Template talk:Commonwealth spelling

Template:Commonwealth spelling
Three inclusions, redundant with. —Michael Z. 2009-02-25 22:46 z 


 * I've orphaned this one in template of, because these entries were all British English spellings, per your reference of choice. —Michael Z. 2009-03-26 03:39 z 

redirected --Jackofclubs 19:30, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion debate (2)
There are three varieties of English spelling: British, US, and Canadian. Although Canada is a member country of the Commonwealth of Nations, Canadian English speech and vocabulary are closest to American, but with some significant British influence in spelling and vocabulary. Canadians don't spell the same way as the United Kingdom and the rest of the Commonwealth, nor as the non-Commonwealth Republic of Ireland, whose spelling is based on British, nor as the USA. There is no such thing as “Commonwealth spelling.”

This template is based on a misapprehension. Every use of it is misleading. I'm tired of cleaning up after it. (And tired of trying to delete it and someone deciding to keep it for no reason.) —Michael Z. 2010-03-15 22:48 z 
 * For no consensus, not not reason. I dislike prescriptive English as well. As before, how do people in India, Australia and New Zealand feel about the fact they're writing in British English. If I'm outvoted and outargued fine, but I'm not gonna delete something when the debate is split down the middle. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What do you mean you “dislike prescriptive English?” No one prescribes Commonwealth spelling. By not allowing this to mistake deleted, you're prescribing that I continue to clean up after every use of the template.


 * There was no debate, split or otherwise: see Template talk:Commonwealth spelling. A convenient administrative action was taken, which failed to consider the ongoing consequences.


 * Do the Indians and others feel hurt? If using spelling from Britain made them feel badly, then I suppose they'd change their spelling and invent Indian spelling or Australian spelling. Maybe they'd form a bloc with the Canadians, Mozambiqueans and others, and create a new Commonwealth spelling. But they haven't. There is no such thing.


 * How do you feel about this? You're welcome to coin politically-correct vocabulary to assuage any latent imperialist guilt, but don't force it on Wiktionary editors (on me, that is). —Michael Z. 2010-03-17 21:07 z 


 * You'd possibly get a better response from other editors if you were less aggressive and sarcastic and just put your argument across like that. OK I was thinking of a different template, not this one. Obviously you feel very strongly about this and are prepared to force your personal opinions onto other people ("By not allowing this to mistake deleted, you're prescribing that I continue to clean up after every use of the template.") You do know that this is just a redirect? If you want to orphaned the redirect and delete it there's no harm in that. I could do it in minutes. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I just orphaned it the other day, again, and I'd gladly have just nuked it but I thought it would be bad form not to follow procedure. I didn't mind letting my annoyance show, but I guess the humour was kind of lost. Sorry. Happy St Paddy's day. —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 02:31 z 


 * (No doubt you were thinking of my previous screeds against template:Commonwealth and category:Commonwealth English. I'll get around to them, but they don't seem to cause the problems this one does.) —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 02:34 z 
 * Yes. Note that you haven't yet come up with a reason to delete it. If we look at this the other way, where can this be used productively? Frankly I'm not sure. We don't have templates for and  and I wouldn't want to see them created, ergo delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason to delete it is because there is no valid use for it, it does get used naïvely to add misleading labels, and it sucks resources to keep hunting it down and removing it. It's not just useless, it's counterproductive. (Let's create templates to satisfy real needs, not waste our breath asking for someone to dream up a use for a useless dud.) —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 19:11 z 


 * According to your prescriptively, apparently blind zombie-like reasoning yes. I've asked you five or six times what the reason is to delete this; you still can't tell me, therefore I can only assume it's the "because someone told me so" reason. If you do know, feel free to tell us, but I think if you did know, you'd already have done it by now. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:47, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think Mzajac makes himself clear enough. delete. Mglovesfun, if I didn't know you better I'd say you were being deliberately obtuse. Conrad.Irwin 17:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No I'm patronizing him deliberately. I figure he likes patronizing people, how does he like it himself? Also, he really hasn't said why this should be deleted, I'd just like to know if he knows or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I alluded, my comment about “latent imperialist guilt” was meant to be funny, and not personal. I sincerely apologize if it upset you.


 * If you're upset about this RFD, or you don't understand my argument, or you just don't like the way I'm making my point... Well, thanks for showing up. —Michael Z. 2010-03-25 18:29 z 


 * "This template is based on a misapprehension." "Every use of it is misleading." "There is no such thing as “Commonwealth spelling.”", "there is no valid use for it", "it's counterproductive.". Conrad.Irwin 17:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * But he can't justify his opinions. It sounds to me like he's reading them without a book. I'd like to see evidence of him thinking for himself rather than just believing whatever his linguistics books tell him. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)