|
|
The title for this page is vague. Maurreen 06:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm a British English speaker, and I'm having a discussion with an U.S. English speaker about the use of English for articles about things from countries which don't speak English at all. So I'm looking for guidance — other than "leave it alone" — on what to do when a non English-speaking country is involved. In the specific case that started the debate, the country is Italy. I've said this to my correspondent:
[...] Several times you have returned to European car articles and replaced "saloon" with "sedan" and "estate" with "station wagon". Here's the thing: Wikipedia doesn't come in British English and U.S. English versions, and so both languages are in use. And of course there are no rules ;) BUT it's a convention that an article about a product from one country will use the language of that country. Easy with Britain and the United States. When it comes to a non English-speaking country like Italy, for example, I don't think one could prove which version of English is spoken more than the other (unless you have sales figures for all language courses and admissions figures for foreign students at universities!) but since Italy is in the political entity of Europe, and British English is one of the official languages in European government terms, and also since Italian cars in general are likely to sell better in Europe than in the United States (because of transportation costs), then I'd say it's pretty reasonable to go with the European spelling. [...]
I'm not trying to prove myself right or the other guy wrong. I'm hoping to canvass opinion. But I do happen to be an advocate of all dialects and of British English because it's a shame when powerful cultures erode weaker ones and we lose folk-history. I am not attacking the United States, but I believe that the influence of Hollywood, for example, is very strong, and it's worth maintaining the diversity of English-speaking cultures. So if there's a sound reason why a particular version is more relevant, I think it should be used. Of course, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for such issues, but nevertheless, there's a choice to be made.
So, whadya reckon folks? ;) – Kieran T ( talk | contribs) 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Except for Wiki, every publisher in the English speaking world uses the conventions of his location. If a UK edition is published, and then a US, all the quotation marks and all the spelling will be changed. Some books with UK conventions are sold in the US, since not all works have a separate US edition. In addition, some works intending to have a "UK flavour" will retain the UK conventions.
But the results of this policy that has apparently been adopted is that all articles about English monarchs should be in UK style, including both the spelling and the use of punctuation. But look at them: US spelling is used, and US style quotation marks. We can't have a Wiki with style considered acceptable by publishers and educators in both countries, because there isn't any. The only way we could achieve that-- eventually--is to have UK and US versions with all the punctuation etc. automatically changed. This can be done--even Microsoft sells us MS Word with both UK and US dictionaries. Our goal ought to be a style which the readers of both countries will accept, which is fairly flexible, as readers do at least occasionally encounter both.
An additional consideration is the ease of writing and editing. I want to write in the way I find easiest--there is quite enough problems without using an alien style. I do not want to go around changing other people's national style, or have them waste time changing mine. Let them look to my errors.
In the meanwhile, the best we can have is consistency. Certainly within an article: anyone editing an article ought to follow the style of the article, and it would be right to change inadvertent difference as one finds them. Possibly within a series of articles, possibly within a type of article, such as pop culture figures specific to one or another country, or those deliberately maintaining or pretending such specificity.
How many among us would feel capable of writing truly idiomatic Scots or Australian English, according to our subject? Certainly the authors born or educated there, but ought they have exclusive rights for such articles? If we are going to carry this to its logical conclusion, perhaps we should consider chronological period. Shall I write about Darwin in Victorian English, Shakespeare in Elizabethan? Should Articles about the 18th Century be written in their Typography, with capitalized Nouns and italic personal Names, as Samuel Johnson's works were printed? We could design a Bot to change them all, for those to whom it might not come naturally. Or I could change them manually--I've read enough from that period that I can do so rapidly.
I too want to preserve distinctive cultures. Educated in Flatbush, should i describe it in Broooklynese? ) DGG 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The Gray Jay was formally known as the Canada Jay. It's scientific name ends with canadensis. By this measure, should we consider this a Canadian species and rename as Grey Jay?
A similar situation exists with the Eastern Gray Squirrel (carolinensis) considered to be an American species, so 'gray' is used except for part of the article which describes the same species in the UK, where it is called the Grey Squirel. Pendragon39 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone added the ex of the Fiat Regata here, and suggested such an article should be in UK English. The question of what dialect is appropriate for non-English speaking European countries is as complicated as the question the appropriate variety of English to be used in articles on Mexico. That some version of UK English is the official language of an institution, the EU, doesn't make it the official language of all EU countries, nor does it make it the version that should be preferred in EU countries. People in Germany, for example, often use American English. (The English version of Der Spiegel, for ex., uses American English.)
This matter needs to be discussed in detail. It is very controversial. For now, the "first dialect used" rule should probably be in force. -- Truth About Spelling 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have some examples of decisions relevant to articles about things in, or connected to, non-English speaking countries. But these exampes shouldn't point in one direction or another, at least not until the Wikipedia community, not just you and I and a few others, has made a decision on this. And I think mentioning the European Union serves no purpose whatsoever, and shouldn't even be mentioned in an article called Manual of Style (even if it says "... [just a] guide....).
The United Nations often uses some version of Oxford English (though many institutions use American English), but that doesn't mean it's relevant to what dialect of English is used in Wikipedia, perhaps aside from articles about the United Nations.
I'd be perfectly happy with this:
--
Truth About Spelling
04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed what might be a discrepancy between the main page and this subpage. One of the examples on the subpage says "standard Scottish English" should be used, while the main page says "a nationally predominant form" should be used. Now, I don't disagree with the result — I think Scottish people shouldn't be forced to use English English when it differs from their own — but why the special treatment? Because Scotland is a home nation? Frankly, I don't think we could be too far off with any local form of formal written English that was used, say, in universities and so forth, even if it wasn't identical in some details to what the majority of people did in that country. The reference to a "nationally predominant form" makes it sound like we should be afraid of opening a Pandora's box. What is there to be afraid of? Joeldl 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The 'worked examples' on this page seem to be based on the assumption that if someone is born in country <X>, holds that citizenship, and identifies as being of that nationality, they're an "<X>-ish topic". Is this agreed, or at least "stable" on that basis? One could make the case that people can be "international topics", as regards to the nature of their notability, while still being of one nationality as regards their identity, for background/biographical purposes. Alai 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The way this guideline is written seems very dangerous to me. It seems to encourage people to change the variety of English used in well-established articles, which is definitely not in line with the Manual of Style. I have added a caveat from the main Manual of Style page to the intro, although the wording on some of the examples should probably be changed as well. Kaldari 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, I think this page should consist of actual examples, not theoretical examples that disagree with the actual articles. The Sean Connery article is currently written in standard British English (as best I can tell). If concensus can be built on the Sean Connery Talk page to change it to Scottish English, I would support changing it here as well. Kieran T brings up another good point: there is something of an unwritten convention that all Wikipedia articles are written in either standard American or stanard British English (or something somewhere in between), regardless of the region involved. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is hinted at in Joeldl's defense of the word "small":
1. American and British English are almost universally understood in the English-speaking world (with some exceptions). Most English-speaking countries teach either British or American English in schools, and global media is dominated by the two dialects (BBC, CNN, etc). In the business and financial realm, for example, American English is dominant thoughout the world. In legal affairs, British English is the standard in many places. Most English dialects derive from British English and are heavily influenced by American English, thus they are good defaults when in doubt.
2. Some dialects of English are quite obscure and should probably never be used in Wikipedia except for acticles exclusively of interest to speakers of that dialect. For example, the article on M.I.A. should almost certainly not be written in Sri Lankan English, regardless of her ties to that region (especially given Sri Lankan English's divergent grammar). Most Sri Lankan academics use standard British English and British English is considered more "proper" there as it is in many parts of the world with unique English dialects. I beleive the directive to use whatever dialect the article's subject is tied to should be interpretted more conservatively when less common varieties of English are involved. After all, the goal here is to make content that is accessible to as many people as possible, so ideally we want most of the people who read a given article to be able to understand it without any difficulty. If an article is only going to be read by people in Liberia, by all means go ahead and use Liberian English, but for the article on Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf I would favor American English since that is what Liberian English is based on and most of the people who read that article are not going to understand Liberian English very well. Kaldari 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with much that Kaldari has written above. I believe that the policy/guideline should facilitate contributions and not encourage edit wars. If I had seen a policy stating that I had to write the Mary Wollstonecraft or Anna Laetitia Barbauld articles in British English, I would never have written them (they are now both FAs). But I would like to point out the shocking, yes shocking, presentism (as academics like to say) on this page. It is apparently of dire consequence to consider a modern person's dialect but not a historical person's dialect. Those so concerned with language imperialism above are apparently unconcerned about the language rights of those from the past. Their argument logically leads to the conclusion that Chaucer's article should be written in Middle English and that Shakespeare's article should be written in Early Modern English. That is why the primary consideration should be, as others have pointed out, the most familiar forms of the language. Awadewit 11:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Bush ex. because it didn't make sense in the context of the other examples. All the other examples were of complicated cases. Bush isn't a complicated case. Let's leave it out. (Or add non-complicated cases for other dialects.) -- Truth About Spelling 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The page highlights the craziness of varying the type of English one uses depending on the subject, even to the point of deciding which English one should use to write about someone born in one country who migrates to another country and takes the citizenship of yet another country. It's difficult enough getting people to conform to a style without giving them options. There needs to be a standard and American is the obvious choice. Also, would this diversity extend to Indian English for articles on India and/or to the use of English-based pidgins and creoles? Would Cockney be allowed in an article on London, Scots in one on Scotland? BTW, I am English-born from England with UK nationality, so have no pro-US ax(e) to grind.
There is no evidence for consensus and little prospect of reaching a consensus on this proposal. Please review the policy for evaluating rejection; it is the default when no consensus has been reached. -- Kevin Murray 10:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the other questions, I am aware that proposals must gain consensus to be accepted. However, whether it is legitimate to infer that a proposal is unlikely to gain acceptance in future because it hasn't so far, depends on the reasons it hasn't. In this case it appears to me that the page was neglected and never widely publicized. I had initially assumed that it was a valid guideline, because the page came to my attention at a time when it didn't have a "proposed" template on it. I cannot determine from what discussion there has been here what the likelihood of acceptance is, and I doubt Kevin Murray can.
In fact, it is telling that in his initial arguments Kevin Murray confused this page, which adheres closely in spirit to the accepted guidelines on the main WP:MOS page, with a so-called "perennial proposal", which has indeed been rejected, to pick one kind of English and stick to it throughout Wikipedia. To me that shows that he cannot have considered the issue carefully. In fact, I have noticed that there has been discussion on his talk page of his involvement in placing other "rejected" templates on pages very recently. How much attention he can devote to the specific issues raised in each case is questionable, especially if he acts unilaterally without engaging in debate in a way that views others' opinions as being as important as his own.
I believe there is a use for a page such as this one, and I will attempt to increase the level of activity on the page. My impression on seeing the page for the first time was that it was more of an incipient guideline than a fully-formed one, and then it stopped growing. Perhaps the form the page will have taken when the broadest form of consensus is requested will be quite different. Joeldl 09:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If Joeldl believes that consensus to support this proposal is still possible, he is welcome to revert the rejected template and attempt to demonstrate consensus of the community. This should be done with proper dilligence and effeciency, if undertaken. In other words, revert the template to "proposed", set up some place for people to express their opinions in an organized fashion, post a notice on the Manual of Style talk page, the Community Bulletin Board, the Policy Pump, and wherever else is appropriate, allow enough time to gauge the collective opinion of the community, revise the proposal if necessary, and then update the policy template accordingly. As someone who has been through the process several times, however, I should let you know that it is very rare to win consensus for new policies or guidelines, no matter how logical or obvious they may seem. You are certainly welcome to give it a proper try, however. Kaldari 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I tagged the proposal for rejection, I think that it is appropriate for me to reverse myself without implying a superior authority. Although, I believe that this proposal meets the criteria for rejection, I also believe that some good will come from continuing the process. I do not see the historical tag as some sort of median ground, but a tag with an entirely different purpose. Thus I have replaced the Proposal tag. -- Kevin Murray 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we really want to include Caribean English as an official language for en.Wikipedia?
- Fact profile: Said Musa is the Prime Minister of Belize. He was born in Belize when it was known as "British Honduras" and was under British rule. He also studied law at Manchester University in England, but returned to Belize the following year. He became a politician in independent Belize and has lived there ever since. Belize usually considers itself a Caribbean nation, rather than a Central American nation.
- Conclusion: Use standard Caribbean English for the article on Said Musa
.
When one reads the article on Caribbean English, it becomes clear that this is a rather far stretch from either Brittish or American English. Do we indeed want something like "Weh dah bwai deh?" instead of "where is that boy"? I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to read the article at all anymore if the whole article was written in that style. Martijn Hoekstra 13:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we want to encourage writting in dialects such as Cajun, Ebonics, etc. when writing about Louisiana cooking or hip-hop. Should articles about infants be written in baby talk, and passages about substance abusers be slurred? -- Kevin Murray 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Caribbean English is not a written dialect. Most Caribbean nations use Commonwealth English as their written language: "The written form of the language in the former and current British West Indies conforms to spelling and grammar styles of Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth rather than those of the United States." Wikipedia articles should never be written in "Caribbean English". Kaldari 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Rereading WP:ENGVAR and this proposal, to evaluate the recent discussion above, further convinces me that this proposal is redundant to WP:ENGVAR, and that any subtle differences should be reconciled and adopted there. This is merely a series of examples which might be better communicated in a truncated footnote at the MOS page, if they are indeed necessary. -- Kevin Murray 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kaldari's sentiment above that if there is not a serious expression of interest in increasing activity on this page, it risks becoming a "historical" proposal. This is probably a matter of weeks now, if enough potential active participants do not come forward. I am interested in working on this, User:Truth About Spelling has expressed an interest, and I understand that though User:kierant has been busy lately, he too might be interested. If you are interested in developing this page into a more finished product so that it can be submitted to the community, please list your name below. Also indicate what form you think the page should take. I see at least 3 possibilities, but you can add more.
Option 1. Examples of how to apply the "strong tie to a country" rule. This is basically the current state of the page.
Option 2. In addition to examples, a more detailed interpretation of the WP:ENGVAR "strong tie" rule. Guidelines at a similar level of detail exist for WP:PROF for example. The current examples could be worked into the text.
Option 3. Like Option 2, but not restricted to interpreting the "strong tie" rule. Joeldl 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears that this proposal has not gained interest and should be marked rejected. --
Kevin Murray
11:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
A few points:
-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 22:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I've come across articles having nothing to do with the USA where the spelling for "metre" is now meter and in the convert template the addition of sp=us, Here is one example. The spelling is metre worldwide except for the USA (as far as I'm aware) where it's meter. The same would apply to date formats. I would assume the Japanese or other country not using the Latin alphabet has a symbol for metre. Is there a default English-language variety in Wikipedia that is universal instead of country specific by excluding any preference to particular countries style of English? I've looked thru the manual of style and cannot find anything. Avi8tor ( talk) 09:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
|
|
The title for this page is vague. Maurreen 06:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm a British English speaker, and I'm having a discussion with an U.S. English speaker about the use of English for articles about things from countries which don't speak English at all. So I'm looking for guidance — other than "leave it alone" — on what to do when a non English-speaking country is involved. In the specific case that started the debate, the country is Italy. I've said this to my correspondent:
[...] Several times you have returned to European car articles and replaced "saloon" with "sedan" and "estate" with "station wagon". Here's the thing: Wikipedia doesn't come in British English and U.S. English versions, and so both languages are in use. And of course there are no rules ;) BUT it's a convention that an article about a product from one country will use the language of that country. Easy with Britain and the United States. When it comes to a non English-speaking country like Italy, for example, I don't think one could prove which version of English is spoken more than the other (unless you have sales figures for all language courses and admissions figures for foreign students at universities!) but since Italy is in the political entity of Europe, and British English is one of the official languages in European government terms, and also since Italian cars in general are likely to sell better in Europe than in the United States (because of transportation costs), then I'd say it's pretty reasonable to go with the European spelling. [...]
I'm not trying to prove myself right or the other guy wrong. I'm hoping to canvass opinion. But I do happen to be an advocate of all dialects and of British English because it's a shame when powerful cultures erode weaker ones and we lose folk-history. I am not attacking the United States, but I believe that the influence of Hollywood, for example, is very strong, and it's worth maintaining the diversity of English-speaking cultures. So if there's a sound reason why a particular version is more relevant, I think it should be used. Of course, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for such issues, but nevertheless, there's a choice to be made.
So, whadya reckon folks? ;) – Kieran T ( talk | contribs) 00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Except for Wiki, every publisher in the English speaking world uses the conventions of his location. If a UK edition is published, and then a US, all the quotation marks and all the spelling will be changed. Some books with UK conventions are sold in the US, since not all works have a separate US edition. In addition, some works intending to have a "UK flavour" will retain the UK conventions.
But the results of this policy that has apparently been adopted is that all articles about English monarchs should be in UK style, including both the spelling and the use of punctuation. But look at them: US spelling is used, and US style quotation marks. We can't have a Wiki with style considered acceptable by publishers and educators in both countries, because there isn't any. The only way we could achieve that-- eventually--is to have UK and US versions with all the punctuation etc. automatically changed. This can be done--even Microsoft sells us MS Word with both UK and US dictionaries. Our goal ought to be a style which the readers of both countries will accept, which is fairly flexible, as readers do at least occasionally encounter both.
An additional consideration is the ease of writing and editing. I want to write in the way I find easiest--there is quite enough problems without using an alien style. I do not want to go around changing other people's national style, or have them waste time changing mine. Let them look to my errors.
In the meanwhile, the best we can have is consistency. Certainly within an article: anyone editing an article ought to follow the style of the article, and it would be right to change inadvertent difference as one finds them. Possibly within a series of articles, possibly within a type of article, such as pop culture figures specific to one or another country, or those deliberately maintaining or pretending such specificity.
How many among us would feel capable of writing truly idiomatic Scots or Australian English, according to our subject? Certainly the authors born or educated there, but ought they have exclusive rights for such articles? If we are going to carry this to its logical conclusion, perhaps we should consider chronological period. Shall I write about Darwin in Victorian English, Shakespeare in Elizabethan? Should Articles about the 18th Century be written in their Typography, with capitalized Nouns and italic personal Names, as Samuel Johnson's works were printed? We could design a Bot to change them all, for those to whom it might not come naturally. Or I could change them manually--I've read enough from that period that I can do so rapidly.
I too want to preserve distinctive cultures. Educated in Flatbush, should i describe it in Broooklynese? ) DGG 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
The Gray Jay was formally known as the Canada Jay. It's scientific name ends with canadensis. By this measure, should we consider this a Canadian species and rename as Grey Jay?
A similar situation exists with the Eastern Gray Squirrel (carolinensis) considered to be an American species, so 'gray' is used except for part of the article which describes the same species in the UK, where it is called the Grey Squirel. Pendragon39 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Someone added the ex of the Fiat Regata here, and suggested such an article should be in UK English. The question of what dialect is appropriate for non-English speaking European countries is as complicated as the question the appropriate variety of English to be used in articles on Mexico. That some version of UK English is the official language of an institution, the EU, doesn't make it the official language of all EU countries, nor does it make it the version that should be preferred in EU countries. People in Germany, for example, often use American English. (The English version of Der Spiegel, for ex., uses American English.)
This matter needs to be discussed in detail. It is very controversial. For now, the "first dialect used" rule should probably be in force. -- Truth About Spelling 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I'd be happy to have some examples of decisions relevant to articles about things in, or connected to, non-English speaking countries. But these exampes shouldn't point in one direction or another, at least not until the Wikipedia community, not just you and I and a few others, has made a decision on this. And I think mentioning the European Union serves no purpose whatsoever, and shouldn't even be mentioned in an article called Manual of Style (even if it says "... [just a] guide....).
The United Nations often uses some version of Oxford English (though many institutions use American English), but that doesn't mean it's relevant to what dialect of English is used in Wikipedia, perhaps aside from articles about the United Nations.
I'd be perfectly happy with this:
--
Truth About Spelling
04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed what might be a discrepancy between the main page and this subpage. One of the examples on the subpage says "standard Scottish English" should be used, while the main page says "a nationally predominant form" should be used. Now, I don't disagree with the result — I think Scottish people shouldn't be forced to use English English when it differs from their own — but why the special treatment? Because Scotland is a home nation? Frankly, I don't think we could be too far off with any local form of formal written English that was used, say, in universities and so forth, even if it wasn't identical in some details to what the majority of people did in that country. The reference to a "nationally predominant form" makes it sound like we should be afraid of opening a Pandora's box. What is there to be afraid of? Joeldl 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
The 'worked examples' on this page seem to be based on the assumption that if someone is born in country <X>, holds that citizenship, and identifies as being of that nationality, they're an "<X>-ish topic". Is this agreed, or at least "stable" on that basis? One could make the case that people can be "international topics", as regards to the nature of their notability, while still being of one nationality as regards their identity, for background/biographical purposes. Alai 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The way this guideline is written seems very dangerous to me. It seems to encourage people to change the variety of English used in well-established articles, which is definitely not in line with the Manual of Style. I have added a caveat from the main Manual of Style page to the intro, although the wording on some of the examples should probably be changed as well. Kaldari 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, I think this page should consist of actual examples, not theoretical examples that disagree with the actual articles. The Sean Connery article is currently written in standard British English (as best I can tell). If concensus can be built on the Sean Connery Talk page to change it to Scottish English, I would support changing it here as well. Kieran T brings up another good point: there is something of an unwritten convention that all Wikipedia articles are written in either standard American or stanard British English (or something somewhere in between), regardless of the region involved. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is hinted at in Joeldl's defense of the word "small":
1. American and British English are almost universally understood in the English-speaking world (with some exceptions). Most English-speaking countries teach either British or American English in schools, and global media is dominated by the two dialects (BBC, CNN, etc). In the business and financial realm, for example, American English is dominant thoughout the world. In legal affairs, British English is the standard in many places. Most English dialects derive from British English and are heavily influenced by American English, thus they are good defaults when in doubt.
2. Some dialects of English are quite obscure and should probably never be used in Wikipedia except for acticles exclusively of interest to speakers of that dialect. For example, the article on M.I.A. should almost certainly not be written in Sri Lankan English, regardless of her ties to that region (especially given Sri Lankan English's divergent grammar). Most Sri Lankan academics use standard British English and British English is considered more "proper" there as it is in many parts of the world with unique English dialects. I beleive the directive to use whatever dialect the article's subject is tied to should be interpretted more conservatively when less common varieties of English are involved. After all, the goal here is to make content that is accessible to as many people as possible, so ideally we want most of the people who read a given article to be able to understand it without any difficulty. If an article is only going to be read by people in Liberia, by all means go ahead and use Liberian English, but for the article on Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf I would favor American English since that is what Liberian English is based on and most of the people who read that article are not going to understand Liberian English very well. Kaldari 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with much that Kaldari has written above. I believe that the policy/guideline should facilitate contributions and not encourage edit wars. If I had seen a policy stating that I had to write the Mary Wollstonecraft or Anna Laetitia Barbauld articles in British English, I would never have written them (they are now both FAs). But I would like to point out the shocking, yes shocking, presentism (as academics like to say) on this page. It is apparently of dire consequence to consider a modern person's dialect but not a historical person's dialect. Those so concerned with language imperialism above are apparently unconcerned about the language rights of those from the past. Their argument logically leads to the conclusion that Chaucer's article should be written in Middle English and that Shakespeare's article should be written in Early Modern English. That is why the primary consideration should be, as others have pointed out, the most familiar forms of the language. Awadewit 11:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I removed the Bush ex. because it didn't make sense in the context of the other examples. All the other examples were of complicated cases. Bush isn't a complicated case. Let's leave it out. (Or add non-complicated cases for other dialects.) -- Truth About Spelling 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
The page highlights the craziness of varying the type of English one uses depending on the subject, even to the point of deciding which English one should use to write about someone born in one country who migrates to another country and takes the citizenship of yet another country. It's difficult enough getting people to conform to a style without giving them options. There needs to be a standard and American is the obvious choice. Also, would this diversity extend to Indian English for articles on India and/or to the use of English-based pidgins and creoles? Would Cockney be allowed in an article on London, Scots in one on Scotland? BTW, I am English-born from England with UK nationality, so have no pro-US ax(e) to grind.
There is no evidence for consensus and little prospect of reaching a consensus on this proposal. Please review the policy for evaluating rejection; it is the default when no consensus has been reached. -- Kevin Murray 10:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As for the other questions, I am aware that proposals must gain consensus to be accepted. However, whether it is legitimate to infer that a proposal is unlikely to gain acceptance in future because it hasn't so far, depends on the reasons it hasn't. In this case it appears to me that the page was neglected and never widely publicized. I had initially assumed that it was a valid guideline, because the page came to my attention at a time when it didn't have a "proposed" template on it. I cannot determine from what discussion there has been here what the likelihood of acceptance is, and I doubt Kevin Murray can.
In fact, it is telling that in his initial arguments Kevin Murray confused this page, which adheres closely in spirit to the accepted guidelines on the main WP:MOS page, with a so-called "perennial proposal", which has indeed been rejected, to pick one kind of English and stick to it throughout Wikipedia. To me that shows that he cannot have considered the issue carefully. In fact, I have noticed that there has been discussion on his talk page of his involvement in placing other "rejected" templates on pages very recently. How much attention he can devote to the specific issues raised in each case is questionable, especially if he acts unilaterally without engaging in debate in a way that views others' opinions as being as important as his own.
I believe there is a use for a page such as this one, and I will attempt to increase the level of activity on the page. My impression on seeing the page for the first time was that it was more of an incipient guideline than a fully-formed one, and then it stopped growing. Perhaps the form the page will have taken when the broadest form of consensus is requested will be quite different. Joeldl 09:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If Joeldl believes that consensus to support this proposal is still possible, he is welcome to revert the rejected template and attempt to demonstrate consensus of the community. This should be done with proper dilligence and effeciency, if undertaken. In other words, revert the template to "proposed", set up some place for people to express their opinions in an organized fashion, post a notice on the Manual of Style talk page, the Community Bulletin Board, the Policy Pump, and wherever else is appropriate, allow enough time to gauge the collective opinion of the community, revise the proposal if necessary, and then update the policy template accordingly. As someone who has been through the process several times, however, I should let you know that it is very rare to win consensus for new policies or guidelines, no matter how logical or obvious they may seem. You are certainly welcome to give it a proper try, however. Kaldari 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I tagged the proposal for rejection, I think that it is appropriate for me to reverse myself without implying a superior authority. Although, I believe that this proposal meets the criteria for rejection, I also believe that some good will come from continuing the process. I do not see the historical tag as some sort of median ground, but a tag with an entirely different purpose. Thus I have replaced the Proposal tag. -- Kevin Murray 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we really want to include Caribean English as an official language for en.Wikipedia?
- Fact profile: Said Musa is the Prime Minister of Belize. He was born in Belize when it was known as "British Honduras" and was under British rule. He also studied law at Manchester University in England, but returned to Belize the following year. He became a politician in independent Belize and has lived there ever since. Belize usually considers itself a Caribbean nation, rather than a Central American nation.
- Conclusion: Use standard Caribbean English for the article on Said Musa
.
When one reads the article on Caribbean English, it becomes clear that this is a rather far stretch from either Brittish or American English. Do we indeed want something like "Weh dah bwai deh?" instead of "where is that boy"? I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to read the article at all anymore if the whole article was written in that style. Martijn Hoekstra 13:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Do we want to encourage writting in dialects such as Cajun, Ebonics, etc. when writing about Louisiana cooking or hip-hop. Should articles about infants be written in baby talk, and passages about substance abusers be slurred? -- Kevin Murray 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Caribbean English is not a written dialect. Most Caribbean nations use Commonwealth English as their written language: "The written form of the language in the former and current British West Indies conforms to spelling and grammar styles of Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth rather than those of the United States." Wikipedia articles should never be written in "Caribbean English". Kaldari 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Rereading WP:ENGVAR and this proposal, to evaluate the recent discussion above, further convinces me that this proposal is redundant to WP:ENGVAR, and that any subtle differences should be reconciled and adopted there. This is merely a series of examples which might be better communicated in a truncated footnote at the MOS page, if they are indeed necessary. -- Kevin Murray 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Kaldari's sentiment above that if there is not a serious expression of interest in increasing activity on this page, it risks becoming a "historical" proposal. This is probably a matter of weeks now, if enough potential active participants do not come forward. I am interested in working on this, User:Truth About Spelling has expressed an interest, and I understand that though User:kierant has been busy lately, he too might be interested. If you are interested in developing this page into a more finished product so that it can be submitted to the community, please list your name below. Also indicate what form you think the page should take. I see at least 3 possibilities, but you can add more.
Option 1. Examples of how to apply the "strong tie to a country" rule. This is basically the current state of the page.
Option 2. In addition to examples, a more detailed interpretation of the WP:ENGVAR "strong tie" rule. Guidelines at a similar level of detail exist for WP:PROF for example. The current examples could be worked into the text.
Option 3. Like Option 2, but not restricted to interpreting the "strong tie" rule. Joeldl 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
It appears that this proposal has not gained interest and should be marked rejected. --
Kevin Murray
11:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
A few points:
-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 22:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I've come across articles having nothing to do with the USA where the spelling for "metre" is now meter and in the convert template the addition of sp=us, Here is one example. The spelling is metre worldwide except for the USA (as far as I'm aware) where it's meter. The same would apply to date formats. I would assume the Japanese or other country not using the Latin alphabet has a symbol for metre. Is there a default English-language variety in Wikipedia that is universal instead of country specific by excluding any preference to particular countries style of English? I've looked thru the manual of style and cannot find anything. Avi8tor ( talk) 09:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)