Template talk:Canadian English

Flag
This edit makes sense to me. An SVG flag is more distinct and fits better with the message box style than a photo does. It should be reinstated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Fits better" is an awfully subjective view; everyone will have their own views as to what fits better. Having said that, though, my original opposition to the change back in 2008 was based on the fact that the WikiProject Canada template (which routinely appears next to this image) also used the same SVG flag image, and it was useful to use the photo on this template so as to distinguish visually between the two templates (I never really understood the need to standardize the look of the English-language templates, since by their nature they never appear together on a talk page).  I now notice, and should have remembered this morning (but didn't), that the WikiProject template was fairly recently changed to now use a stylized maple leaf instead of the flag.  Given that change, my original concern is no longer an issue, since regardless of whether we use a flag or a photo, this template will stand out from the Wikiproject template.  Absent that problem, standardizing the English language templates might not be so bad an idea.  Therefore, I would have no objections to the change.  In any event, I have posted a note of this discussion over at WP:CANBOARD, since we may as well do this right, get the input of anyone who cares, and determine the consensus.  Regards, --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't like the current flag with sky background. I'd prefer a simple maple leaf flag, or perhaps a stylised maple leaf, such as File:Stylized Maple Leaf.jpg, but it should have a transparent background, not a white one. (File:Maple Leaf (from roundel).png is OK, but used in other templates already, as noted above.) There are plenty of choices at commons:Category:Maple leaves and commons:Category:Flags of Canada. Mind  matrix  15:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Mindmatrix proposed some alternatives, and no other comments thus far. Ijanderson977 is itching to use the simple flag icon, so unless we get another comment in the next 4 days or so (i.e. a month from the first posting here), then let's consider the issue decided and done with, and go with the flag. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Centralised discussion
As suggested at Template talk:British English, there is now a centralised discussion regarding alternatives to flag icons on these templates. It is located at the MOS Talk Page. RashersTierney (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

proposed addition/amendment
Because of all the challenges to ENGVAR/CANSTYLE going on, I've been reading/studying guidelines-as-they-are in great detail; nothing supports those challenges. I found this in TITLE earlier, though I'd read it before, but took note of it for posting as a possible stronger wording of what it says; though the template already says it, just not clearly enough "for some people":


 * "The English language names of some topics may differ according to how names are anglicized from other languages, or according to different varieties of English (e.g., American English, British English, Australian English, etc."

Maybe amended to "other varieties of English".

There may be anti-elements who will still pick out the "English language names" part as a reason to resist Canadian titles, claiming that terms such as Denesuline and Tli cho and St'at'imc aren't English (they are now, at least here if not elsewhere, so far).

The intent of this addition, or strengthening of the wording, is to circumvent that. CANSTYLE re WP:CSG is repeatedly challenged on "PRIMARYTOPIC in global usage" grounds so something about Canadian PRIMARYTOPICS put into that template might be a good idea also, but I haven't considered what that wording might be; the bit from TITLE just struck me as straightforward and very clear. For example, Haida Gwaii is still called the Queen Charlotte Islands in most other countries even though that's its legal name now.

A similar template for FN/aboriginal articles I don't think is necessary; there is a line of argument that unsurrendered sovereignty means that their laws and use of language (English or otherwise) are as relevant as any other type of government; in fact that's constitutional now. "Strong national ties" applies in their cases IMO.Skookum1 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I do like it but its a bit long. Anyway to trim a bit? Want people to stop and read it - too long they will just skip over it. -- Moxy (talk) 18:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe these two bits can be made into one sentence:
 * "This applies also to names of some topics, which may differ according to how names are anglicized from other languages, or according to different varieties of English (e.g., American English, British English, Australian English, etc.). Terms and names from other languages that are a standard part of modern Canadian English should not be disputed based on usages common in other varieties of English.
 * How's This
 * "applies also to names of some topics, which may differ according to how names are anglicized from other languages, or which have been adopted into Canadian English directly, or which are disputed according to different varieties of English (e.g., American English, British English, Australian English, etc.). Usages common in other varieties of English that are now obsolete in Canada should not be disputed.
 * Some stitching together of some kind anyway; the bit about "or which are disputed according to..." etc was vague in the original; the resulting sentence from the above proposal may be too long, and submerges that quoted phrase even more; So long as the resulting t emplate is more specific about e.g. names for native peoples, or why "Bella Bella" and "Bella Coola" are PRIMARYTOPICs in Canada (both those were closed "no consensus) and not the peoples once known as that whose articles are now titled differently.Skookum1 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, re "without a broad consensus" should be amended to say something like "that includes Canadian editors", and the sentence containing that should maybe be moved to the end of the text.Skookum1 (talk) 12:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The changes are generally a good idea but I do oppose the last sentence: "Terms and names from other languages that are a standard part of modern Canadian English should not be disputed based on usages common in other varieties of English." Proper names do not generally apply to WP:ENGVAR.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue there is the false PRIMARYTOPIC assumptions from outside Canada per towns, and also of course the use of indigenous endonyms common/standard in Canadian English now, e.g. Nlaka'pamux instead of Thompson people, Heiltsuk vs Bella Bella people and so on....something about that needs to there, because of the spurious claims that there is "global usage" that overrides mounds and mounds of Canadian citations and official usages.Skookum1 (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "names from other languages" maybe better as "names from indigenous languages of Canada", though there might be terms from India or wherever that may apply.Skookum1 (talk) 01:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Proper name usage and varieties of English usage are two separate areas entirely. These templates are simply used to communicate to users that the variety of English as it appears in a dictionary is different. My personal view is that proper names are out of scope, unless of course you could show that say a UK vs Canadian dictionary actually has a difference in proper names.--Labattblueboy (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"analyze" [sic]
The Winston Canadian Dictionary prefers "analyse", as do I.

There is a gratuitous space after "realize".

99.238.74.216 (talk) 06:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)