Template talk:British English

British English?

What is 'British English'? And what is 'Commonwealth English', which redirects here?--Gazzster (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, British English? It's linked in the text of the notice... Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hyphen

Why is this, and the other templates in the category, hyphenated? The language is called British English. Let's just move them all to the proper names before it becomes a problem. —Michael Z. 2008-12-14 00:12 z

Needed?

1) People are tossing this template up rather haphazardly, in many cases, where there seems to be mainly a desire to point out that an article isn't (or wasn't) written in American English.

I recommend scrapping this and all other dialect markers.

2) At a minimum, I recommend removing the flags from the templates. Imagine an Indian or Irishman, having written an article like "Industrialisation", suddenly seeing the bloody Union flag on his work.

This is a recipe for problems, and is unnecessary. PeterH2 (talk) 10:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is useful to indicate which dialect a page uses if there appears to be confusion (for example if there have been a number of ENGVAR reverts). I would strongly oppose deletion. I don't see what harm the flags do, and since the template appears (or at least should appear) on the talk page anyway, it won't be on "his" work. --GW… 10:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The kind of nationalist nutter who is offended by a flag is typically offended by other innocuous things as well. We needn't particularly concern ourselves with not offending such people. I also disagree with the assertion that it isn't useful; these banners head off plenty of discussions which might otherwise be repeatedly brought up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

1) A person finding the Union flag (or the American flag, etc.) offensive is by no means necessarily a "nationalist nutter" (though s/he may well be one, to be sure!). 2) The flag itself serves no purpose. 3) The dialect being used is at least in some cases not British, but some other related dialect (Hibernian, Indian, etc.) PeterH2 (talk) 08:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with Template:Hiberno-English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Template:Indian English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? --GW… 09:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing's wrong with them, or, at least, they're certainly less likely to be found offensive. But my bringing up those exs. was intended to suggest, in fact, that those two dialects are among those likely to be erased by people hastily slapping up the Union flag. For ex., how do we know Industrialisation wasn't written in Hiberno-English? PeterH2 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

By looking for the first divergent edit. --GW… 23:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to flag the dialect unless people are edit-warring over it. FWIW I'd far rather we didn't try to accommodate every little nuance; at one point we had nonsense like {{Singapore-English}}, used on exactly one article which didn't include any Singaporeisms anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

GW: There often (as with Industrialisation) is no divergent edit. PeterH2 (talk) 08:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, in the case of that article, the title is in British English. --GW… 09:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. It's in non-Canadian, non-Oxford, non-American English. PeterH2 (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Template is written in...

Shouldn't the post read. This article is written in... ? The template is placed on the top of articles in the wikipedia namespace right?Cliff (talk) 22:52, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• The template automatically detects which namespace it is displayed in. --GW… 23:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Flag

Notice to editors: discussions ar also ongoing about the flags at Template talk:American English and Template talk:Hiberno-English.

The flag should be removed, since "British English" spelling is used outside the UK as well (for example in the Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Pakistan). The flags should be removed from the other templates too. A discussion is alredy underway about the flag on the "American English" template. ~Asarlaí 10:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

No it's BRITISH English, hence the British flag. Same with American English, where the US flag is used. I suspect, but correct me if I'm wrong, this request may well stem from something to do with hatred of anything British. I say this because tracing back edits from Asalai we come across a user called Sarah777 who has recently made some quite despicable anti British comments and for which a block should surely be considered. WizOfOz (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. My reason for wanting the flag removed is given above. I support the removal of all the flags, not just this one. I hav no link with Sarah777 and, if you'd botherd to delv deeper, you'd see that we strongly disagree on some important issues. I suggest you remove your wild speculation. ~Asarlaí 13:28, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't follow you. I looked at this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland and noticed your direct response to Sarah777 about flags, and this is Sarah's statement that your responded to; Some bot is adding a "British English" tag, complete with the loathsome flag of the genocidal British Empire, to Ireland-related articles; which, per the WikiBrit pov pushers, the article titled "The British Isles" is. I presume as it is being added automatically by a bot it can be repeatedly removed on sight? This is clear and highly disruptive attack on the Project as it relates to sovereign Ireland. Now rather than accusing me of not assuming good faith, when all I did was report the facts, could you comment on the remarks made by Sarah777? WizOfOz (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

You claimd that my request to remove the flag "stems from...hatred of anything British". How is that assuming good faith? Sarah's remarks hav nothing to do with me. Now let's get back on topic, this isn't a forum. ~Asarlaí 16:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, so British English is used all over the place, but that's nothing to do with the flag. The flag denotes the fact this it is British English and not some other variety such as American or Canadian or Australian. Are you saying it shouldn't be called British English? The flag is an emblem which quickly dentoes the language style. Extending your argument, we could loose all flags everywhere and just replace them with text; boring. WizOfOz (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Wiki, Hiberno-English is the dialect used in Ireland. I'm fairly sure 'tis true that is the case. In which case we either remove the offensive flag from the tag on all sovereign-Ireland-related articles or else we have a Hiberno-English version complete with Irish Tricolour which should be placed on all Ireland-related articles. In the case of The British Isles (sic) article we can have both tags/flags or neither. Sarah777 (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Template:Hiberno-English alredy exists. However, ther's no need for it, since nearly everyone in Ireland (unfortunately) uses "British spelling". We should only hav three templates and no flags: one for UK spelling, one for US spelling and one for Canadian spelling. ~Asarlaí 18:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends. If we decide to maintain the flag on the tag then the question of the flag becomes important; and on sovereign-Ireland related articles we will need the Hiberno tag. My favored outcome would be flag removal, but I doubt you'll get much support for that in the British-pov Wiki environment. Sarah777 (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, we need a version of the tag that features the Tricolor - the British-English tag could be taken to cover NI related articles. Sarah777 (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the templates do little good visually. Another version of a scarecrow I think. Youthful or otherwise less worldly North Americans who will go around changing "colour" to "color" all day are not likely to visit the talk page. The Union Flag should not be attached to this template as it nationalizes the variant which may be used in areas outside the UK, such as...Ireland. I believe it is useful in marking pages for spell checking bots, am I right? Then in that case the template can exist without a flag, bots don't salute. Sswonk (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

In that case how do we remove the flag from the template? I can't seem to find the door. Sarah777 (talk) 19:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Sswonk and the flag should be removed. Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's a start at using an icon in place of the flag. This icon is call File:Globe of letters.svg. I will tty to make one which replaces the letters with the word "colour" with a green check (tick) mark next to it. Sswonk (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Here's the version which implies British English is correct by using an icon. The template text explains the rest. Sswonk (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Diagree. The flag should not be removed. This is clearly a politically motivated move arising from an apparent dislike of things British. Furthermore, the template appears only on Talk pages, so presumably is not subject to any manual of style issue. Out of interest, Asarlaí, why do say people Ireland "unfortunately" use British English? This proposed change is likely to lead to edit wars on talk pages as well as elsewhere.WizOfOz (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

There would be much less political motivation without the political symbol, the flag. Some other method of identifying spelling and grammar differences which are multinational in nature should be used. Sswonk (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not a political symbol, it's a flag. It is clearly disliked by some people for no good reason and they are being allowed to introduce a political POV by having it removed. Whilst it's multinational the language is referred to as "British" English, and that's too bad if you're anti British. The flag isn't really the issue, it's the tip of the iceberg. Notice the attmept to have a Hiberno English template - that's really what it's all about, so it seems to me. An attmept to offload any mention of British and any related symbols. WizOfOz (talk) 21:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

if there's any doubt about what's going on here, see this Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland, the section called "British pov tagging" at the bottom. WizOfOz (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Some editors want to see any reference to British in regards to Ireland in any form removed. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm rapidly realising it. I just checked out Sarah777 editing and there's other articles, e.g. List of Numbered roads in the British Isles, where she's removed it from an Irish project. Some of the comments, like those above, must be in breach of something or other, and the stupidity over at that British Isles article. Where is the best place to report what's happening here? Please respond on my talk page. WizOfOz (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The flag is inconsiderate in regards to Republic if Ireland related articles as their is still a strong senstivity and fear amongst certain editors that it implies British rule and the like. Sarah777's comments breech civility, NPOV, and are down-right provocative - they have been blocked in the past before for similar behaviour so should know better. Unfortunately they also don't seem to realise that British Isles is a geographical term for the archepelago and isn't a political term of "ownership". Does that mean the London Irish rugby team is an Irish team rather than an English team?

If there is to be a discussion on the removal of the flag, it should be raised at all related WikiProjects not just the Ireland one and possibly the neutrality board. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's well known. About the flags; a number of editors involved here seem to be campaigning (sorry if this word breaches some etiquette) agasint flags in general and it has been stated elsewhere (not by me) that, to parphrase it, as a smokescreen to get rid of the Ulster Banner and other British-related flags. it seems to me that this suggestion about the British English template could be related to that. WizOfOz (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The Neutrality Board; I'll look at it. Would a report there put a hold on the attempt here over the template? WizOfOz (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict) I don't want to comment on other editors agenda's too much, but it is clear enough with some. The best way to deal with it is to raise it at the appropriate places for a broad range of editors to voice opinion to get a more balanced and unbiased viewpoint. The Neutrality Board is simply for other views and opinions, sometimes you'll get few responses, sometimes many - thats why its best to raise notice of it to several related places to ensure there is no ganging up to force through what could be a controversial change. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Actually, it is a political symbol, flags are military symbols that have been adapted to become national emblems to mark territory, allegiance etc. Politics and nations go hand in hand. To see "No good reason" would be laughable when discussing objections by these Irish editors to a British flag. Have you ever read anything Irish about their will to gain independence or even once heard Skibbereen? Your statement shows a lack of the capacity for understanding and felling that truly escapes my comprehension. In my view, you should try to see this for what it is, a request to remove the Union Flag, as much a political icon of the British Empire to many as the Lion and Unicorn are, and replace it with a more neutral symbol. Sswonk (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't take offence at this, but you sound like a voice from the past. They've moved on, apart from a minority of Irishmen who still bear a grudge against Britain. Sorry, but you fail to realise that Wikipedia is for the masses, not for the Irish editors. WizOfOz (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiousity Sswonk your statement appears to be the wrong way around. The Union Flag is a political flag used to represent the Union and mark out territory obviously being used in the military to present that Union. Mabuska ^(talk) 21:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you just proved string theory! Sswonk (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

And another thing, I'd certainly take offence at your view that the Union Flag is not neutral and a "political icon of the British Empire". All I can say is I'm coming to the conclusion that Wikipedia sucks! Some of the views expressed here are nothing short of mediaeval, what with references to the Irish Famine - in 2011 - FFS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WizOfOz (talk • contribs) 21:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

As a side-note, i really like the look of Sswonk's first suggestion. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

General and final statement: My views are not medieval nor are they from the past. There is a relevance to the flag in the template, but there is also an offense that may be taken, so I think it should be removed. I also think that the entire scope of these templates, see Category:Varieties of English templates, should be addressed together. There is a tinge of "ownership" to the placement of these icons on talk pages. I don't think any of them are necessary, and should all be replaced by hidden categories. The templates are not very useful, people ignore or misunderstand them and to take Sarah at her word they can be very offensive to some in their use among article talk pages. This is one area where Wikipedia can easily come up with a better solution than the current flag plantings. Sswonk (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree. As I said before, if we're to keep using the templates we should only hav three of them and no flags: one for UK spelling, one for US spelling and one for Canadian spelling. ~Asarlaí 22:22, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm staggered (not) at how ill-informed some British Nationalist editors are in relation to the history and symbolism of the Union Jack. It is akin to Germans still using the Swastika to represent Germany. If the British want to pollute their own articles with that rag, fair enough. But do NOT impose it in any shape or form on sovereign-Ireland related articles. As to the brain-dead utterances of WizOfOz "what with references to the Irish Famine - in 2011 - FFS!" - may I suggest a perfect analogy?

People so conditioned and with such lack of any historical perspective should not be let loose on Wikipedia. Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I really think an AN/I is in call for in regards to Sarah777's highly disparaging and offensive comments as of late. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't know about all those templates. So, are there similar complaints with the others or is it just the British one? We maybe have a situation where a minority poitical view is driving a standard, or at least attempting to. It should be resisted. Those flags are really visually useful in the templates. WizOfOz (talk) 22:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

It should be possible to code the template so that you can add an "RoI' condition to it that would omit the the flag from RoI related articles wheere it is added to articles with an "RoI' parameter declared. A simple solution i think that suits both ends. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The simplest solution is just to remove all the flags. Ther's a discussion about removing the flag from the American English template too. This one isn't being singld out, Wiz. ~Asarlaí 22:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if it falls flat and no consensus is agreed, a conditional parameter could be added to the template so that the flag doesn't appear in RoI articles. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I see User:Mabuska is struggling with the reality of the WP:NPOV concept. Apparently some genocidal empires and their banners are more protected from comment than others - or so he wishes! Sarah777 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. It semed to have died down with no consensus but you've resurrected it. I commented there as well. I disagree with coding the template to facilitate minority POV. WizOfOz (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

A minute. How many Ireland articles actually have this British English banner? I bet not a lot; maybe none. Just take it off them. That sorts everything. WizOfOz (talk) 22:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I did. On the British Isles (sic) article. But is was restored by British Nationalist editors. So I've added the Hiberno tag instead - in order to preserve the spirit of WP:NPOV Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hardly NPOV when you added the flag of the Republic of Ireland when Hiberno-English is spoken throughout the island of Ireland (Mid-Ulster English which is spoken in Northern Ireland is a dialect of it) which isn't represented by the tricolour. I had changed to flag to a more neutral St. Patrick's flag, however decided to reverted your change on the basis of WP:BRD on the simple basis of the tag you added stating that a part of the article uses Hiberno-English terms - unless you can prove where in the article it does then the tag is irrelevant and pointless. If you can prove it then state where the terms are and we can re-add it. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Can we just remove the flag on all the language templates? There's never been trouble on any Malaysia-related articles, but I can see the reason behind removing the flag. I like Sswonk's second suggestion, shows probably the most well-known difference at a glance. Perhaps this should be moved to central discussion, if one does not already exist? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Why were flags ever placed on language templates to begin with? A language knows no country borders. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion which is very unconventional, however we are encouraged to BE BOLD so here goes: replace the Union Jack with an image of William Shakespeare. Mark Twain can be used in lieu of the Stars and Stripes. This way all geo-political controversies are avoided. Honestly, does anyone find the Bard offensive?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Mark Twain is not well recognised from his picture. Flags are fine. Removing them serves no useful purpose other than to appease a particularly nasty POV that finds just some flags offensive. LevenBoy (talk) 16:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

We can instead use Poe-he's recogniable. Honestly, I don't object to the flags, however, there are many editors who don't think they should be used here. We must seek a compromise.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

A voiciferous minority, I would say. Those who do object fall into two camps; the real objectors who for reasons best known to themselves find the British flag offensive, and the rest who tend to appease that sort of attitude. Both points of view are quite unhealthy at Wikipedia. I think also it would be wrong to remove the flag just from this template. All flags from all templates would have to go, and that would require a much broader debate that is taking place here. LevenBoy (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Why am I hearing the Stiff Little Fingers song Fly The Flag in my head?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the flags with pictures of people will only lead to more arguing. If we must replace the flags with somthing, I think Sswonk's proposal is best.

We've all seen the arguments why the flags should be removed...but I've yet to see any valid arguments why the flags should stay. The templates say, in bold, "This article is written in British English" or "This article is written in American English". It's easy to spot. Why do we need to hav flags on these templates? ~Asarlaí 18:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

To further help show the fact its British or American? Though yes, there isn't an explicit need for the flags, however if one is offended by a flag, then they should obviously be offended by the terminology used as well as for example British and the Union Flag go hand in hand. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Per Asarlai, what are the flags actually for? What do they add? The minus is all too easy to see when you look at the trouble they have caused for people who could have been doing something useful? Unless an absolutely compelling reason is advanced for their retention, these nationalistic logos should be removed. Replace them with symbols per Sswonk if you like, or just manage without. Our readers can read, and so can our editors, and using icons as decoration like this is against the spirit of WP:ICONDECORATION. Just get rid of them meantime. --John (talk) 06:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I mostly agree with John. When you google "using flags for language choice" you will find plenty of websites that explain why it's a bad idea to use flags to denote languages. I don't actually think it's mere decoration, as the flags do serve a purpose – but they serve it poorly and they cause unnecessary conflict. Hans Adler 08:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course that google search heavily leans towards an anti-flag perspective. You're far more likely to write about something if you believe the status quo is a bad thing. For a real life example, note that the majority of internet traffic at the UK referendum pre-polling day was pro-AV, yet this did not tally at all with the outcome.

As far as this issue is concerned, I'm leaning towards the flags on clarity grounds. British/American flags may be perceived as imperialistic symbols by non-Brits/Americans, or whatnot, but by the same token they are unmissable, and that is surely the point. Where language usage is a bone of contention in the article, the template should make absolutely clear, even at a cursory glance, of what the status quo is. They presumably don't like use of British/American/Pakistani English anyway, else they wouldn't have removed these terms in the first place, so I don't see how adding a flag is going to further upset them.

I note that the nominator hasn't posted a notification to other templates such as Scottish English and Pakistani English. All of them would presumably be considered equally problematic if there is no hidden agenda, and all of them are very easily accessible from this template's documentation, so there is no excuse for this not having happened. A discussion/decision on all the templates should be central, and should be linked to from all affected templates from the very first post, to ensure that the discussion is not skewed. I'm not going to back the Irish POV claims without knowing all the facts, but choosing to remove the British flag without an intention to simultaneously do the same to the Scottish equivalent lends credence to those claims. —WFC— 14:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The one who first raisd this issue was Sarah777; I merely brought the proposal to this page. Nevertheless, if you read past my first post you'll see that I support the removal of flags from all the templates. In fact, not only do I support removing the Scottish flag too, I support deleting the Scottish template. Ther is no bias on my part. As I said, we should only hav three templates and no flags: one for UK spelling, one for US spelling and one for Canadian spelling.

I would hav preferrd to hold this discussion in a "central location", but what central location is suitable?

One last point...the reason why the flags should be removed isn't only becaus "people may find them offensiv"...it's also becaus they ar misleading. "British" spelling isn't only used in the UK and "American" spelling isn't only used in the US. ~Asarlaí 14:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Some threads definitely need to be shorter to stay also readable. I personally like File:Globe spelling colour.svg, imho it is most concise and reflects best what we want to say. The Colourful heritage of the British Empire, got to love it! AgadaUrbanit (talk)

I agree that the new image is a good solution to the problem. Even better might be an image of a colourful tyre / colourful tire / colorful tire. That way we could cover Canadian English as well. But I guess a Canadian flag will do for that. Hans Adler 17:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I read you correctly - it's OK to have a Canadian flag on that language template but not the Union Flag or the Stars and Stripes on the equivalent language templates? WizOfOz (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not particularly happy with that either, but at least an editor who writes an article in something that we categorise as Canadian English is very likely to identify with Canada as somehow being his or her country of origin or residence. We can't say this for an Irish biologist who writes an article on some rare species and then gets the "British English" template slapped on the talk page because of the -ise spelling, and it's even worse for Ireland-related articles. Actually, I guess there are similar concerns for Australian and New Zealand English, although perhaps not with the same amount of bad feelings. The problem is really that the term "British English" isn't completely clear and editors tend to use it when they really only know it's a variant of English other than American English. I would see no problem with the Union Jack here if we could somehow educate all editors not to overuse this template (unlikely) or find a technical solution such as moving the template to something like "English as spoken in the United Kingdom" and make "British English" a redirect to a new template "Commonwealth English" that could use the Commonwealth flag and say clearly that it's for the English spoken in most Commonwealth countries and former Commonwealth countries. Hans Adler 18:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• I propose to get rid of all the flags from these templates. They should never have been placed there in the first place unless there was a strong consensus to put them there; this I cannot see and doubt if it exists. Any objections? (I will not read any objections that are not couched in terms of policy or utility to our readers) --John (talk) 18:47, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree with John. Mo ainm~Talk 18:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object. The flags are a useful visual aid. If consensus was needed to put them there then it's also needed to take them away. As others have said, the debate should be held elsewhere. All reasons so far given for removal are negative - likely to offend someone or some group (of editors not readers, mind). A person offended by national flags should not be editing here in the first place. WizOfOz (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

On reflection, this statement requires some explaining "(I will not read any objections that are not couched in terms of policy or utility to our readers)". Are you some sort of arbiter in this matter? And you mention objections without mentioning support. This is not good. WizOfOz (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wiz, yet again you're ignoring the other argument why the flags should be removed: "British English" isn't only used in the UK and "American English" isn't only used in the US. It's not just becaus "people may be offended". How many times must I repeat that? ~Asarlaí 19:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am in no way offended by the flag but the use of flags is clearly divisive, the Flag of the United Kingdom in this template adds nothing to the template in way of explanation or visual aid whereas the Globe of letters icon is an image that explains what the template is intending to do which is to inform editors about the style of spelling that is used on articles. Mo ainm~Talk

Happy to explain. I am an administrator with no previous involvement in this discussion, and I intend to resolve this mess. Your objections (based on a fallacious understanding of WP:CONSENSUS and precedent, mixed in with your own interpretations of others' reasons for objecting, along with a dose of ILIKEIT) are a classic illustration of the kind of objection I will not take into account when determining a resolution. Thank you for that. --John (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure! Now, as an admin your job, apart from miscellaneous housekeeping activities, is to facilitate good discussion and promote consensus, then to act on that consensus. You should also aim to identify such things as nationalistic POV in your work (of which there is plenty here), and also refrain from the type of comment you've just made against me. As for you not being involved in this matter, let me draw your attention to this edit you made earlier today [1]. This makes your own POV abundantly clear (see espcially the edit summary), so I suggest you are entirely the wrong person to be hosting this debate. Although I've not yet added much to Wikipedia I do note liberal use of tags such as ILIKEIT and IDONTLIKEIT used in a disparaging way, nearly always by editors who are guilty of it themselves. Finally, my reason for objection (good visual aid) is entirely valid and your rejection of it is out of order. WizOfOz (talk) 19:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

What is the Flag of the United Kingdom a visual aid to Wiz? Mo ainm~Talk 19:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

If there is to be an image at all, surely we should be using the image that best communicates the dialect in question. Hans is correct that this template should not be used as nationalistic and on occasion deliberatively provocative flag waving for its own sake. He's equally correct to doubt that we will ever get to stop people using it inappropriately. But it is undeniable that nothing grabs people's attention on this site quite like a flag (for better or worse), and difficult to argue that there is a better image than the union jack to communicate the word "British". In my view, the ideal solution would be a flag with colour and a tick overlaid to communicate "British English", with similar changes made to related templates. —WFC— 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

John: can you give reassurances that if you are going to take a decision, that you will take a decision about all of these templates? I concede that inconsistency is not always a bad thing (no credible case has been made for inconsistency, but my point is that I'm not trying to tie your hands), but surely it would be inappropriate to consider part of a related set in isolation? —WFC— 22:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd support removing the flag only if it's removed for all the templates. There's no reason to treat Canadian English and British English differently. British English is the common name for the variation of english with "colour", for better or for worse. There should not be a knee-jerk reaction to the word "British". That being said, the picture Sswonk proposed with "colour" with a tick would serve equally as well as a flag in terms of identification, and be more helpful to someone who doesn't understand what it would mean. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

arbitrary break

I've suggested an image incorporating the Rosetta Stone as a possible common icon for all these related templates at paralell discussions - see Template talk:American English and Template talk:Hiberno-English (the latter also has other proposed alternatives). RashersTierney (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

• Thoughts?

I'll repeat my previous statement word-for-word. It would appear that those who have no credible response to it have decided that the best way to sidestep the question is to hide in a parallel discussion, and indeed ignore direct calls for a central RfC on the matter.

If there is to be an image at all, surely we should be using the image that best communicates the dialect in question. Hans is correct that this template should not be used as nationalistic and on occasion deliberatively provocative flag waving for its own sake. He's equally correct to doubt that we will ever get to stop people using it inappropriately. But it is undeniable that nothing grabs people's attention on this site quite like a flag (for better or worse), and difficult to argue that there is a better image than the union jack to communicate the word "British". In my view, the ideal solution would be a flag with colour and a tick overlaid to communicate "British English", with similar changes made to related templates.

The Rosetta stone is a nice image, but I don't see how it meets that barometer. —WFC— 16:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I would be very happy to continue this at a centralised location. In fact there seems little possibility of consensus to emerge if contributors who have an interest in related templates are not included or at least informed. Where do you suggest? RashersTierney (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

As suggested, I've started a centralised discussion regarding alternatives to flag icons on these templates. It is located at the MOS Talk Page. RashersTierney (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course the British flag should not be removed from a template about British English. its disgraceful people are even proposing such a politically motivated change BritishWatcher (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you and the country you are from claim sole ownership of the language? Is British English solely spoken in the United Kingdom? No it is not. On those grounds the use of the flag provides false information. Neither does the use of the flag show the reader at a quick glance that there is a difference in the variety of English used in the article. The reader, if he or she does not know any better, will just see a flag and carry on regardless. The use of Sswonk's proposal above illustrates to the uninformed reader that British English means there is an orthographical difference between their probable dialect and that used in the article itself. The use of a symbol such as that is also non inflammatory, doesn't lay ownership to the brand of English used, and doesn't provide false information. To demand the flag remain could also be viewed as politically motivated. ^{‣Mac Tíre} _Cowag 12:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If a term "British English" or "American English" exists and is sourced as in use in certain countries i fail to see the problem. If a country has its own version of English and that article is written in that version of English, then their flag appears. This is just sadly blatant attempts at political correctness. A few people dont like the flag... oh dear. It is not for wikipedia to try and change terms and cleanse the world of anything controversial. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

But it's not the term that's controversial. The name "British English" is simply an identifier used in linguistic circles to describe that variety of English spoken in the UK and elsewhere, but excluding varieties such as Hiberno-English, American English, Canadian English etc. Linguists don't use flags to describe languages. On a linguistic level the use of the flag is incorrect. It is a delimiter which places a physical political boundary on the linguistic area in which the language is spoken. It incorrectly informs the uninformed reader that that particular brand of English is spoken in only one country. It does not inform the reader what the differences are (grammatical, phonological, orthographical, etc.). This problem is not just about political correctness, it's about accuracy. And as it stands the template is not accurate. The term "British English" is accurate. The use of the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not as it excludes the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Malta, Cyprus, Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands, Pakistan, India, South Africa, etc. ^{‣Mac Tíre} _Cowag 13:06, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If the term "British-English" or "American-English" is fine, i fail to see the problem with the flag. It clearly associates with the British/American/Canadian label for the type of English spoken. I could understand peoples concern if someone was demanding the English flag be on every single template because "English" is there. But this is very different and seems fine. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:30, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

If it were fine there would be no discussion. The flag adds nothing to the articles. It misinforms readers as to the geographic location of the speakers of the language. It does not inform readers about the differences in the dialects. It inflames some readers (not me mind you, I'm against the flags in all these templates but not out of any PC or nationalist concern). It infers a form of ownership, rightly or wrongly, of the dialect rather than simply describing or highlighting it. At the end of the day, more people speak British English outside of the UK than speak it inside the UK. ^{‣Mac Tíre} _Cowag 13:44, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

They speak British English and the flag is the British flag. I think that is reasonable. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

No the flag is not the British flag. It is a British flag. It is the flag of the United Kingdom. It is not the flag of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar, Guernsey, Jersey, etc. yet these people also have British stamped on their passports. I repeat, it misleads the uninformed. Wikipedia is about informing the reader. ^{‣Mac Tíre} _Cowag 14:11, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

The flags of the Isle of Man, Gibraltar and Guernsey and Jersey would not be described as the British flag, the union flag is.. Just as the American flag is a flag of the United States despite there being other "American flags". There is no need for this proposed change, or others relating to it just because some people do not like the British flag. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not about what people like or dislike. You seem to be obsessed with the idea that people are trying to get rid of the flag due it being the flag of the United Kingdom. Yes, there may be some who dislike it for that very reason. But the primary reason that it, along with other flags on the other templates, is being proposed for deletion is because it is misleading. The term British English has no geographic boundary. The Union Flag does. It is misleading, it misinforms the reader, it inflames some editors and readers (although I agree that that should not on its own be a concern), it adds nothing to the encyclopaedia, it politicises an issue that need not be politicised, and it fails to clarify the issue. ^{‣Mac Tíre} _Cowag 15:12, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You first say its not about what people like or dislike, but you do then admit that one of the reasons is because it "inflames some editors and readers". I sadly believe this is the primary reason for the alterations, rather than the other excuses being listed to try and justify removal. I do not accept that putting the British flag next to the word British is somehow misleading or minsinforms the reader. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:19, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Adding an example to the template

Pardon my ignorance of templates, but is it possible (or easy) to add some text to this template or create a unique example? At the RMS Titanic article we are facing almost daily requests from people to change the spelling of artefacts (Brit) to artifacts (US). If the template could specifically note this example it would reduce the time that gets wasted. Rumiton (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Adding another template into "see also"

I just want anyone to add another template link into "see also" list
{{Malaysian English}}
I don't know why, but the template for Malaysian English was not included in "see also" section of any other template, this makes many peoples editing using Malaysian English couldn't put the template into the talk pages in articles that using that language as they didn't even know it (the template) exists!

And if you want to say it really doesn't exist, look at here:

{{Malaysian English}}

It does exists!

So, I would appreciate anyone that could add it into the "see also" list (not only at here, but also at other related template), thank you very much!
If anyone of you don't know about Malaysian English, read about it, lol!
And nah, seriously, if you really don't know, you can start reading about it.. :P
Here are some suggestions:
1. List of dialects of the English language
2. Malaysian English
3. British and Malaysian English differences
4. Regional accents of English speakers
I'm using Malaysian English in almost all wikis that I created, or edited.
I also used Malaysian English when interacting with my friends, (and while writing this request).
Off-topic, Now I want to sign this thing with my pink-coloured ^{or maybe peach?} signature.
Sorry that I could not include the romanization of my Hangeul name here.
-- 빛다얕 /Muhammad Nur Hidayat /喜达亚 ^{(talk | contribs | email)} 16:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What is the point in this template?

There is already {{Use British English}}, and all this template appears to aim to do is stick the British flag over the talk page. The same goes for every other {{Use X English}} and {{X English}} template but with their respective national flags. Dustin (talk) 22:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The {{X English}} templates produce visible messages for readers and potential editors; the {{Use X English}} ones don't. The {{X English}} templates also have variants designed for edit notices. A better question in my view is what is the point of the {{Use X English}} templates. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Different templates for different purposes. {{Use X English}} is designed for the articles themselves,and adds categories to the article that the maintenance bots notice. {{X English}} is for talk pages, hence the flags that the editors notice. - BilCat (talk) 02:39, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I have reason to believe that some people are just using these {{X English}} templates just for national purposes. A lot of this could be eliminated just by removing the flags, but evidently, some people took offense at the suggestion of doing so or something up above, even though the flag would be removed from "all" templates. I am not going to bother reading the massive discussion above, though, as I don't have that much time available. Dustin (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, personally I agree that all flags should be removed – varieties of English grammar and spelling are not political – but it's doubtful that a consensus could be achieved, so we seem to be stuck with them. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

That is what I am saying; pro-British users want the flag to stay for nationalist reasons, and the same goes for every other flag, although it applies here more than elsewhere considering the significantly greater usage of this template than the others. Dustin (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 17 April 2016

Please change "This article is written in British English which has its own spelling conventions" to "This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions" as the relative clause is a non-restrictive relative clause and therefore needs to be introduced with a comma. Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I just realised that I could have changed it myself. D'oh!

What do you think about the rephrasing suggested by Fred Gandt here? -Florian Blaschke (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please join a relevant discussion

Please join this discussion: Template talk:American English#Change docs to discourage pointless use of this template. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Readability

Can I propose removing "which has its own spelling conventions" from the template message? The other language templates don't have this and read a lot better as a result. It's effectively redundant. Krea (talk) 15:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Convert all English variant notices to editnotices

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Convert all English variant notices to editnotices. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Remove 'artefact' and 'realise' spellings.

American and British English spelling differences, citing the OED, says In British English, artefact is the main spelling and artifact a minor variant. If 'artifact' is an accepted minor variant by BrE dictionaries, I think 'artefact' should be removed as the British term from the banner, even if artefact is preferred by most. (FWIW the BrE spellcheck on my laptop also thinks 'artifact' is wrong).

Additionally, 'realize' is a much more accepted variant in British English (Oxford spelling), even if it is not standard or the norm. --Bangalamania (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: where can I bring this up in order to establish consensus? --Bangalamania (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

On this page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The "ise" example serves to specifically differentiate this template from Template:British English Oxford spelling, and so should be retained. CMD (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

Please revert last edit by user:Kwamikagami and, possibly, also add "analyse". Kwami's argument "both realise/realize are an Oxford/Cambridge diff" is not valid since {{British English Oxford spelling}} exists. Summer ^talk 09:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Has Cambridge claimed British English, so that Oxford is not simply "British"? I don't see the point of using unclear examples. — kwami (talk) 09:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit template-protected}} template. I'm not aware of any policy against using e.g. "analyze"realize on a British English article; the existence of a specific Oxford spelling template doesn't make this one exclude Oxford spelling. User:GKFX^talk 12:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll additionally point out that there is no mention of Oxford/non-Oxford spelling in MOS:ENGVAR, and that page says national varieties of English are supposed to chosen for articles. User:GKFX^talk 13:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

In practice Oxford spelling articles use the Oxford template, not this one. Whether that means this template should be moved is another question, but there's not much point having this be deliberately ambiguous. CMD (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I suppose "analyse" still would not be controversial to add, since "analyze" is never used in British English. Would you mind doing it? Summer ^talk 20:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

 Partly done – I have added "analyse" as requested. User:GKFX^talk 20:54, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Summer ^talk 21:08, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:British English has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:tfm|help=off|1=Scottish English}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done by AmandaNP — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:26, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Template for use in articles?

Hi. This template is designed to be used on talk pages as a guide for editors. Is there an analogous template to be used on article pages to make clear to readers that the content discussed in the article is specific to British English and, e.g., not something that non-Commonwealth English speakers can be expected to be familiar with? For instance, there has been some confusion in editing Skip (container) as to how to best express that it is a term that would be entirely unfamiliar to anyone in the USA. It's tempting to apply this template in mainspace, but that seems like it is not its intention? But is there something that is more suited? Thanks. (Am I asking this question in the right place? Not sure of that, either.) jhawkinson (talk) 19:21, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

There's not really a template, articles should as much as possible be written to be understandable to all English-speaking readers. This template is mostly a reference to obvious spelling differences, not cultural conceptions. CMD (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Right, thank you. The problem I encountered, and the reason I ask, is because when I look at the history for the article I encountered, editors attempted to explain the cultural context in the body of the article. Those explanations were awkward, and subsequent editors tried to improve them with the effect of watering them down. Those edits happened over the course of years, so a bit tough to track. But going from

The term "skip" is unknown and incomprehensible in North America (outside of the mining industry) and is not even listed in this sense in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary.

to

The term is mostly only encountered in British, Australian, Irish and New Zealand English. An inexact North American equivalent is a dumpster or debris box.

to

The term is only encountered in British, Australian, Irish and New Zealand English. An inexact North American equivalent is a dumpster, dumper or debris box. 

to then removing that text because it was wrong ("only"). It seems like a template would help with this problem, but I suppose «a template would help with a lot of problems; that's no reason to [mis-]use a template that was not designed for this purpose.» jhawkinson (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)