Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/National varieties of English

message: The title for this page is vague. Maurreen 06:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to rename it and to help develop it, jguk 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gray Jay, Eastern Gray Squirrel 

message: 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)
replies: text: This is topical, in that there's been a discussion recently on Talk:Scotland#Country? about the status of "nation" in the first place... – Kieran T (talk) 00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you know how the preference for a "nationally predominant form" was arrived at? Joeldl 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was probably arrived at via benign ignorance: that no one thought about the differences within a nation, the complicated definition of "nation," etc., when drafting the rule/guideline. --Truth About Spelling 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you agree it should be changed so that regional forms of English are equally acceptable, as long as they're acceptable in academic writing in some region? Joeldl 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "national" varieties of English 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hmmm. Good question. There is an example of someone whose claim to fame was associated with Britain but then moved to Australia. A good example of a problem, if it weren't for the fact that France and Britain have different languages, would be Jane Birkin. Still, I'd say she's a French topic. I guess a soccer star is associated with the country he played in, while it doesn't matter at all that Sean Connery's James Bond movies were shot in London (I think), what matters is where they were shown. What would you say about George Best. English topic or Northern Irish topic? Joeldl 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On the last two, I'd say it's fairly moot, since it makes little difference as far as the "rules" of writing are concerned;  it's the trans-Atlantic stuff that people seem to end up butting heads on, since those are less matters of local variation, as great big bodies of case experience as to Why The Other Is Completely And Systematically Wrong.  (Perhaps I should try adding "outwith" to some articles as a subliminal 'standard Scottish English' breaching experiment?)  But yes, in principle those are examples of movable or weakened identity.  IIRC an issue like this came up on Bernard Lewis (consider that a hypothetical case if I misrecall).  What I'm asking, though, is not so much how to judge the primary association of a person, but how that should be weighted against the status quo/first contributor considerations.  Would a weak national association override a strong "was already written otherwise"?  I suppose that's not at all particular to people, except that people seem to be the cases that are most often the least clear-cut on the first grounds.  (I suppose because they necessarily start with such such an association, but aren't unutterably fixed to it.)  Alai 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the rule specifying a kind of English should be reserved for strong associations. Joeldl 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  People who identify as <X>ish are an "<X>ish topic"? 

message: 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)
replies: text: It is not the dialect of the historical person we are considering, but their national affiliation. Nobody is claiming that today's British English is any more a descendant of, for example, 17th century British English, than American English is. What I am saying is that it is appropriate to consider a historical English figure to be an England-related topic, since in the vast majority of cases these people will be of greatest interest to present-day English people. It is important to have a definite rule, since the more definite the rule, the less uncertainty there will be, and therefore the fewer pointless edit wars, not more. In the case of Shakespeare, one might be tempted to make an exception, but a British editor pointed out that he was considered a national icon there, and I accept that view. (The point being that today's British are the legitimate heirs of yesterday's British, not anything to do with Shakespeare's dialect.) As for writing in British English, if you want to write in American English, nobody is saying it's better you not write at all. But if others make changes to your spelling in an England-related article, that is not a reflection on the quality or validity of your writing, it just means that they are applying policies that were developed because they were felt to be the most rational way to deal with conflicting usage over a large number of articles. Given the tendency of editors, in the absence of any rules, to push their own variety of English, it is important to have clear-cut ones. If you start to argue that Harold Wilson and Henry Pelham are Britain-related (since most people interested will be British), but Elizabeth I is not, where do you draw the line? If there has to be a case-by-case evaluation instead of a clear rule applied uniformly, don't you agree that that will increase the number of edit wars rather than decrease them? Joeldl 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Presentism

message: 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)
replies: text: Not all cases are difficult; having one simple example right off the bat (or maybe two, for different varieties of English) would be a good thing. Even smart people sometimes need things spelled out for them. That said, we don't need a simple case for every dialect: two examples — one American and one British, say, since they're the two "major" varieties — would be plenty.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people might be tempted to say that the U.S. president, because of his important role in international affairs, is of importance to everybody. This example shows that that argument doesn't wash. The same goes for Shakespeare: he's a British topic. Joeldl 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  George Bush Example 

message: 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.
:I think there is a lot to be said for having just one standard, and, although I'm Irish, I tend to agree that choosing American English would make the most sense for a number of reasons, if there had to be just one standard. But I've noticed that Wikipedia policy formation is dominated by Europeans who seem to be deeply anti-American (to the point of being almost racist in many cases), so I think choosing American English as the standard would never fly. You know, Americans are "fat and stupid and imperialistic" (when I hear Brits say this I have to laugh...).
:Although I write in a mixture of dialects (I spent much of my childhood in the US), as a linguist, I think American spelling makes more sense than other spelling systems (not being able to remove the -ous from humorous in order to get humour, for ex., is absurd). BUT, there are a lot of problems with US spelling as well. Perhaps American spelling, with a preference towards British spellings in cases where they're accepted in the U.S. (travelling, etc.) plus British punctuation (which makes more sense than American punctuation) would fly? --Truth About Spelling 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The point at which the Wikipedia community decides to force editors to use a dialect of English with which they are not intimately familiar, were not taught at school, college and university, and do not use or encounter anywhere other than Wikipedia is the point at which I will walk away from this project. And that is an action that I would not take lightly because Wikipedia is important to me, but so is my language and my nationality. When writing articles about American subject matter, I will continue to pass my work to an American editor for copyediting as I do now, but the line is drawn there. Adrian M. H. 14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: argument for a standard

message: 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)
replies: text: Per Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines: A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction. --Kevin Murray 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please identify those participants in the discussion on the talk page who expressed opposition to the page, and quote them. Joeldl 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your request is a perfect example of why rejection is the default by design, since clever arguments can indefinitely prolong the agony.  The onus is on the proponents to demonstrate a consensus, and in the absence of consensus the proposal is rejected.  In this case the topic is even included in the admonition at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals, as a clear example of failed policy.  By design it is difficult to adopt new policies and guidelines since the natural course seems to be towards WP:CREEP without some level of control on creative rule mongering.  --Kevin Murray 11:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * I agree in general except that the order is wrong.  Joeldl should first attempt to demonstrate consensus of the community before reverting the rejected tag.  As it stands the evidence here is consistent with no consensus being present, thus rejection.  --Kevin Murray 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: **I'm not really sure the community in general even knows this proposal exists. Kaldari 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejection

message: 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)
thread_title: Reversing my position

message: Do we really want to include Caribean English as an official language for en.Wikipedia? 
Said Musa
* 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)
replies: text: That seems to be a no for you, on grounds of I think you mean its offcial status as a language. Sorry for maybe overanalising, but a comparison doesn't make an argument, if the point isn't made exlicit. It is in the current form of this guideline though. Lets hear some other opinions. Martijn Hoekstra 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  My point is that this whole guideline is ill conceived and just an example of WP:CREEP. --Kevin Murray 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a misinterpretation of what is meant. While it is true that the English used in the Caribbean in formal circumstances (legislation, academic writing, most journalism...) is closer to British English than to American, it cannot be excluded that certain regional features may exist which are accepted in such formal writing. There is no need for Wikipedia to judge this in advance, since if indeed there are no differences (which I doubt), Standard Caribbean English will just mean "Standard British English". If there is any doubt, you can write "Standard Caribbean English", but there is really no more need for that than to write "Standard American English". "Ain't", after all, is American English, it's just not standard. In any case, if you make changes on this aspect, you will clearly be running counter to WP:ENGVAR which has "Indian English", despite Caribbean countries using English as their primary administrative language, unlike India. Joeldl 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such thing as "Standard Caribbean English" as a written language. Using such a term in that context is nonsense. The directive concerning Indian English probably needs to be corrected as well. Kaldari 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caribean English 

message: 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)
replies: text: I happen to think that the page could do with more than examples. I have started a draft at User:Joeldl/Varieties of English Draft which you are all welcome to modify and comment on. If there is support for a general refinement of the guidelines, then we can move the draft into article space and debate each point individually. Joeldl 16:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * While your use of a draft is proper and polite, I don't see it as necessary for a proposal, but a very polite way of proposing major changes to an already approved guideline.  I certainly have no objection to this, but you might find that others will be modifying at this page and you may have multiple paralle discussions and forks.  You should feel welcome to make changes here.  --Kevin Murray 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

text: * While I respect your intent and hard work, I don't think that any examples are necessary and that if required, fewer are preferred to more.  Good luck!  --Kevin Murray 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I could move it here, but before making it a formal proposal I want to gauge whether there is at least a minimal degree of interest in a refinement of the guideline along the lines of the draft I've written. If there isn't, then there's no need to move it here. Joeldl 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pointless redundancy

message: 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)
replies: text: I would not object to a "historical" template. Nothing substantial has changed since the poll, and the majority opinion, it seems, was to go with "historical". Joeldl 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per the policy page: "A historical page usually is one that is no longer maintained or no longer relevant, or one for which consensus is unclear."  (1) Consensus is not unclear -- this concept was rejected, then interest waned, and (2) this was never maintained nor was it ever relevant.  Unfortunately some people see the term “historical” as a softer euphemism for rejected; it is not.  Both tags are archival, but convey different messages to future readers.--Kevin Murray 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The people who expressed their opinions in the poll were not unaware of the relevant considerations. There is no point reopening a debate which has already happened and in which the balance of opinion - informed opinion - was clear. You keep saying it was rejected. But of four clearly expressed opinions in the poll, only one leaned your way. Joeldl 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is not a matter of opinion; it is matter of using the correct tag.  This is simply a procedural matter.  --Kevin Murray 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been disagreement between us about correct procedure. I believe this was resolved when, after I asked for comment, everybody who expressed their views on the matter, except you, said "historical" was preferable. On what basis can you ignore the result of that survey, except to say that you are right and everybody else is wrong? I am going to change it to historical. Joeldl 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Interest in reviving active development of page

message: A few points:
* Several categories ar simply for spelling, without the language variety being further specified. E.g. IUPAC; EngvarB, or British; EngvarC, or Canadian; EngvarO, or Oxford. Logically, a category for American spelling (without language variety being further specified), ought to be created. (I don't think i can create such a category myself; i don't yet know how to create templates.)
* For articles using British English, there is an Oxford option; that is, write "-ize" not "-ise" (realize, organize etc.). Could there also be an Oxford option for Australian, New Zealand, Indian, Scottish etc. English? I.e. such articles would nominally use Australian etc. English, but would nominally use the "-ize" spelling for the "realize" lexical set. What articles, if any, would we be justified in placing in said "extended Oxford" series? (I know: Australians etc. who advocated English spelling reform (see below).)
* Is there a distinct Northern Irish language variety, for which we would be justified in creating a language-variety category?
* For articles on Brits who advocated English spelling reform (see :Category:English-language spelling reform advocates), i recommend British English with Oxford spelling; the spelling "realize" is clearly more fonetic than "realise". Could such articles be "super-Oxfordized" by writing "-lyze" not "-lyse" (analyze etc.)? Not only is "-lyze" clearly more fonetic (hence better in line with the idea of language variety reflecting the subject matter); but given the existing spelling variants in English, if you use "-ize" (realize etc.), it is more intuitiv to use the "-lyze" spelling. For comparison, Encyclopædia Britannica (at least the 2003 edition), despite its British-looking name, the somewhat old-fashioned spelling "encyclopædia" in its title, and its use of mostly British spelling (centre, colour); not only prefers "-ize" (realize) but also "-lyze" (analyze).
* Actually, for said reason, i suggest super-Oxfordizing the Wikipedia article Encyclopædia Britannica. However, there does not seem to be a template, or equivalently, category, for such super-Oxford British English.
* Should super-Oxfordization mean that the spelling "cozy" is preferred over "cosy"?
* The article William Shakespeare ought to be Oxfordized; Shakespeare's works, in most if not all cases, use "realize" rather than "realise" etc., at least in the original edition. (Interestingly enuf, the spelling "-ize" is actually older, and more etymologically justified than "-ise".)
* ":Category:Wikipedia articles that use Hiberno-English" ought to be moved to "Category:Wikipedia articles that use Irish English". The term "Irish English" is much more readily understandable. (I don't think i know how to perform such a move myself; and it might take an Administrator or suchlike, not a lay Wikipedian like me, to do so.)
* Also to improve understandability, the terms "lakh" and "crore" should be used sparingly on articles nominally written in Indian English. After all, any such articles ar read by people thruout the Anglosfere (and beyond!), and should therefore be comprehensible. Comprehensibility especially suffers for those who ar neither Indian nor nativ English-speakers.
--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Spelling of metre/meter