Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Cerro Azul (Chile volcano)/archive1

• Object. Like a few thousand other articles, this one has been changed from American English to British English, through the use of an overwhelmingly complex template, without understanding how to use it. I have long objected to the improper defaults to British English in {{convert}}, yet it remains that way. Every editor should need to specify the spellings to be used. The problem here is exemplified by this edit two weeks ago by User:Malleus Fatuorum changing from:

  "All are located relatively far up the summit, between 2000 and 3000 meters–excluding Quizapu, which is located 3,292 meters up the volcano."

to this:

• "All are relatively far up the summit, between 2,000 and 3,000 metres (6,600 and 9,800 ft) – excluding Quizapu, which is 3,292 metres (10,801 ft) up the volcano."

of course, there is no evidence that Malleus Fatuorum wittingly tried to change the long-established national variety of English in this article, then evident not only in the spelling "meters" but elsewhere. He most likely merely improperly used a black box that was beyond his capabilities, since there isn't any "metres" spelling evident in what he put on the edit page:

• "All are relatively far up the summit, between {{convert|2000|and|3000|m}}{{spaced ndash}}excluding Quizapu, which is {{convert|3292|m}} up the volcano."

So, as long those templates remain unfixed (there are lots of them, besides this example, all added through the use of Template:Convert except for two added in the past two weeks after convert had already infected the results, I object to this nomination. Gene Nygaard (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I must be honest, I have no idea what you are talking about. Malleus Fatuorum is English. That is how the convert template is arranged, I have not the authority nor the ability to change it. Would you like us to replace the convert templates? I'm willing to do it, if you like. ceranthor 02:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Even wikipedia's own article is called metre, not meter. This is a nonsensical oppose that ought to to be nipped in the bud. Had the article been on an American topic, where the spelling might reasonably be considered to be "meter", then the point may have been a fair one, but it isn't. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments that would be fine if it was the template being nominated, but as it hasn't been I wonder what the hell it's being used as a refusal for? Oh, and the majority of the world uses "metre", after all the French did invent it, and suprisingly the English did the English language too. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That most definitely is not in accordance with our longstanding rules on Wikipedia, Malleus Fatuorum. American English is not limited to American topics. What needs "nipping in the bud" is your misstatement of those rules. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English.

To Ceranthor: Even without changing Template:Convert, you can still fix the article so that it gives the proper spellings, by using the template properly, to retain the spelling you yourself added nearly a year ago:

"All are relatively far up the summit, between 2,000 and 3,000 meters (6,600 and 9,800 ft) – excluding Quizapu, which is 3,292 meters (10,801 ft) up the volcano."

So fix it, please. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Y'know, after asking on the talk page, I started to change everything to British English. How about we just pick which one is easier to convert to and keep the article consistent, and then do that, whether it is British or American. Awickert (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

You asked on the talk page shortly after Malleus Fatuorum's change detailed above. Not only were earlier versions consistent in their American English, including "meters", but it also still is consistently American English except for the "metres" spellings. It is still "sulfurous"; it is still "traveled"; it is still "vapor", in the long-standing and consistent variety of English established in this article. Gene Nygaard (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since the topic is related to no particular anglophone country, the variety of English that was first used (or became unambiguous) should be retained. It does look as though it's AmEng. "Meter" is appropriate, not "metre". Tony (talk) 05:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I changed it to use "meter". Eubulides (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. What is this, kick Malleus week? Let's get one thing quite straight here. This is the version of the article immediately before I touched it. It was not then using US English spelling, and I changed nothing; I simply added other conversions in the same format as the existing ones. Now get off my case. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If anything was messed up, Gene Nygaard, it would be my fault. Please direct any concerns to me, rather than Malleus, who was merely helping out. ceranthor 15:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree—it was messed up with both "metres" and "meters" at the time of the edit by Malleus. The difference between the two is that the "meters" spellings had been added directly by editors. The "metres" spellings had not; they were stuck in by a template, with only the symbols "m" or "km" or "cm" used in that template. There were no "metres" on the edit page at the time of the edit by Malleus, changing the two remaining "meters" spellings. It never was anything particularly about his editing (at least not until the American-English-for-American-articles-only comment here); the problem is with that template slipping in the spelling changes in that edit and in the earlier ones. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, haven't we resolved your concern(s)? ceranthor 17:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you get off whichever hobby horse you're riding Gene? The instances of the {{convert}} that had been in the article long before I touched it produced the default "metre", not "meter"; all I did was to add other templates using the same convention. Your suggestion that I either did so maliciously or in ignorance is a fucking joke. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)