Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 80

message: The only slight change of meaning might concern the status of the "original contributor", but I'm unsure that it has actually changed anything (the variety chosen by the original contributor is favoured in the early stages of an article; more generally, the variety that an article has predominantly evolved with is favoured—probably the same). 
I've removed the sermon-giving tone, the opening negativity, and the fluff. 
The new is at the top; the existing version is below it. 
Draft
Tony 04:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It’s missing the problem of identifying the variant used in the first place. That task is often plain impossible, even more so for the majority of people who don’t have a profound theoretical knowledge of the English language. (Consider the number of transclusions of Template:User Mixed English for instance.) Thus it’ll basically remain a rough guess between ou/re/ise and o/er/ize, if the article in question isn’t from an identifiable contemporary geopolitical domain, which has special orthographic, syntactic and lexical rules assigned to it, anyway. Christoph Päper 12:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't see the problem, then. As soon as the first identifiable variable spelling is edited in, it's established and is subject to the guidelines just as if started from scratch with identifiable variety. Does this need to be explicated? (I'd have thought not—it's not there at the moment.) Tony 12:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is sufficiently clear; explicating would needlessly lengthen the guideline, IMO.--Paul Erik 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Great improvement, Tony—I do like how you have removed the negativity and the preachy tone. I am wondering whether the European Union institutions example is necessary, or even if it introduces some confusion: Is it "appropriate" to use Maltese English in the early stages of an article about a general European topic? I know that may not be the intended meaning of the instruction, but I wonder if some readers might take it that way.--Paul Erik 17:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul, thanks for raising an issue that was bobbing about in my mind. I think it should be removed. Tony 00:57, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An excellent rendition, Tony!  I think I would switch the order of the “Retaining the existing variety” and “Strong ties to a region” subsections, though.  The priority of rationale and the natural logical flow run better that way. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Askari. Done. Tony 02:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: So is the new version unsatisfactory in this respect? Tony 11:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, becuase the current wording is not clear on this point, but I am not sure how to introduce it so that the wording is brief and elegant. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It is not "strong ties to a particular national region" any more but "Strong national ties to a topic". The Ayers Rock example already covers the "River Thames". I take this example to mean that it applies to a work by any English speaking author, e.g. Jane Eyre, The Catcher in the Rye or Foundation Series. --Philip Baird Shearer 17:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe there is concensus among editors for that. I have seen several debates concerning works of literature that are of international interest where the concensus has been to leave the articles in the original style rather than switching to the national variety of the author. This is especially true for works that are known worldwide and of interest throughout the English-speaking world. For that reason I don't support using Lord of the Rings as an example. How about London Underground or some other example that there is definitely concensus on? Kaldari 18:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish people would stop obsessing about these things; it's provincialism at its worst — as though anyone might be offended (yes, I've seen that argument) by seeing "color" instead of "colour." It's sad and absurd. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Slim we have already been through this before, From memory there are other discussions in the archives on "European Union institutions" but here are three to be going on with ,Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style--Archive11#EU , Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style--Archive11#EU_and_OAS, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 20
This is to make clear that European institutions, treaties etc are conducted in British/Irish/Maltese English and such articles should be written in the language used by those institutions. The three are mentioned because they are all states in the European Union. I have no objections to removing Irish and Maltese, from the English used as they are all using the same formal English, (but I think that others would object to this). I would be equally happy using Commonwealth English in place of British English, but the example of European institutions should stay as it is just as valid as the other examples given.  --Philip Baird Shearer 18:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Why do we care what the UN does? The pertinent question for us is whether there has ever been a content dispute based on the difference between written Maltese English, and written British English. If there has, please show me an example; if there hasn't, please don't mention it. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: This has nothing to do with the language used in the documents of those particular institutions. It is because of the special interest British/Irish/Maltese people have in institions they are under the jurisdiction of. For example, there is no way that articles about the UN should have a preferred variety of English or a preferred spelling. That is missing the point. Also, I think "British/Irish/Maltese English" should be retained. There are differences between the formal varieties of English used in different countries, including the UK and Ireland, though probably few differences in spelling, granted.  Joeldl 05:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone give me an example of a "formal" difference between Maltese, Irish, and British English? It seems especially odd to mention these distinctions (if they exist) given that there are enormous differences between English and Scottish English, yet they are lumped together under "British." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The differences in grammar between English English and Scottish English, and between English English and Irish English, are remarkable; but most of them are unlikely to affect the kind of prose you need for an encyclopedia article.  An example of Scottish shibboleth is outwith for outside (as in within and outwith).  And then there's vocabulary, of course: e.g. Scottish janitor, English caretaker; Scottish carry-out, English takeaway; Irish substitute teacher, British supply teacher; Irish yield, British give way etc.  Institutional terminology may be somewhat different too (as in Scottish law vs. English law).  I don't know jack about Maltese English.    ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 18:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

text: We're trying to convey style guidelines as succinctly as possible. First, there are quite enough examples to get the point across without the EU examples (New Zealand and South African English aren't exemplified, I see too); second, the EU example clouds the basic issue by expecting that readers know all about the EU, its member countries (including, recently, Malta), its language issues, and of course that Malta does have a separate variety of English. It weakens the section, IMV. Tony 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: It just doesn't add anything to the stylistic point being conveyed, and begs too many questions. Does it, for example, suggest that in this list of EU institutions, every title should be rendered in all three varieties (British, Irish and Maltese)? It's just too opaque. Tony 11:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Philip, please give examples of the differences between written Maltese, Irish, and British English. And I couldn't understand your sentence above: "But to address your point, obviously the one to use you describe is dictated by is the one used by the EU as for example European Central Bank." SlimVirgin (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry to come in late to the discussion, but I felt the need to chime in since I was the one who originally expressed concern on this page about the EU institutions note. It is only now that I have read the previous discussions (thanks for the links, Philip) that the intention is completely clear to me. The confusion arose because of the three languages, yes, but also because the entry does not fit with the other items in the list. The others are examples of US use, Australian use, and so on. So on first glance it looked to me as if the EU institutions entry was also an example, perhaps of general European topics. But it is meant to be an instruction about EU institution articles and only those. Perhaps it should appear separately, as running text, rather than in this list? --Paul Erik 00:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm mystified as to what the latest edit adds to the meaning of the guidelines. Tony 13:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National varieties of English: draft copy-edit for feedback 

message: Are exact addresses unencyclopedic, that strike me as a bit Yellow Pagey/Travel Guidey. Seems coordinates would have the most meaning for a reader, only someone in the location would find the address (and probably the street name for that matter) useful. Is there a general consensus about this? Is there a guideline you can point me to? I don't usually include exact addresses myself. IvoShandor 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's probably something in here--WP:NOT--I'm kind of new so I couldn't tell you for certain. Marcus Taylor 20:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is but it says that you should mention the Eiffel Tower in an article about Paris but not the address and phone of your favorite coffee shop in Paris, too vague. IvoShandor 20:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm? Maybe in the infobox? I don't know how to approach this. Any thoughts? IvoShandor 18:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think street names (when the street in question is well-known) and/or named areas of cities can often be useful - certainly they are likely to be more immediately informative to most readers than coordinates, even if less exact. However, I'd agree that exact addresses are rarely necessary, except of course in the case of buildings like 10 Downing Street! Barnabypage 19:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Exact addresses?