Jump to content

Template talk:EngvarB

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Purpose of the date parameter

[edit]

@Ohconfucius: This template was briefly listed at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Dated templates. Is it appropriate for bots/AWB users to fill in the "date" parameter if it is missing? I believe I read somewhere that this "date" is supposed to be the month in which the text was last checked by your script. Please clarify the documentation. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • John of ReadingYes, it s indeed appropriate for bots to do so, and I bellieve there's at least one bot that goes around adding template parameters where they are absent. The said bot, however, does not change pre-existing dates. When editing with AWB, you should therefore replace any existing dated template with an undated one (and allow the bot to do the work, or you can update the template by substituting {{currentmonth}} and 2024. -- Ohc ¡digame! 08:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ohconfucius: My question was resolved by this edit later on the same day, back in 2013. -- John of Reading (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose

[edit]

Can someone explain the purpose of this template? If there is a need for this and the other regional English variants, should there not also be a Template:EngvarUS to indicate articles that contain regional US spelling as opposed to international English? --Bermicourt (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably for Ohcon's bot-assisted editing, but it is needless given other templates and seems to wreck formatting for some pages. Further, it doesn't seem to be in any way justified by searches of each page's edit history (There are much too many pages going on the list for that to be the case) and no such bot-assisted protection is being extended to American English pages. Nominated for deletion.  — LlywelynII 06:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@user:Ohconfucius perhaps you could explain its use. -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Template:use Commonwealth English

[edit]

Ping user:Ohconfucius

Why not redirect this to Template:use Commonwealth English? as a more meaningful name?

-- PBS (talk) 12:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS: Agree. Or it could be renamed to something conveying "non-American/non-Canadian". Its name is purely wrong, and it is being used to tag British English articles where {{Use British English}} is warranted. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]


On 6 March 2020, using their script, Ohconfucius changed a {{Use Commonwealth English}} tag to a less specific {{EngvarB}} tag on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

I was going to go round updating the {{EngvarB}} tags to the more specific variants or {{Use Commonwealth English}}, but this makes me wonder if that's even possible given what just happened.

Pinging PBS, LlywelynII

· • SUM1 • · (talk) 07:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

G'day, if an article already has the Use British English template, is it correct to replace it with the EngvarB template? I thought EngvarB was for non-specific English? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preference of templates

[edit]

Should the templates for specific national varieties of English be used in preference to this template? If the other template is added, should this template be removed from the page? 72.79.44.97 (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I find the documentation for {{EngvarB}} unenlightening, to say the least, and in need of clarification and copy editing. Some examples:

  • Please note that {EngvarB} is now independent of any British English templating. What does "now" mean in this context? Is there a discussion or RFC or TFD to link to, so that we can understand the history and reasoning behind this template?
  • Please refer to the author if there is disagreement about words included in the dictionary. The author of what? Which dictionary? What does this sentence even mean?
  • a periodic script or bot runs [to] clean up spellings, correct[ing] any new introductions since its last visit, and updat[inge] the visit date on the template. (possible copy edits in brackets). If this information is true, please link to the bot's user page and/or BRFA, and explain why there are still templates dated "April 2013" in articles.
  • This is not a temporary "cleanup" request template. Well, then what is it for? What are we supposed to do about the presence of this template?
  • What does the "B" indicate in the template's name? If it no longer has its original meaning, to what should this template be renamed?

Any answers to these questions are appreciated. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have all these questions too. Nurg (talk) 08:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have figured out answers to some of the questions above and copy-edited the documentation as needed. I also added some {{clarify}} templates directly to the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. I came here because the WP:EngvarB script I used tried to change the {{Use British English}} template to this one. After reading the documentation, I still have no idea what this template does or why the script tried to use it. Charcoal feather (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to deprecate or rename this template

[edit]

Given that it has been over ten years since questions about the purpose of this template have gone unanswered on this talk page, I propose that this template be deprecated and new transclusions of it be discouraged. It should be replaced in articles by a specific language-use template, if one can be determined. If one can't be determined, it should be removed. Once all of the transclusions have been removed, we can delete this template or mark it as historical. Note: I have read the TFDs, and I am still confused and unpersuaded. At a bare minimum, this confusingly-named template should be renamed to something that explains exactly what its purpose is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonesey95 Support deprecation unless someone can explain the purpose and function of this template. I came here to try to discover why an article about a British-Dutch person had a section "Honors" but am none the wiser. I'll change it to "Honours" and see if anyone objects. PamD 07:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember participating in a discussion on whether the Joan of Arc article should be in American or British English. It currently follows American conventions. There really needs to be a template for European-specific English. There are more English speakers in Europe than many of the countries which have templates for their own flavours. The European Union, which seems to primarily use English as a cross-state language, has its own Style Guide for EU English, which prefers British conventions over American ones. Since France is in the European Union, it doesn't make sense to use American conventions on the above article. I'm doubtful that many in Europe use -ize. This template should be depreciated in favour of regional ones for places where English is not the primary language but is still widely-spoken. 𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓔𝓭𝓾𝓬𝓪𝓽𝓲𝓸𝓷 𝓐𝓾𝓭𝓲𝓽𝓸𝓻 19:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but... I think the more fundamental issue is the lack of clarity around language template workflows. For example, are these templates supposed to indicate actual issues or just the consensus style of a particular page? Also, what does the |date= parameter for these templates mean? Is it 1) the date the language variant was first set up/formally enforced, or 2) the date the template was last reviewed. The template documentation on this template currently proposes 2, but this has limited usability without a workflow described for actually reviewing them and lack of attention. And honestly, if this is going to be reviewed by a script, does the date even need to be included in the template itself? There are other ways of prioritizing and triaging besides an explicit parameter.
From my limited experience of how I've seen this used, I tend to think these function as a documentation of the consensus style. A separate template would be better for articles with actual issues.
Therefore I wouldn't be opposed to removing the date parameter. Maintenance date categories are usually used by humans to prioritize their review backlog, perhaps the most famous example being Category:Articles with unsourced statements associated with {{Citation needed}}. Retro (talk | contribs) 01:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I have marked this template as deprecated. This discussion was open for more than a year, with only support comments, and with fundamental questions about the utility of this template unanswered for many years before that. As for the above questions, I believe that they would be best answered at the talk page for one of the supported templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose. How can such a fundamental change affecting thousands of articles be made on a back page like this, and then closed by the person who started it despite almost no participation? @Jonesey95: please revert this depreciation and desist from switching EngvarB to other templates. The EngvarB template was introduced precisely to remove years of petty arguments about exactly which version of English was in use, given that the differences between British, Australian and other Commonwealth nations are few and not always well-defined. Furthermore, many articles don't have TIES but are nonetheless written in a particular style which is not particularly British but conforms to the EngvarB norms. If anything should be deprecated it's {{Use British English}}, in favour of using EngvarB exclusively.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote above, it had been ten years and explanations for this template were not forthcoming. This is not a "back page"; it's the talk page for this template, where basic questions have gone unanswered for years, leading to widespread confusion about, and misuse of, this template (see the sections below for links). The script editor who appears to be the primary person responsible for the existence of this template has not responded to basic questions about it or requests to fix the script to match its documentation. I would not support undeprecation until the questions raised on this talk page have been answered, the documentation has been rewritten in a clear way, and the template has been moved to a name that matches its purported use, whatever that is. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now Justlettersandnumbers has reverted multiple updates to the documentation, including the consensus at this talk page that this template should be deprecated. Justlettersandnumbers, included in your reversion are requests for clarification that mirror the questions in sections on this talk page, and that have gone unanswered for years. Can you please provide answers and clarifications as requested? Also, if you have any suggestions for fixing the very broken name of this template, please suggest them here, or in a new section on this talk page. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:40, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here we are two weeks later, we still have no answers to years of questions, and editors are still adding this template. New editors creating drafts are even adding this template to articles where it clearly does not belong, possibly via some suggestion mechanism. Pretty much everything surrounding this template is broken and has been broken for years. Pinging Amakuru and Justlettersandnumbers one more time to justify undoing a consensus that was multiple years in the making. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've explained the purpose of it above and at both the TFD for {{Use Ugandan English}}. But just to reiterate again, the teamplate is necessary for pages written in this variant of English that aren't particularly tied to any one country. And also because it's for the most part pointless to argue over whether something is Aussie, Kiwi, British, Kenyan or any other of these types of English, given how similar they are. If a BLP hails from both Australia and the UK, then no need to label it as one or the other. As I also stated, it would be fantastic and ideal if we could switch all pages across the board to use this template (with a possible renaming if you think "EngvarB" isn't suitable, although I feel like better names have been hard to come by over the years). This was what was decided 10 years ago but the implementation to switch everything from {{Use British English}} to {{EngvarB}} was sadly never completed and now people are busily switching the other way for no particularly good reason.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the name is still confusing people, especially the never-explained (AFAIK) "B" at the end of the name. As for "no particularly good reason", since the consensus at TFDs has so far been that all of these templates should exist, even the ones that recommend using versions of English that would violate MOS, I have been switching articles to use the national variants per MOS:TIES. I think that we are in agreement that the current state is a mess. If there really was a decision to switch away from Use British English to EngvarB (or a better name), redirecting the former should be straightforward. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it confused me at first too, no denying that. I assume the rationale for EngvarA and EngvarB was almost a sort of pun. Because first and foremost, it's just "A" and "B". Basically the two major different variants of the language. But as it happens, those can also stand for "American" and "British", the largest countries using each of the two variants. We are in a mess, yes... as I said, my first choice would be to deprecate all of the "Use X English" ones and have them all simply say "EngvarB" or even "Use English variant B" or whatever. But, as a second choice, if we must retain "Use British English" then I think it's imperative that we also retain all of the individual other countries. Tagging a Kenyan article with "Use British English" would not only be not entirely compliant with MOS:TIES, but also borderline offensive for a country where most of the population speak English as a near-native language and which declared its independence from Britain more than 50 years ago. And of course "Use Australian English" similarly. And even with all that, you still need EngvarB anyway, since many articles are written in "British English" without being tied to any particular county. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles using both Template:EngvarB and Template:Use British English

[edit]

As of this writing, 640 artices use both {{EngvarB}} and {{Use British English}}. They should not be too difficult to clean up with AWB or a similar scripting tool. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

143 articles use both {{EngvarB}} and {{Use Australian English}}.

90 articles use both {{EngvarB}} and {{Use Canadian English}}.

28 articles use both {{EngvarB}} and {{Use American English}}.

39 articles use both {{EngvarB}} and {{Use Hiberno-English}}.

Overall, there are currently at least 1,141 articles that use {{EngvarB}} and another "Use XX English" template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with all the AmE ones. Retro (talk | contribs) 21:42, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful. Thanks. As we chip away at these, I think the main task is to stem the tide of new applications of EngvarB. Hence my post on the script's talk page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More low-hanging fruit

[edit]

These 2,587 articles use {{EngvarB}} and contain the word "Uganda". They won't all be suitable for conversion to {{Use Ugandan English}}, but an editor with AWB should be able to go through them relatively quickly. I recommend against blind replacement, since (for example) an article about an English person, which should use {{Use British English}} may mention that they worked in Uganda.

These 1,674 pages use {{EngvarB}} and contain the word "Tanzania".

These 7,000 articles use {{EngvarB}} and contain the word "Singapore".

These 5,300 articles use {{EngvarB}} and contain the word "Pakistan".

These 2,500 articles use {{EngvarB}} and contain the word "Jamaica".

10,500 articles use {{EngvarB}} and contain "English" and "footballer". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Template:EngvarB#See also lists 23 varieties of English! Was there a discussion about that? How does someone contribute, for example, in Ghanaian English? Johnuniq (talk) 00:14, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO there are too many. The Hiberno-English one, for example, appears to be redundant. You would have to look for discussions about the creation of each one. I suspect that some of them were just made without any prior discussion. For example, I am unable to find any discussions leading to the creation of {{Use Ugandan English}} by Cobaltcigs. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:28, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear to be justification for at least some of them. Hiberno-English, as I linked above, has no spelling differences from British English. Ugandan English#Spelling explains how misspelled standard English words are used in Ugandan English, but we would never accept those misspellings here, so that template should probably go away. The Ghanaian English article does not explain any spelling differences. Anyone is welcome to take those templates to WP:TFD with the above justifications and links. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:32, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is not even an article for Tanzanian English, so it is unclear why Thiscouldbeauser created {{Use Tanzanian English}}. [Oops, never mind; I have sent it to CSD as G4, recreation of an already deleted template.] A mess. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for opinions at WT:Manual of Style/Spelling#Use X English. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Here is more grist for the mill:
  • Bangladeshi English is described as "an English accent". No spelling differences are described.
  • Indian English#Spelling says that British spelling is used, and any Indian-specific vocabulary would not be usable because MOS:COMMONALITY says not to use regionalisms: Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences.
  • Jamaican English says Jamaican English tends to follow British English spelling conventions.
  • Kenyan English is not different enough from British English for us to have a separate template.
  • Pakistani English makes an unsubstantiated claim that some spellings are different from Indian and British English.
  • Singapore English says Standard Singapore English retains British spelling and grammar.
  • Sri Lankan English says SLE varies from British or American English in elements such as colloquialisms, vocabulary, syntax, pronunciation, and emphasis of syllables. SLE generally favours British spellings ("colour", "programme", "analyse," and "centre") over American spellings ("color", "program", "analyze," and "center"). So that's the same as British English for Wikipedia, a written medium with a common vocabulary.
  • Liberian English makes no claims about spelling.
  • South African English makes no claims about spelling, and describes multiple dialects, so there does not appear to be a common standard for South African English.
I think that most of these templates' existence cannot be justified. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:36, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to myself one more time to note that Template:Use Commonwealth English was deleted in 2021. I fail to see how that template's purpose differs from this template's purpose. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've discussed here, my concern is regarding South Asian ethnic groups divided by international borders and articles related to them and those regions. For example, Punjab, India and related articles use "{{Use Indian English}}", similarly for Punjab, India we have "{{Use Pakistani English}}", but for articles like Punjabis, Punjab region, Punjabi language, we are bound to use EngVarB for the sake of balance. Same is the case pertaining to Kashmir, Bengal, Mithila, Tamil, Nepali, Pashtun, Baloch related articles. So unless we are using more than one template for situations like these, EngVarB seems to be a good option. If EngVarB is deprecated and using multiple templates become problematic, we can have something like "{{Use South Asian English}}"? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the list above. {{Use British English}} should be fine for all of those situations. Neither Indian English#Spelling nor Pakistani English makes any substantiated claims that the spelling of those variants of English are different from British English, and we would not use dialect-specific vocabulary here at Wikipedia, per MOS. My opinion is that both of those templates should be redirected to {{Use British English}}. I expect a spirited discussion at TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page templates

[edit]

(re: "IMO there are too many" above) Also worth looking at the related talk page templates in Category:Varieties_of_English_templates. That actually has 2 variants that aren't included here: {{IUPAC spelling}} and {{IUPAC spelling US}} ({{Use IUPAC spelling}} might be worth creating). Also at least one other variety: {{Antarctic English}}. Retro (talk | contribs) 02:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please no. Antarctic English does not describe any spelling differences. I think we are on our way to deleting half of these templates, those that are unjustifiable. Let's not make more. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting {{Use Antarctic English}} be created (the talk page variant was kept at AfD, but seems more about jargon used in background research than spelling differences in the article itself).
I do think the article and talk page templates should ideally be consistently handled if this is going to TfD. I've created this table showing each article/talk page pair for more context here: Template:English variant templates.
Having inconsistencies between talk pages and articles can create confusion for editors. Retro (talk | contribs) 05:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC) (last edited: 05:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Regarding IUPAC: MOS:CHEM § Nomenclature does have chemistry-specific spelling normalizations (e.g., 'aluminium', 'sulfur', and 'caesium') that apply to articles primarily about chemistry topics. Bundling with the "Use X English" may be wrong, but some kind of in-article indicator could be useful for automated processes. So {{Use IUPAC spelling}} could be an independent template for this purpose. Retro (talk | contribs) 05:53, 22 November 2024 (UTC) (edited: 05:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I have nominated the Hiberno-English templates for conversion to redirects. We'll see how the discussion goes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Use Hiberno-English and Use Ugandan English both kept

[edit]

The Hiberno-English and Ugandan English template TFDs were both closed as "keep". I have asked for clarification on the latter, since it appeared to conflict with MOS and no editors provided an explanation about how it provided useful advice to editors. At this point, I think that I will refrain from tilting at more windmills; other editors are welcome to nominate any of the above unjustifiable templates for merging or deletion. I will continue chipping away at the use of EngvarB based on MOS:TIES, pending answers to the multitude of questions above. We have not received answers to these questions from either the editor who objected to deprecation or the editor who unilaterally reverted the consensus to deprecate. Given WP:BRD, I expect that we will be able to re-deprecate this template if we do not hear from them; it doesn't seem right to ride in, revert a consensus change, and not provide an explanation. I hope that we get some participation from these two editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New name

[edit]

If this template ends up getting renamed/replaced instead of deleted, I was thinking two possible names are {{Use International English}} (which already redirects here since 9 June 2017!) or {{Use non-American English}}. (Looking at other redirects to this template, {{Use European English}} also redirects here since 5 June 2024)

We could also redirect to {{Use British English}}, but that'd just be repeating history. Retro (talk | contribs) 11:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This template has a terrible name, so if it does not end up deleted, it should at least be renamed, as I suggested above. Here's the 2021 TFD for Template:Use Commonwealth English. It did not address the similarity with EngvarB directly. Multiple people noted that there is no such thing as "Commonwealth English". Similarly, there is no such thing as "International English", so that's probably a non-starter.
My preference would be to address the redundancy in this family of templates first, narrowing them down to a list of templates that are justifiable, then sort these EngvarB articles into those families. Anything that is not resolvable may lead to this template being renamed. We'll see. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given how widely English is spoken in Europe, should there be a European English template? The European Commission has published this style guide that provides a good consensus of spelling and grammar used there, which is closer to British English. It can help narrow down countries like Ireland and Malta (where it is an official language) and the European Union where it is one of three working languages. Since all of the most fluently bilingual northwestern European countries are in the EEA anyway, it could save having separate templates for each country for what is a very informal variant. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if you actually read the article, specifically Euro English#Grammar, or the PDF that you linked to. The PDF style guide says to use standard constructions of Irish and British English. The spoken "Euro English" as described in the article has the same problem that Ugandan English has, specifically that it contains ungrammatical constructions that we should never use in writing here at Wikipedia. Since the purpose of these templates is to guide writers of articles, we should never request that those writers use constructions like "he often call meetings" or "informations" (Euro English), or "They told me to come and you give me the package" (Ugandan English). The uselessness of {{Use Ugandan English}} is the reason that I nominated it for discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I had only skimmed through it so thanks for clarifying. Queen Douglas DC-3 (talk) 01:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More easy fixes for someone with AWB or AutoEd

[edit]

Per MOS:TIES, anyone with a scripting tool should be able to make short work of converting these 700 articles from EngvarB to Use British English. They are all articles in an immediate or secondary subcategory of Category:Years in Scotland. And here's a similar link, 3,900 articles that are in an immediate or secondary subcategory of Category:Years in England. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:EngvarB&oldid=1263653136"