Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 85

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 80

←

Archive 83

→

National varieties of English and divergent vocabulary

Latest comment: 16 years ago42 comments10 people in discussion

I think we should consider a guideline for national varieties of English and divergent vocabulary. Specifically, sometimes different varieties of English use completely different terms, and this can be quite confusing in articles. Yes everyone knows that airplane/aeroplane are the same thing, but what about sedan/saloon? I think in such a situation we should have a strong preference for region-nonspecific vocabulary in articles. See Talk:2007_London_car_bombs#Mercedes-Benz saloon?. Thanks.--Pharos 22:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

... assuming such even exists. Would this the the death nell of football for "soccer"? J ɪ m p 01:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Pharos, you'll just have to look it up. Tony 01:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I myself have no problem looking it up and I even find such regional vocabulary differences personally interesting, but I think we should be careful not to use the wikilink as a crutch. Our articles should be understandable to as broad an international audience as possible even when printed on a page in black ink. So, I think sometimes it might be necessary to use slightly awkward region-nonspecific or disambiguating language (like association football for football or four-door car for sedan/saloon).--Pharos 02:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, you can also look things up on pages in printed black ink ... whilst I do symphathise somewhat with your idea, I fear that, taken too far (& we should assume that any rule appearing here is liable to be taken too far), this could lead to awkward and unnatural prose. For example, whilst association football is not too odd (being the official name of the game ... in fact I find this preferrable to the football (soccer) we often see), I'm not too sure that people would find four-door car to be natural English. Also, where an article has strong ties to a particular dialect the vocubulary of that dialect should be preferred regardless. J ɪ m p 04:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Should not be a reason to link. Tony 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In some ways I just feel the current guideline, under "Opportunities for commonality", is utterly backwards on this subject. It recommends terms of commonality mainly for article titles, and gives the horrible example of fixed-wing aircraft. Now surely, any reasonable person can see that either "aeroplane" or "airplane" is a far superior title; "fixed-wing aircraft" has been chosen only as a silly "international compromise" of sorts between the two. I don't think it's healthy to focus on such disputes in article titles as the "official" arbiter of the correct term, especially when we have terms that are equally intelligible (if not equally natural) to all English speakers. What we should distinguish is between the "aeroairplane" words and the "lorrytruck" words. I see nothing wrong with having any sort of term (but especially "aeroairplane" words) in an article title because it makes no difference except for pride, but in articles I think potentionally confusing "lorrytruck" words should be replaced by commonality terms, or at least somehow qualified.--Pharos 05:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I did raise this a little while ago, with most of the opinion favouring continuing to use national words. I agree that a some common words are just made up to please everyone, and sound awkward. Fixed wing aircraft is actually not one of these, as this is in common usage amongst pilots! I think the original point here about sedan/saloon is quite a good example of what we should try and avoid. I think we should use the prevailing variant for items such as soccer/football (i.e. soccer in US articles and football everywhere else, association football as the main article title) where they are widely known, but actively try and avoid words which appear here, here and here. Owain.davies 06:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A really minor point but "football everywhere else" ... how about Canadian articles, ... Australian articles, ... New Zealand articles, ... how about football in British/Irish articles and soccer everywhere else? Of course, I'm going off on a tangent and really should shut up about it ... I would agree with using association football as the main article title ... in fact this is probably the best term all round (except in region-specific articles). J ɪ m p 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a broad generalisation for brevity, of course it varies by country, but the principle remains the same. Owain.davies 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is starting to make me think that the "Opportunities for commonality" subsection should be removed altogether. It's kind of wishy-washy and doesn't fit with the preceding sections, which are nice and logical and cogent. Tony 09:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should be removed, but strengthened to be clearer. I think it's clear that we should avoid terms that aren't used in other language variants (as in the lists i posted above), but accept that some words will have to be country specific. Using words which are common between languages can work well, without looking forced. Try looking at Ambulance if you'd like an example - it contains very few words in there which would be contested between languages, and it's GA rated, and probably suitable for FA soon. You could easily strengthen to section to make it clear where you should look for commonality (titles, global articles like 'association football'), where commonality is acceptable (more or less anywhere unless it ruins the flow), and where there is no need for commonality (in writing your own prose on a country specific article). I might have a go at rewriting the section and post it here later. Owain.davies 09:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I propose the following text to replace the existing section - it's not properly spell or grammar checked at the moment because i'm at work and having to use IE : - ( so it will need tidying up, but i think it gives the appropriate weight that you should write normally, but just avoid words that might confuse people. Comments please....

In order to try and make Wikipedia as accessible as possible, the prose should be easy to read, regardless of the dialect used. In the vast majority of cases, so long as the article is consistently written, most dialectal variants can be used ('organization' rather than 'organisation' for instance). However, in order to increase readability, in some instances, it is preferable to use words which are not contested between languages.

Using words which are not common worldwide should be avoided wherever possible, except where it is used in an article about its use, or is in context for a regional article. For instance, references to 'grid iron' would be suitable in articles regarding American Football, but would not be appropriate in a biography or list of sports. Other examples include headings such as 'Etiology', which is only widely used in North America.

More examples of words to avoid can be found at:

The use of international terms is especially important in naming articles, especially where contested words occur. For instance, 'Grid iron', should redirect to 'American football' or a similar title.

There are also contests over nouns where there are slight differences between countries, such as 'airplane' and 'aeroplane'. In cases such as this, a common substitute (such as fixed-wing aircraft - a term often used by professional pilots) is favored over national varieties (“fixed-wing aeroplanes” (BrE) and “fixed-wing airplanes” (AmE).

When using a common word, or where no common word exists, editors should redirect the alternate spellings to the one main article, such as Artefact and Artifact, where one points to the other, there being no suitable alternative available. This helps to stop article proliferation, with repetition, and confusion for readers.

It is acceptable for editors to change regional words to internationally recognized words as long as it does not affect the cadence, flow or quality of the prose. However, editors whould not generally replace international words with regional ones, unless it is necessary for the article.

Anyone got any comments on this? Owain.davies 10:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You've worked hard to make this work (sorry about the repetition!), but I don't like a lot of it. Far too long, questionable goal, these differences are not "contested", they just exist. I'd get rid of the current commonality section or leave as is. Tony 14:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I've gotta say I'm with Tony on this. Instead of strengthen it, I'd rather ditch the section. How, for example, does one judge what is universally acceptable? An example you give, Owain, is organisation/organization dictionaries might prefer -ize but outside North America what people prefer is -ise. It seems to me that this would be best dealt with on a case-by-case basis on article Talk pages. J ɪ m p 20:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe i didn't write it well enough - the idea is to encourage the use of organisation or organization, depending on the overall language of the article. I'm only suggesting that people don't use words which appear on those three lists, and the gold standard is words which are common. On a minor point, BrE dictionaries all use 'organisation'.

How about a shortened version then for conciseness:

Whilst editors should attempt to write in the article style (for instance, American English or British English depending on the first major editor) and use the correct syntax and spelling related to this, the use of words which are specific to one dialect, or ambiguous between dialects should be avoided. Examples can be found on:

It is acceptable for editors to change dialectal words or spellings to internationally understood ones, as long as it does not affect the style, syntax or quality of the article, but editors should avoid changing internationally known words in to regional variants, unless it is important to the article.

Is this any more acceptable? I can't believe that anyone would want to have words included on this encyclopaedia which aren't understood worldwide (going back to my previous example, Etiology and Grid Iron are just two) - the key is to keep natural english (of whatever variant) except where it suddenly makes your article less readable to some of your audience. I know someone referred in the previous discussion (although i can't find it in the archive right at the moment) that navigating this was an essential Wikipedian skill, which i think completely misses the point that Wikipedia is not just for Wikipedians but for any member of the public who wants information. This is especially true with huge english speaking contingents such as in India. English is the most widely spoken language in the world (not as a first language before anyone starts) and people mostly learn an international mixture. For this reason, we surely can't continue to use regional dialect words, or words with different meanings in different languages? Owain.davies 05:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As a trivial point, I believe The English dictionary (which happens to be British) uses organization. — The Storm Surfer 00:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've said before, the differences are superficial for readers, who can, by and large, easily recognise the odd word/spelling from another variety; they're a little harder for writers, but that's not what matters. Tony 06:55, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I rather like your second version—it puts the issue forward quite concisely. The important thing in my opinion is the distinguishing of superficial differences like spelling preferences (Tony seems to be misinterpreting this point here) and genuinely divergent words (as in the lists you link to), which are often totally unfamiliar to people of another region.--Pharos 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad someone seems to understand! I am all for people writing to make the article consistent, so use "pediatric organization" or "paedatric organisation", whichever suits the given article style, but we should just avoid the words that cause the most confusion, and it should always be acceptable to say 'society' rather than organization (or any other variant which might apply). Owain.davies 08:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

People here seem to assume that there are just two beasts. No, you'll have to account for Australian, South African, NZ and Irish varieties, not to mention Indian and Singaporean English and ... where does it stop? Finding commonalities becomes a minefield. Tony 12:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that mean we shouldn't try? The point is still to avoid where possible, and accept them being changed. Nobody is expecting it to be perfect, but starting with AmE and BrE is a good place because virtually all the others are based on and draw from these two. Owain.davies 15:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

There are more problems in trying than leaving it as is. I can't quite see what the problem is. The language is, probably more than any other, big and baggy. It's expansive, a borrowing language, in a state of constant flux. This "avoid lexis that isn't common to all English speakers" is a rod down the writer's back. The differences are superficial, and the language is cohesive enough to admit regional differences into its soup. You seek to impose an entirely new set of regulations on WPians that is bound to fail. And I should point out that at least the first article proposed for inclusion as a link above appears to be in a state of chaos. There's a tag as long as an essay at the top warning of issues; and I found several errors during my flick down the table. This idea is impractical and undesirable. Tony 15:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In that case we should probably stop trying to make each article read in one variation; lets mix BrE, AmE and all the others in together. For that matter, why bother with an MOS at all? OK, that's flippant, but nothing written here in MOS will gain 100% usage, and in the end, it's only a request that people try and consider it with words which cause others the most difficulty - it's no different to encouraging editors not to use archaic 20 letter words which fell out of usage in the 17th century. Make it as accessible as possible - why should a reader have to start looking up words when it could easily be avoided. You will note that my second proposed version says effectively to write in the article style (certainly to me actually MORE difficult than writing in internationally understood words!) and if you can, then use international words. It just seems that you'd like to keep WP elitist. Owain.davies 15:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we should avoid national regionalisms specific to one country whenever possible for exactly the same reasons that we avoid local regionalisms specific to one city or county. An international English encyclopedia should just avoid those words (and there aren't many of them, really) that will not be understood internationally.--Pharos 23:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

(1) "avoid national regionalisms specific to one country"—Maybe couched as a recommendation? I can't see how this can be a hard-and-fast rule.

(2) You don't see WP as a key agent in familiarising English-speakers with the odd word from another variety they've not noticed before?

(3) "I believe The English dictionary (which happens to be British) uses organization" (Storm surfer). Yes, it's a source of amazement that the old farts at OED who sit around over cups of tea nattering about how to update the dictionary still haven't reversed the first and second orders of z and s to reflect widespread usage. Bizarre. Tony 04:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe i'll add couched to my list of words not to use.... i've had to look that up in my OED, and it still seems like an odd phrase which doesn't make much sense - almost proving exactly my point. I still think we're not suggesting that everyone can or will follow the guidance, but then again, not everyone can or will follow any of this MOS.

As for point 2, no, I don't think a primary purpose of WP is to introduce people to other languages. Some individual pages might do that, and i'm all for adding multiple phrases in articles ("American football, also known as grid iron"). The primary function of WP is for people to find information in the easiest way possible. It is incredibly elitist to 'prescribe' vocabulary expansion to people who are trying to find information about a generalist subject. Personally, I love learning new words (so thanks for couching), but i'm considerate enough not to use them during everyday speech or when writing in WP because I think it's bad manners to deliberately confuse people, just to prove i'm the better wordsmith!

As for point 3, you're quite right (although it gives -isation as an appropriate alternative), but I thought we'd moved on from this - we are happy to accept spelling variations of commonly used words, so long as it is in article style. It's just words not frequently used in other languages which are a problem. Owain.davies 05:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

links rather than parenthesis can often be used to explain details that traditionally would have been placed in parenthesis, (please see this essay meta:Wiki is not paper#Style and functionality for examples). --Philip Baird Shearer 09:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm feeling controversial now – how about we use only OED spellings throughout Wikipedia? That would be great having one set of English used throughout, and as you point out, many of the spellings they use tend to the AmE versions. We could set a couple of bots on the task, and the whole of the mainspace could be converted to a single standard that everyone could use! Just a thought... Owain.davies

I'll pass on that last one. And as for "couch", well, here's what the US Encarta Dictionary (conveniently on my desktop) says:

"verb [ trans. ] 1 (usu. be couched in) express (something) in language of a specified style : many false claims are couched in scientific jargon."

It's a common item in all major varieties of English. Which planet? Tony 07:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Earth.

Tony you wrote "avoid national regionalisms specific to one country"—Maybe couched as a recommendation?. I do not think so. The whole point of "National varieties of English" is to allow people to read and write articles about their own nation in an English familiar to them. For example if I was to add a sentence to the article on Birmingham "Most of the housing stock between the inner and outer ring road consists of council blocks of flats" the links take care of any words which might not be immediately understandable to a non Brit while keeping the English simple and non convoluted for those who understand British English. Similary I might write about Birmingham, Alabama (althought it is not true, I am just making it up to make a point) "Most of the housing stock between the innner and outer beltways consists of public apartment blocks" --Philip Baird Shearer 08:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, because only people from England could possibly want to read about Birmingham! If you read up the discussion, my argument is that writing in BrE, AmE or any other variant is acceptable in a nationally focused article (especially as in your example above 'council housing' is the only really widespread use in the UK), but best practice on generalist articles or articles relevant across the world is avoid terms like this. For instance, on an article about 'Housing', it wouldn't be acceptable to say 'council flat'. But again, if someone wanted to replace 'council flat' with 'housing owned by the local authority' that would be acceptable, because it is more widely understood, and not detrimental to your 'target' reader. Wikipedia is not about writing just for people who live where you do, or write the same way. It is a project to offer knowledge to ANYONE, even those without english as a first language. Owain.davies 09:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Nor am I thrilled at the idea of linking every word that might not be familiar to every reader. There's enough blue spattered over WP already, and I'm keen not to dilute the high-value links. Tony 11:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you realy suggesting that terms link "beltway" and "ring road" should be replaced in every article with expressions like "a road that follows a circular route around [place entity here]". I think not. Imagen removing every mention of Gasoline or Petrol and replacing them with "a petroleum-derived liquid mixture consisting mostly of hydrocarbons and enhanced with benzene or iso-octane to increase octane ratings". As to the comment that the project offers knowledge to anyone well yes a German can read about an article in German etc. There is also the Simple English Wikipedia --Philip Baird Shearer 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No. Evidently you missed the piece of this whole thread where this is used in sensible places. You are clearly exaggerating a limited example to make an argument out of it. What is suggested is clear - continue to write in BrE if that's the language of the article, but where it does not affect the cadence, flow or quality of the article, international terms are always acceptable and may be preferable. You can always going to have to use some words where you are going to have to make a decision (gasoline vs petroleum for instance) and the answer is clear - follow the article style. The argument is to avoid words specific to limited portions of the language where possible (use American Football rather than Grid iron for instance). It is just about trying not to confuse people deliberately (and also not covering your entire article in wikilinks). Owain.davies 21:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

PBS is right---except of course for the phrase public apartment blocks, which don't mean a thing in American English ;-P People, the vocabulary of the English language is complex---put up or shut up; this ain't simple.wikipedia.org. And btw, gasoline is not petroleum, gasoline is petrol.

But what about a notation like

...proposed a policy that would reduce gasoline/petrol consumption...

to use whenever it would "not affect the cadence, flow, or quality of the article," and especially in articles with no "strong regional ties"? ---The user formerly known as JackLumber 23:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Something I noticed. It is not always immediately clear which is the local language used for an article. Would it be an idea to consider putting up a series of templates that can be added at the discussion pages to make this clear. I am thinking of things like:

This article is written using British English.
See the Wikipedia Manual of Style on spelling.

Netherlands Arnoutf 22:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This has been proposed in the past, but I don't remember the name of the page it was on. I think the main objections were either to the wording of the templates or that there are too many templates on talk pages already (which I can certainly agree with the last... stupid WikiProjects.) — The Storm Surfer 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok fair enough , I thought this might save some discussion for certain pages. But I fully agree the tal pages are swamped in templates.... Arnoutf 09:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm about to be late for something offline, so I don't have time to go look, but something has been bugging me for months. Last I looked (wikitext being in flux all the time...) the current recommendations on this topic, here or perhaps at another project page, were pretty flatly and inflexibly that if an article started with UK English, it stayed that way, and same with US English. I strongly feel that this needs moderation for topicality, specifically that if it is a US-centered topic, it gets US English, and more broadly vice-versa – if it's a UK, Irish, British Commonwealth, or former British colony topic, it gets UK English, and if it's a Canadian topic it gets Canadian English (which is a real thing; in short, it's mostly US vs. UK vocabulary, but with UK vs. US spelling, though this is not a 100% universal, as for example with "tire" vs "tyre"). That is, if the Tony Blair article had been started by an American in US English, it absolutely must switch to UK English, just for simply sanity. Where there's not particular US/UK distinction, as at Tree or Cue sports, then the "whatever came first" rule should apply. I might be barking up a dead tree (if I may mix and mangle some metaphors), as the guideline details in question may've already been modified to address this. I sure hope so. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This was and still is covered. Tony 01:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I could be wrong (happened once before, back in 1985!), but i think we could be close to near consensus here. I don't think anyone disagrees that the article should stay in the language in which it was first written (not always easy to tell). I still stand by the use of international terms (1) where they exist (2) where they don't affect the cadence or flow of sentence. These should be preferred over regional only words in all articles if the author is able to do so - this is easier to do than a Brit trying to write American English for instance.

Does anyone object to this being written up? It could look something like this (i'll give it another go)

Whilst editors should attempt to write in the article style (for instance, American English or British English depending on the first major editor) and use the correct syntax and spelling related to this, the use of words which are specific to one dialect, or ambiguous between dialects should be avoided if possible. Examples can be found on:

It is acceptable for editors to change dialectal words or spellings to internationally understood ones, as long as it does not affect the style, syntax or quality of the article, but editors should avoid changing internationally known words in to regional variants, unless it is important to the article.

One last go, eh?

They're hardly dialects; varieties, yes, and the differences are so superficial. These articles have been judged to be problematic. Aren't there huge tags at their tops? I noticed errors myself when I had a look a one. Are people still edit-warring over this issue? Aren't the guidelines practical and realistic as they are now? There is mention of the advantages of choosing common items. And finally, won't problematic words be ironed out by editors in the longer scheme of things? Can you provide examples that demonstrate a significant deficiency in the current subsection? Tony 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, folks, this has always struck me as much ado about minutiae. We really can’t require the average editor to be familiar with all of the varieties of English – we’re doing well enough if they can recognize American from British usage and spelling, much less Canadian from Australian from Indian and so on. It seems to me that any resolution should follow three clear and simple rules (in descending order of priority):

As a matter of priority, use the variety of English “native” to the subject of the article, if there is one. E.g., British English for Birmingham, England and American English for Birmingham, Alabama.
If the subject has no “native tongue”, follow the usage of the creating editor; if that editor did not display a clear preference, then follow the precedent of the first editor to do so. (Said editor should note their introduction of a particular usage in their edit comment.)
Strive for consistency throughout.

IMHO, much more than that requires too much sophistication for the average editor. Askari Mark (Talk) 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)