Talk:Australian English/Archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] The farmer's wife's ute

I've just removed the following.

A farmer's wife once required a vehicle that could be used as a farm hack (farm car) through
(during, in) the week, and used for church over(at[UK], on[US]) the weekend, which resulted in
the "ute" (pick-up truck). Words such as "biro"(ball-point pen), named after its designer, can
be heard in the United Kingdom and France.

What was it trying to say? What relevance did it have? What's with all these alternative prepositions? (Use Aussie English here.) Where is this information from? Jimp 02:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

means utillity vehicle, a bloody toyota, ute as in "ute"ility
paul the ranter
I know what a ute is but what's all this about the farmer's wife? Jimp 17:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Um, just re-reading that, it looks like it's explaining the origins of the ute - a farmer's wife needed a car that could be used on the farm during the week and at church on the weekend, hence the ute was born. Stevage 13:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure but the point remains that it is not relevant. We're discussing a dialect not a vehicle.Jimp 07:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] jail/gaol

This seems strange to me: "commonly one could be 'jailed' in a 'gaol'". Surely such a strange combination of spellings wouldn't normally be found...? --Singkong2005 (from Sydney) 10:24, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

where I come from we say "in clink" "in the slammer" "behind bars", theres jail pronounces in south staffordshire jayul and bayul, ie " a yo gorra goo t'jayul, no iye aye"


What was all that about above? If this is that paul bloke who's trying to push the black country influence debate then give it a rest mate. Also sign your comments with the four tildas so we can see who made the comment and when. As to the original question, 'gaol' isn't used very often thesedays so I'm not sure what the original author of that section referred to as 'commonly'. Citizen D 23:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would appear that it's the same guy. I removed a rather long rant of his last week. This one at least started out on topic, so I left it. Is everyone else sick of his long, rambling, and poorly-written rants? At least he's no longer trying to insert similar material into the actual article anymore. Imroy 08:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Another long rant by 195.93.21.70 (talk • contribs), removed because of its largely off-topic nature.

If you want somewhere to vent, I suggest you go start your own blog. This page is for discussion of the Australian English article. Either address specific issues for discussion or I will continue removing your rants. Imroy 13:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


Ok then, I won't remove your text. I'll leave it for everyone to see. How does that fit into your conspiracy theory then? Not that it matters much, anyone who went through the page history could have seen your other rants anyway.
I don't know where to start replying to your allegations. It would help if you tried to write more clearly. Try learning about punctuation and sentence structure. If it weren't for some of the topics you raise, I would swear you were in primary school, because that's how you write. Seriously, if you want people to read all of what you write and give your opinion any weight, then try making your comments a little clearer.
  1. I have never "carefully edited the parts of [your] comments that have some bal[sic] behind em and left the light ones". I have only ever removed your comments, in whole.
  2. Britain is not the only source of white people. There's Europe for a start. Have you heard of the term caucasian? Have any idea where the caucaus region is? Or how about Aryan?
  3. It might surprise you that I quite like the Queen of England, as do many Australians. My wish for Australia to one day become a republic has nothing to do with my opinion of the British monarchy.
  4. Just what is your problem with the Irish? You rejection of the suggestion that Austrlian English has been influenced by Irish immigrants strays into what looks like ethnic hatred.
  5. Just where is your proof? All you've offered so far is opinion. Your opinion. Show me some proof of your long-winded claims and I won't be so quick to dismiss you.
Imroy 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

aussie dialect migrants dialect example captain cook proof of a dialectual shift [irish mining herritge] [english mines] they always say most of the miners came from ireland, but there were just as many mines if not more in england


"Alot of you guys descend from convicts look at your horse saddles". Wow, some inspiring research there. I still can't quite figure out what your point is, though your English really is terrible. All I get is anger, bitterness, and resentment though I'm not really sure what your angry about. Can you explain, in 50 words or less the point you are trying to make and how it is relevant to the Australian English Wikipedia page? Citizen D 03:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
"...miners came from ireland...". Really? A lot of Australia's early copper and silver mines were developed by Cornish miners and the ore was smelted by Welsh smeltermen. Overgeneralising again, the gold rushes brought a lot of Chinese miners. I doubt any of these would have appreciated being told they came from Ireland. You would do much better writing with proper sentences with proper punctuation, and sticking to your point (whatever it is). --Scott Davis Talk 12:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  1. upper class diallect that had germanic, yiddish influence; Actually, the upper class dialect is more Francophone in derivation. You've conveniently glossed over the Battle of Hastings, and the [[Foreign language influences in English|influence of French] language on the current dynastic rule of England (the Tudors, etc). After all, matinee is an English word derived from matins, a French and Latin word. Also, don't discount the influence of Romans upon the Bretons and Angle tribes.
  2. there was mass emigration from this region during the colonial persiad, because people wanted to get away from the melencholy and dull sceenery; thanks. You really cleared up our convict history there.
  3. diallectual shift in alot of people over here because of the jewish migrants; ok. Firstly, the Jews have migrated most toward Poland from Spain at the end of the Christian conquest of the Moors. Then from Russia to central europe in the early 20th centruy, thanks to the Russian pogroms. Then from Europe to Palestine in 1948 due to the war. So, which Jewish migrants? The ones stealing your jobs and your spelling and punctuation?
  4. If it wasnt for us you wouldnt be there, youd probably be in some meloncholy smokey town (1). Irish didn't start building big ships until the early last century (2), and they only built two of them, and they still had to relly on us to make the anchors and chain and it had a fake funnel and lets face it, the hull was paper thin. you guys arived in australia in the 1750's (3) in english galleons(4), the fisrt ship to arrive in australia was sailed by a man called captain cook an english explorer(5), who went as far as hawaii to watch them surf(6), he wrote about it in his diary. the first white man to see a budgerigar was called "Gould" he was also english. Alot of you guys descend from convicts(7)
  • 1: You said you all left during "colonial persaid".
  • 2: The Irish were sailing during Roman times and had an effective Navy, enough, in fact, to defend themselves against the Vikings. Fact, but not known in smokey midland shitholes full of illiterate idiots.
  • 3: We actually arrived in 1788, as a colonial convict culture. Cook sailed into Botany Bay in 1770. Right after La Perouse. So the French technically discovered Australia first, but the English gazetteered the find first because La Perouse considered the coastline at Botany Bay "worthless". Ditto the Dutch 200 years before for the coast of Western Australia. And see 5 and 7 below.
  • 4: The English did not field galleons in the 18th century; they were exclusively a 15th and 16th century vessel. Galleons wouldn't be able to make a long journay, being too top-heavy and laden with cannon.
  • 5: The first man to arrive in Australia was actually a Dutchman, so you're well wrong there.
  • 6: He actually went to Hawaii to watch the solar Transit of Venus across the sun, an astronomical observation, not a sporting leisure trip. How ignorant are you?
  • 7: You just said we were descended from Midlands emigrees. I'm confused.
Rolinator 14:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)


some people calls it a lorry some truck, but its a wagine in my county. but ya don't say lorry driver, you say waginedriver. if your a working driver they say "yer on the wagines" or "om on the wagines" and theres all difrent kinds, tatwagine which is for the scrapmetal, builderswagine the yellow one for the brickie, cattlewagine for the livestock.

if your refering to purely sand and coal you say skip, and much the same for a truck lorry wagine or train carrying raw materials such as sand.

the real aussy for a big truck with loadsa trailers its a "roadtrain", they run through the dessert and they won't stop for you.

funny you should mencion chippie, where I come from its a carpenter or joiner, also we have brickie for bricklayer, a bloke who does more than one trade is called a builder, you can call any a builder though.

also theres chippy with a Y, the fish and chip shop. leckie does not mean electrician it refers to the electricity bill. we call the electrician the "sparkie", in america sparkie refers to the chair mr sparkie, old sparkie aswel.

I don't think there is slang word for plumber. but i do know one called lee king, hes very good, if we sue the same sorta slang ideal, a plummer would be a waterie but it just doesnt sound good cause theres alread the word watery, describing "like water", ive heard of gas fitter, which most plumbers are.


good onya is when you give someone credit, its like saying "good on you" I've heard that saying since the day I was born. but cause skip a few generations over a few hundred years you aussies have forgotten, to say it full you say "good onya'r'aye" "good on you ain't it" we black country folks are better than you people at speaking slang, thats cause were the master copy of the record the silver one that reads backwards, and the viynl has the arragance to say he knows best. I think if your this arragant about your history you should all just be eaten by the abbos, theres another we invented putting the o to shorten a word we usually do it with the village names, like cheslyn hay becomes chesso, if you don't beleive me email anyone from my village the school the church and ask em whats slang for it. if we can, but if a name sounds okay we use a small part of that name, great wyrley will be just wyrley. years ago walsall was called walesho the oh is hundreds of years old from old anglo saxon language, you aussies never invented it, we did. look on the internet and see how many refferences there are to "wolvo" for wolverhampton,

where I come from we say canabea or canabaya, theres only one other place that I know of that referes to beer or ale as beah baya, thats down under. if you don't beleive in me well why don't you call a few of my local brewers and ask em how you say beer in south staffordshire and the black country.

Now you're just coming across as a complete tool. Oh let me guess - you came up with the idea of using the word "tool" as an insult too? I'll email someone from your village to find out. Or you're local brewer. Hell, you don't get much more credbile as far as evidence goes in my book...ahem... Citizen D 04:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Dear anonymous twat;
Well, now we know you aren't an Aussie and Australian English didn't come from Staffordshire.Sure, you can crap on aboutyour chippies and sparkies and brewies, but you didn't know the true-blue fair dinkum ridgy-didge word we use for plumber over here: a staffie. Because anyone who plays in shit all day long must come from Staffordshire. Rolinator 07:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strine

C'mon, who seriously calls it that? One book named it that. One book. I've never heard anyone call Australian English "strine" and I've never heard an Australian pronounce it that way, either. Yes, I am one. Even the Steve Irwins and the Harry Butlers and Rex Hunts of this world say it "Australian".

I'd love to see a poll or something where people associate it with Australian English, 'cos I tell you what, it'd be news to most Australians, that's for sure.

It's one of these bogus appellations that somehow gets tagged to something that nobody uses. Peter1968 15:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Someone (who is actually signed into Wikipedia) like to comment on the above diatribe, please? I'm tempted to delete it, as it is tangential rubbish, but I'll probably get labelled a big bad, censor or some such. Peter1968 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. I tried that already and was labelled a censor or somesuch by him. The best tactic so far seems to be to simply leave his long, pointless rants. Any sort of response, including removal of his rants, only provokes more from him.
My god, he's written so much but I still have only a vague idea of what his point is. I wish he would either state his issue(s) succinctly, or go away and leave us alone. I've long since given up on trying to communicate with him. Imroy 08:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Something about Staffordshire, as far as I can tell. Regardless, it seems to be totally irrelevant to the subject at hand here. Peter1968 09:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
He's been given plenty of opportunities to state his case here and all he has done is waste time and space with incoherent ramblings, and now has resorted to vandalism and abuse. I say ban him, delete his tirades, or both. Citizen D 03:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Deleted. The way this is going, I'm going to request new user/unsigned protection for this page. Edit: requested semi-protection. Peter1968 03:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Requested, and was blithely told by whoever thinks they're in charge of these things that it wasn't getting enough vandalism. Alrighty then. Individual who makes this decision noted 195.*'s vandalism and "banned" him/her as a compromise. As they say in the classics; fat lot of good that did. This talk page needs semi-protection. End of story. Peter1968 15:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Obviously there is a new phenomena that needs to be documented. Last night completely out of the blue the thought popped into my head, "I wonder if there is an entry on 'Strine'". A few hours later I land here to find an ongoing contoversy. Kewl. But I digress. Should "Strine" (ie as a proper noun) have its own entry given that it was an ongoing joke (in Sydney and Melbourne at least) 40 odd years ago (that was later picked up by the Poms to describe Australian pronunciation perjoratively)? Albatross2147 23:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Russell Crowe

Seems minor but should he be listed under Samples Of Australian English? It is a good example of an Australian accent but he isn't Australian (unless he has dual citizenship, couldn't find any proof of that anywhere). No big deal I guess, just wondering.

Zujik 17:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit - removed irrelevant nonsense. Peter1968 04:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Zujik, the thing is, you don't have to be Australian-born or an Australian citizen to speak Australian English. The article is not about nationality, it's about language and the way it's used. And Big Russ simply doesn't sound like a Kiwi. Grant65 | Talk 12:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

True, that's why I said no big deal. He definitely is a good example of Australian English just thought it might have made sense. Let it stand.
Zujik 06:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] xxxxx xxxxxxx rantings

[rant snipped]

Huh? Xtra 14:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The answer to huh? is to read the history of this page. Some *individual* sees fit to insert his/her/it gibberish regularly. Peter1968 14:50, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

you don't know its gibberish yet, already got a few linguists from a few univeristes studying it for me. you people are a joke, because you think your irish when you aye. Its thins kinda corruption that feeds republicanism.

Au contraire, it is gibberish. If you run your gibberish through a spell checker it may help a little, but the message will be same old prattle. Peter1968 16:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of making a personal attack, here's some information about our British AOL'er, found after five minutes of googling. In previous messages (check the archives) he provides the email address of xxxxxxxx@aol.com and the name 'xxxx'. And he just recently linked to an image in bluenfunky's members.aol.com web space. Do a google search on 'xxxxxxxxx' and you find quite a lot. His full name would appear to be Paul Hinton, but be careful searching with that name as it seems to be fairly common. There's also a golfer with that name. On a few forums he uses the name xxxxxxxxxxx', which fits with some of his rantings about the Black Country. He's also made [xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] to the Urban Dictionary, which lists his location (click on one of the definitions).
So with this information we can at least give him a name now. I'm half tempted to look up his telephone number and give him a sampling of my Australian accent! How many xxxxxxxxxxxxx could there be in xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx? Imroy 19:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

you aye nothing but a bunch of bastards, theres loads of words you people steal off us working class people of the west midlands, how about crikey, insteada saying oh god, thats a midlands saying, and you people are denying you ever borrowed some of your language off us. your irish thing is a case of missplaced identity with our folks, I was brought up to say haitch, and good onya, in the black country we say ya for you too. your not really all of irish decsent but because of the broad black country diallect, people for got about it and assumed it was irish, I'll proove you people wrong one day. and you are, your too pussy to put your names down to see if they english or not, that proves me right, your not really irish. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.4 (talk • contribs) .

Paul, the article only says that "many Australians are of Irish descent", not 'all' or 'most'. It also refers to "the influence of Irish Catholic priests and nuns", meaning it's not necessarily us who are of Irish descent. As for my name, my mother has done a lot of research into our family history and I know I'm of mostly English ancestry. But that doesn't change the fact that information on Wikipedia has to backed up by sources. Until you find some credible sources for your assertions, you're just another anonymous loon expressing his opinion on a website. Imroy 21:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
whats that crap about being irish? we are australian!!!! descent is irrelevant, very few people (to be safe) dont have distant ancestors who came from foreign lands, no matter where you live, humanity stemmed and became more diverse as it became larger. if you find that irrelevant, then you get my point already. i am 5 generations (at least) australian, as a result i find where my great-great-great- grandparents who i didn't even live to meet came from irrelvant, this stereotype that we find being australian inferior and instead to restore our sense of sanity we must find what foreign "culturally superior" lands our ancestors came from is total b/s, and it should not be considered a general feeling of all australians, many couldn't care less about the lands their distant ancestors came from.

[edit] "Myths about Australian accents"

I have removed this entire section from the article as I'm not sure it has a point, and even less sure its point is universal across teh country.

===Myths about Australian accents===
Similarly, stereotypes of Australian speech as having a "rising tone" or "questioning intonation", known in linguistics as high rising terminal, are not justified by the empirical evidence.[citation needed] Most Australians' speech patterns do not conform to this stereotype, and the "questioning intonation" can be found in many regional speech patterns, such as those in the south of England, Northern Ireland, and even North America. Australians often describe their own accent as being 'twangy' in sound.

"Similarly" to what? In what sense? The preceding sentence was about consonants, and did not mention stereotypes. The rest seems to make a claim, say it's false, then say it happens everywhere else too! --Scott Davis Talk 12:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Status of Australian English

I have just been looking at articles about various branchs of Arabic and notice they virtually get their own pages with population figures etc.

Given Australia's isolation it would be surely true that although obviously English in origin, Australian English could constitute a language comparable to various dialects of Arabic, and due to our isolation I would think perhaps it'd be even more applicable.

Given that Australian English indeed does have its own page it receives wide recognition as a distinctive dialect.

The isolation of Australia from Britain alone should almost contribute to such a idea. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.239.197.156 (talk • contribs).

I think you underestimate the amount of variation in the Arabic language.
From Arabic:
"Colloquial" or "dialectal" Arabic refers to the many national or regional varieties derived from Classical Arabic, spoken daily across North Africa and the Middle East, which constitute the everyday spoken language. These sometimes differ enough to be mutually incomprehensible.
From Varieties of Arabic
One factor in the differentiation of the varieties is influence from the languages previously spoken in the areas, which have typically provided a significant number of new words, and have sometimes also influenced pronunciation or word order
The English language doesn't really have the same level of variety or regional influence from local languages, at least in modern times. English does have a lot of borrowed words, but they were borrowed a long time ago and are in the base standard used by everyone. And the influence of radio, movies, and TV means that most English speakers (mostly) understand the variations from other parts of the world. I'm not an Arabic speaker, but the impression I have from those Wikipedia articles and other sources is that the variety in Arabic is much greater.
Imroy 12:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


A question re the POV nature of "Use of words by Australians" The examples are of two labour party leaders using colourful language. Are there Liberal Party equivalents? Given the ratio of blue collar workers who came from the shop floor that is indeed possible. But is it true that say Tony Abbot has no similar quality colourful quotes. I dont listen to parliament often enough to know for sure.

[edit] Program/Programme

For some reason I won't even try to understand, there seems to be a dispute as to whether "program" or "programme" is the correct spelling of television and radio shows. I have been drawn into this with extreme reluctance, after turning to the Seven Network article this morning in search of information and discovering a war in progress.

The standard dictionary of Australian English is the Macquarie, which prefers "program" over "programme". The ABC, conservative old Auntie, likewise. The Australian Government Style Manual uses "program". I have yet to see a current authoritative reference for "programme". --Jumbo 03:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My dictionary says this:

programme
programme or (especially North American, and comput)
program
...

Chamber's Dictionary - 1994. Xtra 04:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:MacProgram.jpg
page from Macquarie Dictionary showing "program" as a headword.
I point out that Chambers Dictionary is a good reference for British English. Current Australian usage, as per standard Australian references such as the Macquarie Dictionary, is for "program" over "programme". --Jumbo 05:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting point, yes, but does the Macquarie Dictionary set the standard? Perhaps the editors here are less ready to adopt Americanisms than the authors of the Mac Dictionary. Does the Macquarie Dictionary call programme unAustralian? As far as I'm aware both are acceptable in AusE. Where this not the case then there'd be no debate, would there? I remember years ago someone writing to Auntie pulling them up on program. Aunty quoted the Mac Dictionary at them.
Bold move, Jumbo, removing the mes from the programmes, bold move for someone reluctant to join the dispute. Yes, yours is just another edit in what has turned into an edit war over here too. I'm not about to revert you but I don't think it will be long before someone does.
Given that both spellings are acceptable would it not be best just to leave it spelt the way it first appeared in the article? Perhaps, on the other hand, it wouldn't be a bad idea to take a vote on it. My vote would go to "programme". Jimp 06:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
WP is an encyclopaedia. We've got to have sources. The Macquarie Dictionary lists "program" as a headword and not "programme". (See pagescan.) I don't need to feel bold about saying that "program" is the common Australian usage, because every authoritative source says it is. I can't believe that there is any debate over such trivia. --Jumbo 07:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
You do have a good point. I vote for programme as a matter of taste. Yes, we've got to have sources but the Macquarie Dictionary does recognise programme. However, I'm not about to loose sleep over this debate nor am I going to join in the edit war. It is rather trivial as you note, Jumbo. But as for belief that there is any debate ... well you're part of it. Jimp 08:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A Google search of Australian pages containing "program", "programme" and "Style Guide" throws up hundreds of examples preferring "program" over "programme". --Jumbo 08:18, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Both correct?

Both "program" and "programme" mean the same thing, and both are used in Australian English, but the difference between the two lies in the relative popularity. "Programme" is increasingly rare, and "Program" common and increasingly so. This article should reflect the actual usage, not "what came first". If we stuck to "what came first", then both articles and language would never change, and as we all know, this is not the case. As I mentioned to User:Xtra, this shouldn't become a pissing contest over who is an admin and who isn't. That's a poor way to write an encyclopaedia, especially one where we must rely on sources. May I respectfully ask anyone who prefers "programme" over "program" in this article to provide a source? --Jumbo 09:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually would use "program" in usual usage, but would use "programme" when it is a more formal occasion. Xtra 09:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
You seem unaware of our style conventions. To avoid conflicts exactly like this, it is established that where a spelling exists that is consistent with the appropriate variety, it shall remain. The dispute over programme and program is the same as that between s and z in articles using British English. I could care less about what the preference of individual editors is; so long as it is correct, whatever spelling the orginal author employed should not be changed and subsequent edits should be consistent. It is not Wikipedia's place to assist change in language. --cj | talk 10:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, CJ! Looking at the MoS, the only thing I can see that looks consistent with your advice is this: If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.. I hope we haven't reached the stage of all else failing, quite yet!
You make a good point about WP not assisting change in language, and of course our role is to reflect what is common usage, which is why I cite the Macquarie Dictionary, the accepted standard reference to Australian English. In fact the Macquarie has been criticised for lagging behind current usage. As evidenced in the pagescan above, "program" is the headword and "programme" is not.
On looking into the history of this article, I find that you may be embarrassed by your supposition that the original usage was "programme". In fact it was "program", as seen in this version of 16 November 2005.
May I ask if there is any good reason why you (or any other editor) should think this article should now change to preferring "programme";; over "program"? The original usage was "program", the accepted standard for Australian English prefers "program", the overwhelming majority of online Australian style guides specify "program" over "programme", and all of the major television networks use "program" (even the ABC, the most conservative of the four).
So far in this discussion we have had two reasons advanced:
  1. Xtra cites Chambers Dictionary
  2. You claim that "programme" was the original usage in the article.
With all respect, both arguments fail, the first on the grounds that Chambers is a dictionary of British English, the second because it is incorrect.
And finally, may I quote from the very article we are discussing, in the version to which you reverted: The exposure to the different spellings of British and American English leads to a certain amount of spelling variation such as organise/organize. British spelling is generally preferred, although some words are usually written in the American form, such as program and jail rather than programme and gaol (although commonly one could be 'jailed' in a 'gaol'). Publishers, schools, universities and governments typically use the Macquarie Dictionary as a standard spelling reference. --Jumbo 11:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


What seems to be coming out of this is that Australians don't necessarily respect any coherent particular spelling pattern. Also, on the MoS rule, what happens if the first major contributor mixes several different styles? What if he does something new and funky? Is that to be respected too? :) Stevage 13:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The general rule on Australian articles is to use "Australian" spelling unless it is a quote from a foreign source. The problem is when there are different variants of Australian English. If this is the case there are two options. 1) get uniformity by having all uses of that word to be identical; or 2) stick with the usage of the original contributor. However, just changing words from one style to another when both are accepted is never appropriate. Xtra 14:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to use programme in this article - program is (by far the) more common spelling in Australia and was used by the editor who initally added the word to the article (User:SuperJumbo's post two above this one gives the links to the diff and the relevant MOS quote). If this discussion comes to 'consensus by numbers' I'm for program. I always find it jarring to read programme in Australian-related media, it happens so rarely. Natgoo 18:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, individual preferences are irrelevant; in disputes such as this, we fall back to the spelling employed by the original author. Since Jumbo has shown that program was the original spelling, that form may prevail. --cj | talk 10:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No argument from me. Program let it be. Jimp 14:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/u/s/Talk%7EAustralian_English_Archive5_cd23.html"