User talk:Cybergoonieenderwiggin

Hello

I would like to make some additions to articles on Aluminium and maybe you can help. Please guide me to the followings :

the spelling

respell /ˌæljʉˈmɪniəm/ |AL|ew|MIN|ee-əm

is not true. Please modify it to:

respell |ælə|w'|mi|nɪ'əm . ALu-MI-Niəmum

Please consider the no-research-policy on internet.

Also to U.S. spelling

- ə'luːmɪnəm to 'əlyˈ-mɪnəm

Best regards 188.25.50.211 (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. --John (talk) 22:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I'm here to talk. How exactly does the spelling of tires relate to the Wikipedia:ENGVAR, since the subject of a jet aircraft here doesn't seem to fall under the Wikipedia:ENGVAR strong nationalistic and actually goes against the ENGVAR Opportunities for commonality since "Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English. Insisting on a single term or a single usage as the only correct option does not serve the purposes of an international encyclopedia."

The telling part follows though in this

Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); 'tens of millions' is preferable to crore (Indian English)."

In this sense, the more universally used "tires" spelling is more proper.

On an article about a British plane, UK spelling is used. --John (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, ENGVAR is clear that the article must have "Strong nationalistic ties", so again what reasoning does the article have? Merely being British produced is not a qualifier unless you have something saying otherwise more in line with ENGVAR policy. Cybergoonieenderwiggin (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on this a little... "more universally" is not a useful concept - it may be true that more people, overall, use the "tires" spelling than the "tyres" spelling, but that's a majority usage, not a universal usage. The guideline you're quoting is specifically talking about a universal usage (without the qualifier "more"), not a majority usage. The Lightning was a uniquely British aircraft, in a way that the Harrier (for example) ultimately wasn't. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"More Universally" was never said or quoted by me. Universal doesn't mean unanimous, universally is the majority, which in this case follows that "tires" be used. Especially since the ENGVAR doesn't say that basic country applies ownership, but instead that "strong nationalistic ties" be the qualifier. Cybergoonieenderwiggin (talk) 22:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was - here. You may have decided to redefine "universally" to mean "the majority", but I'm afraid no-one agrees with you, and thus this conversation is going nowhere. For future reference, the best place to start conversations like this is on the talk page of the article concerned. If John doesn't want it on his talk page, you can't force him to keep it there. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more correct to say that a number of you don't "currently", the minority, in fact, given the number of hits a compared search of "tires" and "tyres" pulls up if you really prefer what constitutes a majority opinion. Although I do realize where I said the more universally portion, though being on a different page I didn't realize you were not referencing something here at the time.

As far as John's talk page goes, I was going to have the discussion there until people decided to come here and given that his third statement said he didn't mind (and wikipedia hadn't updated that people were posting here) I only saw it being deleted. So you can shove that nonsensical approach to the situation to the side if you intend on staying here on "my page" to discuss this amicably. Cybergoonieenderwiggin (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an aircraft built in the United Kingdom, for the Royal Air Force. WP:CONSENSUS is that British subjects use British English, period. The fact that it's a "jet aircraft" is utterly irrelevant to WP:ENGVAR. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS has no real bearing here in that aspect really. The page/subject is about a jet first, not the fact that it was created by British aviation, hence we have standards to comply with that ENGVAR does lay out for commonality between articles. Your use of WP:CONSENSUS in this manner directly contradicts the outlined WP:ENGVAR portion that says and I quote once more that

"Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); 'tens of millions' is preferable to crore (Indian English)."

, with one of the exceptions being subject with strong national ties. Are you really claiming for the record that the spelling of usage of tyres in this case is on par with that of the articles on the Great Fire of London or Institutions of the European Union in terms of nationalistic impact? Cybergoonieenderwiggin (talk) 09:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am actually claiming that for an aircraft designed in England, built in England, and used by the Royal Air Force (and, in addition in this case, being one of the most iconic British aircraft in history and possibly the most iconic British jet in history) does, indeed, have "strong national ties". Also relevant in this case is WP:RETAIN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]