Acopyeditor

Acopyeditor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Acopyeditor! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Using Engvar

Note: please read this subpage on the use of ENGVAR templates: User:Acopyeditor/ENGVAR templates

Hi, Acopyeditor. I've just reverted your addition of Engvar templates to the talk page of some articles. Please note that contributors are welcome to discuss the development of content on the article's talk page in their native English variant. It is only the content of the article itself that needs to adhere to spelling, punctuation and other regional styles. Thanks for taking note of this, and please remove the template from any other talk pages you've added it to. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:50, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Apologies: still half asleep, however please note the following is still applicable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I've reverted a number of changes now. Please read MOS:ENGVAR, MOS:COMMONALITY, plus Template:EngvarB. "Please note that EngvarB is now independent of any British English templating. It has its own categorisation, also independent of British (or indeed any other) English variant categorisation.", so please don't tack on British Oxford spelling, etc. Unless an article has unmistakeable national ties, if the spelling is irregular, standardise it to EngvarB. This is of particular importance when dealing with articles such as "Chinese characters" (or even "Ethology") as there are editors from all over the world developing these articles. You are proscribing editors for whom English is not even necessarily a native language. If you don't allow for some flexibility, you're going to force other copyeditors to run around tidying thousands of articles every time someone adds or changes content. Thanks for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The different types of English aside, the use of the template on the talk page is about the article, not the talk page. It is very common. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dbrodbeck: Apologies, but I was in half-sleep mode when I started reverting them. I'm slowly restoring the salient ones, but have found Acopyeditor has changed articles to British (Oxford) English in quite a few instances where EngvarB is appropriate. I'll finish the tidy after breakfast. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Good good, I figured it was a misunderstanding. Nice to meet you both. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

A pleasure meeting you both, too. Cheers, and happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello Iryna, thanks for pointing out the EngvarB template. I'll have a look at it. Indeed, it appears to be a more neutral template than the rather assertive "Use XXX English". But please note that the reason why I chose Oxford spelling instead of default British in several cases was well-founded: If an article uses predominantly British spelling, but almost exclusively -ize, -ization, instead of -ise, -isation, then the preference for -ize, -ization should be kept. This is the reason I chose the Oxford spelling template, precisely to reflect the combination of British spelling and -ize that is consistently used in an article. I didn't want to suggest that there are ties to Oxford/Oxford University/England or whatever. As far as I can see, "EngvarB" does not specify whether -ise or -ize is used in an article. I agree that EngvarB is a better choice, but would it be possible to have a template like EngvarO that means the same as EngvarB, but specifies the consistent use of -ize? So that EngvarB would mean generic British/Australian/Commonwealth with -ise, -isation, and EngvarO would mean generic British/Australian/Commonwealth with -ize, -izsation? Otherwise -ise and -ize are being changed back and forth all the time. Acopyeditor (talk) 08:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I have read up on EngvarB. It appears to be an attempt by User Ohconfucius to establish a neutral generic "Commonwealth" spelling template. For articles that have no ties to a specific Commonwealth country, this is a good idea, because it only specifies spelling (and not usage) and because it is less intrusive. But there should be corresponding templates for the other main spelling standards. I can identify four established spelling standards: British/Australian/Commonwealth with -ise, -isation; British/Australian/Commonwealth with -ize, -ization (see the article on Oxford spelling); Canadian spelling (a well-established UK-US hybrid; and American spelling. In analogy to EngvarB, I would call them EngvarO, EngvarC and EngvarA. I have added some thoughts on how they could be used on my user page. Acopyeditor (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have thoughts on the use of the templates, it would be valuable to check to the archived talk on the MOS talk page. For example, a search of the archives for EngvarB yields these discussions. I prefer to stay away from these discussions as there are editors who are very, very touchy about the subject. It's also why I don't tag articles for any form of variant until I've worked on it for a while and checked with other editors that they have no objections to setting a particular standard.

Yes, I know that the -ize/-ise issue is highly problematic. My personal interpretation is to adopt -ise, but that's due to the fact that I work in areas not associated with the English language, full stop. It's been my experience that LOTE editors (Languages Other Than English) tend to fall into the -ise usage more comfortably. We're not going to be able to maintain any variants to a satisfactory level on a project which is, by nature, based on dynamic content, so the best I hope for is MOS:ARTCON per article I work on. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'm seeing big problems with your EngVar implementation. I don't see the point of your new templates, and think they'll serve better as redirects to the existing ones. And having separate categories for the same thing (for example, Category:Wikipedia articles that use EngvarC spelling when there's already a perfectly good category - Category:Wikipedia articles that use Canadian English) just creates unnecessary confusion. What exactly is the difference between Canadian English and EngvarC spelling? Even EngvarC spelling redirects to Canadian English. EngvarB lumps British, Irish, Australian, New Zealand, and others into the same category. Are you really suggesting that only articles whose subject have ties to one of those countries should be tagged with a specific Engvar template? As I understand it, EngvarB is for articles that are not American English, but haven't been explicitly identified as British or Australian or whatever (and for that reason, it's fine to have it as a generic template for such articles, but they shouldn't replace the other templates just because the article doesn't have strong ties to one of those countries). If British has been established (remember, it's not just spelling; it's the terminology too), the British templates should be used, because using generic templates theoretically allows the mixing of British, Australian, New Zealand English and others, which goes against consistency guidelines. Using generic templates simply isn't good enough in those circumstances. The flags on the existing EngVar templates do not necessarily imply national ties or ownership; they simply symbolise the EngVar used in the article. I'm confused as to what's wrong with the current system? Adam9007 (talk) 00:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your questions. There is not much wrong with the current system, and I don't intend to replace it. See User:Acopyeditor/ENGVAR templates for an overview. Please feel free to continue to use the "fully spelt out" templates ("Use X English" and the templates with the flags) as before. What I have done with EngvarO, EngvarC and EngvarA is just the logical extension of EngvarB: a more neutral option to tag articles when specifying terminology and grammar would go to far. If you look closely at the documentation of template {{EngvarB}}, you'll see that it only marks spelling, and not terminology and grammar. Since this option existed for EngvarB (created by User Ohconfucius), it is only fair and appropriate to have it for the other three major spelling standards, too. I want to use these templates for maintenance purposes when copy-editing articles for consistent Oxford spelling and Canadian English. The corresponding templates for the talk pages are also meant as options for cases where specifying the spelling standard (but not necessarily terminology and grammar) is desirable. I know there have been users that found the standard templates with the flags too prescriptive. Acopyeditor (talk) 02:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Again, Acopyeditor, Wikipedia is a collaborative project. That's its most fundamental principle, and why I suggested that you make contact with other editors who work on style issues, etc. Creating your own categories and interpretations (et al) can be construed to be disruptive, even though done in good faith. Wikipedia's methodology is based on consensus, therefore ignoring task forces and experienced user input can also be construed to be WP:NOTHERE behaviour. If you wish to expand on Wikipedia's MOS, it's imperative that you communicate with other editors in order to draw on their experience, failed proposals, etc. No aspects of the project are based on unilateral decisions. You should take a look at the WP:VILLAGEPUMP and consider asking questions/making proposals there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I will contact user Ohconfucius and discuss it with him/her. As far as I can see, (s)he unilaterally came up with EngvarB for reasons that made sense, since (s)he needed such a tag for spelling maintenance. The template was nominated for deletion, but no consensus was reached, and then (s)he just kept using it for his/her EngvarB script (so far >66000 pages tagged). If EngvarB exists and is being actively used (and by now considered useful, I think), then it would be very biased to disallow EngvarC and other variants. Since Ohconfucius is most actively involved with tagging pages for spelling consistency, I will ask for his opinion about it. Regarding your other comments: How does this have to do with the Manual of Style? I don't wish to expand on the Manual of Style. These are maintenance tags and they don't disrupt anything because all existing templates are untouched. EngvarB and all the other "Use X English" templates are not even mentioned in the MOS. Also, I'm not using new interpretations, I'm using the exact interpretations provided on the documentation pages of the existing templates. And EngvarC, EngvarA and EngvarO and constructed in exact analogy to EngvarB, and I'm stating clearly on the template pages that they are independent of the existing other templates. Acopyeditor (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Want to help shape the future of the Wikipedia editing experience?

Hi Acopyeditor,

The Design Research team at the Wikimedia Foundation is currently seeking relatively newcomer Wikipedians for user studies about their editing experience and to test out some editing tools. If you’re interested in helping to shape the future of editing on Wikipedia, we would love to have you participate! The study session will take approximately 30 minutes, maximum of 45 minutes.

The study will take place in the next couple weeks, and will require participants to have access to a webcam and microphone (or a laptop with built in cam & mic), with a quiet place to go for a research session. To participate, please email dchen[at]wikimedia.org and include the following information:

• Username
• Email where we can reach you
• Your city or time zone
• Best time to talk to you

Please let me know if you have any questions! Look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Daisy Chen

User Experience Researcher Dchen (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Acopyeditor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EngvarA spelling

Template:EngvarA spelling has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 01:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:EngvarO

Template:EngvarO has been nominated for merging with Template:Use British (Oxford) English. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Acopyeditor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Category:EngvarC has been nominated for discussion

Category:EngvarC, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Category:EngvarO has been nominated for discussion

Category:EngvarO, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EngvarO progress

Template:EngvarO progress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 23:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EngvarC spelling

Template:EngvarC spelling has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

"EngvarA spelling" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect EngvarA spelling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 12#EngvarA spelling until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. --Trialpears (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:EngvarO spelling

Template:EngvarO spelling has been nominated for merging with Template:British English Oxford spelling. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2020 (UTC)