![]() | This page 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. |
Many articles have to deal with the issue of differing spelling in different parts of the world. I've noticed that some users are getting rid of the AmE and BrE notations and putting in a single link to American and British English differences instead. I object to this because it actually creates more confusion. A reader not totally familiar with either dialect (a child or a nonnative English speaker) would have to read the gigantic "differences" article to find out which term is used by which dialect, when it is simpler to just indicate that information in parentheticals in an article lead. For example, Curb (road) in its current version has no indicator that kerb is British and curb is American. I know which is which because I'm American, but a French or Spanish teenager learning English in secondary school might not. The point is, we need to have a consistent policy on this. Either the "differences" article has to get a lot shorter, which is probably not going to happen because so much of its content is true and essential, or we should simply show dialect origins in the lead paragraph (or paragraphs) as necessary.-- Coolcaesar 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: The problem is, with the link, we force users to read the entire article just to find what they are looking for, when they could have simply obtained the desired information in two seconds from a parenthetical notation. Yes, some browsers have a "Find" feature, but I've noticed from watching less experienced computer users that they are usually unaware of the Find feature, and it would clog up the "differences" article to put directions on how to use that feature in the lead paragraph. Plus it varies significantly from browser to browser, with Explorer using a modal dialog box while Firefox uses a toolbar. And Find doesn't work really well for blind or disabled users.
As a lawyer, I'm trained to read long, dense documents full of text that makes the eyes glaze over, and even I have difficulty sorting through the mess in the dialect differences article! -- Coolcaesar 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
1. In many cases, saying which dialect uses which spelling is not so simple (e.g. yogurt).
2. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
3. Appropriate articles deal with spelling differences, so why fragment the info across articles?
4. Spelling regional indicators would uselessly clutter up the article with irrelevant information that would just sidetrack the reader. Basically everyone who looks up curb or kerb doesn't give a damn about spelling.
5. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, doesn't have anything like that.
6. Nonnative English speakers? Following the spelling differences link, learners of English (even children, FTM) would just strike it rich---that page is a GOLD MINE for them.
7. The "spelling differences" links save space.
8. Just clicking on the "what links here" button on the spelling difference page you will ultimately find all the articles whose names feature spelling variations.
9. Is there really anyone who is unaware of the "Find" feature? Come on, even Notepad has it.
JackLumber. 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
← There are many good reasons why I believe that a more neutral description of spelling differences in the opening of WP articles should become part of our Manual of Style. Jack Lumber has named a lot of them, and I would like to add three (well, give numbers to points made elsewhere in one form or another in this discussion), and expand on one of his:
1. In many cases, saying which dialect uses which spelling is not so simple (e.g. yogurt). It's not just many cases, largely because of the delightfully flexible spelling habits of Canadians. It's not often that a spelling choice can be described as U.S. vs. "rest of native English-speaking world" (and saying just "rest of world" makes the problem even more complicated, of course.
10. There has, in fact, already been a natural tendency to adopt this method of referencing spelling differences. So there has been a natural Wikipedia community move in this direction anyway. Go to [1] and start looking up the words listed there in Wikipedia. (But I've made a few of the changes to the way the differences are described, so discount those.)
11. The "Link" method is ultimately more instructive.
12. The "Link" method is, or at least appears to be, less normative. By this I mean: the "humor or humour" version of the description (or "also spelled" version -- not quite as good in my view, see below) of spelling differences means that the description doesn't take on any hint of the form "Normal / non-normal." This will perhaps help our community -- if only in some small way -- become less divided. More importantly, the larger, non-native-English speaking world will be less inclined to feel forced into a choice of "Normal or British English" or (depending) "Normal or American English." I believe in letting spelling "be free." Kinda goofy, perhaps, but I think it's a Good. Giving the impression -- which, ultimately, is entirely accurate, notwithstanding odd changes occasioned by the use of word processers -- that spelling is not cast in stone seems like a good idea. It might even get WP orthographic imperialists and orthographic obsessives (I'm one of the latter, to be sure) to reconsider their positions. Who knows!
My preference is the way the Color page currently is set up:
Color or colour (see spelling differences)
But I'd be perfectly happy with a footnote.
The "also spelled" version I could live with, but many people will (incorrectly, true, but that doesn't matter) think of the "also spelled" variant as less normal or normative. The main point, though is number 1 above. The existing, "... in American English"/"... in Commonwealth English" descriptions of the spelling differences are simply false in almost all cases. We should all be able to agree that that's a problem. -- Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-11 10:37 (UTC)
So, how about the following change to the MoS:
[....]
Color or colour (see spelling differences) is a property of light that is determined by its ...
'''Color''' or '''colour''' (see [[spelling differences]]) is a property of light that is determined by its ...
[....]
We could make it "list both spellings (or all, where there are three or more)..." but that might be unnecessarily complicated. As for ize/ise differences, that might not be worth saying anything about, until confusion/debate arises about it.
-- Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-11 19:19 (UTC) P.S. I'm using :* to make the last two indented bullets because I don't know how to prevent a new line from turning an indented bullet into two bullets, but someone else surely knows how to do this!
-- Coolcaesar 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The question of what's helpful to Wikipedia users is an important one to keep in mind, but we can't let it force us to provide inaccurate information. Specifically, catering Wikipedia to the badly formulated questions of users shouldn't be our goal. "Which is the American spelling, 'color' or 'colour'?" If one had to pick one of the two spellings, and give the "correct" answer to the "incorrect" question, the choice would of course be "color." But "color" is also one of the Canadian spellings (and is a Shakespearean spelling, and a Latin spelling, etc., etc.). The fact that such niceties are minor to most roadjocks is irrelevant.
As for ways to prevent orthographic edit wars, I don't see how noting anything about geographic or national distribution of different spellings will change anything. People who change spellings against guidelines do so either maliciously, or cluelessly. In both cases, the way we frame the different ways of spelling a word in the article's title won't make a difference.
As for the Find feature: we could include a link to the relevant section in the "... Differences ..." article. The article would need some rewriting, but I'd be happy to contribute to that effort. I suspect many others would, as well. -- Cultural Freedom 2006-07-23 08:42 (UTC)
P.S. What we'd type to direct the user to the -or/-our section of the Spelling Differences page would be:
'''Color''' or '''colour''' (see [[Spelling_differences#-our_.2F_-or]]) is a property of light that is determined by its ...
But, of course, it's easy enough for users just to click on the appropriate entry in the table of contents of the Spelling Differences article.
-- Cultural Freedom 2006-07-25 22:24 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Many articles have to deal with the issue of differing spelling in different parts of the world. I've noticed that some users are getting rid of the AmE and BrE notations and putting in a single link to American and British English differences instead. I object to this because it actually creates more confusion. A reader not totally familiar with either dialect (a child or a nonnative English speaker) would have to read the gigantic "differences" article to find out which term is used by which dialect, when it is simpler to just indicate that information in parentheticals in an article lead. For example, Curb (road) in its current version has no indicator that kerb is British and curb is American. I know which is which because I'm American, but a French or Spanish teenager learning English in secondary school might not. The point is, we need to have a consistent policy on this. Either the "differences" article has to get a lot shorter, which is probably not going to happen because so much of its content is true and essential, or we should simply show dialect origins in the lead paragraph (or paragraphs) as necessary.-- Coolcaesar 17:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: The problem is, with the link, we force users to read the entire article just to find what they are looking for, when they could have simply obtained the desired information in two seconds from a parenthetical notation. Yes, some browsers have a "Find" feature, but I've noticed from watching less experienced computer users that they are usually unaware of the Find feature, and it would clog up the "differences" article to put directions on how to use that feature in the lead paragraph. Plus it varies significantly from browser to browser, with Explorer using a modal dialog box while Firefox uses a toolbar. And Find doesn't work really well for blind or disabled users.
As a lawyer, I'm trained to read long, dense documents full of text that makes the eyes glaze over, and even I have difficulty sorting through the mess in the dialect differences article! -- Coolcaesar 17:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
1. In many cases, saying which dialect uses which spelling is not so simple (e.g. yogurt).
2. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
3. Appropriate articles deal with spelling differences, so why fragment the info across articles?
4. Spelling regional indicators would uselessly clutter up the article with irrelevant information that would just sidetrack the reader. Basically everyone who looks up curb or kerb doesn't give a damn about spelling.
5. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, doesn't have anything like that.
6. Nonnative English speakers? Following the spelling differences link, learners of English (even children, FTM) would just strike it rich---that page is a GOLD MINE for them.
7. The "spelling differences" links save space.
8. Just clicking on the "what links here" button on the spelling difference page you will ultimately find all the articles whose names feature spelling variations.
9. Is there really anyone who is unaware of the "Find" feature? Come on, even Notepad has it.
JackLumber. 19:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
← There are many good reasons why I believe that a more neutral description of spelling differences in the opening of WP articles should become part of our Manual of Style. Jack Lumber has named a lot of them, and I would like to add three (well, give numbers to points made elsewhere in one form or another in this discussion), and expand on one of his:
1. In many cases, saying which dialect uses which spelling is not so simple (e.g. yogurt). It's not just many cases, largely because of the delightfully flexible spelling habits of Canadians. It's not often that a spelling choice can be described as U.S. vs. "rest of native English-speaking world" (and saying just "rest of world" makes the problem even more complicated, of course.
10. There has, in fact, already been a natural tendency to adopt this method of referencing spelling differences. So there has been a natural Wikipedia community move in this direction anyway. Go to [1] and start looking up the words listed there in Wikipedia. (But I've made a few of the changes to the way the differences are described, so discount those.)
11. The "Link" method is ultimately more instructive.
12. The "Link" method is, or at least appears to be, less normative. By this I mean: the "humor or humour" version of the description (or "also spelled" version -- not quite as good in my view, see below) of spelling differences means that the description doesn't take on any hint of the form "Normal / non-normal." This will perhaps help our community -- if only in some small way -- become less divided. More importantly, the larger, non-native-English speaking world will be less inclined to feel forced into a choice of "Normal or British English" or (depending) "Normal or American English." I believe in letting spelling "be free." Kinda goofy, perhaps, but I think it's a Good. Giving the impression -- which, ultimately, is entirely accurate, notwithstanding odd changes occasioned by the use of word processers -- that spelling is not cast in stone seems like a good idea. It might even get WP orthographic imperialists and orthographic obsessives (I'm one of the latter, to be sure) to reconsider their positions. Who knows!
My preference is the way the Color page currently is set up:
Color or colour (see spelling differences)
But I'd be perfectly happy with a footnote.
The "also spelled" version I could live with, but many people will (incorrectly, true, but that doesn't matter) think of the "also spelled" variant as less normal or normative. The main point, though is number 1 above. The existing, "... in American English"/"... in Commonwealth English" descriptions of the spelling differences are simply false in almost all cases. We should all be able to agree that that's a problem. -- Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-11 10:37 (UTC)
So, how about the following change to the MoS:
[....]
Color or colour (see spelling differences) is a property of light that is determined by its ...
'''Color''' or '''colour''' (see [[spelling differences]]) is a property of light that is determined by its ...
[....]
We could make it "list both spellings (or all, where there are three or more)..." but that might be unnecessarily complicated. As for ize/ise differences, that might not be worth saying anything about, until confusion/debate arises about it.
-- Cultural Freedom talk 2006-07-11 19:19 (UTC) P.S. I'm using :* to make the last two indented bullets because I don't know how to prevent a new line from turning an indented bullet into two bullets, but someone else surely knows how to do this!
-- Coolcaesar 20:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
The question of what's helpful to Wikipedia users is an important one to keep in mind, but we can't let it force us to provide inaccurate information. Specifically, catering Wikipedia to the badly formulated questions of users shouldn't be our goal. "Which is the American spelling, 'color' or 'colour'?" If one had to pick one of the two spellings, and give the "correct" answer to the "incorrect" question, the choice would of course be "color." But "color" is also one of the Canadian spellings (and is a Shakespearean spelling, and a Latin spelling, etc., etc.). The fact that such niceties are minor to most roadjocks is irrelevant.
As for ways to prevent orthographic edit wars, I don't see how noting anything about geographic or national distribution of different spellings will change anything. People who change spellings against guidelines do so either maliciously, or cluelessly. In both cases, the way we frame the different ways of spelling a word in the article's title won't make a difference.
As for the Find feature: we could include a link to the relevant section in the "... Differences ..." article. The article would need some rewriting, but I'd be happy to contribute to that effort. I suspect many others would, as well. -- Cultural Freedom 2006-07-23 08:42 (UTC)
P.S. What we'd type to direct the user to the -or/-our section of the Spelling Differences page would be:
'''Color''' or '''colour''' (see [[Spelling_differences#-our_.2F_-or]]) is a property of light that is determined by its ...
But, of course, it's easy enough for users just to click on the appropriate entry in the table of contents of the Spelling Differences article.
-- Cultural Freedom 2006-07-25 22:24 (UTC)