Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000/BT Discussion

The following is part of the Black Templar dispute, archived here for convience.

From the Black Templars Talk Page

British English

The common convention is for the variant of English for which the article is about to be used, therefore British English in this case. British English is (meant to be) used throughout the Games Workshop articles (as in "armour", and not "armor"), and is changed where it's noticed. Although "-zation" is an acceptable spelling form in the UK, "-sation" is the norm, and more widely used. I also point you to American_and_British_English_spelling_differences, specifically American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ise_.2F_-ize Darkson - BANG! 08:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Its not in the Article, its in the subject heading. 2. Wikipedia has standardize subheadings/subject headings into American English. 3. You are changing something to make it go against what the majority of Wikipedia subject headings have, thus, you aren't conforming to proper Wiki standards. I won't tolerate people changing the way organization is written in subject headings. SanchiTachi 04:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Games Workshop is United States, Australia, Canadian, etc. Its not British only, nor are their production facilities British only. You would not have "british" spelling over at the German version, you would use their version. Thus, your point is absolutely absurd. SanchiTachi 04:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"However, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is hence often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism,[23] despite being preferred by some authoritative British sources, including Fowler's Modern English Usage and the Oxford English Dictionary, which until recently did not list the -ise form of many individual words, even as an alternative. Indeed, it firmly deprecates this usage, stating, "[T]he suffix…, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."[24] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[25]"

That is a quote from your source. Thus, ise and ize are both appropriate, so, apparently, YOU cannot argue that it isn't British, thus it stays. Cease any reverts. SanchiTachi 04:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia absolutely does not have any policy of standardising on American English. Please read WP:MOS#National varieties of English and in particular the point about following the style of the first major contributor. I have reverted your change. --Pak21 11:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the above, you would see that "ise" is FRENCH ENGLISH, not British English, therefore, you are wrong. That means that you are going against Wikipedia. SanchiTachi 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Check the Codex, which you're so insistant of using as reference - it's always the "ise", never the ize".

Secondly, GW is a British company. It was founded in the UK, listed on the Stock market in the UK and has it's Headquarters in the UK. The Codexs are written in British English, as the majority of Games Designers that write the Codexes are British. Check the rest of the 40K articles - UK English is used whereever possible ("armour", "honour"). As for them having production facailites around the world, I agree, but so do Mircosoft, and they're an American company.

Finally, I'm not sure what you class as recent, but I have a Oxford dictionary from 1990 which has both forms, and I was never taught the "ize" form at school (1976 to 1986) and was never pulled up on it, or failed my English exam because of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/grammar/learnit/learnitv19.shtml

http://www.englishclub.com/writing/spelling_american-english.htm Darkson - BANG! 18:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to respond to the above, where -ise comes from isn't too important; what is important is that -ise is the standard form used in current British English see eg "organise" in The Times, The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph or even The Sun. This is not "trumped" by the OED, especially as that lists the -ize spellings as US variants; there is no "official" guide to (British) English as (I believe) there is for eg French. Cheers --Pak21 07:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what links you put up, the Oxford English Dictionary TRUMPS all you can provide. SanchiTachi 19:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

== From the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000 Page==‎

The Moved Survey Discussion

I moved the discussion on the Ad Hoc Survey to here, because it was inappropriate for there and avoided the whole purpose of having an up/down survey.

Anti either, Pro "-our": Reason below. Darkson - BANG! 21:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What a wonderful attitude you have. You're the one coming across as a jerk, with your snide comments. Under a forum, that would be called trolling.

Anyway, for the votes. "-ise" and "-our" excusively are my votes, because:

a) they're the "standard" British English as used in the UK media and taught at UK schools (if my daughter used the word "color" in her written text, it would be marked incorrect), and GW is a British company, and

b) the use of "ise" and "our" are consistently used throughout the GW published material, and if we want to be Encyclopedic (as you love to point out) then we should use the references GW provide.Darkson - BANG! 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Please correct your writting to fall into either of the categories to discuss. If you cannot do that, I will be forced to edit your statement accordingly. Furthermore, just because the Codex may spell it differently, it does not mean that the Dictionary is wrong. Oxford English is the dictionary that tells what is and what is not appropriate British spelling, not YOU. You are the one starting the whole mess by editing out someone else's text to conform to something that was already standard British. If you do not want to actually discussed this liked civilized people, please do not bother posting or editing out other people's words. Furthermore, please sign your posts. I do not want to recommend you for banning because you cannot conform to Wikipedia standards, as you are unwilling to agree to things that are in Codex books when it is refer to Codex, and that you do not agree with the dictionary when it deals with spelling. Both show that you are unwilling to be civil or use sources, and instead wish to try and make yourself seem like the only source that matters. SanchiTachi 20:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

let me know how to "correct the writting" and I will - not sure on how I'm "meant" to vote "correctly" - didn't relaise that was a banning offense.

As for signing my post, I did, using the 4 tilde thing below, so I'm not sure where it went, but to keep you happy, I've added a new one in.

As for discussing civily, you're the one that decided anyone that had a different view from your own was a "jerk" (on this part") and/or a "bully" (elsewhere on this page). Not sure who died and made you god, but you really do come across as having an attitude problem. And at what point did I say the the dictionary was wrong?

And for your information, the Oxford dictionary has "color", "armor" and "honor" all listed as US variants of "colour", "armour" and "honour". Darkson - BANG! 21:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you were unable to understand what I said. By correcting your writing, it means to put the writing in the correct location. There are two issues and there is room for more issues. Each is separate. Thats how surveys work. Please respect the way Wikipedia works. You are being extremely frustrating. Furthermore, I only said that both were allowable after the exception that I posted. Please read what I say. Furthermore, I would recommend you for banning because you are editing out things that aren't actually wrong in order to dominate pages. You edit things to make them "British" even if they are allowed in British English just so you can impose your will upon new people who want to do actually contribute. If you want to correct actual spelling errors, feel free, but don't feel the need to be a jerk and have to edit out everyone else just to throw in "u"s or the like. It matters more to actually contribute sourced knowledge to Wikipedia then to edit people's posts to death. SanchiTachi 21:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

And there you go again throwing out the insults. Perhaps you are the one that needs to be recommended for banning, seeing as you have repeatedly broken Wikipedia:Civility. I couldn't care less about dominating pages. I do care that the language used is consistent and correct to the matter in hand, which in this case, as I have pointed out to you is in all the GW printed material, uses the form "-ise" and "-our".

So in your opinion, does this page need changing as well? 1st Armoured Division (UK) (Ok, I'll admit I forgot to sign that one!) Darkson - BANG! 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You misrepresent my opinion. On the second object for survey, I agreed only with the exception listed that allowed for both to be appropriate. Furthermore, saying that someone would be acting like a jerk by chasing newbies away is not being uncivil. Saying that you are stupid, ugly, etc, is. Please learn the difference. One is about your words/actions. The other is about you. There is a huge difference. Saying that you are being a jerk is not an insult. Its a descriptive of an action that signifies that you are being rude or acting in a way to intimidate/chase away new people. You edited out quite a few people over very minor things that are in dispute. There is no place for that. You also allow no grounds for consideration or trying to come to a mutual understanding. I have, during such times, tried to find a middle ground and edited myself in many places. You, however, seem unwilling to do such. SanchiTachi 21:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an exception on the 2nd point - as I said, the Oxford dictionary lists them all as the US variant of the word, not as a alternative UK spelling. UK spelling of "armour" and "colour" always contains the "-our" - I have never seen a UK-written piece of printed text which uses the "-or" (apart from articles about differences in spelling of course).

And I don't know where in the world you come from, but I can assure you that here saying to someone "you are being a jerk" is an insult, and I will continue to take it as such.Darkson - BANG! 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The Moved Survey Part II

I don't believe there is an exception on the 2nd point - as I said, the Oxford dictionary lists them all as the US variant of the word, not as a alternative UK spelling. UK spelling of "armour" and "colour" always contains the "-our" - I have never seen a UK-written piece of printed text which uses the "-or" (apart from articles about differences in spelling of course).

And I don't know where in the world you come from, but I can assure you that here saying to someone "you are being a jerk" is an insult, and I will continue to take it as such.Darkson - BANG! 22:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It is an attack. It is not a personal attack. Acting like a jerk means that your actions are rude, intimidating to new people, or not conducive to helping improve articles. There is a difference from attacking your person, and attacking your actions. I do not have any clue about who you are, nor do I claim to have any such clue. I say people are being jerks when they do not follow Assuming Good Faith Guidelines.

" Even if they are wrong, that does not mean they are trying to wreck the project. There will be some people with whom you find it hard to work. That does not mean they are trying to wreck the project either. It is never necessary that we attribute an editor's actions to bad faith, even if bad faith seems obvious, as all our countermeasures (i.e. reverting, blocking) can be performed on the basis of behavior rather than intent.

This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying. Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice."

I only say people act like jerk when they try to assume that the other person is not here to help the project, or cannot contribute to the project. I will also put forth "tone of voice" Found here:

"Keep in mind that raw text is ambiguous and often seems ruder than the same words coming from a person standing in front of you. Irony isn't always obvious - text comes without facial expressions, vocal inflection or body language."

Now I will posit the following from the above source:

"Recognize your own biases and keep them in check."

"Remove or summarize resolved disputes that you initiated."

"Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said. Most people have something useful to say. That includes you. Deletion upsets people and makes them feel they have wasted their time – consider moving their text to a sub-directory of their user pages instead (saying not quite the right place for it but so they can still use it): much less provocative."

So I have removed the previous part (as it was between us, though not yet resolved, is not something to really resolve) and instead insert the following: I am sorry for any hard/harsh feelings that this has caused you and that we should work together to figure out which is acceptible and that others may have differing views of acceptible and what should be tolerated. So yes, I am sorry if I have offended you or hurt you in any way. SanchiTachi 16:47, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MOS clearly states that we are to use Commonwealth spelling for Commonwealth-related articles. GW being a company located in England, and 40K thus being sourced from there, "spelling tolerance" has got nothing to do with it - we use the British spellings, and correct where needed. This survey is therefore irrelevant and a waste of time. SanchiTachi, I'm not sure why you're nitpicking and wikilawyering on all these little things, and I don't much care to debate the issue, but it really needs to stop, because it is totally unconstructive. MSJapan 16:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary, i.e. the Commonwealth Spelling, says that only "ize" is allowed. The debate is on proper English vs slang English. They removed "ize" as not being proper British, even though the Oxford clearly says it is. SanchiTachi 17:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The OED does not define "Commonwealth Spelling". Usage does, therefore your point is invalid. As another point, I give you Regimental Organisation, directly from the Games Workshop website. According to Google, there are 101 uses of "organisation" on uk.games-workshop.com, but only 14 uses of "organization", most of which --Pak21 17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That is popular usage by the group. Is Wikipedia supposed to follow the spelling for subject headings? I understand following the language of Orks in the Ork page, but putting the titles up in an "orkish" manner would not be appropriate. Furthermore, the OED is listed on the page that says what is British and what is American for Wikipedia, thus, OED is the end all to be all in Wiki debate on language. If you want to say that catagories should be labeled based on the Codex wording, then what about titles not in the Codexes? And then, wouldn't we have to only put in info from Codexes? SanchiTachi 17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is a headquarters in Glen Burnie and all the other places, so its no longer a "British" group. Its an international company and has been for over 17 years. Thus, using the UK website instead of the Aussie, Canadian and American, is a biased, as those other three are just as appropriate. SanchiTachi 17:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you please specify exactly which page you are referring to with your comment about "the page that says what is British and what is American for Wikipedia". If you are referring to American and British English spelling differences, that is an article, not part of the Manual of Style, and therefore does not specify how Wikipedia articles should be written. The appropriate section of the MoS (National varieties of English) says absolutely nothing about which forms of English are accepted. With regards to the multi-national characters of GW, of course it now has offices in countries other than the UK. However, we have to choose one variety of English to use, and as GW was initially a British company and its main HQ (Warhammer World) is still in the UK, that would seem the obvious choice to me. --Pak21 18:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

"For reference on different dialects, consult Wikipedia articles such as English plural and American and British English differences." Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English As I put that forth, it is obvious that the Manual of Style refers to that page, in which what I put forth on the Ad Hoc survey is a direct quote from that page. So Pak, before you start accusing me of things, please verify your information first and you would see that what you said is already contradicted on the pages that you quote. Thank you. And it doesn't matter what GW was, it only matters what it is. Furthermore, using "orks" as an example, I have already put forth why catagories are not to be written in the language that GW puts forth in its books. Furthermore, the OED says that the only appropriate ending is "ize" so stop claiming British. Either say GW if you want to say "ise" or find a source as credible as the OED that says that the OED is wrong. Thanks. SanchiTachi 18:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Also, as long as GW has the American HeadQuarters in Glen Burnie listed on its books, you cannot make any such claims that only the British one counts. Thanks. SanchiTachi 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here are some sources discussing the use of 'ise' and 'ize'. [1], [2], [3] and [4]. I can get some more if you like. 'ise' is the generally accepted word used in Commonwealth English - as the language has evolved to a state of generally recognising 'ize' as an Americanism.

Also, our style guides say we use the dialect/version of English which has its strongest ties to the origin of the subject of the article, and as GW's world headquarters are in the UK they are British. Combining these multiple reasons leads me to believe that 'ise' is correct for the articles about GW and W40K.

Finally, the line If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. in the MOS indicates that it should be left how it was.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and why do you keep saying that the OED is the defining document of British English? Can we have some sources for that?-Localzuk^(talk) 18:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Um, did you just call into question the Oxford English Dictionary as the true verifiable source for British Definitions and Spelling? Seriously, are you here to troll? If you honestly want to call it into question, I believe that the only appropriate action is contacting an admin about you. SanchiTachi 19:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, your links are not verifiable nor are they peer reviewed. The BBC links are obvious as that. The Oxford English Dictionary has already explained that Ize is the proper Greek and Latin ending, and that Ise was an import from France. SanchiTachi 19:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, your World Wide Words page is verifiably wrong, as has been quoted on Wiki, the London Times uses "ize" and your website claims that no British Paper does. Furthermore, your word formation page says that both are accepted, therefore, you cannot claim it says a preference for either. Thanks. SanchiTachi 19:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to continue the discussion - this is arguing just to argue, with completely arbitrary definitions of "proof". Whatever SanchiTachi thinks, there is plenty of policy and precedent on Wikipedia to retain what is already there as it is, in the spelling format it uses. I would suggest we not waste any more time with this, and concern ourselves with content instead of (quite literally) semantics. I'm not sure what the point is that's trying to be made, but there's no reason to enable it any further. MSJapan 19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So it is one rule for you and one rule for me? The BBC is accepted as a reliable source on this site - plain and simple. The surrey university site is also a reliable source (they are an academic institution). The OED is a dictionary, and our own article doesn't call it the standard for Commonwealth English - this is a title being given it by you at the moment. Our article simply says 'The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a dictionary published by the Oxford University Press (OUP), and is one of the most successful dictionaries of the English language.' and that it is influential within many countries. To ask if I am a troll because I am simply asking for a source backing up the OED as being the definition of english is wrong. The way I understand it, from our articles on various dictionaries, dictionaries record the language used by the populace - they don't define it. Hence new words being added constantly, after they become popular within the UK.

So, yes, I will call into question that the OED defines Commonwealth English.

Also, as I have said - the site (I almost said 'our' then but realised that this would upset you) says we can use various ways of using English, but we should use the method originally in the article, the wording commonly used by the company and its country of origin and use it uniformly within an article.

But as MSJapan says, this is a pointless discussion as their is plenty of policy supporting the maintenance of the status-quo.-Localzuk^(talk) 19:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Oxford_English_Dictionary. There is no question that it is a verifiable source. Furthermore, the BBC page you linked to is not the news. It doesn't even have last names! You cannot quote it, without any information about who even published it! Just because its hosted by the BBC does not make it BBC. Nor does it make it done by an expert. The OED was quoted by the American/British grammar variation and that was cited by the Manual of Style page! Thus, Wikipedia supports the OED and only a few other sources (such as the Times, Websters, and the other cited), as appropriate sources for their Manual of Style. Cease and decist, because you are here only to troll, not to put forth new information or anything else. You think that you can change the Wiki rules by filling up this talk page. Stop. It has already been proven that the book does not count, as even the website uses both interchangably, and the original article was written in American until Darkson went through and started making it "British," so both of your points do not apply. SanchiTachi 19:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)