Talk:Under the Umbrella Tree

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Return to the airwaves

Anyone here know whether Noreen Young or NYP have any plans to bring the show back to the airwaves? If so, when and by what channel? PatrickA 08:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Canadian vs. American spelling

While this show may be popular in the US, it doesnt take away from the fact that it is a Canadian show. It is policy from what I have seen in Wikipedia to use the appropriate spelling for the country involved. The "original" spelling is only valid for articles that do not deal with any particular country of origin. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English. There it states that articles with "strong ties" to a certain dialect should use that dialect. Since Under the Umbrella Tree is strongly attached to both the US and Canada, that does not apply. Secondly, it states "If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be used. ". That would be American English. Also, I did not violate the 3RR rule–please thoroughly review Wikipedia policy and guidelines before continuing to edit at Wikipedia. Thank you.— OLP 1999 07:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has strong ties to Canada, I'm sorry. As I said, Canadian show, Canadian spelling. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The show was owned by the Disney Channel corporation from 1997–2005, which is an entirely American company, and your opinion that the show is unanimously Canadian is biased and incorrect. Hopefully other users will be available here for comment. Until then, it would be wise for you to leave the article alone. Thank you.— OLP 1999 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The show is Canadian! It was produced in Ottawa, for heaven's sake. I remember them doing coverage of the local Santa Claus parade. Just because a show happens to be owned by an American company later in its life, doesn't detract from the fact that it's a Canadian show. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But it does detract from the fact that it is solely a Canadian article. Millions of Americans watched the program as aired on the Disney Channel, and the point here is that American spelling was first used. There was no incentive for you to change the spellings other than prude national pride and to cause conflict. Please, leave well alone. (And note: I'm a Canadian).— OLP 1999 07:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that you are Canadian. That doesn't matter. And this has nothing to do with "prude national pride". It has to do with policy. This is a Canadian article, and its association with Disney again does not detract from it. Hockey Night in Canada may air in the U.S., but that doesn't make it an American article. Canadian articles are to use Canadian spelling. End of story. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere does policy support your claims. The only statement it offers regarding that is firstly not policy, it's guideline, and secondly it only says articles with "strong ties to a certain dialect should" use that dialect. Nowhere does it state that using Canadian English at this article is any more appropriate than American English. Since AmE was used first, it should stay. And again—since we can not agree, others will need to comment before we move further on a decision.— OLP 1999 07:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but this topic does have strong ties to Canada. That's my point. Think of it this way. If the name of the show was originally "Under the Coloured Umbrella Tree" (spelled coloured because the show is Canadian), the article would be at that title, not "Under the Colored Umbrella Tree". Likewise, since the title would use Canadian English, the whole article would have to use it as well. Sure, the American version would alter the spelling, but there is not denying that it would just be a re-direct in this hypothetical situtation. -- Earl Andrew - talk 08:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

But technically, your hypothetical situation does not exist thus we have no idea whether the title may perhaps have been "Under the Colored Tree" rather than "coloured". Just because the show was incepted in Canada does not mean they would have been required to use Canadian spellings. Since the title does not favor any one dialect, the original author of this article used American English without conflict. I frown upon national pride at Wikipedia and believe that the AmE should stay unless there is a consensus otherwise.— OLP 1999 08:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be a hypothetical situation, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realized they would have used the Canadian spelling. They would not have been required to use Canadian spellings, but I am sure the CBC would have enforced that issue. While you happen to be Canadian, I do notice your personal use of American English in your last comment, indicating quite clearly your bias. I'm not using national pride, as I said, but clearly your pro American English bias is quite evident. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My bias?? Excuse me but you're the one who made a non-issue into a scuffle for no reason at all. I am not showing a bias, I am being neutral. I am saying that the TV show "Under the Umbrella Tree", though Canadian in origin, was never exclusively affiliated with either dialect. Since it has ties to both Canada and the USA, the American English spellings should remain until you can get others to enforce a consensus otherwise. That's how Wikipedia works.— OLP 1999 17:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are biased. You spelled "favour" as "favor" meaning you prefer to use American spellings. I don't know why you have accused me of a pro-Canadian bias, when you yourself have a preferred way of spelling. This has to be the only explanation for why you would want to change it back. Common sense would see Canadian shows with Canadian spellings. The fact that it was shown on US TV is a red herring. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This back-and-forth argument has gone on long enough and it really needs to stop. We need to post this at RfC (Request for Comment) to get other opinions. The reason I initially reverted your edits was because it is customary to "leave well alone" at Wikipedia so as not to cause unnecessary conflict. I found your edits to be pointless and of a somewhat pro-British bias/agenda. Since someone had put the American spellings initially, that is what should remain until an opposing consensus is reached—because for now we have opposing opinions and are pointlessly battling each other. Your accusations of my biases are hypocritical in the fact that you consciously made British-biased edits that were unecessary. Both you and I provide some valid arguments, and other opinions are now necessary. I will file the RfC.— OLP 1999 17:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that you had some bias as well, I am not denying that I spell things the Canadian way, I was just pointing out how you spell things the American way, and that that could be seen as a bias as well. But anyways, hopefuly others can shed some light on the issue. -- Earl Andrew - talk 18:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

The was produced in Canada and originally aired on the CBC. That looks like a pretty solid reason to use Canadian spelling. I can't agree that subsequent Disney ownership or a U.S. fan base would change that. Durova 04:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

But American spelling was originally used for the revamp of this article, therefore the person who wrote it and had all that information about it must have been an American—meaning it has strong cultural ties to the United States. Wikipedia guideline states that a lexicon of a particular region should be used in an article if it has strong ties to that particular lexicon, in which this case it does not have any strong ties to Canada over the USA. Otherwise, the guidelines state that the first spelling method used (AmE) is the one that should remain. I am not particularly adamant in pursuing the American English stay, but I wanted to point out that randomly changing spelling preferences in articles isn't something to be doing with your time on Wikipedia–it can be unnecessary cause for conflict— OLP 1999 04:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't "randomly" change spelling in articles. I change them when they need to be changed, as is the case for this article. Perhaps the person writing this was an American, or perhaps s/he is like you, and prefers to use American spelling. It's a red herring, as anyone can create an article on anything regardless of nationality. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The 'no strong ties' clause is for articles like sleep and table, not for television shows that are produced in one country but are also popular in another. The show was produced in Canada by Canadians, as Durova said, and the Disney connection doesn't change that. Does working primarily for an American production company make Alex Trebek or any of the many other Canadian-born entertainers working in the US less Canadian? -- Vary | Talk 13:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the show's production as a CBC program trumps the fact that the original article version was spelled with U.S. English. If the show had originated as a joint U.S. - Canada venture then that would be a different matter. Durova 16:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

This is clearly an article on a Canadian topic, and one where Canadian spelling should be used. Given the small Canadian television market, it is a quintessential characteristic of English-Canadian programming that it is usually produced with foreign backers and financing, and that it is sold internationally. This does not make it any less Canadian, and perhaps makes it more so.

The show was conceived by Canadians, greenlit by Canadians, produced in Canada by Canadians, and the rights are now held by a Canadian company (Cinero). The fact that it was co-produced by a U.S. company for 2 of the 7 years that it was produced, or that it was aired in the U.S., does not mean anything.

I have to say that I feel that the "no strong ties" test is being twisted all out of shape here -- it does not mean that any indicia of any foreign involvement suddenly negates the nationality of the article subject. Based on that theory, the William Shakespeare article should have American spellings (!!!!) because more editions of his works are published and read in the U.S. than in the U.K. I agree with Vary on the proper enunciation the test -- it was meant to apply to articles like sleep and table. It wasn't meant to give rise to speculative debates such as this (e.g. the author used American spelling, therefore she must be American, therefore she must be an American fan, therefore the show must be popular in the U.S., therefore it must have strong ties to the U.S.). Skeezix1000 11:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I came here from the RfC. English dialect disputes can seem so petty to those not immediately involved. 99.99% of Wikipedia readers are capable of reading either version just fine. They may not even be aware which version the article uses and they almost certainly don't care.

Comments:

• The show is predominantly Canadian, notwithstanding having American viewers or American financial backing for a while. It should be written in Canadian English.
• The article started in American English. Canadians should be thankful for some American starting it and not be twits about the language the original author used. To the extent that Americans innocently screw up additional edits, Canadians should make corrections as tactfully as possible. They should also be glad when Americans add additional useful material, even if they have to clean up the spelling.
• Given that the article really should be in Canadian English (see above), Americans should accept this gracefully and not be twits about the language. If they liked the show, they should be grateful someone in Canada put it together. They should also not get upset when Canadians adjust the spelling.
• Overwrought partisans from either country should stay home, drink the ale or beer of their choice and watch Canadian Bacon until they calm down; it's the ultimate film on American-Canadian relations. For extra credit, they can study the Xenophobe's Guides for the respective countries: Xenophobe's Guide to Canadians, Xenophobe's Guide to Americans.
• As a spur to reaching agreement, both sides should only edit in French until they can reach some sort of civil consensus here. (Some Americans might protest that would give Anglophone Canadians an advantage but they'd probably be wrong in most cases).
• Each country is already enmeshed in enough external conflict (1, 2); their citizens don't need to be looking for more trouble.

--A. B. 05:23, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

One more comment -- I hope the article's editors will not take my flippant remarks above too much to heart. It's easy for more objective outsiders to criticise (criticize) others when edit wars erupt over what many would consider "minor edits". I can also get overly caught up in those articles I routinely edit and in which I believe I have a "stake". I'm not above unthinkingly succumbing to quibbling over minute details when I believe someone's inappropriately fiddling with "my article" (or my language). (Of course, it's never really any editor's article -- see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles). --A. B. 14:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

There's still discussion going on over this issue? I've already edited the article and removed the terms such as "humor" or "neighbor" and replaced them. It is not necessary to use any of these words thus I have replaced them with easy, fitting alternatives.— OLP 1999 15:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no reason why this article can't use Canadian spellings. And when there's a controversy, a compromise like that should be proposed on the talk page first. As it is, there's a pretty firm consensus in favor of using Canadian spellings in this article, with only one dissenter, so no compromise is needed.

I've reverted some of the substitutions, where they sounded awkward or were less accurate. Bending over backwards to avoid the use of words that have alternate spellings is silly and counterproductive. You can't expect every future editor of the article to do the same, can you? -- Vary | Talk 15:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree with Vary. It is not appropriate to initiate an RFC, and then try to circumvent the consensus by unilaterally implementing a "compromise". And posting "There's still discussion going on over this issue?" is not particularly respectful to those persons who are participating in a discussion that you initiated less than a week earlier. Skeezix1000 12:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that everyone who has commented on this issue (Earl Andrew, Skeezix, Vary, A.B., Durova, and following my review of the arguments for both sides, me) other than OLP 1999, believes that reasonable application of the relevant Wikipedia policies result in the conclusion that Canadian English should be used. The only real argument in favor/favour of American spelling seems to be addressed by WP:OWN. I think the consensus is for Canadian spelling, and trust that OLP will accept that. Ground Zero | t 23:02, 26 October 2006 (UTC)