Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British words not widely used in the United States


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  18:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

List of British words not widely used in the United States
Wikipedia policy is explicit on this kind of thing. WP:NOT states Wikipedia should not contain articles that are "Lists of such definitions" or "A usage guide or slang and idiom guide". This article inherently fails WP:NOT. It lacks reliable sources for the most part, too (unless British Fart Slang is a reliable source), but that's not necessarily the issue. Failing WP:NOT is. This information, if it does not already exist there, could be transwikied to Wiktionary. Proto :: type  14:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Too subject to determine what qualifies as "widely used" and cite each example. A better (and well-sourced) page already exists at American and British English differences. We don't need a list of words that some people may (or may not) think have wide usage in certain geographic areas. Scorpiondollprincess 15:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Scorpiondollprincess. Agent 86 16:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this encyclopedia is written in mixed British-, Irish-, Austrialian-, Canadian- and American-English. That's a given and won't change. It is a useful guide to understand both articles and source material to have a list such as this. Most encyclopedias have some detailed preface explaining what is meant by certain terminology, but WP is not paper and no page precedes any other. Having a resource available (not so much as a usage guide but as a usefulness tool) is important, not that different from having lots of articles like United_States_customary_units, Metrified_English_unit, Imperial_unit, etc. whose chief contents are their equivalents tables so that SI users aren't stumped if they want to know the height in metric units of a horse measuring so-many hands high, how long a race measured in furlongs is, just how much is 20,000 leagues under the sea, the whole nine yards, etc. Carlossuarez46 18:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * STRONGEST KEEP POSSIBLE. That article is part of a whole series on "American and British English differences," and its deletion would just screw up the whole project and send *years* of work right down the tube.   JackLumber.  19:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of curiousity, what project is that? Agent 86 20:53, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Mr. Proto and the guys who voted delete most likely didn't even bother reading the article. There's a whole Category named American and British English differences, check it out if you have the time.  Somebody mentioned American and British English differences.  Well, that's only the main article.  List of British words not widely used in the United States is a frigging spinoff of the main article—should this article be deleted, the main article would be incomplete.  Lexical differences between AmE and BrE are extraordinarily complex; they are NOT dealt with in the main article, they couldn't be dealt with in one single article: indeed, they span three different spinoffs, which are complementary to each other; the page the guys want to get rid of is one of these.  Additionally, these guys don't seem to know much about linguistics.  OK, I allow that the article could use some cleanup (nothing on that page can be traced to that "fart slang," btw) but deleting it sure would be a gigantic, unprecedented mistake.  The article IS well-sourced.  And it ain't no list of definitions, why don't you *read* that cottonpicking article, it ain't no list of definitions any. "...Too subject to determine what qualifies as "widely used" and cite each example..." Come on, we have books on British and American English, we have papers, we have style guides, we have corpus data, we have dictionaries.  Delete that frigging article, and I'll quit.  You can't do this to me.  Shame on you.  "Proto," you weren't even around when this article got started.   JackLumber.  22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * JackLumber, I don't mind you having an opinion one way or another, but please keep WP:CIVIL. Your tone and language are unacceptable. I should also remind you to assume good faith. I can't speak for others, but I did read the article. As a result, and for the reasons given, my opinion is delete. I see no notice on the article page that it is part of any "project" (a wikiproject or otherwise), hence my question. A "to-do" list on the talk-page didn't strike me as a "project", other than maybe your own personal project. The article might be "old", but that's no hallmark of encyclopedic value in and of itself. Some matters raised here have not yet been addressed, such as the subjective nature of the article. For example, the nature of "widely used" has no clear meaning, being left entirely up to each person's perception. You refer on the talk page to words "deserving" to be in the article, but how is an editor to know how a word is "deserving" when the criteria are subjective? I stand by my opinion to delete. Agent 86 23:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe not a "project" in the wiki sense—I meant *the whole category*. We are just trying to provide a thorough, comprehensive, in-depth study of the differences between the two main dialects of the English language. As for that "clear meaning" thing, we have books on British and American English, we have papers, we have style guides, we have corpus data, we have dictionaries, we have papers about word frequencies in British and American corpora and databases, we know whether a word is widely used or not and we know what that means.  Stand your ground, I don't care. You're gonna lose.  I can assume good faith, I can't assume nescience.   JackLumber.  23:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)  And there's no need to SHOUT.
 * Keep, but clean up and enrich, especially if there are historical points relating to the differences. SB_Johnny  | talk 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm trying to do, check out my contrib log—thanks.  JackLumber.  22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary which is exactly what this list is. Perhaps transwiki this to Wiktionary. --TheFarix (Talk) 19:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT is very clear in this regard, and while I wouldn't necessarily mind a page like this in WP, the rules are solid in this regard. hateless 21:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, WP:NOT is not very clear in this regard, since it allows glossaries. Weak delete unless someone offers a good reason why this list can be classified as a glossary. hateless 21:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, one more change, Transwiki per Bwithh. hateless 08:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a long-standing and widely edited article. It has been standing alone since it was spun off of American and British English differences in May of 2003. Rmhermen 21:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikitionary, which is a perfectly fine and more appropriate place for this useful list - this move should not be regarded as some kind of demotion or relegation. And add one of those wikitionary link notices to American and British English differences. More people should be encouraged to use Wikitionary, and understand how it is functionally different from Wikipedia, yet at the same time the two can productively link to each other Bwithh 22:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * As a long-term project, yes. But not now.  And btw, it's called Wiktionary, not Wikitionary ;-)  JackLumber.

23:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why not now? Why only in the future? There's nothing wrong with Wiktionary as it is Bwithh 00:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's too complicated for wiktionary, though might have merit as a wikibook text-stub.
 * There is a budding project (just a few days old) aimed at regional dialects (WP:REDS), and the article could be adopted from there, or made into a working subpage of the project. SB_Johnny  | talk 23:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Carlossuarez46 and Rmhermen. --Bduke 02:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it looks absolutely fine, H ig hway Return to Oz... 11:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Fascinating list. Clearly loads of work went into it. But, like most lists, it can never be complete, and deciding what goes in and what does not (too regional, archaic or uncommon for example) almost certainly requires original research. Most damningly, it's a list of definitions. We don't do that here Delete with a transwiki to Wictionary if they'll have it. Further, an admonshment to JackLumber to please remain civil and not take things personally. ++Lar: t/c 11:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia has all kinds of ridiculous lists. This is one that is actually useful and well-written.  --musicpvm 21:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is an important tool for editing articles that might contain a mix of AmE and BrE. Not to mention it is useful for linguists like myself. - le petit vagabond 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - frankly, I'm at a loss to understand why somebody would want to delete this article. Some of the most useful parts of encyclopædiæ are the tables or lists usually incorporated or added as appendices. I would argue that Wiktionary is not an appropriate place for information like this, as it does not sit easily in the format of one word + meaning(s) per entry/article.  This could even be an opportunity to open up the debate of what Wikipedia is not. WLD 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, a useful and comprehensive resource. Wikipedia itself specifies when to use BrE or AmE; what's wrong with a definition of terms?  Pr oh ib it O ni o n s   (T) 07:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT states 'no lists of definitions'. It's fairly straightforward.  Proto ::  type  09:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not think the list classifies as a dictionary, but rather a list of information on words and differences between the two english systems. A dictionary merely gives opinions, while the article adds more, giving the reader an idea of what are the vocabulary differences between BrE and AmE are. -le petit vagabond 16:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. If WP:NOT actually bars things such as this, then it is time to update WP:NOT. Although the list could certainly use better references and citations. older ≠ wiser 21:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.