Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Hi, feel free to leave your comments here while I costruct this community page. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:03, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Contents

Subdivisions

This may not be the case, but to get the whole cultural community thing going, you could always try separate Scotland, Wales and England boards. Northern Ireland too of course, although the Irish board is not specifically Republic of Ireland only.

Just a thought! You could always have them as well as this board! zoney ♣ talk 20:31, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That may be something to do in the future, but at the moment I'm struggling to get enough articles to fill the relevant space just for the UK. Let's start here and see how it goes. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:42, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of UK Wikipedians

Would it be worthwhile grouping us geographically, so we can see who is closest? --Phil | Talk 06:56, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

The difficulty with that is that not everyone wants others to know what part of the country they are in, and we ought really to allow them that privacy. I think alphabetical order of user names is the best order, to be honest.

Privatisation of British Rail article

Oh my God! I've just taken a look at that article from the link on here, and just have to say that this article is so wrong in so many respects I'll have to have a go at rewriting the whole thing. I'll have to have a think for a few days what I'm going to say -- having lived through the whole thing as a BR employee (and now officially "retired" rail staff in my mid 40s!) I have trouble remembering exactly in how many ways the whole thing was screwed up. NPOV is going to be difficult on this one....! -- Arwel 23:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The really hard part will be verifiability and references. Quote others' opinions on what a colossal cockup it was ;-) - David Gerard 23:58, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Articles

As the current lot of articles gets cleaned up/created I am conscious that more will be needed to fill their spaces. Feel free to scan cleanup/pages needing attention/requested articles for more than can be listed. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:29, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Parliamentary constituencies

I was thinkinging of putting Parliamentary constituencies of the UK parliament (or similar) on the to-do list. An adjunct to this would be articles on the constituencies themselves, past and present. If we worked hard, we might have the lot listed by the time of the next election. No reason not to do the NI, Welsh, Scottish and European constituencies too. Mintguy (T)

Are individual articles needed? I mean, constituencies tend to be either fairly arbitary divisions of cities, or based upon the districts of counties? If its a district then it'll probably already have a page... and how much is there to say about divisions of cities? [Example: Portsmouth south is the electoral constituancy covering the southern portion of the city of Portsmouth; while the North tends to vote Monster Raving Looney, the South has a tendency to vote Green]... these could be added as sections within the description of the city. --NeilTarrant 17:30, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
There are a handful already - see Category:UK Parliamentary constituencies . Virtually every constituency has a history of past members and voting patterns that is worth detailing. I don't think it's workable to sticking this info on the relevant city page as many seats cross local government boundaries, others take in several local areas and the result is quite confusing. Better to have individual pages so the info can be easily accessed. Timrollpickering 17:38, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Just to note, "constituencies" before the nineteenth century were just the counties or boroughs. So, in effect, this task would cover all constituencies that have existed since the Reform Act. -- Emsworth 17:50, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
No, before the Reform Act there were the county constituencies, some boroughs and the universities (Oxford and Cambridge and Trinity College Dublin from 1801), these all have a rich history and should be covered as contituencies and not lumped into the county or town articles. We have plenty of articles that say soandso represented suchandsuch in parliament and these should link to the constituency article and not the town/county. Many modern day constituencies have been formed from the merger and division of those older county/borough contituencies. My home constituency which was formely a borough has sent representatives to the House of Commons since the Model Parliament of 1295, that's over 700 years of representation, more than enough information for an article I'm sure you'll agree. Mintguy (T) 23:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, your idea involves a bit of work, but I have no problem with it. I admit that articles on constituencies such as Dunwich and Old Sarum will be quite interesting. -- Emsworth 00:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I forgot the cinque port constituencies. Mintguy (T) 00:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
When I get some time I'll go to my local library and see if I can get a list of all the representatives for my home constituency and the elections results for as long as they have records for, this could then be used as a template for other constituencies. Mintguy (T) 00:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good, I'll hang on till you've done that then see if I can get the same for Aylesbury and the rest of Bucks. Incidentally, I noticed a message on Morwen's talk page about some controversy surrounding Chiltern Hundreds - is anyone able to clear this one up in Morwen's absence? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:42, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Constituencies keep changing names and precise boundaries. How do you define what constitutes a different constituency? And anyway, I'd imagine not all of them are worth an article in their own right, just some of them. Jongarrettuk 20:59, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In the current pages the "same constituency" is taken to be the use of the name, with the various boundary changes noted - for example Mid Ulster (constituency) currently contains about 30% of the original seat of that name (and West Tyrone (constituency) contains more) but a single page is used to cover the seat since it was created in 1950. When the name is changed a new page is used - for instance Armagh (constituency) is treated as distinct from the subsequent Newry & Armagh (constituency).
I'd guess this is workable, although if the boundary changes were massive, or alternatively the name got reallocated, we may want to split the pages. Fortunately Wikipedia is not paper... Timrollpickering 21:12, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Since the Reform Act there have been enfranchisement, disenfranchisement, redrawn boundaries, constituencies united, constituencies divided, constituencies merged, redivided and abolished. Mostly these changes have happened as a result of Representation of the People Acts of 1918, 1928, 1948 and 1969 and now the continual reviews by the Boundary Commision. I think that it is possible to list a continuity for most constituencies. where there is a minimal change such as a small boundary changes or simply a renaming I think that can contain everything one one page. Those constituencies that only existed for one or two elections still have the potential to contain details of the results of elections and the wards etc.. Where else on the web can you get all of this information in one place? Mintguy (T) 21:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've been to the library and have got the elected members for Lewes from 1298-1820 with a gap for 1473-1547 where the results have apparently been lost. Mintguy (T) 11:23, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reworking of British toponymy

Comments and suggestions would be very much welcomed at Talk:British toponymy regarding the (currently very poor) arrangement of the British toponymy articles. Toponymy itself isn't the greatest-looking of lists either. violet/riga (t) 09:03, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've left my thoughts at Talk:British toponymy. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Complete todo list

Do we have a "complete todo list"? I can't see a link... fabiform | talk 13:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not yet but if you want to start one here's the link.
I was going to go through several lists and transcribe all the red links into one list later this weekend. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 13:41, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fair use

Does anyone know if there is a UK equivalent to the image fair use policy? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 14:30, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The equivalent concept in UK copyright law is "fair dealing", which is apparently less flexible than fair use under US law. --rbrwr±

Wikimedia Meetup 2005

Hi - glad to see that a UK noticeboard has been set up. I see that our friends across the Irish Sea are mounting a campaign to run the Wikimedia Meetup 2005 in Ireland. Meanwhile, the UK's entry on the list of possible venues - see the entry for London - is pretty pathetic. Rather than improve the entry for London, I think it's worth considering Oxford. There are lots of potential advantages: possible availability of accommodation for visitors at colleges, good transport links, less crowded than London and, of course, the presence of the Bodleian Library. As the 'meetup' page points out, the main evaluation criterion when selecting a venue will be the availability of local wikipedians who are willing to help organise the event. I live 30 mins from Oxford, in Newbury, Berkshire and would be willing to consider helping. Is anyone else interested in getting involved? I think we should at least include a possible venue in the UK, whether or not it's Oxford. Jerry 16:10, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm willing to help out if you want to add Oxford to the list of possible venues. However I feel that as the Wikimedia Meetup 2004 took place in London the likelihood of it coming to the UK again for a couple of years is slim. However on this score I am interested in organising a UK WikiMeet 2005 prior to the Wikimedia Meetup (if it's not to take place in the UK) so that more UK users' views can be represented in the broader forum. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 16:53, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oops - I didn't realise that the 2004 event was in the UK: should have investigated further. Jerry 18:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think that we should support Dublin for the meet in any case. It's not that far and it's a very pleasant city for a weekend trip. -- Derek Ross | Talk
Very -- it's nearly two years since I last visited the Porter House on Parliament Street.... not to mention that I can get there and back for £4 and 75 eurocents! :) -- Arwel 19:51, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I missed the 2004 meet-up (I have to say I wasn't aware of it until after the event). I agree I think we should put our lot in with the Irish and support Dublin. Mintguy (T) 08:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The 2004 meet-up was a wikimeet rather than the wikimeet - Jimbo also attended wikimeets in France, Germany and elsewhere around the same time. So that shouldn't stop us trying for the big one. I understand the candidates are going to be reduced somewhat in a few days time (on the 10th I think) with availability of local helpers being a high priority. So if we want to push for Dublin or any other local venue we'd better get going! Oxford sounds good to me, although I'm not sure what the internaional travel options are. Birmingham or London may be better from that point of view. -- sannse (talk) 17:13, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

sannse is right. The meetup this year was completely different from what is being planned for 2005. The event next year is an international convention with invited speakers and a four day programme. Having said that, places which have previously held a smaller meetup are at an advantage as they have a better idea of planning events than places that have never met up. For this reason, it might be good to hold a smaller event in Ireland prior to the 2005 meetup if it is going to be there. Dublin has made it to the final selection anyway, so it stands a good chance now, whereas there seemed to be a comparative lack of interest from UK Wikipedians in holding it here. Angela. 20:08, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)
International travel options from Oxford: Direct coaches to Heathrow every 20-30 minutes (£18 return), Gatwick every hour (£26 return) [1], Stansted every 2 hours (£20 return) [2], direct trains to Birmingham International every hour (~£23 return). Coaches to London virtually every 10 minutes (~£13 return) [3], [4] (from Eurostar (Waterloo) catch Oxford coach at Victoria via 211 bus, or at Baker Street via bakerloo line). --,,,Trainspotter,,, 19:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bristol is doing transatlantic flights now, and it has loads of wikipedians! Since aproximately 85% of photos on wikipedia were taken in Bristol, it might be nice for wikipedians to see the sights first hand :) --Steinsky 17:33, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If we're going to do anything about this we'll need to pull out our virtual fingers. Perhaps it's a bit too late in the day to a. agree between us on a possible location (Bristol/Oxford/London/Birmingham - all in England, I notice) b. ensure we have enough wikipedians in the chosen venue signed up to help c. make the case - advantages and disadvantages - for whichever venue we chose. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but perhaps supporting the Dublin bid might be the best option for UK-wikipedians particularly as it's cheaper to fly there, from many places in the UK, than it is to travel around the UK by train. (I frequently fly Bristol/Dublin, Steinsky, which is particulalry civilised compared with Heathrow and Gatwick.). The other benefit of Dublin is that we don't have to do any of the work - hurrah! Jerry 07:20, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Come to Dublin! I'm not at all biased! Besides, it'll be nice for some of us Irish wikipedians to go abroad to Dublin :-) zoney ♣ talk 10:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK - Dublin sounds good to me, I agree with Jerry - let's put our collective weight behind the Dublin bid -- sannse (talk) 12:30, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Agreed, let's see what difference we can make before Sunday. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 12:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I hope our friends across the water appreciate this massive gesture of goodwill! They still seem a little embarrassed that English is the first language of most of the population (see the list of Dublin's benefits). Perhaps it's the fact that it's called 'English'? Maybe someone should also point out that most Nigerians speak English, which isn't surprising as it's the country's official language. Jerry 16:02, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Jerry, actually we have two official languages in Ireland, Irish and English, with English officially second to Irish. In reality of course, quite different, but that's another kettle of fish! zoney ♣ talk 16:09, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Erosion of British English usage and spellings

There is a tendency in Wikipedia for articles to be modified over time to have predominantly American spellings and usage; and then someone will come along and says "It's time to standardize (sic) to AE spellings". They then cut out all BE spellings. I think we need some kind of firewatch over the erosion of BE usage. The latest is User:Deglr6328 who has been going round systematically changing sulphur to sulfur because the IUPAC recommend "sulfur". AFAIK the IUPAC have no jurisdiction over the English language Mintguy (T) 08:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that goes against WP policy, which is to keep the original article's spelling (whether British or US English) unless it refers specifically to one of the two areas. "Sulphur" is definitely BE rather than "incorrect", and so I'd feel perfectly justified in reverting all his edits. Proteus (Talk) 08:57, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
In pages like Encyclopaedia, where contributors so far spell at will, with or without the 'ae'. I have no doubt that somebody soon will go through the lot changing them all to the 'e' spelling Apwoolrich 10:14, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sulphur is a special case. Where the term is used chemicaly it should follow the IUPAC rules. Of course this applies to all elements including Aluminium where the US spelling (aluminum) is non standard.Geni 11:04, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Bah. They probably standardised on "sulfur" just to placate the US spelling people who didn't get to use "aluminum"!!! zoney ♣ talk 11:16, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sulphur/sulfur is a bit of a special case, I don't really have a problem with it, except that trying to apply a similar rule to aluminium/aluminum would get shouted down. See also talk:caesium. Metre/meter is another one to watch for. -- DrBob 15:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yoghurt! But it's been hard work keeping it that way. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:39, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
Someone threatened you with an RfC for keeping the non-US spelling of yoghurt? Sheesh. -- DrBob 17:57, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Adding my support here as a Hiberno-English speaker. Whilst we do not want to run the risk of antagonising people and causing edit wars, we should do all we can to uphold non-US spellings where practicable under WP policy. I generally use "non-US" rather than British, because they apply to most places in the world other than the USA. I would like a push for all articles not specific to the US to be written without US spellings – i.e. the default would be "British English". But I guess that's asking a bit much! In the meantime, cleaning up stray US spellings where not appropriate should be fine. Also, look out for new articles that do not have one nor the other spelling yet, if any "British" spelling is added to these, keep watch and ensure no US spellings are added. Obviously I am speaking of non-US topics! This issue affects more than those who participate on this UK board, so I suggest a new project (Wikipedia:Gratuitous US spellings? Perhaps too inflammatory :-), where Irish, Australians, etc. can also list topics being infringed upon by US spelling. zoney ♣ talk 10:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Your "push" would make sense logically - not only do the vast majority of non-US English-speaking countries use "International English", but also most people learning English as a second language. The US doesn't even have a numerical advantage, with the vast number of English-speakers in India (and now China as well). To have such a vast majority of articles written in a dialect effectively limited to two countries must cast some doubt on Wikipedia's attempt to be the international encyclopaedia. To go around actively changing words to minority spellings is just crazy. (As an aside, it would seem to be common sense that, for instance, any page specific to France should use International English, as that is the form of English used by most French people who speak English.) Proteus (Talk) 11:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Indeed Proteus, I insist on non-US spellings for European articles, such as European Union. That is in accordance with Wikipedia policy, as such topics are not appropriate for US spellings. It's not the same situation as "Livestock" for example (a truly "neutral" topic). zoney ♣ talk 13:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd normally call it "International English" rather than "British English" - but then being a Scot my English is British, but not "British English" ;) - TB 11:24, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)
The silly thing is that it isn't really "something English" - it's just "English". We don't force the French to call their language "French French" or "European French" or "International French" to distinguish it from "Canadian French", because French is the standard language spoken by native French people and everyone learning it as a foreign language, just as "International" English is. Proteus (Talk) 11:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Proteus wrote: The US doesn't even have a numerical advantage, with the vast number of English-speakers in India (and now China as well).
The number of speakers is not really to the point; the number of readers and writers is. Before we launch the Queen's English Spelling Crusade, does anyone have credible figures for US vs. UK vs. Other english written dialect numbers? ---- Charles Stewart 14:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't imagine the difference between speakers and readers would be significant with English - most native speakers come from very literate countries and anyone learning it as a foreign language will be almost certainly be literate (because illiterate people don't generally learn foreign languages) and so both types of speaker are highly likely to be able to read and write English as well. As a start, though, English language gives figures of 400m first language speakers and 350-1000m second language speakers. The population of the United States is 293m, of whom (according to Languages in the United States) 82% (or 240m) have English as their first language. Just over 17.5m people in Canada have English as their first language (and Canadian English is closer to BE in spelling, anyway, although closer to AE in pronunciation). I'm sure someone can find better statistics, though. Proteus (Talk) 15:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'd guess that most illiterate English speakers come from Commonwealth countries, precisely the countries we are counting towards British English (eg. from India: India's literacy rate is 64.8%, with 53.7% of females being literate; South Africa will be worse). Also, you can't say countries lean US or UK monolithically: here in Germany, British English is taught at school, but a high proportion of adult Germans follow American English because that is what dominates the commercial English-language schools. I agree, though, the statistics should be out there... ---- Charles Stewart 15:43, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How should we treat words which only exist in American English, regardless of how they are spelt? I’m thinking of words like ‘normalcy’ as in ‘A sense of normalcy has returned to New York.’ Presumably we should use 'normality' instead, in this case, but it sort of loses something (although I'm not sure what) in translation Incidentally, I heard a US Army General use an interesting variation on this earlier today on the BBC when he talked about the need to help the grieving relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq return to ‘normalicy’ (I kid you not). Jerry 18:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure when "normalcy" was first used, it wasn't meant to be used again. I may be wrong, but the first usage of that word was tied into Warren G. Harding's 1920 presidential campaign. It would be a word that just won't die. Mike H 18:26, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

[5]

(William M. Connolley 18:29, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)) In regard to sulphur/sulfur, I've corrected Hell (lakes of fiery S etc had been changed) and the 1955 Nobel Prize in Chemistry entry, which was a quotation and therefore should have stayed as the original.

In terms of words and constructions that are clearly American (eg 'normalcy'), sometimes the US/British/International split cannot be avoided. If there's a common word or construction that is suitable under all forms of English - use that (here, use 'normality'). Certainly avoid, where possible, uniquely US constructions. For instance, on 'September 11, 2001 attacks' someone has started a campaign to try to call it the distinctly odd 'September 11, 2001, attacks'! They've even started a poll to try to change it.

The other point I want to make is that US English can appear terribly archaic to non-American readers. They like old spellings, old grammar (like using the subjunctive much more frequently than we do here), and old punctuation (whereas British English has gotten rid of many commas, hyphens, etc.). It must be reasonable for US wikipedians to, at the very least, accept that some of their archaisms should be replaced with modern International English. Jongarrettuk 19:26, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm a US citizen who is also an incredably bad speller. The difference between words like "defence" and "defense" hardly matters to me, as I'm just as likely to type one as the other. ;-) Most of the US spelling "drift" is probably not intentional. It's only since joining Wikipedia that I've come to realize how many spelling differences there are. There are exceptions, however: a few US wikipedians actually appear to be "spelling warriors," a very strange form of POV to be pushing IMHO, but they do seem to exist. Perhaps we can get User:Xed to post another message about "systematic bias," ie: the problem may simply be that many of the US editors are not aware of the problem? func(talk) 19:51, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In articles on chemistry (or, in fact, on any other scientific topic), IUPAC spellings should, I believe, be used. Thus, aluminium and sulfur, rather than aluminum and sulphur. (And so on for sulfuric acid, sulfate, etc.) Similarly, in scientific articles, SI spellings are preferred: thus, litre and metre, rather than liter and meter. -- Emsworth 20:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since we're all dedicated educators (we write encyclopedia articles for fun!) I suggest that we do pepper the 'pedia with our language, and make sure that it is still included... but rather than get angry when we face people who think that yoghurt is a made-up spelling, we should educate them (gently). :) And to lighten the mood still further, have you all seen this wonderful bit of humour by TimStarling? - m:Guerilla UK spelling campaign . fabiform | talk 20:54, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There is, of course, also the m:Gorilla US spelling campaign. :) -- Arwel 23:06, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've tried to add a translation to this, but was unsure of a few things - perhaps someone bilingual in US/British English could help out:) Jongarrettuk 23:17, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Very funny but They colonized our shores -- surely some mistake? They colonised their own shores. We stayed at home (until recently at any rate). -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:58, 2004 Oct 6 (UTC)
Excellent, but it leaves me wondering what we do about pronunciation in cases where the spelling is identical in both Amerilish and English. I've never understood (although that probably means I wasn't paying attention when I read 'Mother Tongue') why Americans spell 'herb' but say 'erb' particularly as they pronounce 'herbicide' as 'herbicide'. (Let's not get into 'mayor'.) Jerry 03:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You're telling me. That is so strange. A herd of goats but an 'erbal shampoo. Why ? -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:59, 2004 Oct 7 (UTC)
Bizarrely I've had MS Word suggest a change from "a" to "an" in front of some words beginning with "h" - obviously using UK/Irish spellcheck. Problem is, I certainly don't use silent "h"s! zoney ♣ talk 10:05, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I know, it's almost as strange as pronouncing "Lieutenant" as "left tenant". ;-) func(talk) 04:18, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good point func, there's more than you ever wanted to know about this subject - except an explanation of the diffent pronunciations - here [6]. As you'll see, Australians pronounce it both ways, so think yourself lucky.... Jerry 06:55, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
A loo tenant is someone who lives in a toilet.

OK, here's a challenge for us. Let's see if we can make a difference. On (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Empty me/Move me now at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Reincarnated Noisy | Talk 13:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)), User:Beland is intending to move 49 countries from one categorization naming scheme to another, because the 50th country (USA) has a different usage. This doesn't seem correct to me: what do you think? Noisy | Talk 23:23, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wonder if it would be possible to come up with a technological fix to the International English/American English problem. Perhaps something like a 'skin' could be developed which would parse words into whichever version the user preferred. This wouldn't help much with categorisation anomalies like that mentioned by Noisy above, but hopefully lots of cross referencing and use of disambiguation pages would. Jerry 19:59, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikimedia Chapter

Just found this link on Angela's user page: m:British Wikimedia chapter. Noisy | Talk 18:06, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll add it to the see also section of this page -- Graham ☺ | Talk 19:33, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An interesting question

Given the above discussion on the use of American English versus British English, do we call ourselves Wikipedians on this board, or Wikipaedians? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:35, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Or subjects of HRH King Jimbo, perhaps? fabiform | talk 23:48, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wikipædians, I should hope. :-) Proteus (Talk) 23:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I never could understand why Americans got so wound up about foot fetishists until I came across the 'e' and not 'æ' spelling for encyclopædia. Noisy | Talk 00:15, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How very pædestrian of you.... ;-) func(talk) 00:45, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

List of UK Wikipedians (2)

We're duplicating ourselves - see Wikipedia:Wikipedians/United_Kingdom. I propose using category:UK Wikipedian instead, and those who wish can mark their user pages appropriately... Martin 16:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes, a category might be a good idea, although I think maybe new users would find it easier to add themselves to a list than include themselves in a category, and people have comments about where they live etc. which might be of interest.
For the time being anyway, I've merged the two lists.
Enchanter 17:22, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Um... there were a number of non-UK users, such as User:Lord_Emsworth, who wished to list themselves on this page because of their interest in UK-related articles. Removing the list suggests that UK-related articles should only be of interest to people who actually live in the UK, which seems inappropriate to me. func(talk) 17:32, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I half agree - there are indeed lots of people who don't live in the UK who nevertheless do take an interest in UK topics, and want to be listed as such. In fact, I'm one of them, as I live in Switzerland myself. However, for the majority of people listed, the pages were just duplicates, as there was no cross referencing between them. For people who live outside the UK and want to be listed as being interested in UK topics, I see nothing wrong with them being listed at the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/United_Kingdom page, with an approprate comment if they want it. Enchanter 17:59, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)
I also preferred the old way, for the same reason as stated above. Can we either change it back, or have thi list as a subpage of this page? I do not believe it is duplicating any effort at all, and it is good to see how many people are hanging around looking at this page. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:53, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)