Talk:List of words having different meanings in American and British English (A–L)

message: Cuppa is a British meaning? What's this? 112.201.8.170 (talk) 23:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is for words that are found both in the US and Britain but have differences in meaning: the term cuppa is not used in America so not suitable for inclusion here. See Glossary of British terms not widely used in the United States#C. Mutt Lunker (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's cuppa? 

message: It would improve clarity a lot to use initial capitals for each definition etc.---Ehrenkater (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial capitals 

message: If you are going to discuss "competence" as a possible entry to this article, [] might add to the subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, that is a solid example of the use.  The question has arisen over whether my addition of it followed wikipedia rules.  [If you want the content of that discussion see Mutt Lunker's talk page, where I mistakenly brought the discussion.  It has not been duplicated here due to length.]  2601:1C1:C180:4F40:5C4A:BE6D:F0D9:20B5 (talk) 02:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, the discussion that the IP refers to is here. The salient point is that the user claims one definition of the word is British but I note that ""America's most trusted dictionary" notes if a word or usage is particular to one dialect/country or another. There is no such note for usage 1b". The bulk of the rest is the thread is the user's original research on the matter and my explanation that this is not permissable. Mutt Lunker (talk) 09:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competence 

message: This article title, and its M through Z sibbling, use the unicode dash rather than the ASCII dash.
This article ends with
      A–L
rather than
      A-L.
Why?
What, if any, are the relevant wikipedia policies?
Does wikipedia have a policy encouraging one to "avoid constructs that will break things"?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C1:C180:4F40:5C4A:BE6D:F0D9:20B5 (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the title of this article:  Why unicode dash rather than an ASCII minus/dash? 

message: I have moved this discussion to Talk:List of words having different meanings in American and British English (M–Z)#Relevance of "sat" and "stood" to keep it in one place considering that both "sat" and "stood" begin with S. Tk420 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of "sat" and "stood" 

message: I would like to question the use the American meaning of the word "fag" in British English. In the UK the dominant meaning of "fag" seems to be a cigarette. Many Brits are aware of the word's use an an anti-gay slur but it does not seem to be as common as the word "student" to refer to a school pupil which is marked with an asterisk by the US meaning in List of words having different meanings in American and British English (M–Z) to show it has some currency in British English. The use of the word "faggot" as anti-gay slur is known in British English for sure considering the annual controversy over its use in the song Fairytale of New York and it use as an innuendo (in response to a dinner suggestion of faggots) in an advertisement for the now defunct supermarket chain Somerfield Tk420 (talk) 21:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: My apologies, I misread the diff for your edit as arguing the reverse. I agree with and will restore it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fag and faggot 

message: The UK-specific definition of "billion" has mysteriously acquired this label.  This is clearly nonsense:
* The edition of The Oxford Children's Dictionary I had as a child, which appears to have been published in 1976, has "million million" and "thousand million" as the UK and US definitions respectively without further comment.  If it was still the normal meaning of the word less than 50 years ago, there's absolutely no way it can be very obsolete now.
* As recently as the 1990s, the MS Word grammar checker flagged the use of this word for being potentially ambiguous.
* The Billion article indicates that this sense is even still in occasional use.
As such, I'm changing it.
Furthermore, I'm not sure when it ever is appropriate to use the label "very obsolete".  I've never seen a dictionary use this label.  The nearest I can think of is Pears Advanced Word-Puzzler's Dictionary, which uses the label "Obs" to denote words of Old or Middle English, whereas "obs" denotes obsolete modern English words. — Smjg (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "very obsolete"