but it isn't made explicit anywhere, which results in arguments on interpreting policy. — kwami ( talk) 16:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
"judgement vs judgment: judgement is preferred in British English (except in the sense of a judge's decision, in which case judgment is preferred), judgment in American English"-- I'm pretty sure that the quoted claim is incorrect. In modern american english, judgement is standard.--Rich Peterson 24.7.28.186 ( talk) 19:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Most of the Canadian spellings are correct, but I've always been taught to spell organisation and sceptic as such. Can anyone else confirm this? Ajraddatz ( Talk) 02:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
There needs to be some agreement for standarisation of the spelling of racket (or racquet)
At the moment, all of the pages describing sports played with rackets (e.g. tennis) read like an absolute shambles. I'd suggest using racket, because it reads more easily with its more phonetic spelling and is in more common use globally (strangely, British English speakers almost never use the old english racquet, it's only American English speakers who use both). I'm happy to go around and standardi(s)(z)e this, but I thought It'd be better to share the idea for one way vs the other with the community first, and have a discussion as to which way it should go. Veggieburgerfish ( talk) 16:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Brit here, the correct spelling (when referring to tennis etc) is certainly 'racquet', 'racket' pertains to a loud noise, or shady business practices. Usual US-bias on here. Please remember whose language it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.36.29 ( talk) 12:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Editors may be interested in this RFC, along with the discussion of its implementation:
Should all subsidiary pages of the Manual of Style be made subpages of WP:MOS?
It's big; and it promises huge improvements. Great if everyone can be involved. Noetica Tea? 00:49, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
How should diatrics be handled? For instance, in an article with a title containing diatrics, should the article be consistent and use diatrics in every mention of the subject?
Please add a {{ Talkback| Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling}} to my talk page when you respond. ··gracefool ☺ 16:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but very few people in the UK spell jail as 'gaol' anymore. Although occassionally seen, it's bordering on archaic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.202.106 ( talk) 15:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I raised the question of how to handle archaic spellings at the WP:Teahouse, and from the conversation there
The WP:Spelling page currently reads:
I'd like to promote this to its own section and add the following:
Comments?
Garamond Lethe (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Problem: Retaining archaic spelling used in titles of references may be baffling to casual readers, but modernizing the spelling may make locating the reference more difficult.
Example: Thomas Ady's book Hocus Pocus Junior (1634) was printed as Hocvs Pocvs Ivnior.
Suggestion:
Comments? Garamond Lethe (talk) 08:41, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/The Beatles on the issue of capitalising the definite article when mentioning that band's name in running prose. This long-standing dispute is the subject of an open mediation case and we are requesting your help with determining the current community consensus. Thank you for your time. For the mediators. ~ GabeMc ( talk| contribs) 21:39, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
The article currently gives the American usage as: "theater (building), theatre (stage productions)". Says who? In my experience it is the exact reverse: the building or the theatrical company may (or may not) be spelled "theatre", [6] [7] [8] but productions and drama in general are almost always referred to as "theater". [9] [10] [11] Comments? -- MelanieN ( talk) 20:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't an article it is part of the Wikpedia Manual of Style Guidelines, but...anyway--- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
None of your sources say anything (except the single book reference). Just let me present my sources, they are as striong or stronger than yours.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I have referenced the information. However the spelling is actually not what either of us may have thought. First "Theater" is not the prefered American English variation. There is no proper prefered version. Both are used and considered pretty interchangable. So, while it can be said (and should be mentioned) that indeed "theater" is often used to denote a structure or building and "theatre" used to refer to the art form, it also isn't set or firm. In fact, it appears (and I will return to this later today to add the information and source it with RS) that even the so called "British" version is not or was not always spelled 're'. It appears that Shakespeare is credited with the first use of "theater" to refer to a building and used the er spelling. (lost the source. My browser freaked out several times duing this) So I have only removed the "prefered" wording from the tables but have not returned the "building for 'er' and artform for 're". I have placed all the content in the prose below the tables and fully referenced everything. I didn't use any of the refs from this page as I felt your challenge of each one was enough to make me find other, more firmly worded reliable sources. It also helped to cite and fix some content that was already there and remove a great deal that was original research as well as some reather wordy material that wasn't really needed and was really too specific to individual, named theatres as examples of both spellings.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 11:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Moved from RfC Moved back. I will not move or touch you replies. If you want them moved do so. Stop moving my comments. This has now become disruptive.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 06:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Should WP:SPELLING maintain that "theater" and "theatre" have different meanings in U.S. English? Should it refer to the "theater" spelling as "preferred," "predominant" or neither of these?
First editor removed the text "theater (building), theatre (stage productions)" from the U.S. column of a spelling chart after finding no support for the assertion that these terms have different meanings in three dictionaries or the page's existing sources.
Second editor replaced the content and provided sources, which the first editor criticized as weak. First editor removed the content, claiming that evidence against including it was stronger.
First and second editor are currently working out the exact text for the spelling chart and a short prose section which would have enough room for statements about how common each spelling is, etc. Both invite further comment. 02:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Text recommended by first editor:
*theatre – theater/Theatre [1] : In U.S. English, "theater" is the preferred spelling but "theatre" is also used. [2] The term "theater" can refer to a building in which plays are performed or in which films are shown (a theater) while "theatre" may be used to refer to the performance itself (theatre arts), [3] but this distinction is relatively rare and most dictionaries list both meanings for the same spelling. [4] [5] [6] [7] Major American newspapers such as The New York Times use theater in their sections, while many stage and film venues use theatre in the establishment's name. [8] The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that "theater" is used except in proper names. [1]
04:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Text recommended by second editor:
*theatre – theater/Theatre [9] : There is no true standard spelling, [10] although the "British" variation is frequently used. [11] The term 'theater' can refer to the structure (a theatre) while 'theatre' may be used to refer to the art (theatre arts). [12] [10]
"Many believe that the place, a theater building, should be spelled with an er while the art form should be re".
Thomas S. Hischak "Theatre as Human Action: An Introduction to Theatre Arts" (2005)
Some major American newspapers such as The New York Times's use theater in their sections, while some local New York venues use theatre in the establishment's name. [13] The Columbia University Guide to Standard American English states that "theater" is used except in proper names. [14]
references
|
---|
|
Please do not put comments not immediately relevant to the RfC in the RfC section. That is for new editors to make contributions and provide new insights. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 06:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
"Words ending in -re in British spelling usually end with -er in American spelling. Theatre is often spelled the british way".
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: invalid character (
help)
How's this?
"Theater" is more common in American English than "theatre" is.[] According to the Columbia Guide to Standard American English, "theatre" is reserved for proper names.[] However, according to Words about Words: Rest of the Title, some publications use the term "theater" to refer to a building in which plays are performed or in which films are shown (a theater) and "theatre" to refer to the performance itself (theatre arts).[] Most U.S. dictionaries list both spellings and both meanings.[][][][]
There we go. Source A says X, source B says Y, and dictionaries say Z. The distinction is mentioned in a way that shows its proportional use in American English without claiming that it is standard American English. Since every source that mentions the distinction adds a qualifying phrase (Words says "some publications," Show says "consensus among my colleagues ... disputed," and Hickney says "many believe") the article text should have qualifying phrase as well, preferably the exact same one used in the source. I've used Words here because its qualifying phrase, "some publications" will made the distinction seem more credible to the reader than other phrases used. I could also get behind "a consensus among many theater professionals." Darkfrog24 ( talk) 19:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Take two. Since we can't agree about how to interpret what the sources say, let's just tell the readers what the sources say:
Sources differ on whether "theater" and "theatre" have different meanings in American English. The Columbia Guide to Standard American English states that "theatre" is only used for proper names in American English, but other sources, especially sources written by or for theater professionals, state that the meanings of the words can differ in specific contexts. For example, The Show Must Go On: A single-site case study on dignity in the workplace among academic theatre collaborators by Laura Jo Thudium Zieglowski, states "There is no standard for spelling this word, although there is a colloquial understanding among my colleagues in this art form that 'theater' refers to a space and 'theatre' refers to what happens in that space." Words on Words: Rest of the Title by John B. Brenner states "some publications prefer theatre in generic reference to the performing arts, as in 'the Broadway theatre' or 'American theatre' or 'love of the theatre,' but the more common form is theater." Most dictionaries list both spellings and both meanings.[][][][]
Darkfrog24 ( talk) 14:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
It is important to remember why this guideline contains the section this debate is about... we are not trying to give a complete list of every single word that shifts meaning when spelling shifts. We are listing a few of them... as examples of the phenomenon, so the reader can better understand our guidance. So I would like to ask... Is the "theater/theatre" distinction really a good example? Does mentioning it really clarify our guidance? I don't think so... Yes, a few US sources do use the theater/theatre spellings to distinguish between the building and the art form. However, I question whether enough do so to make it a good example for this guideline. Good examples are those that are clear and unambiguous... that don't require a paragraph of text to explain. So I have to question whether this is really a helpful example of the phenomenon we are trying to explain (words where different spellings are given different meanings). So... I suggest we simply omit it. Not because it is correct or incorrect... but because it isn't really a good example. Blueboar ( talk) 13:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
How about having it not really matter, both be correct, and if it has one spelling leave it be. It shouldn't matter that much if an article uses American or British spelling... in my opinion, a war over the spelling would violate WP:NPOV. iTAC ཏལྐ་ ཝོརྐ་ 21:25, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
By policy and guidelines the original change that was challenged should stand.-- Amadscientist ( talk) 03:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I think it is clear that nobody understands what the issue is supposed to be here. Feel free to try again but please make sure you ask a specific question or clarify whatever point we aere supposed to absorb from this in language that can be understood. Thanks.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
18:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
|
---|
Different meaning of?? --- UK & Ireland: -25 January 2012. -Thousand Million years (almost obsolete/Chuquet) or Milliard years (Pelletier) - Thousand -illion, -illiard --- South Africa: Same as UK... --- New Zealand Same as UK... --- Australia(Australasia) Same as UK... --- Malaysia/Singapore/India/Hong Kong. Same as UK... (uses Y/M/D in Chinese) --- Canada Same as UK... but different --- United States/Philippines - January 25, 2012, 25 January 2012 (not too common in the Philippines only!!) - Billion years. --- Obsolete (with ligatures) UK & Ireland/South Africa/New Zealand/Australia(Australasia)/Malaysia/Singapore/India/Hong Kong/Canada: -Praemium (never used) -Parametre/Diametre (never used) -Oeconomy (never used) -Aeconomy (never used) -Aesophagus (never used) -Encyclopoedia (never used) -Primoeval (never used) -Programme (never used in computers in British spelling whatsoever) -Shoppe (very rare usage for British spelling) -Poediatrics (never used) -Aegypt (never used) -Oegypt (never used) -Diarrhaea (never used) -Artaefact or Artoefact (never used) -Hoemophilla (never used) -Poedophile/Poedophilia (never used) -Personne (never used in English) -Chambre (never used in English) -Faetus (never used) -Foeces (never used) -Medioeval (never used) -Proemium (never used) -Reverce (never used) -Pickaback (rare) -Licencing/Licencee/Kinema (almost never used) -Defencive/Offencive (never used) -Cissy (rare var. of Sissy) 182.18.209.5 ( talk) 20:56, 2013/1/26 (UTC) |
It might be useful to have one list of all differences between the English language variants, including vocabulary and orthography. It might usefully be in the Article namespace.
Here are examples of common differences that are currently omitted from this section:
Boot/Trunk (auto), Elevator/Lift, Petrol/Gasoline
I can't find a complete and reliable source for this on the Web, but it would be very useful. David Spector ( talk) 16:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't it make more sense to mention all variants in the intros of articles and then carry on using one consistent type of spelling or something? I don't think people feel too good about Wikipedia if it insists on not mentioning multiple spellings at least in article intros (for example in Child labour, or Organizational behavior)???? Hendrick 99 ( talk) 18:58, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia have a guideline about "publically" for "publicly"? Background information is at
Wikipedia talk:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#Misspelling of "publicly" (version of
16:01, 22 July 2013).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
16:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting extremely peeved about the use of the Macquarie Dictionary as the be all and end all of Australian spelling. Other countries, like France for instance, may have dedicated bodies ratifying the correct and incorrect spelling of their language on a yearly basis... Australia does not. Please see this article as an example of the fact that various media institutions, universities, government bodies have their own style manuals for writing articles and which may or may not use the Macquarie Dictionary, dependent on who or what they are.
There's just been a quibble over the spelling of jail/gaol in the MOS. It appears that, at some point, someone has misrepresented the Macquarie as being held in the same regard as The Oxford Dictionary for the UK, or the Merriam-Webster in the US. In tertiary institutions, the Macquarie is only recommended as the spelling guide for courses in journalism on the understanding that, on working for the media, journalists will adhere to the style guide for the institution they write for. Please feel free to check the Go8 site. With regards to the writing of an essay, MA, thesis or encyclopaedic article, The Australian Oxford Dictionary is favoured.
Therefore, while 'jail' may be used more often in the popular media, schools and government bodies still use 'gaol' as the correct form of the word. Appropriate versions of The Australian Oxford Dictionary are often listed as the primary resource for both primary and secondary schools. Ultimately, that means that either variant of the spelling of jail/gaol is acceptable in Australian English.
Considering that The Australian Oxford Dictionary is the dictionary of choice for tertiary level writing, why is the Macquarie being promoted as being THE MOS spelling standard for encyclopaedic entries in Australian English when it isn't the standard in Australia? -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:28, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
I find no English dictionaries that use diacritical marks in their spelling of "clientele", "hotelier" and "discotheque", yet a few editors insist on "clientèle", "hôtelier" and "discothèque", claiming that they are valid English words. They sure look like French words to me. Besides causing inconsistency, a downside of using the diacritical marks is that it defeats the use of a browser's "find" function to find, for example, "discotheque" within an article. Am I looking in the wrong English dictionaries? Chris the speller yack 16:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/ or just look it up here-- Saruman-the-white ( talk) 00:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
This site ( www
.oxforddictionaries .com) is not the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). You’ll find the OED at www .oed .com. You’ll need a subscription to use the OED fully. You may be able to use theOED at home through your local public library ...
– "The Oxford English Dictionary - Oxford Dictionaries Online". Retrieved 6 November 2013.
Spelling | American English | British English |
---|---|---|
clientele | Yes | |
clientèle | No | |
hotelier | Yes | Yes (preferred) |
hôtelier | No | Yes |
discotheque | Yes (preferred) | Yes |
discothèque | Yes | Yes (preferred) |
http://www.thewire.com/business/2011/10/once-and-all-its-spelled-protester-not-protestor/43558/ states that all major news sources' style guides prefer the spelling 'protester'. I couldn't find a prior discussion here. I'd like to know if this should be corrected. — Brianhe ( talk) 17:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on a featured article candidate at the moment and have run into a couple of issues about American English usage, which I hope someone here might be able to advise on. Specifically:
Why is "alright" even listed as a Canadian spelling when the Canadian Oxfored listed it as nothing but a disputed spelling of "all right?" I don't think it should be in the table, let alone listed as the most common spelling. I don't have the American and Australian refs, but they shoudl be checked too. Meters ( talk) 04:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
In the United States, "all right" is used more than "alright" (
"alright". Merriam-Webster. It [alright] is less frequent than all right but remains common especially in informal writing.
) The New York Time style is "all right" (Paul Krugman (October 19, 2009).
"All right? Not alright, if you ask me". The New York Times.) —
Anomalocaris (
talk)
08:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thirding. I don't see a real benefit to keeping an incorrect spelling at worst and an informal one at best.
Sock
(tock talk)
14:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd dispute 'all right' being the UK spelling, seems to be an anachronism to me. Standard use is 'alright' and has been since at least the 70s. 188.220.36.29 ( talk) 12:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The MoS has a section "Preferred variants" that says "most of the time one variant is preferred over the other". OK, I agree, and can usually tell when one variant is preferred over another. But what to do about it? Is it permissible to change a rarely used variant to the preferred variant? Why do we even have such a section in the MoS if does not provide any guidance? Chris the speller yack 00:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Can "cancelled" be added as part of American English? It accepts both spellings of cancelled. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:33, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm surprised the list doesn't include Cheque/Check. Antoniomagni ( talk) 16:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Shouldn't we write this as two words (under way) normally, and with one word (underway) only when it is an adjective preceding its noun (like: "The underway trip was cancelled.")? Or what is the preferred style in Wikipedia? This page does not address this. (don't talk secrets) ( talk) 15:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
In the Battle_of_York entry, harbour has been changed to harbor. When not referring to a proper name, is there a Wiki rule of thumb? TIA Natty10000 | Natter 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I was a little surprised to find "encyclopedia" and "diarrhea" listed as accepted Australian spellings, and doubly surprised that the former is actually listed before "encyclopaedia"! Unfortunately I can't check the citation, as I don't have the online Macquarie or an up-to-date paper version. (For what little it's worth, my old budget Macquarie doesn't list either spelling, even as variants.) Can someone check it out?
And while I'm not interested in arguing the question from further up the page, about whether the Macquarie should be the referenced standard for Australian, if it turns out that they do endorse "encyclopedia" and "diarrhea", I might just become interested... (That's not a "how dare they change my beloved spelling" complaint, by the way. It's an "I seriously don't believe that that's a true description of accepted Australian usage" complaint.) -- Perey ( talk) 13:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Encyclopedia is listed as the primary variant in the Macquarie and always has been (in the Oxford dictionary as well). Diarrhea, however, is most certainly not.-- Saruman-the-white ( talk) 01:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Should spelled (AmE) and spelt (BrE) be included here? Similarly dreamed/dreamt, although I expect that word's use would not be that common. Bazonka ( talk) 08:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Why is "grey" listed as a spelling used in the U.S.? I've always seen it spelled as "gray", and we were specifically taught that "gray" was the correct spelling in the U.S. I think if the "grey" spelling is used, it is an import or an affectation. – Corinne ( talk) 13:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I need help, we are debating whether gage or gauge is more appropriate under a Canadian wiki page. The context is "To gage/gauge interest and help determine..." Hawkeye75 ( talk) 07:44, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we add fulfil (Br. Eng.)/fulfill (Amer. Eng.) and enrol/enroll to the English Spelling Comparison Chart? – Corinne ( talk) 22:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Could someone tell me the correct British English spelling corresponding to American English "emphasize"? Is it "emphasise" or "emphasize"? I don't recall seeing "emphasise" anywhere. – Corinne ( talk) 17:27, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
I think honor/honour should be added to the table, but I don't have easy access to all the relevant dictionaries to check its various regional uses. I know that "honor" is the standard US spelling and that "honour" is the standard UK/commonwealth spelling but what I'm less sure of is which if any regions should list the other spelling as an acceptable alternative. Any suggestions for how to proceed? — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
1) This article explains that there are lots of spelling variants. But it says nothing about which are recommended. Does this mean that a Wikipedia editor can use any spelling that they prefer? I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia specify preferred spellings. Just that this article should be clearer on what's permissible, or recommended.
2) I would think that there should be some guideline for consistency within a single article. So:
(a) Is it really permissible to have both British and American spellings within the same article?
(b) Even if so, it seems odd to allow a single word to be spelled in different ways within the same article. For example, is it really permissible for an article to have both "color" and "colour" within the same article? Or "organization" and "organisation"? Omc ( talk) 01:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm looking for the Wikipedia guideline on words that have two or more common spelling variants that are not regional. As far as I remember it said that Wikipedia should not prefer one over the other if both were common in the sources, but should reflect the sources by allowing editors to use both. Can anyone direct me to where that guideline is? Thanks. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 09:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The MOS currently only has "jail" as the accepted spelling in New Zealand, however, it is coloured as if it follows the British spelling which also allows "gaol". I have found a few references to "gaol" and "gaolers" on New Zealand government sites, so it seems they also use both spellings. Would someone please verify this and make the necessary correction? I.e. either change the colour of the cell to match the US, or add the word "gaol". Danielklein ( talk) 05:40, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
The Australian Macquarie Dictionary preferres the termination -our in word like colour and behaviour but lists the termination -or as alternative. It lists -ise as the entry with -ize as alternative. Australian English, like American English, also preferres program in all cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8004:18e9:1501:7cb9:c5eb:c89b:dc8b ( talk • contribs) 09:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Buried in this review is an interesting discussion on coloration vs. colouration. I propose that is added here, as a universal spelling variant rather than regionally determined, pending some sort of consensus and presuming I'm correct (which I am, [lurches forward] fight me if you say different). cygnis insignis 04:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Gaol, Milliard, Trilliard, Quadrilliard, Shoppe, Aenigma, Amour, Oeconomy would have been the spellings of this. 124.106.130.227 ( talk) 01:32, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I call bullshit on the assertion that "ageing" is an attested variant in American English. -- Khajidha ( talk) 17:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
I made this edit, because that statement gave the impression that is is okay to use that spelling in BrE articles (an impression heavily contradicted by this discussion), but it was reverted and I was asked for a link to a consensus for it. I provided one, but it was again reverted on the basis that it is in common use. In a related discussion, consensus seems to be that it is no longer in common use. So, I need to ask: was my edit a good one? Adam9007 ( talk) 19:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Interesting discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Question about MOS:TIES. If I wrote an article about a bug endemic to Mexico, the US and Canada, could I write it in Commonwealth English? Probably better to contribute there than here. -- The Huhsz ( talk) 21:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
Currently, MOS:TIES only applies to articles with strong ties to nations, but MOS:DATETIES allows dates to be written as per the customary format used in that context (e.g., DMY dates for articles on the US Military). My proposal is to allow the same thing for MOS:TIES where it makes sense. For example, ISO, the IEC, the UN, and the BIPM are all international organizations which publish in a designated English variety (Oxford spelling in these cases), so those WP articles and any others relating to those organizations should be allowed to be written in the customary variety as per MOS:TIES policy. This is already somewhat implicit policy given that the MOS:TIES text refers to the Institutions of the European Union article being written in a specific variety, but I'm proposing it be made explicit. Thoughts?
PS: Why in the world does MOS:TIES say that the Institutions of the European Union article should be written in Irish or Maltese English, especially when the EU uses British or Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy ( talk) 02:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:-IZE. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 3#Wikipedia:-IZE until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 10:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#Archaic spelling reads as follows:
When archaic spelling is used in the title of a work, modernize the spelling in the text of the article but retain the original spelling in the references. For example, the text of an article might read "Thomas Ady attacked the Demonology of King James..." while the citation should read Daemonologie, In Forme of a Dialogie, Diuided into three Bookes. By James Rx, 1597....".
Should we reconsider this guideline? It seems to be at odds with general Wikipedia practice: Such works as Opticks, Poor Richard's Almanack, The Compleat Angler, A General History of the Pyrates, and even the MOS example of Daemonologie are usually referred to by their original titles rather than modernized. — Phleg1 ( talk) 16:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Ship-owner § spelling. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 07:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The coloured table section is a neat, concise summary of some differences. I can't help but comment on the futility of the dichotomoy: British or American English, though. At one rank in the table, the supposed American colour is applied to New Zealand, yet in the same rank the US assumes the British colour. So why was that colour ascribed the US English title then?
A lot of dialect animosity between Commonwealth and US English is often fuelled by misinformation, like with -ize words and aluminum. -ize words are decently expounded upon in this article, but a word such as 'aluminum' is pragmatically a US word yet not technically, as it was invented by an Englishman on a Latin pattern. In fact, many of the apparent US words are immemorial Latin-influenced versions, whereas the apparent English words are modern French-influenced versions.
Not a lot of convolution is wanted on a Wikipedia page, I get that. But in my opinion the the titles for the colours in the aforementioned table are oversimple. It should be a First Alternative/Version (often Commonwealth English), a Second Alternative/Version (often US English and miscellaneous non-Commonwealth states), and the third colour for a confluence of the two. Wooblo ( talk) 07:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I've done a little update to some of the Australian words, as per the current usage per the Macquarie Dictionary. Can give refs if needed. SHB2000 ( talk) 07:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Would USA prefer agism over ageism? 114.108.202.223 ( talk) 03:33, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm quite befuddled by this page, which is where I ended up after searching for guidelines on use of regional spellings. I would expect an article at this location to cover guidelines and conventions for which spellings to use, rather then a mere reference to regional variants. I eventually discovered this is covered in part at WP:SPELL, but in detail at MOS:ENGVAR.
Maybe this is just a general issue with the organization of the MOS, but I don't see why the intro of this article wouldn't cover this subject in summary or at least a link to the MOS:ENGVAR coverage, which is necessary reading before making use of the reference content here. I think the included MOS \{\{style\}\} template further confuses this by listing these sub-pages but not making it clear that there is also a primary page which should be referenced first, nor listing its sections, which really should be treated with as much if not more due importance than the sub-pages. (This is not helped by the new stylesheet which hides the TOC by default whilst showing the \{\{style\}\} "TOC" even on the page in question.)
Only after bouncing around these various pages did I finally notice there is in fact an existing link to the relevant section in the disambig section at the top; but it is not the first such link of the several included (I'm not clear why MOS:LEADSENTENCE is linked at all?), and more importantly I don't think I am unrepresentative of the typical reader in noting that my eyes usually glaze right over this "fine print" section unless I find the article content is obviously unrelated to the topic I was expecting: so, I would persist in arguing this is insufficient.
I may open another discussion on the deficiencies of \{\{style\}\} template, but in any case I think it's prudent that this page direct editors to MOS:ENGVAR in the introductory text, not merely a disambiguation. Walkersam ( talk) 23:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
It might be me being stupid, but I can't tell any difference between the spellings of jail (aside from British and South African which includes the less commonly used gaol). If I am seeing it correctly, then what is the point of that row?- FusionSub ( talk) 14:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)