Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/National varieties of English

Title
The title for this page is vague. Maurreen 06:55, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to rename it and to help develop it, jguk 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Less clear-cut cases
I'm a British English speaker, and I'm having a discussion with an U.S. English speaker about the use of English for articles about things from countries which don't speak English at all. So I'm looking for guidance &mdash; other than "leave it alone" &mdash; on what to do when a non English-speaking country is involved. In the specific case that started the debate, the country is Italy. I've said this to my correspondent:

I'm not trying to prove myself right or the other guy wrong. I'm hoping to canvass opinion. But I do happen to be an advocate of all dialects and of British English because it's a shame when powerful cultures erode weaker ones and we lose folk-history. I am not attacking the United States, but I believe that the influence of Hollywood, for example, is very strong, and it's worth maintaining the diversity of English-speaking cultures. So if there's a sound reason why a particular version is more relevant, I think it should be used. Of course, Wikipedia isn't a soapbox for such issues, but nevertheless, there's a choice to be made.

So, whadya reckon folks? ;) – Kieran T  ( talk  00:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In the absence of comments here, and considering that a consensus has been agreed on the article which made me post here in the first place, I've added an example covering the situation, and based upon that consensus. I hope this doesn't bother anybody; after all, the (present) article states that it is merely reflecting decisions made by Wikipedians, as opposed to being policy.


 * I've also put in a link to the full policy, which had been absent. – Kieran T  ( talk  19:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

peculiar decision
Except for Wiki, every publisher in the English speaking world uses the conventions of his location. If a UK edition is published, and then a US, all the quotation marks and all the spelling will be changed. Some books with UK conventions are sold in the US, since not all works have a separate US edition. In addition, some works intending to have a "UK flavour" will retain the UK conventions.

But the results of this policy that has apparently been adopted is that all articles about English monarchs should be in UK style, including both the spelling and the use of punctuation. But look at them: US spelling is used, and US style quotation marks. We can't have a Wiki with style considered acceptable by publishers and educators in both countries, because there isn't any. The only way we could achieve that-- eventually--is to have UK and US versions with all the punctuation etc. automatically changed. This can be done--even Microsoft sells us MS Word with both UK and US dictionaries. Our goal ought to be a style which the readers of both countries will accept, which is fairly flexible, as readers do at least occasionally encounter both.

An additional consideration is the ease of writing and editing. I want to write in the way I find easiest--there is quite enough problems without using an alien style. I do not want to go around changing other people's national style, or have them waste time changing mine. Let them look to my errors.

In the meanwhile, the best we can have is consistency. Certainly within an article: anyone editing an article ought to follow the style of the article, and it would be right to change inadvertent difference as one finds them. Possibly within a series of articles, possibly within a type of article, such as pop culture figures specific to one or another country, or those deliberately maintaining or pretending such specificity.

How many among us would feel capable of writing truly idiomatic Scots or Australian English, according to our subject? Certainly the authors born or educated there, but ought they have exclusive rights for such articles? If we are going to carry this to its logical conclusion, perhaps we should consider chronological period. Shall I write about Darwin in Victorian English, Shakespeare in Elizabethan? Should Articles about the 18th Century be written in their Typography, with capitalized Nouns and italic personal Names, as Samuel Johnson's works were printed? We could design a Bot to change them all, for those to whom it might not come naturally. Or I could change them manually--I've read enough from that period that I can do so rapidly.

I too want to preserve distinctive cultures. Educated in Flatbush, should i describe it in Broooklynese? ) DGG 04:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi DGG. You make a very good point about the ease of writing, and the accessibility of Wikipedia. However, there's a theat of some kind of accidental "cultural imperialism" creeping in, because of the relatively high proportion of US editors who would naturally use their language. And that's part of what I'd want to avoid; an erosion of the distinctiveness of the language worldwide. Not the purpose of Wikipedia, of course, but nor is the ignorance of it. The core of the problem for me is that it appears unlikely that there will ever be different editions of Wikipedia for different dialects of English. How often would they automatically synchronise? Presuming it wasn't instantaneous, it'd be likely to mean that vandalism which was swiftly fixed on one edition could be copied over to the other edition before the fix and linger until the next synch, which wouldn't be a disaster but would be unfortunate – and open to deliberate exploitation too.


 * I don't really buy into the point about the logical conclusion though; few (or no) editors consider Draconian or Shakespearean English to be their native dialect! (Bear in mind that the "Italian example" was a case where there was no immediately obvious national choice; in Shakespearean articles, the immediately obvious national choice is (modern) English English.)


 * It's been a point of debate over at the Scottish Wikipedian's Noticeboard, however; some people want to put Scots Gaelic translations of proper nouns (which have no such official translation) into articles simply because it's an official language of the country. That discussion, in case its of interest to you, is here. – Kieran T  ( talk  13:20, 18 September 2006 (BST)

Gray Jay, Eastern Gray Squirrel
The Gray Jay was formally known as the Canada Jay. It's scientific name ends with canadensis. By this measure, should we consider this a Canadian species and rename as Grey Jay?

A similar situation exists with the Eastern Gray Squirrel (carolinensis) considered to be an American species, so 'gray' is used except for part of the article which describes the same species in the UK, where it is called the Grey Squirel. Pendragon39 19:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Usage for non-English speaking countries
Someone added the ex of the Fiat Regata here, and suggested such an article should be in UK English. The question of what dialect is appropriate for non-English speaking European countries is as complicated as the question the appropriate variety of English to be used in articles on Mexico. That some version of UK English is the official language of an institution, the EU, doesn't make it the official language of all EU countries, nor does it make it the version that should be preferred in EU countries. People in Germany, for example, often use American English. (The English version of Der Spiegel, for ex., uses American English.)

This matter needs to be discussed in detail. It is very controversial. For now, the "first dialect used" rule should probably be in force. --Truth About Spelling 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally agree that this is extremely complex, and incidentally agree that much of Germany has used U.S. English ever since the partitioning of Germany after World War II. However, I believe that the usage in Germany is essentially colloquial; people tend to speak English closely related to the version spoken by their teacher. Those in the former British sector who learnt English forty years ago are more likely to have learnt a British variant. (I must admit that I have only "original research" evidence of this, unfortunately.) But my point is that this usage is not nearly so strong a reason to choose a variety as is the official language of the relevant state or group of states.
 * I disagree with your decision to remove the example of the Fiat; the example was not factually incorrect, and indicated an example, as opposed to a policy. It would perhaps be better to re-word it to emphasise that, like the other examples, it is not an official policy.
 * We should rapidly put together some form of words to cover the situation which was highlighted by that example. There are reversions and discussions going on in many articles about this, and it's unhelpful to fail to even mention the case in the list here. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 23:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have some examples of decisions relevant to articles about things in, or connected to, non-English speaking countries. But these exampes shouldn't point in one direction or another, at least not until the Wikipedia community, not just you and I and a few others, has made a decision on this. And I think mentioning the European Union serves no purpose whatsoever, and shouldn't even be mentioned in an article called Manual of Style (even if it says "... [just a] guide....).

The United Nations often uses some version of Oxford English (though many institutions use American English), but that doesn't mean it's relevant to what dialect of English is used in Wikipedia, perhaps aside from articles about the United Nations.

I'd be perfectly happy with this:

Fiat Regata

 * Fact profile: The Fiat Regata is an Italian motor car. It is produced in Italy, where there is no national variety of English, by an Italian company. It is sold in many markets, across which many varieties of English are in use.
 * Conclusion: The article was originally written in British English, therefore the article should retain that dialect.

--Truth About Spelling 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that's a good compromise to be going on with, while we work on this; thanks. I'll copy it over, unaltered from what is here. Hopefully more editors will chip in. You're right that it should not be just a very few of us, but that said, I do think this is one of the most appropriate pages for the discussion, and if few people are concerned, then it will fall to us to come up with something more concrete (because we have here an example, not a guide). For the record, three points: firstly I'd like to emphasise that I'm not pro- or anti- any variety of English per se, and merely seek the most appropriate choice for each context.
 * Secondly, I do believe that the E.U.'s choice for its variety of English is the only verifiable choice for E.U. countries without a native English (e.g. the U.K. and Ireland), and therefore it's highly relevant to the choice in Wikipedia, following precisely the same logic which dictates that U.K. English is better for British articles and U.S. English is better for U.S. articles.
 * Furthermore, my final point: I've always found the guideline regarding "use the variety used by the first editor" to be a total cop-out &mdash; that makes the choice about the editor, rather than about the subject matter, which is at odds with every other guideline I can think of, and serves only to solve edit wars, not to solve the intellectual issue. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 09:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts, and for working together on this.
 * For the record, my view is that WP spelling guidelines are a complete mess. I disagree that E.U. status is the only verifiable choice, since the very rule itself could easily be altered. That's how WP works. Someone could say membership in the U.N. is what matters, and "U.N. spelling" should be applied to all articles about countries belonging to the U.N. Or "NATO spelling" for countries belonging to NATO. The E.U. is just another trans-country organization. If we allow one trans-country organization to deterimine spelling of all articles about things connected to countries in that organization, why not other trans-country organizations?
 * I think we need a more reasonable, long-term solution to the problem of spelling and dialect choices on WP. But I'm not sure enough people care, unfortunately.
 * I am convinced, however, that choosing your suggested E.U. rule will piss off a lot of people. There are tons of Americans and Canadians who have worked on topics such as Nietzsche, Goethe, etc. For someone to come along and invoke the "EU rule" and switch their spellings would be a major irritation. I think that would be bad for our community. --Truth About Spelling 18:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would be pissed off. Let's not get into debates about whether Germany is an American subject or a British subject. There's always going to have to be a rule for subjects like philosophy, so whatever we do about things like Germany, it's not going to solve the problem. I think that the EU argument is really splitting hairs. Do British people really care all that much more about Sofia, Bulgaria than Americans? What would Mexicans think of being "assigned" to the United States. I think the rules as they are now make perfect sense. It's a good point about Shakespeare, though. It doesn't seem fair that Shakespeare should belong only to Britons, since most Australians' ancestors were in England then, for example, so their English and English English have evolved from what was the same form then. The only difference is, the British stayed in the same place. Well, I suppose there's something to be said for having a simple, straightforward rule, on the other hand. Joeldl 02:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Very good point about Shakespeare. In fact, most contemporary Shakespeare scholars are American. I'm starting to think we need a "dialect flag" so that people can choose what dialect they want to read articles in. These debates are probably never going to go away otherwise. --Truth About Spelling 17:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "national" varieties of English
I noticed what might be a discrepancy between the main page and this subpage. One of the examples on the subpage says "standard Scottish English" should be used, while the main page says "a nationally predominant form" should be used. Now, I don't disagree with the result — I think Scottish people shouldn't be forced to use English English when it differs from their own — but why the special treatment? Because Scotland is a home nation? Frankly, I don't think we could be too far off with any local form of formal written English that was used, say, in universities and so forth, even if it wasn't identical in some details to what the majority of people did in that country. The reference to a "nationally predominant form" makes it sound like we should be afraid of opening a Pandora's box. What is there to be afraid of? Joeldl 11:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is topical, in that there's been a discussion recently on Talk:Scotland about the status of "nation" in the first place... – Kieran T  (' talk ') 00:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you know how the preference for a "nationally predominant form" was arrived at? Joeldl 03:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was probably arrived at via benign ignorance: that no one thought about the differences within a nation, the complicated definition of "nation," etc., when drafting the rule/guideline. --Truth About Spelling 18:11, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Would you agree it should be changed so that regional forms of English are equally acceptable, as long as they're acceptable in academic writing in some region? Joeldl 22:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

People who identify as ish are an "ish topic"?
The 'worked examples' on this page seem to be based on the assumption that if someone is born in country , holds that citizenship, and identifies as being of that nationality, they're an "-ish topic". Is this agreed, or at least "stable" on that basis? One could make the case that people can be "international topics", as regards to the nature of their notability, while still being of one nationality as regards their identity, for background/biographical purposes. Alai 02:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Good question. There is an example of someone whose claim to fame was associated with Britain but then moved to Australia. A good example of a problem, if it weren't for the fact that France and Britain have different languages, would be Jane Birkin. Still, I'd say she's a French topic. I guess a soccer star is associated with the country he played in, while it doesn't matter at all that Sean Connery's James Bond movies were shot in London (I think), what matters is where they were shown. What would you say about George Best. English topic or Northern Irish topic? Joeldl 02:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * On the last two, I'd say it's fairly moot, since it makes little difference as far as the "rules" of writing are concerned; it's the trans-Atlantic stuff that people seem to end up butting heads on, since those are less matters of local variation, as great big bodies of case experience as to Why The Other Is Completely And Systematically Wrong.  (Perhaps I should try adding "outwith" to some articles as a subliminal 'standard Scottish English' breaching experiment?)  But yes, in principle those are examples of movable or weakened identity.  IIRC an issue like this came up on Bernard Lewis (consider that a hypothetical case if I misrecall).  What I'm asking, though, is not so much how to judge the primary association of a person, but how that should be weighted against the status quo/first contributor considerations.  Would a weak national association override a strong "was already written otherwise"?  I suppose that's not at all particular to people, except that people seem to be the cases that are most often the least clear-cut on the first grounds.  (I suppose because they necessarily start with such such an association, but aren't unutterably fixed to it.)  Alai 03:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the rule specifying a kind of English should be reserved for strong associations. Joeldl 03:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging edit wars
The way this guideline is written seems very dangerous to me. It seems to encourage people to change the variety of English used in well-established articles, which is definitely not in line with the Manual of Style. I have added a caveat from the main Manual of Style page to the intro, although the wording on some of the examples should probably be changed as well. Kaldari 19:03, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If an article on Dallas, Texas is written in Australian English, changing it to American conventions is an improvement to the encyclopedia. There's no reason that should start an edit war. The changes you're trying to make do not reflect consensus, as far as I can tell. Joeldl 19:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Dallas, Texas should be written in American English. Your interpretation of the Manual of Style's guidelines regarding national varieties of English is extremely simplistic, however, and does not reflect the consensus as to how national varieties of English should be handled. The caveat that I added to this page has been part of the main Manual of Style for at least 2 years so it should not be ignored without good cause, although perhaps adding just that caveat does not present an adequate explanation. Deciding which variety of English should be used in an article and whether or not there is just cause to change an established style is not a black and white issue as you present it. It is a grey area with many variables: is the current style consistant? how long has the current style been used? what percentage of the article's audience is likely to prefer a certain style over the other? how closely is the subject associated with a particular region? If you are going to create a page of examples based on the Manual of Style, please be sure to reiterate the caveats and considerations that are a well-established part of the guidelines. You should also include discussion of these caveats in your examples. Kaldari 00:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The page says this lower down:"Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country." It's true that it says that the rule above it is more important, but this almost certainly applies only to the actual rule itself "Articles should use the same spelling system and grammatical conventions throughout," rather than the comment, "If an article is predominantly written in one type of English, aim to conform to that type rather than provoke conflict by changing to another." If we were always to adhere to this comment under the first rule, there would be no need for such detailed rules as those that follow, and none of the system would make sense. The only logical interpretation seems to be that what is paramount is uniformity, not avoiding changing what other people have written. It just says to avoid having a mix. In fact, the thing about not changing what others have written is mentioned in rule 4 "Stay with established spelling", which is placed below rule 2 on "a strong tie to a specific region/dialect". If everybody accepts these rules instead of challenging their validity, there is no reason there should be an edit war at all. Edit wars are more likely when an established system is challenged. Could you please explain how it makes sense to have rule 4 where it is if the comment under rule 1 is intended to take precedence over rule 2? Joeldl 00:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation is mostly correct, but the guidelines are usually interpreted more conservatively than what is presented here. The wording of those rules is intended to strike a balance between consistancy and not causing undue disruption. Notice the following details in the guidelines:
 * If there is a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, use that dialect.
 * Editors should not change the spelling used in an article wholesale from one variant to another, unless there is a compelling reason to do so (which will rarely be the case).
 * Unless it is fairly obvious that an article is primarily going to be of interest to readers in a certain region (such as Dallas, Texas or London Regional Transport Act 1984), it's hard to make a case that there is a compelling reason to change the language style from what was originally written. Obviously, there is room for interpretation, but given the breadth of subject matter that Wikipedia covers it's simply impossible to impose a hard rule that will make sense for every case. Thus I think this page is actually useful, as it helps to clarify some gray areas. However, I disagree somewhat with its specific interpretation of the guidelines. For example, I don't believe Sean Connery should be written in Scottish English (as he is of just as much interest to people outside of Scotland as he is to Scottish people). Same for Mary Wollstonecraft. My only concern is that this page is encouraging people to change the style more than is practical and sensible. I guarantee that if you tried to change Sean Connery to Scottish English (for exmaple by changing all instances of "small" to "wee") you would be reverted, since I'm sure most of the editors (and readers) or that article are not Scottish. When applying any guidelines or policies in Wikipedia it's important to try to be practical and apply common sense. Otherwise it's very easy to get into conflicts and edit wars. Kaldari 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * There has to be a point at which we also consider accessibility. Some versions of English (perhaps including "Scottish English") include words which would be unknown to foreign readers, and might be hard to find in common dictionaries. British and U.S. English (presumably one should not say "American English", since there is also a distinct Canadian variant...) are at least readily available in many online dictionaries. So even when there is a compelling association with a rare variant, it might perhaps be inappropriate on the main English Wikipedia. – Kieran T  (' talk ') 11:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A few points.
 * Frankly, I doubt whether it would be appropriate to replace small with wee, because I'm sure "small" is perfectly acceptable in Scottish English, and wee means "very small". Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines wee as "very small: diminutive", without any regional usage label. Certainly this example is misleading, because the most important cases of application of this rule will be those where the different varieties of English cannot be easily reconciled. I think we should take advantage of the fact that there is a high degree of convergence between different varieties of English, so that in most cases, no choice will impede understanding.
 * I find the phrase "which will rarely be the case" on the main page very difficult to make sense of, since there are obviously many articles like those listed under Rule 2, so as best I can tell this language should just be discounted and probably removed. It was added on 24 December 2006.
 * Celebrities of international notability often have roles in their own countries that are not well known to people in other countries. For example, Connery's support of the SNP will most likely be written about by Britons, and it may well be that this is a significant aspect of Sean Connery's biography in Britain. If you have material that is likely to be of interest to everyone (e.g. James Bond), and other material that is likely to be written about by people in one country, then in order to maintain uniformity, a choice has to be made, and in this case I think Scotland/Britain is the best choice, rather than the first contributor. In any event, in the vast majority of cases people's notability is attached to one country, and having a clear rule that a person from a country is presumed to be a topic related to that country, in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary (going beyond the absence of a tie to any country, which is the argument about Sean Connery), has a great deal of validity in predicting who will want to read and write an article, and will make everybody's life simpler even in cases where this prediction might be less accurate.
 * In the few cases where, for example, British and U.S. English might diverge to the extent of impeding intelligibility, one should certainly try to apply the rule about using words common to all. In cases like color/colour, I think people should not take it personally if their spelling is changed when they are writing, for example, about a U.S.-related topic.
 * I disgree with the changes made to the Sean Connery example. I would also like to make a bit of a technical point.
 * The argument, "Most of the editors (and readers) of that page are not Scottish" can lead to bad policy. It will often be the case that a majority of readers and editors will be American. This could systematically lead to a bias for American spelling, etc. The question should be "Are Scots significantly more likely to be interested in this topic than Americans?". That way, Scots could have their "own" topics in similar circumstances to when Americans would have their "own" topics. With this criterion in mind, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that Sean Connery could be a "Scottish topic" in terms of who is interested.
 * Let's look at another example: "Article on Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: British English usage and spelling". This is taken from the main page. Surely Kaldari isn't arguing that that Sean Connery has less of a tie to Britain than The Lord of the Rings. Joeldl 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I think this page should consist of actual examples, not theoretical examples that disagree with the actual articles. The Sean Connery article is currently written in standard British English (as best I can tell). If concensus can be built on the Sean Connery Talk page to change it to Scottish English, I would support changing it here as well. Kieran T brings up another good point: there is something of an unwritten convention that all Wikipedia articles are written in either standard American or stanard British English (or something somewhere in between), regardless of the region involved. There are two reasons for this. The first reason is hinted at in Joeldl's defense of the word "small":

1. American and British English are almost universally understood in the English-speaking world (with some exceptions). Most English-speaking countries teach either British or American English in schools, and global media is dominated by the two dialects (BBC, CNN, etc). In the business and financial realm, for example, American English is dominant thoughout the world. In legal affairs, British English is the standard in many places. Most English dialects derive from British English and are heavily influenced by American English, thus they are good defaults when in doubt.

2. Some dialects of English are quite obscure and should probably never be used in Wikipedia except for acticles exclusively of interest to speakers of that dialect. For example, the article on M.I.A. should almost certainly not be written in Sri Lankan English, regardless of her ties to that region (especially given Sri Lankan English's divergent grammar). Most Sri Lankan academics use standard British English and British English is considered more "proper" there as it is in many parts of the world with unique English dialects. I beleive the directive to use whatever dialect the article's subject is tied to should be interpretted more conservatively when less common varieties of English are involved. After all, the goal here is to make content that is accessible to as many people as possible, so ideally we want most of the people who read a given article to be able to understand it without any difficulty. If an article is only going to be read by people in Liberia, by all means go ahead and use Liberian English, but for the article on Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf I would favor American English since that is what Liberian English is based on and most of the people who read that article are not going to understand Liberian English very well. Kaldari 16:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * First I will respond to the argument that some varieties of English are marginal.
 * 1. I would dispute that there is any convention that articles need to be in either British or American English or something in between. I think such a rule would go against the principle that all countries are to be treated equally. I would be vehemently opposed to a rule that said Canadians had to write "postcode" or "zip code" instead of "postal code" in a new article about China. If anything, "zip code" is the most difficult to understand. Kaldari concedes at least that this convention is unwritten, if indeed it exists as claimed. In that case I would argue that nobody has written it down because it would be offensive to those who are neither British nor American, and would not be accepted by them. The English language belongs equally to all those who speak it natively (at least).
 * 2. Americans tend to overestimate the extent to which American expressions are understood in other countries. A Briton who has not had extensive exposure to U.S. media is no more likely to understand "housing project" than an American is to understand "council estate". Even though I am Canadian, it wasn't until I moved to the U.S. that I realized that "the projects" just meant "public housing". The fact that not all dictionaries cover vocabulary from every English-speaking country is either a deficiency of the dictionaries (for example, the Merriam-Webster contains many of the most common Scottish words, and it doesn't even consider wee Scottish), or can be interpreted as follows. Since there are, for example, fewer Australians than there are Americans, users of a British dictionary are more likely to encounter American words than Australian ones. This would in fact be reflected in Wikipedia if the different varieties of English were present roughly in proportion to their populations of speakers. Does that mean that Australian words should be banished because they didn't make it into such or such British dictionary? I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of ensuring that U.S. and British English are represented beyond what would be expected by letting people write as they wish. I am certain that that way, 65% of what's written will be in American English. Who should complain if 5% is in Australian English?
 * Unfortunately, "projects" is a particularly poor example because that is slang for "public housing." If I were editing an article, I would suggest that the writer change the word not only because it's slang but also because it has a negative connotation. This brings up a recurring issue. Why should we not try to adopt a writing style that will be broadly understood?. Most dialectical differences come out most strongly in slang and obscenity (formal language changes the slowest). As this example demonstrates, "public housing" was perfectly understandable to both the American and the Canadian. I just think that as editors and writers, we should be focused on making wikipedia understandable to the widest number of readers (if the goal is to inform and to educate). Awadewit 13:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You may be right to say that "the projects", without further qualification, is used primarily in informal language (though it is almost certainly not slang). But this is not true of "housing project". (You can google it at site:gov.) I would not have been aware previously that "housing projects" referred to public housing. Joeldl 02:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3. When we refer, for example, to Irish English, what we are talking about in this discussion is the form of English used in Irish academic publications and other formal circumstances in Ireland. Kaldari might say that this is heavily influenced by British English, and therefore we might as well ask Irish people to follow British usage in all respects. That influence may well exist, but if it is not so strong as to make Irish writers write in a way that is identical to the British, it is perhaps because the influence is limited, and because Irish writers do not accept the legitimacy of the British to define for them how they should express themselves, even in situations in which it can be anticipated that foreigners will read what they've written. My defence of the word small is not in the least an argument in favour of a British/U.S. monopoly. I am simply saying that, presumably (though my presumption could be rebutted), the word small is not out of place in a Scottish publication. The words zip code and postcode, by contrast, are completely out of place in a Canadian publication, and could be corrected in a Canada-related article. Similarly, "postal code" should not be corrected in an article about China originally written in Canadian English.
 * 4. The example of Sri Lankan English is misleading. Undoubtedly in formal Sri Lankan writing the grammar of the English used is not markedly divergent from the English used in other countries. This example is complicated by the fact that there are few, if any, native speakers of English in Sri Lanka. It is quite likely for this reason that interference from other languages is common, and it is easier for mistakes to slip into writing there. I use the word "mistake" to mean something which those Sri Lankans most fluent in English would agree was inappropriate in formal writing. I think this is what Kaldari is thinking of. Similarly, only 69,000 Liberians (out of 3 million) use English as their first language. There is another language called "Liberian English", in reality a pidgin English (see the Ethnologue website), spoken by 1.5 million as a trade language (only as a second language), and which is not English. Again, it's doubtful how different from American English the English in academic publications there is, but if a particular form were well established there, I don't think we would have the legitimacy to say it was unacceptable. In any case, I think we should first settle the issue with respect to those countries with large numbers of native speakers (the U.S., the U.K., Canada, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and perhaps some Caribbean countries), where there can be no doubt that written English is produced primarily by native speakers.
 * 5. I concede that it is quite possible to read through an entire article without being able to tell whether it's been written in Scottish English or English English. That doesn't mean that if some small differences arise in future edits, priority should be given to English usage. I think the issue of whether Standard Scottish English should be distinguished from Standard British English can be dealt with later, and obscures the questions we need to deal with first.
 * 6. In sum, I think Kaldari is trying to make two contradictory points. One is to say that essentially formal English around the world is very close to either American or English English, and therefore those two forms might as well be given special status in Wikipedia. The other is to make it sound as if the moment people elsewhere start writing in the variety of English used in formal writing in their country, serious intelligibility problems will arise. My response is this. Let's take advantage of the fact that the standard forms are very close, and have a single encyclopedia belonging to all English-speakers, rather than declare that those who write differently than Americans or Britons have less of a claim to the Wikipedia in their own language. Secondly, where differences exist, let's respect them. That means that we should institute rules which do not have the effect of favouring certain varieties over others. The current system accomplishes that.
 * All of these arguments serve only to rebut Kaldari's claim about special status for American and British English. Leaving aside for the moment the British vs. Scottish problem (to which we should return later), Kaldari does not address my arguments that Sean Connery should be considered a British/Scottish topic. This would mean that the rationale for giving preference to British/Scottish English is not the original state of the article, but the relation to Britain/Scotland. This means that the current version gives the wrong reason. Joeldl 13:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Is there any difference between formal written Scottish English and formal written British English? For that matter, is there really such a thing as formal written any other variety of English besides American and "Commonwealth" English, or are other English dialects limited purely to the spoken and informal realms (other than differences in technical terms such as "postal code" vs "zip code" or "state" vs "province")? Can you give some examples? Maybe we're really arguing over nothing. Kaldari 19:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, to some extent, at least in terms of vocabulary, if not grammar. For example, the word, "outwith" is perfectly valid English, but is referred to in Chambers dictionaries as "chiefly Scots". In English English one would say, "outside of" &mdash; so personally I favour outwith for its economy! – Kieran T  (' talk ') 20:02, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Canadian Oxford has about 2000 Canadianisms. They are not limited to informal language and/or technical terms. The Merriam-Webster, which is American, has book off for example, and gives this definition: "Canad: to notify an employer that one is not reporting for work (as because of sickness)" Here is another example of what might be considered a grammatical Canadianism: "as well" at the beginning of a sentence. This is found in all styles of writing in Canada. We should note that varieties are also defined "negatively": in a Canada-related article, a word not used in Canada should be avoided (e.g., faucet, candy bar should be tap, chocolate bar. I'm not sure what "chocolate bar" is in Britain.) Joeldl 02:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that it is relatively clear that the main page contemplates more than two national varieties of English. Unless it is anybody's intention to question that any further, I think we should accept that fact as established. I also think we should temporarily ignore the British/Scottish issue (i.e. what qualifies as a national variety), and focus on the US, UK, Canada, Australia, etc. The main question before us is under what circumstances a topic is to be considered related to a particular country (or countries). As I have said previously, I am in favour of what you could call a "bright lines" approach, because of the certainty this will give to editors. Certainty can go either way: either the topic is country-related or it isn't. If it isn't, rules 3 through 5 on the main page are controlling, and no attempt at balancing will be carried out. If it is, perhaps there is still a need to apply rule 3 to some extent if there is considerable international interest in the topic, but there are also cases where rule 3 is not applicable. Most obviously, there is spelling, but also cases like lift/elevator in the body of an article. No balancing with the original version needs to be applied, since rule 2 is controlling. Joeldl 01:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe if you are going to have hard-fast rules, they will need to be very clearly defined. For example, right now there is really no definition of what constitutes "country-related". If someone is born in a country does that automatically make them related to it? If they identify as a certain nationality (regardless of living there) does that constitute relation to a country? If they lived in an area that became a certain country after their lifetime, are they necessarily related to the new country? The guidelines right now are quite vague and open-ended so I don't understand how you can insist on a strict interpretation of them. Also, I'm personally of the opinion that if there is significant international interest in a topic, rule 3 should trump rule 2, especially if we're talking about a dialect of English other than American or Commonwealth. Perhaps both rules need to be rewritten before this page will really be useful. Kaldari 21:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because things may get a bit messy otherwise, I'm going to number my points.For convenience, let's say we can define three categories: 1. Country-related, of limited interest to others. 2. Country-related, of considerable interest to others. 3. Not country-related. Here are my tentative proposals.
 * 1. a. I think in category 1, there should be a clear preference for that country's English. b. In category 3, I think only rules 3, 4, 5 should matter c. In category 2, I think in all cases where a definite choice has to be made (spelling, no common term, etc.) that should be controlled by Rule 2. In both categories 2 and 3, I would rather avoid applying rule 3 to issues that don't impede understanding, especially spelling issues. As you've probably guessed, I'm thinking of -ize/-ise. I've come to think that in all cases except -ize-country-related ones, we should stick with the first spelling used. I think leaving  -ize in Mary Wollstonecraft is fine, since it's a possible spelling, but British people should be able to have -ise, even in category 3 articles, if they got there first.
 * 2. There may be intermediate cases between 1 and 2, but I think we should have rules that make a once-and-for-all determination for categories 2 and 3. This is because rule 3 can be flexible, and that's what changes between categories 1 and 2, but spelling can't, and tends to be an all-or-nothing thing, so categories 2 and 3 should be clearly distinguished.
 * 3. For people, I think that presumptively, they should be associated with their country (if it is English-speaking), unless it can be demonstrated that their notability was particularly associated with another English-speaking country. If the person is not from an English-speaking country, but their notability is associated with an English-speaking country in particular, then they are related to that country. Otherwise they are not country-related, and it's open season.
 * 4. You may well ask what I mean by "their country". I don't know for sure. But I do know that in the vast majority of cases this doesn't pose a problem, so the fact that we may have difficulty defining this doesn't mean we should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Maybe the order should be
 * a. notability (needs to be a clear advantage).
 * b. countries one identified with during periods of significant notability, if that can be determined;
 * c. citizenship during periods of notability.
 * d. residence during periods of notability. (Would need to be a longish period: A German who spent a year in the US wouldn't qualify).
 * e. throw our hands up in the air and say that the person isn't country-related.
 * Take Einstein. He would be U.S.-related, by the citizenship rule at least, German/Swiss/U.S. if it hadn't been for the English-language thing. (This turns out to be fair, because a good part of his biography turns out to be U.S.-related, although obviously his notability for physics was international.)
 * 5. I don't think there's any problem considering India, Nigeria, etc. English-speaking. English is an official language there, and I doubt we would have any trouble reading their legislation.
 * (6.) I don't think there's any problem separating Scotland, Newfoundland, etc. Most differences are likely to be minor. (I put this in parentheses because this is possibly at odds with the main page, and because if you disagree, I think you should just note that and I'd prefer to deal with it later.)
 * 7. Countries that are not English-speaking cannot be considered country-related (France/Britain, Mexico/US, Indonesia/Australia).
 * 8. Subjects that concern a large number of countries, but only one or two English-speaking ones, are country-related. For example, see the EU institutions example on the main page. This makes sense because the British and Irish are subject to EU laws and regulations.
 * 9. Sports are a difficult problem. Probably, if people in Country A spend 20 times as much time thinking about a sport as people in Countries B, C, etc., then the sport should be Country A-related. (E.g., I think baseball should be U.S./Canada-related, and Cricket UK/Aus/NZ/SAfr/Pak/Ind/Carib related). How to measure that, I have no idea. Maybe we should just say that the difference in interest has to be so extreme as to be beyond question, or maybe we could look at the number of words about the sport on a typical sports page in a newspaper. In many cases, there is an official definition of what it means to compete at the highest level in a sport. This is difficult and I get the feeling that this could provoke controversy in close cases, but would be a good thing for cricket, etc., because if somebody starts a page one way where it can be predicted that almost all editors will be from another country in particular, they probably shouldn't have their hands tied.
 * 9'. (Alternative) Declare open season on sports.
 * 10. Works of literature are presumed to be associated with their author unless their notability can be demonstrated to be attached to a country in particular.
 * Are there any other cases you can think of? What do you think of these rules?

Presentism
I agree with much that Kaldari has written above. I believe that the policy/guideline should facilitate contributions and not encourage edit wars. If I had seen a policy stating that I had to write the Mary Wollstonecraft or Anna Laetitia Barbauld articles in British English, I would never have written them (they are now both FAs). But I would like to point out the shocking, yes shocking, presentism (as academics like to say) on this page. It is apparently of dire consequence to consider a modern person's dialect but not a historical person's dialect. Those so concerned with language imperialism above are apparently unconcerned about the language rights of those from the past. Their argument logically leads to the conclusion that Chaucer's article should be written in Middle English and that Shakespeare's article should be written in Early Modern English. That is why the primary consideration should be, as others have pointed out, the most familiar forms of the language. Awadewit 11:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not the dialect of the historical person we are considering, but their national affiliation. Nobody is claiming that today's British English is any more a descendant of, for example, 17th century British English, than American English is. What I am saying is that it is appropriate to consider a historical English figure to be an England-related topic, since in the vast majority of cases these people will be of greatest interest to present-day English people. It is important to have a definite rule, since the more definite the rule, the less uncertainty there will be, and therefore the fewer pointless edit wars, not more. In the case of Shakespeare, one might be tempted to make an exception, but a British editor pointed out that he was considered a national icon there, and I accept that view. (The point being that today's British are the legitimate heirs of yesterday's British, not anything to do with Shakespeare's dialect.) As for writing in British English, if you want to write in American English, nobody is saying it's better you not write at all. But if others make changes to your spelling in an England-related article, that is not a reflection on the quality or validity of your writing, it just means that they are applying policies that were developed because they were felt to be the most rational way to deal with conflicting usage over a large number of articles. Given the tendency of editors, in the absence of any rules, to push their own variety of English, it is important to have clear-cut ones. If you start to argue that Harold Wilson and Henry Pelham are Britain-related (since most people interested will be British), but Elizabeth I is not, where do you draw the line? If there has to be a case-by-case evaluation instead of a clear rule applied uniformly, don't you agree that that will increase the number of edit wars rather than decrease them? Joeldl 13:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

George Bush Example
I removed the Bush ex. because it didn't make sense in the context of the other examples. All the other examples were of complicated cases. Bush isn't a complicated case. Let's leave it out. (Or add non-complicated cases for other dialects.) --Truth About Spelling 17:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Not all cases are difficult; having one simple example right off the bat (or maybe two, for different varieties of English) would be a good thing. Even smart people sometimes need things spelled out for them. That said, we don't need a simple case for every dialect: two examples — one American and one British, say, since they're the two "major" varieties — would be plenty. — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Some people might be tempted to say that the U.S. president, because of his important role in international affairs, is of importance to everybody. This example shows that that argument doesn't wash. The same goes for Shakespeare: he's a British topic. Joeldl 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

argument for a standard
The page highlights the craziness of varying the type of English one uses depending on the subject, even to the point of deciding which English one should use to write about someone born in one country who migrates to another country and takes the citizenship of yet another country. It's difficult enough getting people to conform to a style without giving them options. There needs to be a standard and American is the obvious choice. Also, would this diversity extend to Indian English for articles on India and/or to the use of English-based pidgins and creoles? Would Cockney be allowed in an article on London, Scots in one on Scotland? BTW, I am English-born from England with UK nationality, so have no pro-US ax(e) to grind.


 * I think there is a lot to be said for having just one standard, and, although I'm Irish, I tend to agree that choosing American English would make the most sense for a number of reasons, if there had to be just one standard. But I've noticed that Wikipedia policy formation is dominated by Europeans who seem to be deeply anti-American (to the point of being almost racist in many cases), so I think choosing American English as the standard would never fly. You know, Americans are "fat and stupid and imperialistic" (when I hear Brits say this I have to laugh...).


 * Although I write in a mixture of dialects (I spent much of my childhood in the US), as a linguist, I think American spelling makes more sense than other spelling systems (not being able to remove the -ous from humorous in order to get humour, for ex., is absurd). BUT, there are a lot of problems with US spelling as well. Perhaps American spelling, with a preference towards British spellings in cases where they're accepted in the U.S. (travelling, etc.) plus British punctuation (which makes more sense than American punctuation) would fly? --Truth About Spelling 01:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The point at which the Wikipedia community decides to force editors to use a dialect of English with which they are not intimately familiar, were not taught at school, college and university, and do not use or encounter anywhere other than Wikipedia is the point at which I will walk away from this project. And that is an action that I would not take lightly because Wikipedia is important to me, but so is my language and my nationality. When writing articles about American subject matter, I will continue to pass my work to an American editor for copyediting as I do now, but the line is drawn there. Adrian   M. H.  14:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejection
There is no evidence for consensus and little prospect of reaching a consensus on this proposal. Please review the policy for evaluating rejection; it is the default when no consensus has been reached. --Kevin Murray 10:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Per Policies and guidelines: ''A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there is active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. It is considered bad form to hide this fact, e.g. by removing the tag. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction. --Kevin Murray 10:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please identify those participants in the discussion on the talk page who expressed opposition to the page, and quote them. Joeldl 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your request is a perfect example of why rejection is the default by design, since clever arguments can indefinitely prolong the agony. The onus is on the proponents to demonstrate a consensus, and in the absence of consensus the proposal is rejected.  In this case the topic is even included in the admonition at Perennial proposals, as a clear example of failed policy.  By design it is difficult to adopt new policies and guidelines since the natural course seems to be towards WP:CREEP without some level of control on creative rule mongering.  --Kevin Murray 11:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * For instance, the section on "encouraging edit wars" would be an example of problems with the proposal.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose the two of you could compromise on historical until such time as there is substantial community interest in this. Kevin is correct in that proposals are not rejected by the presence of a consensus-to-reject, but by the lack of consensus-to-support.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why should the "rejected" template be placed without warning? That allows no time for discussion of whether consensus may emerge. Editors who were previously active might disagree with Kevin about the status of the page. Most of the discussion on this page has focused on specific examples, and did not address the well-foundedness of having a page because people may have taken it for granted that there was time to get consensus on a specific formulation. The only exception were Kaldari's comments. I think the discussion has been neglected since then. Kaldari stopped participating, and the rationale for having "proposed" on the page disappeared. That nobody proposed removing the "proposed" template was a mistake. But that doesn't mean it's been "rejected". Joeldl 12:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * By the way, Kevin Murray is totally mistaken about Perennial proposals. The proposal mentioned there is the idea of picking one spelling system and using it for all of Wikipedia. This page is instead intended to be an elaboration on the principles accepted in Manual of Style. Joeldl 12:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * J, you are entirely missing the point. It's not a vote of the participants and there is no policy about warning of an impending rejection.  It just is the state of the project: (A) you've failed to gain support demonstrating consensus, and (B) this policy hs failed before.  I don't agree with Radiant's offer to compromise, when none is needed.  Historical is not warranted here and would be a misleading tag.  --Kevin Murray 12:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This has not failed before. You are talking about something totally different. Second, this had been accepted until a single editor, Kaldari, called it "proposed". Even if it is eventually determined that you are correct, what is achieved by not warning people? By warning people, it may give people a chance to express explicit support in favour of the "proposal". The fact that Kaldari did not expressly call for any formal survey of opinion is an indication to me that he/she, after discussion, did not feel there was significant opposition to it. Since you say the onus is on me, let me begin by saying that Kierant, Truth About Spelling and myself have contributed in ways that would generally indicate support. That is not to mention the original editors Neutrality and Jguk. On the talk page, Anna Kucsma and I have made comments generally favourable to the principle of the page. Though in all of these cases, since the rejection or acceptance of the page wasn't being specifically addressed, it cannot be determined with certainty what people's views would be. Now, where has the opposition been? Joeldl 12:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * J, now I see the problem. You recently joined WP in Feb. 2007 and have not been involved in much policy development.  Kaldari was correcting a failure of the proponents to begin a new guidline as a proposal.  Perhaps you might want to spend some time at WP before you jump in and try to affect policy and interpret the rules?  --Kevin Murray 12:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kevin, don't invoke argument to authority based on account age, unless you yourself are willing to defer in policy matters to people who have been here longer than you.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Radiant, your bringing another argument here which is uncalled for. Some one with two months' experience can't possibly be ready to adapt policy and clearly is not yet familiar with our structure.  Encouraging new people to write policy is unconscionable.  --Kevin Murray 13:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to be difficult, but I strongly disagree with that line of reasoning. Either (1) any editor is free to work with policy as he sees fit, or (2) newer editors must defer to older editors with respect to policy, or (3) there must be a threshold (e.g. X months, or adminship, or whatever) between editors who are allowed to edit policy and editors who are not (or conversely, some way of banning editors from policy if they are "clearly not familiar with our structure"). Anything else would be arbitrary and subjective. Take your pick.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  14:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree; however, the contributor must at least understand the process and the culture before practically attempting to influence policy, the rest is unrealistic wiki-love. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Murray (talk • contribs)
 * And how do you propose that this be demonstrated? Suppose for the sake of argument that I were to assert that you don't understand process and therefore shouldn't be editing policy? Because that's the exact thing you're saying of Joeldl.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  07:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kevin Murray has still not said why it is preferable not to have discussion before placing a rejected template on the article. As for the other questions, I am aware that proposals must gain consensus to be accepted. However, whether it is legitimate to infer that a proposal is unlikely to gain acceptance in future because it hasn't so far, depends on the reasons it hasn't. In this case it appears to me that the page was neglected and never widely publicized. I had initially assumed that it was a valid guideline, because the page came to my attention at a time when it didn't have a "proposed" template on it. I cannot determine from what discussion there has been here what the likelihood of acceptance is, and I doubt Kevin Murray can. In fact, it is telling that in his initial arguments Kevin Murray confused this page, which adheres closely in spirit to the accepted guidelines on the main WP:MOS page, with a so-called "perennial proposal", which has indeed been rejected, to pick one kind of English and stick to it throughout Wikipedia. To me that shows that he cannot have considered the issue carefully. In fact, I have noticed that there has been discussion on his talk page of his involvement in placing other "rejected" templates on pages very recently. How much attention he can devote to the specific issues raised in each case is questionable, especially if he acts unilaterally without engaging in debate in a way that views others' opinions as being as important as his own. I believe there is a use for a page such as this one, and I will attempt to increase the level of activity on the page. My impression on seeing the page for the first time was that it was more of an incipient guideline than a fully-formed one, and then it stopped growing. Perhaps the form the page will have taken when the broadest form of consensus is requested will be quite different. Joeldl 09:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If Joeldl believes that consensus to support this proposal is still possible, he is welcome to revert the rejected template and attempt to demonstrate consensus of the community. This should be done with proper dilligence and effeciency, if undertaken. In other words, revert the template to "proposed", set up some place for people to express their opinions in an organized fashion, post a notice on the Manual of Style talk page, the Community Bulletin Board, the Policy Pump, and wherever else is appropriate, allow enough time to gauge the collective opinion of the community, revise the proposal if necessary, and then update the policy template accordingly. As someone who has been through the process several times, however, I should let you know that it is very rare to win consensus for new policies or guidelines, no matter how logical or obvious they may seem. You are certainly welcome to give it a proper try, however. Kaldari 14:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree in general except that the order is wrong. Joeldl should first attempt to demonstrate consensus of the community before reverting the rejected tag.  As it stands the evidence here is consistent with no consensus being present, thus rejection.  --Kevin Murray 14:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure the community in general even knows this proposal exists. Kaldari 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Poll

 * The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Kevin Murray has placed Template:Rejected on this guideline page, which was intended as a clarification of the accepted guidelines at WP:ENGVAR, where previously there was Template:Proposed. This means, in particular, that consensus is unlikely to form at any time in future, which would prejudice future dvelopment of the guideline. The page still says it is "under development", but it has stopped being maintained actively and has not been submitted to the community for broad approval. There has been little opposition to the page expressed here, with the exception of Kaldari. (People simply wishing to express opposition to the accepted guidelines of WP:MOS are excluded.)

The purpose of this poll is not to achieve consensus on the page itself, but rather, to determine its status in two cases:

1) The development of the page resumes in the near future, perhaps as a reaction to the change of status proposed by Kevin Murray;

2) The page remains in its current state without significant maintenance, and without being submitted to the community for broader approval.

The main choices seem to be:


 * Template:Proposed


 * Template:Historical


 * Template:Rejected

You are of course free to choose any other course of action. Joeldl 12:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Responses

 * 1) Proposed 2) Historical The status "Rejected" cannot be applied to a proposal which has simply not received attention, since it prejudices its future development. Inactivity is not a reason to conclude that "consensus is unlikely to form". Joeldl 12:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Proposed 2) Historical I agree with Joeldl on this. Not enough discussion has happened to apply a "rejected" tag.  But there is also definitely no consensus to call it an active guideline.  To me that defalts to "Proposed".  If we were attempting to determine IF it should be rejected, I would say, yes, it should be rejected (I think it is unworkable and simply a form of Policy Creep).  But we are not at that stage yet.  Much more discussion should happen to at least give this a fair hearing. Blueboar 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that the difference between rejected and historical is being confused. They describe entirely different conditions.  Regardless, it should be clear that consensus is not present for this proposal.  In either case I suggest that this be more widely advertised such as at the village pump etc.  This is not a small change and in my mind is (1) ill conceived (2) impractical and (3) potentially contentious.  Consensus is not demonstrated by a vote of a few people who are proposing this and those who might wander by, and I'm concerned that one of the main promoters has a short history with the project.  The onus is on the proponents to demonstrate that a broad consensus exists, or that the guideline represents an existing de facto tradition at WP.  The latter though theoretically possible, is difficult to practically demonstrate without the former; however, if the proponents can cite sufficient examples of documented decisions from arbitrations etc., that might be pretty compelling.  --Kevin Murray 19:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the proposal has never had wide enough exposure to be "rejected". If someone is intending on widely promoting it as a proposal and reviving discussion, change it to Proposed, otherwise Historical is fine. Kaldari 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem with that comment is that proposals could sit in perpetuity. It also implies that the historical tag is somewhere between proposed and rejected – it is not; in either case the issue can be revisited when and if support it demonstrable.  The policy concerning rejection is quite clear that is gauged by the lack of consensus to accept, rather than a consensus to reject.  The onus is on the proponents to demonstrate support, not visa versa.   The culture of WP is to avoid rules if possible, thus the process for creating rules is and should remain rigorous. --Kevin Murray 19:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sufficiently uncertain about WP protocol not to be willing to say any more than: I believe this proposal should be advertised and discussed more widely. What that means for which tag should or should not be here, I'm not certain. But this should be "tabled" (in the British sense), not "tabled" (in the North American sense). (Sorry, bad joke -- main point: the proposal shouldn't be rejected yet.) --Truth About Spelling 01:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Couldn't you just mark this as an essay, which states people's opinions on what should be used? This isn't actually a "policy", since it defines nothing new over the MOS. -137.222.10.58 15:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Reversing my position
Since I tagged the proposal for rejection, I think that it is appropriate for me to reverse myself without implying a superior authority. Although, I believe that this proposal meets the criteria for rejection, I also believe that some good will come from continuing the process. I do not see the historical tag as some sort of median ground, but a tag with an entirely different purpose. Thus I have replaced the Proposal tag. --Kevin Murray 15:58, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Caribean English
Do we really want to include Caribean English as an official language for en.Wikipedia? Said Musa

.
 * Fact profile: Said Musa is the Prime Minister of Belize. He was born in Belize when it was known as "British Honduras" and was under British rule. He also studied law at Manchester University in England, but returned to Belize the following year. He became a politician in independent Belize and has lived there ever since. Belize usually considers itself a Caribbean nation, rather than a Central American nation.
 * Conclusion: Use standard Caribbean English for the article on Said Musa

When one reads the article on Caribbean English, it becomes clear that this is a rather far stretch from either Brittish or American English. Do we indeed want something like "Weh dah bwai deh?" instead of "where is that boy"? I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to read the article at all anymore if the whole article was written in that style.Martijn Hoekstra 13:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we want to encourage writting in dialects such as Cajun, Ebonics, etc. when writing about Louisiana cooking or hip-hop. Should articles about infants be written in baby talk, and passages about substance abusers be slurred? --Kevin Murray 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That seems to be a no for you, on grounds of I think you mean its offcial status as a language. Sorry for maybe overanalising, but a comparison doesn't make an argument, if the point isn't made exlicit. It is in the current form of this guideline though. Lets hear some other opinions. Martijn Hoekstra 14:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My point is that this whole guideline is ill conceived and just an example of WP:CREEP. --Kevin Murray 16:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Caribbean English is not a written dialect. Most Caribbean nations use Commonwealth English as their written language: "The written form of the language in the former and current British West Indies conforms to spelling and grammar styles of Britain and the rest of the Commonwealth rather than those of the United States." Wikipedia articles should never be written in "Caribbean English". Kaldari 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a misinterpretation of what is meant. While it is true that the English used in the Caribbean in formal circumstances (legislation, academic writing, most journalism...) is closer to British English than to American, it cannot be excluded that certain regional features may exist which are accepted in such formal writing. There is no need for Wikipedia to judge this in advance, since if indeed there are no differences (which I doubt), Standard Caribbean English will just mean "Standard British English". If there is any doubt, you can write "Standard Caribbean English", but there is really no more need for that than to write "Standard American English". "Ain't", after all, is American English, it's just not standard. In any case, if you make changes on this aspect, you will clearly be running counter to WP:ENGVAR which has "Indian English", despite Caribbean countries using English as their primary administrative language, unlike India. Joeldl 16:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "Standard Caribbean English" as a written language. Using such a term in that context is nonsense. The directive concerning Indian English probably needs to be corrected as well. Kaldari 20:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointless redundancy
Rereading WP:ENGVAR and this proposal, to evaluate the recent discussion above, further convinces me that this proposal is redundant to WP:ENGVAR, and that any subtle differences should be reconciled and adopted there. This is merely a series of examples which might be better communicated in a truncated footnote at the MOS page, if they are indeed necessary. --Kevin Murray 16:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I happen to think that the page could do with more than examples. I have started a draft at User:Joeldl/Varieties of English Draft which you are all welcome to modify and comment on. If there is support for a general refinement of the guidelines, then we can move the draft into article space and debate each point individually. Joeldl 16:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While your use of a draft is proper and polite, I don't see it as necessary for a proposal, but a very polite way of proposing major changes to an already approved guideline. I certainly have no objection to this, but you might find that others will be modifying at this page and you may have multiple paralle discussions and forks.  You should feel welcome to make changes here.  --Kevin Murray 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I respect your intent and hard work, I don't think that any examples are necessary and that if required, fewer are preferred to more. Good luck!  --Kevin Murray 16:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I could move it here, but before making it a formal proposal I want to gauge whether there is at least a minimal degree of interest in a refinement of the guideline along the lines of the draft I've written. If there isn't, then there's no need to move it here. Joeldl 19:17, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Interest in reviving active development of page
I agree with Kaldari's sentiment above that if there is not a serious expression of interest in increasing activity on this page, it risks becoming a "historical" proposal. This is probably a matter of weeks now, if enough potential active participants do not come forward. I am interested in working on this, User:Truth About Spelling has expressed an interest, and I understand that though User:kierant has been busy lately, he too might be interested. If you are interested in developing this page into a more finished product so that it can be submitted to the community, please list your name below. Also indicate what form you think the page should take. I see at least 3 possibilities, but you can add more.

Option 1. Examples of how to apply the "strong tie to a country" rule. This is basically the current state of the page.

Option 2. In addition to examples, a more detailed interpretation of the WP:ENGVAR "strong tie" rule. Guidelines at a similar level of detail exist for WP:PROF for example. The current examples could be worked into the text.

Option 3. Like Option 2, but not restricted to interpreting the "strong tie" rule. Joeldl 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I favour Option 2 for now, but later it could be turned into something more general as in Option 3. I have written a draft of what Option 2 could look like at User:Joeldl/Varieties of English Draft. Joeldl 23:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears that this proposal has not gained interest and should be marked rejected. --Kevin Murray 11:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I would not object to a "historical" template. Nothing substantial has changed since the poll, and the majority opinion, it seems, was to go with "historical". Joeldl 07:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Per the policy page: "A historical page usually is one that is no longer maintained or no longer relevant, or one for which consensus is unclear." (1) Consensus is not unclear -- this concept was rejected, then interest waned, and (2) this was never maintained nor was it ever relevant.  Unfortunately some people see the term “historical” as a softer euphemism for rejected; it is not.  Both tags are archival, but convey different messages to future readers.--Kevin Murray 13:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The people who expressed their opinions in the poll were not unaware of the relevant considerations. There is no point reopening a debate which has already happened and in which the balance of opinion - informed opinion - was clear. You keep saying it was rejected. But of four clearly expressed opinions in the poll, only one leaned your way. Joeldl 18:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a matter of opinion; it is matter of using the correct tag. This is simply a procedural matter.  --Kevin Murray 22:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been disagreement between us about correct procedure. I believe this was resolved when, after I asked for comment, everybody who expressed their views on the matter, except you, said "historical" was preferable. On what basis can you ignore the result of that survey, except to say that you are right and everybody else is wrong? I am going to change it to historical. Joeldl 05:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP is not a democracy. If 500 people in a community decide that it is OK to run stop signs, that isn't going to change the traffic laws.  Please read the policy pageand objectively determine which tag should be posted.  Try to consider this independently of your personal attachment to this proposal.  I will abide by your decision, but consider your decision as a reflection of your reputation and overall commitment to the project.  Regardless, which ever tag you choose should be at the top of the page.  Cheers and good luck! --Kevin Murray 14:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Points
A few points:
 * Several categories ar simply for spelling, without the language variety being further specified. E.g. IUPAC; EngvarB, or British; EngvarC, or Canadian; EngvarO, or Oxford. Logically, a category for American spelling (without language variety being further specified), ought to be created. (I don't think i can create such a category myself; i don't yet know how to create templates.)
 * For articles using British English, there is an Oxford option; that is, write "-ize" not "-ise" (realize, organize etc.). Could there also be an Oxford option for Australian, New Zealand, Indian, Scottish etc. English? I.e. such articles would nominally use Australian etc. English, but would nominally use the "-ize" spelling for the "realize" lexical set. What articles, if any, would we be justified in placing in said "extended Oxford" series? (I know: Australians etc. who advocated English spelling reform (see below).)
 * Is there a distinct Northern Irish language variety, for which we would be justified in creating a language-variety category?
 * For articles on Brits who advocated English spelling reform (see Category:English-language spelling reform advocates), i recommend British English with Oxford spelling; the spelling "realize" is clearly more fonetic than "realise". Could such articles be "super-Oxfordized" by writing "-lyze" not "-lyse" (analyze etc.)? Not only is "-lyze" clearly more fonetic (hence better in line with the idea of language variety reflecting the subject matter); but given the existing spelling variants in English, if you use "-ize" (realize etc.), it is more intuitiv to use the "-lyze" spelling. For comparison, Encyclopædia Britannica (at least the 2003 edition), despite its British-looking name, the somewhat old-fashioned spelling "encyclopædia" in its title, and its use of mostly British spelling (centre, colour); not only prefers "-ize" (realize) but also "-lyze" (analyze).
 * Actually, for said reason, i suggest super-Oxfordizing the Wikipedia article Encyclopædia Britannica. However, there does not seem to be a template, or equivalently, category, for such super-Oxford British English.
 * Should super-Oxfordization mean that the spelling "cozy" is preferred over "cosy"?
 * The article William Shakespeare ought to be Oxfordized; Shakespeare's works, in most if not all cases, use "realize" rather than "realise" etc., at least in the original edition. (Interestingly enuf, the spelling "-ize" is actually older, and more etymologically justified than "-ise".)
 * "Category:Wikipedia articles that use Hiberno-English" ought to be moved to "Category:Wikipedia articles that use Irish English". The term "Irish English" is much more readily understandable. (I don't think i know how to perform such a move myself; and it might take an Administrator or suchlike, not a lay Wikipedian like me, to do so.)
 * Also to improve understandability, the terms "lakh" and "crore" should be used sparingly on articles nominally written in Indian English. After all, any such articles ar read by people thruout the Anglosfere (and beyond!), and should therefore be comprehensible. Comprehensibility especially suffers for those who ar neither Indian nor nativ English-speakers.

--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 22:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Spelling of metre/meter
I've come across articles having nothing to do with the USA where the spelling for "metre" is now meter and in the convert template the addition of sp=us, Here is one example. The spelling is metre worldwide except for the USA (as far as I'm aware) where it's meter. The same would apply to date formats. I would assume the Japanese or other country not using the Latin alphabet has a symbol for metre. Is there a default English-language variety in Wikipedia that is universal instead of country specific by excluding any preference to particular countries style of English? I've looked thru the manual of style and cannot find anything. Avi8tor (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)