Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of words having different meanings in British and American English, including minority usages

List of words having different meanings in British and American English, including minority usages was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was DELETE

This is a very recent fork from the almost equally wordy List of words having different meanings in British and American English. Upon encountering a British dialect word which was clearly marked as such in accordance with the conventions of that article (syrup as cockney rhyming slang for wig), somebody apparently threw up his hands in horror and decided to banish all such words to a near-duplicate article. This probably isn't The Right Way To Do These Things, hence the VfD. The maintenance problems caused by having duplicate lists would be a bigger problem than the problem of having a few dialect words on the main list. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 09:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, but preserve any new content. Agree with Tony Sidaway that having two almost identical articles around would be a maintenance nightmare. Almost nominated this one myself, but couldn't quite determine how it differed from the existing article. (Is there a way to diff two distinct articles, short of pasting one into the other, diffing the two revisions, and then reverting?) --MarkSweep 09:35, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The split was created after the addition of the word "syrup" with the meaning "wig". I believe that all the other words on the list are understood by a majority of native British English speakers (e.g. lift for elevator), whereas out of five British speakers commenting three had never heard of this usage (There is some dispute with a user claiming that it is a common British word). If this word is added, then all words from Cockney rhyming slang, Scots language, etc. would also be eligible. Since many of these words are as different from the majority UK usage as the US usage I did not believe they should be here. The word was removed and a Requests_for_comment raised, but then it was re-added without waiting for a consensus. I would only support the removal of the new page if it is restricted to words that would be understood by a majority of British English speakers (UK meaning) and a majority of US users for US meanings. Possibly links to regional language pages should be included at the bottom. Even though the pages are similar at the moment, once minority usages are added the second page will contain many times as many entries as the first. -- Chris Q 09:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * BINGO!!! The solution to the problem is staring you in the face.  Just pop some links to dialect pages at the top of that page and everything will be hunky dory! --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 10:07, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree. Link to dialect pages.  (Is that a recognised vote?)  P Ingerson 11:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. As long as words are clearly marked as dialect, slang or whatever then there is no confusion and no problem with the original list. Two lists will make maintenance impossible and will reduce usability considerably. -- Necrothesp 10:47, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Tony Sidaway, MarkSweep, and Necrothesp -- WLD 11:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's too cumbersome to maintain two lists, making people put new entries on both lists when they're not minority usage, and moving minority usages to this list when they show up on the other list, and adding content to one list when someone forgets to add it to both lists, etc. It would certainly be a lot harder than just marking the minority usages on one list. [[User:Livajo|&#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#9786;]] 12:46, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Or redir to List of words having different meanings in British and American English Niteowlneils 16:43, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, lame idea. Wyss 23:30, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, but merge content into original page. Icundell 14:54, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, we seem to have an upsurge in people thinking they can just make their own seperate copy of an article after the main article doesn't work out as they'd like. Shane King 00:43, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.