Talk:Crossing the T

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Maritime warfare task force Military science task force

Crossing the tee was a tactic only developed in the late 19th early 20th century when steam power allowed ships to manoeuvre speedily in line astern. Before then, the term was raking and was usually only possible between single ships or in a few cases when the usual line of battle gave way to a general melee and several ships were able to rake the same one as the line was broken. Dabbler 14:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why the page move?

"Crossing the T" is the form in which I've always encountered this term, and it's overwhelmingly more common in Google [1]. So why the page move? Gdr 16:47:00, 2005-08-12 (UTC)

I moved it back. Gdr 10:47:28, 2005-08-13 (UTC)

[edit] manoeuvrable vs maneuverable

I changed the article to use maneuverable and was reverted. I may be a bit ethnocentric but I don't think this is a case of that. First off, when user:Dabbler reverted he claimed that the royal navy invented the term, yet the article makes no mention of this. If you in fact know this to be the case, please add it to the article. Secondly, articles related to british topics do not need to use british spellings. Ignoring ethnocentrism, let's just go with which is more common. Google has about 1.5 million hits for maneuverable and about .3 million for manoeuvrable. If you'd prefer a more substantial source, dictionary .com has a definition for both, but maneuverable's is far more extensive, and in the definition for manoeuvrable it's example is "a highly maneuverable ship". Vicarious 13:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to Wikipedia:Manual of Style which states in one of the top paragraphs "Disputes over style issues

In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." I would suggest that the above is not a "substantial reason for the change". The Royal Navy was the largest navy at the time the term was invented so the use of British English should not be ruled out by subject matter. (I agree I cannot substantiate my claim that they invented it, that was infelicitous wording in a hurry). Further down in the section headed National varieties of English there is the following statement:

If all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article.

If you look at the history of the article, I was one of the earliest contributors to this article and I introduced the word manoeuvre and I chose deliberately to use that spelling. Dabbler 14:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, maneuver being five times as prevalent (on google) is significant. As for the 'if all else fails' solution, that's fine, but we're not there yet. I think presently we're at the point of "If there's no strong tie [to a region/dialect], try to find synonyms that can be used in any dialect." There may be a weak tie to the british navy, but certainly not a strong one. It seems the best solution would be removing the word entirely and rephrasing in it's absence, if possible (and I think it is). Vicarious 01:09, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think that you can remove the word without materially affecting the article, by all means give it a try. However, Wikipedia is intended to be an international collaboration, not an American hegemony, so why should I and thousands of others change our way of spelling our language to suit you? There are many millions of English speakers and readers out there who are not American and spell in the "British" or Commonwealth way. If you have so much time to spare that you wish to convert or write out all Wikipedia's spellings to the American versions, I can offer you many more. Color:colour, humor:humour, program:programme, catalog:catalogue, hemoglobin:haemoglobin. Dabbler 12:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest I never expected this to be an issue, and no it's really not worth my time so I don't plan on getting into it again. However, I accidentally got into it this time and refuse to let the other person win the debate when they're wrong. Your argument of 'why should thousands of others change their way to suit me' is an illustration of your ethnocentrism, not mine. I already explained why, because my way is 5 times as common. So, why should the majority of people change their spelling to suit you and the minority? I think a big part of your argument still clings to something you have no basis for, that this is a mostly british article. In the absence of facts that's yet another case of your ethnocentrism. The fact that upon reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style you skipped over the parts about making a compromise to suit everyone and went immediately to the "if all else fails" solution to defend your view is the third example of your ethnocentrism. Vicarious 07:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to stick my oar in here, articles relating to British topics should use British spelling. That's Wikipedia policy, precisely to avoid these kinds of arguments. I understand your point, Vicarious, but your bluntly saying we should all use American spelling because it's more prevalent in this case is rather offensive and doesn't help your argument at all. Leithp 08:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

You somehow missed one of the key points, this isn't a british article. I understand the policy, and if anyone has evidence this is a british term, feel free to add it; but there is no such evidence currently. Vicarious 00:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why I should. The first significant contribution to the article used the spelling with the 'o'. And my point was related to you saying "articles related to british topics do not need to use british spellings". Leithp 08:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This is frustrating because I'm saying the same things to you that I said to him. That comment was before I read the policy, since I read the policy I've been more than willing to comply to it, but again, this is not a british article. And to repeat my point about the "first significant contributor"; that is the, "if all else fails" solution, not the primary one. Vicarious 13:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You haven't demonstrated any compelling reason why it shouldn't be in Commonwealth English. American English isn't the default for Wikipedia, both are equally acceptable. I don't understand why other users should have to go around justifying the use of their native spelling. Also, your point about Commonwealth English users being in the minority is incorrect as well as being irrelevant. Have a look at the population of India. If you use the internet as your sample you'd come to the conclusion that the majority of humanity is comprised of male, white Americans aged under 40. Leithp 14:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

People routinely have to justify the use of their native spelling. If I were to write an article on British currency and use American spelling I'd have to justify that; so, if you don't understand why people need to justify their native spelling, perhaps you should reread Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Writing articles on wikipedia to accommodate people that don't have internet is like building a car with the cruise control writing in braille, it makes no sense. Blind people won't drive cars, and people without internet won't be reading a website. By far the biggest thing I'm distraught by is that neither of you suggested, or after I suggested showed any interest in, compromise. You were both far more familiar with wikipedia's policies on this issue than I was when this issue began, yet rather than following the policy and trying to come up with a compromise you both favored the British spelling, and as an added distressing fact, continuously pointed out only the part of the policy which favored that view while neglecting the part that has priority. Vicarious 00:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

But this is just a general subject. Lots of articles on Wikipedia are written in Commonwealth English, you'll just have to accept that. There is no need to justify the spelling here because you still haven't given any reason why it shouldn't be in CwE, just a spurious google search. There is absolutely no reason why this should be in US English. What's the problem? Is it just that you don't like seeing articles that aren't in your native spelling?

And I don't know about you, but when I write articles I'm writing with a mind towards Wikipedia 1.0 and towards eventual print distribution. Therefore everyone in the world should be accommodated as far as possible and we should avoid systematic bias.

As for your last part, I'm flabbergasted. Dabbler suggested a compromise at the beginning and you ignored it, apparently with the intention of trying to get the article rewritten in your native spelling. And I've read the manual of style several times, I understand the concepts. I suggest that YOU re-read it and seriously consider what your intention in this discussion is. I'll repeat what I said above, US English is NOT default for Wikipedia. Leithp 08:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

That is not true. On March 17 I wrote "If you think that you can remove the word without materially affecting the article, by all means give it a try." By that I agreed that if you could rewrite the article to avoid the use of the controversial word, I would accept that. However, I don't see why I should have to do all the work of a rewrite when you are the one complaining.

I don't want to have to rewrite every article I have contributed to in Wikipedia to change my contributions from my native mode of spelling to your foreign one. Incidentally in this case, manoeuvre is etymologically far more defensible. It comes from the French Main-oeuvre or Hand Work and originally meant a dexterous hand action which developed in meaning to a strategem or movement of forces. Dabbler

I didn't say you didn't acknowledge the idea of compromise, I said you didn't suggest it, or show interest in it after I suggested it. Saying, 'you can try if you really want to' (paraphrase), is not showing interest, it's acknowledging the existence of. Saying you don't want to change the articles you've written from your spelling to mine is gibberish. I've never even hinted at the idea, the most I'd ever even fathom you doing would be changing it to neither, not to mine. And no, I don't think compromise is unreasonable. In fact, writing in NPOV is constantly changing the way you normally think and speak to meet the criteria of wikipedia, for a stable middle ground. Vicarious 02:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You are claiming that my way of spelling is POV? You are the one who raised the whole issue because of your POV that no compromise except doing it your wayis possible. The word manoeuvre is a perfectly valid English word. You don't accept that because in your POV only the American spelling is correct. What compromise are you offering? All you are doing is to tell me to change my way of spelling or else to change my choice of words both of which have worked well for me in a number of different countries for nearly 50 years? What incredible arrogance you have. Dabbler 03:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not saying your way is POV, I was making an analogy. POV is to NPOV as regional dialect is to non regional dialect. I'm not trying to get my way, my way would be maneuver, but I'm willing to compromise instead. I don't think only the American way is correct, from the beginning I talked about the American way being more common, but never did I say it was the only way. I'm really not trying to upset you and I'm sorry if that's what I'm doing. I don't consider British english an inferior language, nor American english superior. I'm simply hoping to find middle ground that can satisfy everyone. Vicarious 03:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you have made your suggested edits and I will consider the matter closed. Dabbler 09:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)