User talk:Swinnall

How do I replace the SVG image file?
In Friedrich_Glasl%27s_Model_of_Conflict_Escalation (an article I created) I improved the translation of the stage names. This means that I also need to replace the SVG file included in the article. I have tried 3 times to upload the corrected SVG file, but it makes no difference: each new version is identical to the original. Stephen Winnall (talk) 13:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I think the error is with the SVG file you tried to upload. I don't know how that error came about, though. I downloaded the file and opened it in Inkscape. The last step on the image should be "Together into the abyss", right? I think whatever is wrong with the SVG file caused Wikimedia's servers to give up trying to convert the SVG into PNG for display in the article. I'll try to re-upload in a minute. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've tried to upload a new version which renders fine in Firefox, but Commons still seems to be giving the old rendering. I've asked around at other places now. Like on Commons' Graphics talk page and their IRC channel. The last resort is to upload the current apparently working version of the file to a different filename. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've stopped trying for now. A Commons user Perhelion replied to me and said it's related to a bug on Wikimedia's end. I suggest waiting about a week and see whether the developers solve it, or at least whether the rendering of the image ends up being updated in Wikimedia's caches. The last resort would be to upload the file under a different filename, as the problem seems to persist on all versions of that file. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 15:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all your hard work and assistance. I tried changing the name of the file and uploading it anew, but the server spotted it was the same as the existing file and stopped me...
 * This problem seems to have solved itself. I'm glad that large, reputable, successful organisations have the same problems with software that I do... :-)

Help me!
I assume that the English Wikipedia is intended for English users from anywhere in the world. What is the correct way to deal with concepts which are expressed differently in different parts of the world? As an example: in many English-speaking countries 'hockey' denotes the summer sport https://www.olympic.org/hockey; however, in North America, 'hockey' denotes the winter sport https://www.olympic.org/ice-hockey.

Disambiguation occurs in North America by distinguishing the pair 'hockey'/'field hockey' whereas the rest of the world distinguishes 'hockey'/'ice-hockey'.

It seems to me that that
 * there should be some policy for dealing with these situations;
 * there should be some technical means to display only the 'correct' term (for the reader's own value of 'correct');
 * there should be some support in the editors for configuring the local variants.

Do such things exist?

It's not just hockey: see Comparison_of_American_and_British_English for some differences along the American/British axis for further examples. And there are obviously other national variants too.

I think it is important to recognise/recognize that articles written in one variety of English can jar with readers who use a different variety and even be completely misunderstood. However, the greatest danger - in my view - is that they can cause wasteful editing wars.

Thanks to S Philbrick for the reply below. I take the point in Manual_of_Style about "Strong national ties to a topic".

However, I realise now that I am concerned mainly about articles with no strong national ties. Many articles about hockey are of international interest, but whose 'hockey' are we talking about? How can we make the article look right for a North American and for the rest of the world (without actually writing it twice)? I believe it is generally possible to write English in such a way that most English users world-wide will can it without taking exception to its usage, but what do you do when the denotation of specific terms cannot be satisfactorily resolved?

Stephen Winnall (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * See Manual_of_Style for the relevant guideline.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * (If this doesn't answer your question, restore your help request.) -- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You can't please all the people all of the time - classic phrase that fits well here. You have probably part-answered your own question, by showing that a large international committee has differentiated between ice-hockey and hockey. This is often useful - as a chemist I love the fact that the IUPAC has declared aluminum should be aluminium, with time Americans will have to get used to it as their children are taught the correct version, on the other hand I mourn the loss of the ph in sulphur to now be sulfur, just never looks right no matter how often I write it. Ron h jones (Talk) 17:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello! As to your second point, it would fall under the standards at WP:Disambiguation, especially WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; as well as WP:PRECISION. Basically, we try to title pages in the least ambiguous way possible. You can see this in your hockey example, as Hockey is about hitting balls and pucks into goals with sticks, Field hockey is about doing it on grass with a ball, and Ice hockey is about doing it on ice. If there is no obvious choice, we then would start an WP:RFC, where the community at large would discuss the merits of each possible title, and eventually come to a consensus on what the best title is. -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 20:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)