Guild Wars Wiki talk:Use American English

Why? LordBiro 18:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)


 * I would suggest adding something along the lines of "this is not for any reason other than this is the language used in game" 
 * Beat the Trolls before they get started :D-- Snograt   whisper  18:43, 24 February 2007 (EST)


 * Maybe once multi-language official Guild Wikis get started, we can have a separate one for British English... and one for Canadian English (which I have learned differs from both American and British). Does India use British English or have they developed their own variant of Indian English? Am I joking?  Hmm... that's a very good question... -PanSola 19:19, 24 February 2007 (EST)
 * As I mentioned here I wholeheartedly disagree with this as a policy. In fact there should be a policy specifically laying out that there isn't a policy on what dialect of English is to be used.  A non-policy, if you will.  I can accept corrections to match specific in-game text but not with regular text.  This wiki has contributors from all different countries with varying grasps of English.  There is absolutely no need to legislate what dialect of English we use here.  Are American's that provincial that they are unable to parse spelling variations?  The main focus should be on the information.  Is it understandable, correct etc?  We shouldn't need to 'correct' text that isn't wrong.  We certainly shouldn't make it a policy to do so. Vlad 23:00, 28 February 2007 (EST)
 * Agreed. A policy makes this strict, which is unnecessary. Use it as a guideline when writing new articles for the sole reason that the game uses American English (mostly, I think). Edits made just to convert British spelling into American spelling should simply be discouraged. When you edit long enough, you get used to it. For articles, I naturally type in American English. But on talk pages, I unknowingly revert to British English, lol. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 23:52, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Was it ever decided if we would have guideline articles? Or are we only writing at the policy levels? If this is intended at the policy level, I'm entirely against it; it at a guideline level, it needs to be merged elsewhere. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:27, 1 March 2007 (EST)

This shouldn't exist as a policy - we'd be much better off saying "Quote in game text exactly" and possibly encouraging the use of American English in articles for consistency's sake (though I've gotta say as a Brit I find it faintly irritating to see British English spellings listed on the "common misspellings" page on Guild Wiki). --NieA7 05:10, 1 March 2007 (EST)
 * This brit put them there at some point :P &mdash; Skuld 05:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)
 * Traitor! ASBO for you :p --NieA7 06:05, 1 March 2007 (EST)

The policy should be "use ingame spelling for ingame items" (but I guess that is so obvious it doesnt need to be policy). Whether it is color or colour is totally irrelevant. --Xeeron 06:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * As you might be able to tell from my initial question, I am opposed to this policy. Even if this were a guideline I would be opposed to it.


 * I don't agree that the game is American, it is undoubtedly international. As Vlad said, if someone's contribution is grammatically correct then it shouldn't be converted into American English because someone thinks that American English is correct.


 * Please, let's just forget this policy was ever considered. LordBiro 06:40, 1 March 2007 (EST)
 * Should there be some formal comment to that effect somewhere or is this talk page sufficient to refer someone to if they get over-zealous 'correcting' British spellings? Vlad 08:02, 1 March 2007 (EST)
 * If it's not a policy, I think it should go into either Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/General or maybe "Guild Wars Wiki:Formatting/Language". But language isn't formatting... hmmm.... -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 08:38, 1 March 2007 (EST)
 * As far as I'm concerned you can put this under Recently failed proposals. And Aberrant: Hmm indeed :p ... --Erszebet 13:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)
 * I formally retract my earlier statement (top) :) When I started contributing here, I had the idea in my head that this was a 90%+ US wiki, thereby making a UAE policy inevitable. As I now see I'm surrounded by fellow gits Brits I therefore go with the flow in that, apart from in-game quotage, American vs. British English does not matter. Oh, and for the record PanSola - Hinglish :D -- Snograt   whisper  13:35, 1 March 2007 (EST)
 * LOL as virtually everyone here seems to be a Brit... may be we should change the policy to "Use British English"! :)  Vlad 13:39, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * Crikey! LordBiro 17:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * Probably because the Brits are the only ones who oppose this proposal. ;) & :P  See my comment on Talk:Main Page for my $0.02 (I would have made it two pence but I don't have the GBP symbol on my keyboard).  --Rainith 18:19, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * Too bad the game was made in America. . lol-- BL ac KG e N e R a L [[Image:Blackgeneralstar.png|19px]](talk|contribs) 19:03, 1 March 2007 (EST)


 * One could make the argument; "yes, the game was made in America, but the game has French, German, Italian etc., etc., translations, so why not English? One could make that argument, but don't. It's not important. Sure, if you're quoting in-game text then be accurate. For any other purpose, it just does not matter. Don't go around correcting people's spelling because it offends your sensibilities - those are not errors, that is our language. -- Snograt   whisper  07:04, 2 March 2007 (EST)
 * Rubbish: I have to agree with Snograt and above. I'm an Aussie and I would like this moved to rejected policies or whatever. --Indecision 05:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Deletion
If the page is deleted is there any indication that this policy was rejected? Vlad 09:38, 2 March 2007 (EST)
 * I listed it under recently failed proposals over at GWW:POLICY. --Xeeron 10:08, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I disagree with deletion (although I also oppose this as policy). I feel that the article and discussion, taken together, are useful as a reference in understanding the position of other users in the community. I'd support moving the article out of Category:Policy proposal and into something like Category:Guild Wars Wiki rejected proposals instead. --Rezyk 21:14, 2 March 2007 (EST)
 * I agree. A failed proposal should be kept for reference purposes. If someone feels like proposing a proposal, then can look at failed proposals to see if something similar was attempted, given them a basis from which to form their new arguments or make them give up altogether. Otherwise, we might see certain policies getting proposed again and again because people didn't realise it's been tried. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 22:34, 2 March 2007 (EST)
 * Yes, that was my concern. I definitely think it would be beneficial to keep this around so we don't see it rearing its ugly head again.  24.15.179.51 22:57, 2 March 2007 (EST)
 * The above anon comment was added by Vlad 22:58, 2 March 2007 (EST)

I agree with keeping at as a failed proposal, didn't know we were recording past ones when I added. Removing tag &mdash; Skuld 20:27, 4 March 2007 (EST)