Wikipedia talk:Proposal for a spelling standardization talk header

Spelling standardization talk header

I am very much tired of seeing and or or reverting changes to Orange (colour) and similar pages where some editor, usually an anon, has gone through and substituted every "colour" with "color". It is equally frustrating (although less for me, I admit a bias) when an editor on an American English-standardized article to see someone change the article to Commonwealth English (I'll revert that too, though.) It also violates WP:ENGVAR when someone does that, and editors can be quite touchy about people trying to standardise a mixed-spelling article, even in good faith. Since that's the case, wouldn't it be a good idea to create a talk header template for such frequently-abused articles indicating that the article should generally keep using whichever variation is established? I designed a template for this idea:

{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} This spelling is established{{#if:{{{revision|}}}|, and has been established since <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>|<!--no revision specified-->}}. {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|}

Example:

This article's spelling has been standardized to British or Commonwealth English. This spelling is established, and has been established since revision 121515871. In addition, it is so because Nihiltres thinks that it should be so, and because he wants to give a silly example special reason for spelling standardization. As such, please do not change the spelling standardization! Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy regarding national varieties of English spelling. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.

What do you think? Nihiltres 23:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a good idea, in theory. However, most of the editors who will change English styles are the editors who will not read talk pages or know the guidelines (anons, newbies). I would just revert the changes and warn the user with the {{lang0}} - {{lang5}} warnings. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I like this. However, I agree with the comment above that it would not reach the audience before the act; but rather I think its key use would be in quickly tracing the history and/or during legitimate spelling/grammar/punctuation corrections. For the former situation, the tag should consider subject (is it generally specific to a geographical location and/or dialect) as well as the original dialect it was written in; and in iffy situations (read: most situations) it should be clearly discussed on the Talk page before officially adding the tag. The tag, when added, should be done via a single edit with an all-caps edit description so that it can stand out as to when the tag was added. Now during disputes, it'd be easy to see what consensus was reached. Also, during legitimate reviews of the article, it'd help me easily choose which spelling/grammar/punctuation checker I should have selected.

Some extraneous thoughts: given my above concerns, the tag should be smaller as it serves more as reference rather than deterrence. Perhaps a small item along the side of the page rather than a banner across the width. If only we could protect specific segments of articles or perhaps sections (or can we?), it would be handy if this tag could be protected after consensus was reached as to what language the topic should be in. This would avoid confusion arising from editors changing the tag after it has been added. One last thought: the tag should provide for a link directly to the archived discussion regarding what spelling form is to be utilised. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 23:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding "small" capability is easy. I'm working on a version that will have a double setup for talk page revision and article revision, and for protecting the template, it can be used on a protected talk subpage and that page can be transcluded to the main talk... that's an admin issue though, I don't want to make more work for them. One moment while I finish the double version by working out a little bug. Nihiltres 02:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think a comment in the article (near the top) would be more likely to be noticed than anything on the talk page, e.g.

<!-- This article uses [[British English]] spelling, not [[American English]] spelling.

DO NOT CHANGE THE SPELLING!

Please see [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English]] -->

Such a comment could be added by a template that was subst'd (and the links would not be "clickable". -- Rick Block (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two combinations to address Bossi's concerns.

{| class="messagebox small-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}{{{talkrevision|}}}|<!--null-->|'''This spelling is not established.'''}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}|This spelling was established in the article at <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>.|<!--null-->}} {{#if:{{{talkrevision|}}}|It was established in the talk page on <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{talkrevision}}} revision {{{talkrevision}}}]</span>.}} {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|}
{{-}}
{| class="messagebox standard-talk"
|-
|[[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|50px]]
|This article's spelling has been standardized to {{#switch:{{lc:{{{spelling}}}}}
|american='''[[American English]]'''.
|british
|commonwealth='''[[British English|British]] or [[Commonwealth English]]'''.
|#default=a variety of English ('''Please clarify by specifying a variety in the template.''')
}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}{{{talkrevision|}}}|<!--null-->|'''This spelling is not established.'''}} {{#if:{{{revision|}}}|This spelling was established in the article at <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{PAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{revision}}} revision {{{revision}}}]</span>.|<!--null-->}} {{#if:{{{talkrevision|}}}|It was established in the talk page on <span class=plainlinks>[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title={{FULLPAGENAMEE}}&oldid={{{talkrevision}}} revision {{{talkrevision}}}]</span>.}} {{#if:{{{reason|}}}|{{{reason}}}|<!--no special reason specified-->}} As such, '''please do not change the spelling standardization!''' Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the [[WP:MOS|Wikipedia Manual of Style]]'s [[WP:ENGVAR|policy]] regarding [[American and British English spelling differences|national varieties of English spelling]]. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.
|[[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|50px]]
|}

Example:

This article's spelling has been standardized to British or Commonwealth English. This spelling was established in the article at revision 121515871. It was established in the talk page on revision 123456789. In addition, there's a good reason, like this example one. As such, please do not change the spelling standardization! Changes to the spelling variation to the article, including moves - if the article's title has a variation - may be reverted on sight, according to the Wikipedia Manual of Style's policy regarding national varieties of English spelling. If consensus on the article's spelling becomes unclear, please remove this notice.

Nihiltres ~~04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)~~ (updated to fix a sentence structure bug 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Personally, I prefer a comment in the wiki code for such articles, because the people who change it would have a hard time claiming they didn't notice it. - 131.211.210.18 13:01, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support this. I'm tired of seeing editors waste time discussing how to spell an article's title on the talk pages. I'd also like to see WP:ENGVAR expanded to a separate page to be more detailed about its rationale, and then all those who wish to discuss color or colour etc. to the end of time to be sent to its talk page and ignored.. LukeSurl 00:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I would suggest removing the flags had having something which is more to do with language than nationality, otherwise it looks like claiming territory, possibly provocative. LukeSurl 00:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly. The images I used, I used partly because I couldn't think of anything better - if this proposal is supported in general, I'm sure that there are many different appropriate images that could be used - perhaps a globe icon of some sort? Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 15:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seems like a great idea to me, although I'd prefer to see a template for placement on the talk page; it would help with articles such as Orange (colour) that aren't naturally more British or more American. Nyttend 22:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uh, this is for the talk page. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 22:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't seem to be proposing anything new; everything is already in the MOS. You have not established that revert wars between various kinds of English are in fact causing problems. I find those templates overly verbose, and I'm afraid that formalizing this wouldn't actually stop any kind of edit wars, and may in fact start new edit wars over the templates. >Radiant< 16:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, such a big scary template seems to say: "Your contributions to this article are not welcome unless you know the difference between British and American spelling well enough not to get it wrong", and vaguely hints that contributions that use wrong spellings will be "reverted on sight" rather than corrected. –Henning Makholm 07:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This problem isn't severe enough to warrant yet another enormous talk page template, so wordy that no one will even read it. If a noob or PoV warrior comes along and Americanizes or Briticizes an article inappropriately, simply revert with an edit summary of "Rv. reversal of dialect, per WP:ENGVAR" and move on. PS: If a template could logically be applied to every single article on the system, the template is a bad idea. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'll have to admit, I didn't actually read the whole template. (Or really any of it for that matter.) I think it's too big and unsightly, as well as it promotes a segregation among editors of different English speaking countries (the flags...). I just don't think it's appropriate, and as SMcCandlish said, it's really not enough of a problem. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A simple way to deal with this problem will be to first reach consensus on the spelling, and then reverting any subsequent changes unless it is discussed on the talk page.--Kylohk 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Better make sure any British version of this template says "standardisation", eh? ;) FiggyBee 19:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Replace uses of the word "standardization" with "formatting" and keep watch for other potential bias words within the template itself. I still think the template should be smaller, though. Consider the audience: it will likely be ignored by vandals, go unnoticed by new editors (whom are not always aware of the talk page), and will only clutter up the talk page itself. I see this being for editors whom keep watch to revert unnecessary changes to the language structure.

Prior to applying the template, a discussion should take place to determine which language structure is to be used. The primary point for determining the language structure should be if the article is clearly representative of a specific language structure (e.g. geographically located in a specific country); or secondarily the original form in which the article was written. The language template would then be only a single small icon (I prefer a UK or USA flag, myself) which, when clicked, would link to an archived subpage of the discussion that took place when determining the language to be used. Users reverting unnecessary edits could provide a direct link to this subpage in their edit summary. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 20:45, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This might eventually be sufficiently refined to warrant consideration. The tags would have to be smaller. I am against having the flags of only two countries. Many countries speak English. Joeldl 09:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response I concur that many countries speak English, but how much do they vary in language structure from the British or American variants (excluding Scots)? I have been under the impression that the British and American variations were the most prevalent and were the general structures which other English-speaking nations adopt, but I could definitely be wrong about that. All of the nations I can think up at 8am are those which standardise to American or British variation, though they here-and-there add in words of their own language; but it is still by-and-large American or British format. If there are other defined variations, I could see those flags being worked in as another option. Otherwise, apart from being concise, I see no other differences between spelling out "British or Commonwealth English" and "American" as opposed to displaying the flags of each. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 12:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are purely talking about spelling, yes, countries pretty much follow British usage or American or something in between. Canadian spelling follows American on some things, British on others, and leaves the choice open on others. Some words, such as chequing, as in chequing account don't exist in Britain but don't follow American spelling, or vice versa. But why a British flag and not an Australian one? They follow the same spelling as Britain for the most part. Why not "Australian and Commonwealth"?
But more seriously, language is more than spelling, and there are many differences between countries that do not have anything to do with Britain and the U.S. Canadians generally say "running shoes", Americans say "sneakers" and Britons "trainers". But if Canadians did say "sneakers" (people in Atlantic Canada in fact do), why should we call it the American word and not the Canadian one? The U.S. and Britain do not have special status in my mind, but singling out their flags would make it appear as if they did. Joeldl 14:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Response - Ahh, good examples. However, I view Australia and Canada as being appropriate for the British flag as they are still under authority of the Queen. Then again, not being Australian nor Canadian, it may be that they have an entirely different opinion on the relationship. I'd be quite interested to get some input on this from someone of those countries. Generally, my biggest complaint about this header is that it is too large; and I believe a small flag icon would be the perfect item to place at a corner of the article's talk page. --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 15:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the flag is the symbol of the Queen, but it's not ordinarily considered a symbol of the countries nowadays, and it's the countries we're talking about. In any case, you'll need separate flags for Ireland, South Africa, India... I have some misgivings about this idea, although I agree it reflects current guidelines. I think it's a bit undignified, because it emphasizes that we tend to have disputes about these things, and it makes it feel as though people are claiming the article for themselves.

Instead of country categories (especially for non–country-related articles), I would prefer -ise/-ize categories, -er/-re categories, etc. After all, -ize is an accepted minority spelling in Britain, Australia, etc., and in Canada -or is an accepted minority spelling as an alternative to -our. In other words, reserve flags for a declaration that a particular topic is country-related. (In some cases, such as European Union, you would need two flags. Here, Britain and Ireland.) For isolated words like tire/tyre, we should probably just stick to whatever was used first for that particular word, rather than having to make a deduction like "in all -ise countries it's tyre, so we should use tyre". I think it would be fine to have a template with a "fill in the blank" space where you can add whatever comes up, with the understanding that you're mainly interested in families such as the -ise/-ize family. I understand that this appears less elegant than a country flag, but there is ambiguity on spelling within countries, so the effect of a flag would be to disallow minority spellings of those countries when they happened to be the majority in another country.

This came up for Mary Wollstonecraft, and was quite contentious for a while. It was eventually decided that it was a Britain-related topic, but -ize spellings were allowed because they were possible in Britain. So now, Mary Wollstonecraft is an -ize article, but certainly also an -our article.

I've made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to formalize the idea that, for non–country-related articles, you can mix and match, so that you may end up with all -ise and all -er (a combination which is in the majority nowhere), but you can't have a mixture of -ize and -ise. I also think a statement like "This article uses -ise spellings," is less likely to upset people than "This article uses British spellings." Joeldl 16:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh yes, Ireland... always with the Ireland! I like your other concept. Would it be feasible to break down the structural differences into a relatively simple set such as -ise/-ize and -er/-re; or might we be opening ourselves up to a massive format template which lists a mess of structures which are being used on that page: "This page is formatted for: *blah *blah *blah and so on for a dozen other structures? --Bossi (talk ;; contribs) 22:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the structural cases are the main spelling differences for which consistency is a concern, and people can be left to do their own thing with isolated words (unless they already appear). I think it would amount to listing a few examples, and it could be kept small. An alternative would be to have a tiny ize template, a tiny or one, etc. In any case, this is only a proposal to change the guideline for the moment. (The Mary Wollstonecraft example was Britain-related, and -ize was viewed as a variant within British spelling.) Currently, it would seem the the guideline focuses on countries rather than particular spellings. I haven't received that much reaction on my proposals so far, so any feedback at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style would be welcome. I'm hopeful people will agree to make a change to the way spelling is handled in non-country-related articles so as to lessen the emphasis on particular countries. I don't think we should get ahead of ourselves with the templates, but if the proposals are accepted, the template for non-country-related articles might have language like: "The following spellings are considered standard in this article: [fill in the blank]." The blank might read "organize, honour, kerb,..." Honestly, I think individual words like kerb usually wouldn't need to be included, because they are not likely to occur repeatedly in most contexts, but if in a particular article it was felt likely it would be repeated, why not? Joeldl 07:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A solution?

Isn't this the foolproof way to keep the spelling of words like colour / color unchanged? See the source code of that sentence. Smalljim 00:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that, to ensure that the spelling of the word colour doesn't get changed, in the edit box you type:

colo<!--UK spelling, please do not change-->ur

--Smalljim 00:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, but it would probably be a pain to use in practice and be disruptive in the editing window. See the source code of my reply, for an example of how it might not be a good idea for general use. Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 01:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! But as you know, that's just vandalism and would be dealt with as normal. It wouldn't be necessary to add a comment to every occurrence of a disputed spelling; just at strategic points when reverting. The advantage is that unlike a template it's impossible to miss, and when they've seen a few of these comments, most would-be spelling-changers will get the point, won't they? It seems to have worked so far here (see my edits of 24 April). Anyway, there you are - it's just an idea I had, so I thought I'd throw it in when I came across this discussion last night. Smalljim 10:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a good idea for extreme cases -when one particular word is a problem. I'm just not a big fan of HTML comments in articles, pardon my silliness. :) Nihiltres^(t.c.s) 13:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]