Wikivoyage talk:Spelling/Archive 2013-2019

Older discussions can be found at: Wikivoyage talk:Spelling/Archive 2003-2012 Newer discussions can be found at: current talk page

Change needed

I've plunged forward and removed some of what will be very contentious under the WMF umbrella. The first was this weird idea that, say, Burmese English should be used on Burma-related articles. This would be a profound disservice to all but Burmese readers who read English ... and even then, some. Local terms, if glossed, are fine, but the grammar and lexicon of English is already splintered in much of Asia, and not appropriate for a global readership. The five or six native varieties are remarkably homogenous, given their geographical spread, so I believe something closer to en.WP's guidelines on variety of English would be more practical.

Dividing East Asia into American and British zones is very dubious. The practical thing to do is to retain existing major varieties in these articles, based on the one employed at earliest disambiguation. But where a country in which a major variety is dominant is concerned, the previous and current guideline looks ok. No British English for US-based articles, for example.

Most folk will just write in whatever variety they've been using; so the issue is one of giving imprimatur to editors who periodically go around fixing stuff like that.

Oh, and making US English the default is just not going to last. It's American imperialism at its worst; so we may as well bite the bullet and use the "first editor's choice" where non-native countries are concerned, as en.WP has done for a long time. That policy works very well there.Tony (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I broadly concur. But the "areas of influence" are clearer than the above suggests. See User:Alice/Kitchen/English_language_varieties#Usage_by_countries for greater detail. -- Alice^✉ 06:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It will be a bit weird to have two neighbouring town articles in the same country using two differing English variants. If we went with "first editors choice" on a country level, I think we'd have everything in U.S. English since that is the way the first editors did it. --Inas (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Two excellent points!

We are different from Wikipedia. The vast majority of our articles will have a clear connection to a particular English language variety so I support the primary rule of "use the MAJOR English language variety" that the article has a clear connection too and only if that connection is debatable or the article covers a topic or topics with a mixture of varietal connections do we need a tie breaker. -- Alice^✉ 08:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Inas, aside from the six or seven ancestral first-language countries, where variety of English is an important part of national identity, I don't see the value of privileging the country level in the geographical hierarchy over all other levels when it comes to which standard variety of the language is used. What is most important is that there be within-article consistency; and I must say that I regularly see articles and policy pages on en.WV that contain unholy mixtures of spelling varieties. I made a bold hunch today as to which to use in a policy page where there was traveLLers and honOr. Beyond the article, en.WP has easily accepted that two town articles can be written in different varieties, as a pragmatic protocol.

The current zoning of Asia into post-colonial spelling regions can surely be left to stand in existing articles, under a "leave the established variety in each article" policy—that is, unless there's a roughly equal mixture of varieties, in which case, personally, I'd go back and see which was earlier in the history, if I could be bothered. But when creating new articles, I believe an American editor should be free to use AmEng in an article on a Malaysian resort, and a British editor BrEng on a Japanese resort. Anyway, Japanese people use varieties according to where they were taught. In Hong Kong (not mentioned), BrEng is normal; in the rest of China, AmEng is likely to be used by the majority, but not all, second-language speakers (China is also not mentioned)—but as a reader I wouldn't be concerned if a new HK-related article used Australian English and a new article on a town near Canton used Canadian English. It shouldn't matter.

We are lucky in that the varieties are really remarkably homogenous, and it takes a trained eye to identify which an article is written in sometimes. So while I'm tempted to say that we fuss too much, one needs a guide to avoid clashes between editors who do care in relation to a particular article. AmEng as a default across articles is going to irritate some editors, though, and is inappropriate for an international site. The statement at the bottom, that "We just need to pick one default spelling style for consistency", falls over because there's already a list of prescribed inconsistencies, just above. Tony (talk) 12:33, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Commonality

WP has an interesting policy that, mistakenly, and for the last 7 years, I thought was already in operation here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Opportunities_for_commonality.

However, I was told (quite correctly it seems) that it is not.

I'd particularly like to see us adopt this phrase (or something similar) as policy:

Try and use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences where convenient appropriate

Surely this would be an uncontroversial policy to adopt to sidestep some (but certainly not all) of the difficulties expressed in the section above? -- Alice^✉ 21:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Seems a reasonable suggestion. Perhaps I'm Wikipedia-centric, but it seems like a lot of things like manual of style issues could be resolved easily by standardizing a lot of this stuff cross-wiki. I wouldn't want to see Wikivoyage become a place where Wikipedians come to waste time arguing the toss over stylistic issues. We've wasted more than enough time on that nonsense on Wikipedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree. Using phrases like "fixed-wing aircraft" instead of "airplane" goes directly against Wikivoyage:Tone. --Peter ^Talk 21:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You don't think that using

"...it's difficult to get a good night's sleep in the Annexe's rooms because they are right under the flight path of aircraft landing at..." is also understandable or you think it's too formal in tone? You think

"...it's difficult to get a good night's sleep in the Annexe's rooms because they are right under the flight path of airplanes landing at..." is vastly superior to the point of excluding the former re-phrasing? -- Alice^✉ 21:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there an actual problem you are trying to solve with demonstrable examples? Or are we just deciding on the color of the bikeshed? -- Cjensen (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there was no answer to my question to Peter (and I don't know what on earth CJensen's bike shed comment meant), I take it that there is no real rational objection to advocating commonality as a matter of policy here on Wikivoyage.

WP's example is a lousy one and here is a better example right from our own discussion pages. There, Peter writes that he'd "...like to table my nomination". Clever and erudite chap that he is, Peter is aware that — although this phrase will be instantly understood in the US as meaning that he is (as per his very own edit summary) withdrawing his nomination — in Australia, Anguilla, the Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bermuda, the Cook Islands, Dominica, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Grenada, Guernsey, Ireland, Jamaica, Isle of Man, Jersey, Malta, Montserrat, Nauru, New Zealand, the Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Singapore, Turks and Caicos Islands and the United Kingdom, together with probably Botswana, Cameroon, Eritrea, Fiji, the Gambia, Ghana, Guyana, Hong Kong, India, Kenya, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Mauritius, Namibia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Rwanda, Samoa, the Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Somaliland, South Africa, Southern Sudan, the Sudan, Swaziland, Tanzania, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Brunei, Cyprus, Malaysia (together with probably English speakers in the Flanders region of Belgium and such countries as Austria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland), this phrase will most likely be understood as the exact opposite. In these countries, one tables a motion if one wishes to propose not withdraw the motion! -- Alice^✉ 04:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

We'll have less trouble getting contributors to write in such a way that people can understand than we will have in getting contributors to write lively, interesting stuff that people will want to read. This is the wrong tack—we don't need policies that can be used to harass creative editors. --Peter ^Talk 07:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

So, again no real rational objection to advocating commonality as a matter of policy here on Wikivoyage. We don't make policy here to "harass creative editors". We make policy to assist our readers. In the same way that Wikignomes can come along and add temperature and length conversions for metrically challenged Americans, I would have thought it was obvious that, where a word has a peculiar or obscure meaning evident to only one portion of the English speaking world, it was better exchanged for a word or phrase more universally understood. That broad policy doesn't have to result in porridge prose or committee-speak. -- Alice^✉ 09:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I think we stick to making recommendations in Wikivoyage:Words to avoid. This already has words like entrée, where the meaning really can't be determined by context, and there are easy alternatives. No one is ever going to object to modifying an article in a way that makes it clearer to an international audience while preserving or improving its tone. Therefore, my rational objection to this proposal is that the only effective purpose of this policy change is a lever in the hands of those who choose pedantry over substance. I understood perfectly what Peter meant. It was succinct and clear - even though the words were ambiguous. In contrast, Alice's response above in giving a list of countries (regions within Belgium, some territories, protectorates, etc), while possibly entirely accurate, was indecipherable. --Inas (talk) 03:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be left to the writer. We want to attract good writers who will write in their own language variety. If some words happen to be in a particular variety, what's the problem? It's not wrong. We should be happy that someone is willing to write good prose and share his/her knowledge, instead of irritating that person for using the spelling variety he/she is comfortable with. I am proposing a policy on this one, Wikivoyage:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm still looking for input on it. Globe-trotter (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Apostrophe

I'm not necessarily quibbling with the standard, but where can I see the discussion that lead to this part of our current stated policy: "Plurals should not have apostrophes (unless the result is ridiculous). "1800s" not "1800's" ", please?

If nobody can produce such a consensus discussion, then I intend to revert only the ""1800s" not "1800's" " example as unusually prescriptive and anal (even by recent standards) and rather at at odds with the spirit, at least, of the earlier advice in this policy page: But it's no big deal This all came up in the context of this light hearted comment. -- Alice^✉ 05:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Putting an apostrophe in a plural is a common Internet error, and clearly grammatically incorrect. It is worth calling out. --Inas (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. That spelling mistakes shouldn't be introduced in an article is pretty Captain Obvious. Globe-trotter (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe. In general I agree, but 1800s and TLAs are so commonly incorrect. Other plurals aren't worth mentioning. --Inas (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

The apostrophe is unacceptable in all places except for the New York Times, which retains it as a distinctive and weird, illogical feature. And 1990s would be a better example. Tony (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Can we discuss changes, please?

Dear WV colleagues, I'd like to ask the community to consider making what I believe are some long overdue modifications to the spelling policy. While many of en.WP's guidelines and policies are unsuitable for en.WV, I believe some of them, in part, could be very effectively borrowed to improve this project.

(1) Could I kick off by saying what everyone knows: I don't agree with either the post-colonial division of Asia into UK and US zones. These zones defy actual usage in many cases, contain glaring omissions, and go against what would be much more practical as a leave as you find it, provided you find within-article consistency practice, based on the variety that was originally chosen. The sacrifice is, of course, that articles on nearby coastal attractions in India, for example, might use UK and US spelling, respectively. Who cares? en.WP doesn't seem to mind this, since it doesn't present the jarring effect of different varieties on the same page. Saves arguments, too.

(2) Nor do I agree with the default of US spelling. I think you'll find that as more editors join the community (that is what we want, yes?), there will be more friction about this.

Let's look at some quandaries in the current policy: "Wikivoyage prefers no major national variety of English over any other." Then it says, "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling. This isn't because US English is somehow better or to stomp on the rights, heritage, and cultures of other English-speaking countries. We just need to pick one default spelling style for consistency." So there is an inherent preference. This will rankle with a lot of editors. And the stated desire to avoid inconsistency just doesn't wash for a moment, since there's inconsistency is prescribed all over the system (see text above this).

(3) The title of the page probably needs to be changed to reflect the fact that lexical choice can be an issue as well as spelling, although this is admittedly of much less importacne. I also see punctuation and other stylistic matters creeping in.

I'd like to wait for some feedback and discussion before proposing changes in the wording.

Peter, I'll leave a slot here for you to chime in to say "why bother, it's too much trouble". ............................. That's not what wikis are about: their advantage lies in their continual updatability on a number of levels. Tony (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

My proposal is at Wikivoyage:If it ain't broke, don't fix it, which basically states: the writer should use the variety he or she is comfortable with.Globe-trotter (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That would certainly be better than the current American imperialist approach, and the post-colonial dividing up of Asia into UK and US zones. But some order is needed: within-article consistency, and perhaps the resort to the first clear sign of a particular variety in the article history, if it comes to that. I certainly don't want someone coming along changing my spelling to US in an article I start on a Japan-related article, just because the style guide says it must be done that way. Tony (talk) 14:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but why should we accept your way is the right way, and the style guide is the wrong way? You have a problem with US spelling in a Japan article you write, and someone else will have a problem with some other spelling. You say you want consistency, but if that consistency is US spelling, then you don't want it? There is no right and wrong here. Someone is always going to be peeved over a extra letter in a word here and there. --Inas (talk) 02:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Freeway vs. Motorway vs. expressway vs. ?

What do you think the best wording for "Controlled-access highways" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled-access_highway) are in countries where they are named something completely different in the local language. There are obviously cases where the local expression are widely known among English speakers most notably Autobahn, but it would be unhelpful to write Motorvej in the Denmark article. Not being a native English speaker, I would like to hear some opinions on what term to prefer for countries with no tradition for using one of these English term over another. Mads.bahrt (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

I think freeway. I know it leans towards the American usage, but I suspect every person who uses the term motorway knows what a freeway is. I don't believe the reverse is true. --Inas (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

'Freeway' is not synonymous with 'controlled-access highway' as some controlled-access highways are toll roads. K7L (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with "controlled-access highway"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Too long. Motorway is almost a direct translation of the original German Autobahn, is similar to the local word in Danish and other languages, clearly implies that it is not for bicycles, horse and carts, pedestrians and other non-motorised traffic without the confusion caused in non-US English speakers of seeing toll booths on "freeways". -- Alice^✉ 05:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well motorways in Aus can be key cycle routes through cities and rural areas. Australia also had tolls on its freeways for years, and people seemed to cope. Free refers to movement, not beer. --Inas (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Amazing, you live and learn. I presume this is limited to some short stretches over bridges, etc where there is no alternative route for cyclists and pedestrians? Surely there is some separation - even though it may only be a painted line or a tarmac change of colour? (I understood that in Australia, the term motorway was used as more politically acceptable than tollway when some previously designated freeways were given tollbooths. All those years I've been driving on them, I understood the "M" stood for Motorway, as in M4 Western Motorway). -- Alice^✉ 06:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

No, afraid not. Cyclists can cycle the all the motorways in New South Wales, except for some small sections where they are excluded. The F6 and F3 freeways were both were tollroads until the tolls were removed. The motorway term is pretty much standard now, but everyone knows what a freeway standard road is. --Inas (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Is "highway" acceptable as a shorthand for "controlled-access highway," where there's no English-language word in colloquial use in a given country? Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Highway certainly does not infer controlled access. Most controlled-access roads (depending on country) are national or provincial highways. Then again, legally the w:Don Valley Parkway and w:Gardiner Expressway were little more than glorified county roads in that they are controlled-access but municipally owned. K7L (talk) 08:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

How about "superhighway"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

That just gives me associations to "Information superhighway". Very nineties... I also heard about this World Wide Web thing - I wonder if it will be successful :-) Mads.bahrt (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Funny. Here in the US, "superhighway" is a normal word, "information superhighway" a metaphor using that word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

...which keeps giving me this as a 404 error: w:Ontario Highway 404. K7L (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it seemed like a joke at your expense. I just haven't heard or read it outside that metaphor, but it is not unheard of considering I am not a native English speaker. I may have also distracted the subject away from my question, which is a bit counterproductive. Mads.bahrt (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

What is the basis for making a decision like this? We can only pick one word. My criteria I gave was the most common and widely understood word to English speakers.

1. Freeway wins a google fight over motorway
2. Motorway is identified as a regional word on wiktionary
3. Freeway has millions of mentions on .uk websites (where motorway is the common terminology).

So, I'm convinced freeway fits the criteria as most widely understood and common English word.

So, do we disagree that (a.) freeway is really the most common and widely understood among English speakers? Or do we disagree that (b.) this basis for making the decision is wrong. If (a.) how do you propose we determine this other than the methods I have listed. If (b.) what method to you propose to use to make this decision? --Inas (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of what the Google results are, a freeway cannot charge tolls; therefore, it cannot be a generic word for all controlled-access highways. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, in Victoria, Australia at least, the following are used:

• freeway, for controlled-access highways with on/off ramps, many lanes and no traffic lights
• tollway, for the same as above but with a toll
• highway, for major regional/country roads, but may only have 1 lane/each way and traffic lights in major towns

Until actually travelling interstate, the motorway term was very foreign to me, and it took me awhile to work out that it was the same as a freeway. I personally think the above three terms should be the standard, but in cases where the local variant is well known and accepted (autobahn in Germany, motorway in UK, expressway in Singapore, etc), use them. JamesA ^>talk 07:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

American English

Pashley corrected it as I did a month ago—thanks. I believe this is the standard term, rather than US English. Tony (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone has just changed "we just need to" to "we just decided", which is a little bit further on the way to removing the bias and going with a more practical arrangement, such as en.WP's emphasis on stability and within-article consistency (not all of their policies work well, but that one has been a ringing success, I believe). Tony (talk) 12:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I see that the title of WV:Information for LGBT travellers (Commonwealth spelling) has just been changed to WV:Information for LGBT travelers (US spelling). I looked back to see what the original spelling was upon article creation: it was US spelling. This seems reasonable. However, had the original been travellers, I'd have challenged this change.

I do think we need to introduce a rule about the first variety of English that is used in an article. Tony (talk) 01:04, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this in a couple of spots and I'm puzzled as to why this is a better rule than saying some guides use American English and other guides use British English based on local usage or where they are in the world. In theory, a rule based on the first variety used in the article could result in Tokyo being written in one variant and Kyoto written in a different variant, even though both guides describe cities in the same non-English country. I understand that any rule about US vs British spelling is going to be arbitrary, but basing it on first usage just seems random. -Shaundd (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There are two compelling reasons that the current system is inadequate. First, guidelines/policies in project space, like the LGBT info, relate to no particular location. And until that page title was changed earlier today, it was (as usual) a mixture of varieties. No one's going to be yelled at, of course; but we need clear rules for wikignomes to go through performing housework.

The second reason is that in many parts of the world, such as the subcontinent, there's no clear pattern of usage. As I've said before, I find the division of Asia into post-colonial sectors of British and American English odious. Within-article consistency is what matters, as at en.WP, which has effective and time-tested rules about this. (Many en.WP rules are not applicable here, so I don't suggest en.WP as a model without careful thought first.) Tony (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The "first usage" rule works OK on Wikipedia because Wikipedia articles are meant to stand alone, while our "articles" are intended to act as pages of one huge, enormous guidebook to the world (and somewhat beyond). That's the reason why the project initially started with the "only use American English" rule, which (rightly) didn't survive the international aspect of our collaboration. But still, some consistency within larger geographical regions (beyond single articles) makes for a more professional guide, so that one random district article of New York City doesn't suddenly switch to a uniformly British style. --Peter ^Talk 06:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Who says Wikivoyage pages should be one seamless entity, and who says that Wikipedia articles should stand alone? Methinks this is, again, a way for you to construct your "don't change anything" push. I'm sorry to see that you've taken this stand. I'm afraid you're going to have a fight on your hands: Wikivoyage is a wiki, which gives it a huge advantage in being able to adapt continually. You seem to want to stand in the way of adaptation. Thus far, you've given no proper reasons for this weird set of spelling rules, aside from your "I don't like it" push against change. Tony (talk) 13:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Our site tag is "the free worldwide travel guide that anyone can edit," Wikivoyage:Goals and non-goals states, "The mission of Wikivoyage is to create a free, complete, up-to-date and reliable worldwide travel guide." Not to create free, complete, up-to-date and reliable travel guides. It's the driving logic behind Wikivoyage:Geographical hierarchy. Your personal attack is ridiculous on its face given that I authored Wikivoyage:Roadmap and push for significant changes in our project daily, and because I did provide an explanation in my last comment for why I think Wikipedia's spelling policy is not optimal for our site. You don't agree, and that's fine, but you'll need to do better than ad hominem to convince both me and others that you're right. --Peter ^Talk 14:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Treat it as ad hominem if you like, but it's intended to point out that you seem to resist change in a very unhealthy way for the site. You haven't convinced me why a change in the spelling policy is not urgently needed. That matters too: you don't own the site. Tony (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't. The onus to do the convincing is on whomever wants to make a policy change: Wikivoyage:Consensus#Status quo bias. --Peter ^Talk 15:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Shaundd and Peter here. Consistency, at least regional consistency, is important in order to be professional about this, because people tend to print out and use articles based on such regional grouping. People frequently plan a single trip to visit Kobe, Osaka, Nara, Kyoto, and Hiroshima. Why should we not try to present them as consistently as possible? Texugo (talk) 16:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Tony - I don't think this is necessarily resistance to change. You have to provide convincing arguments too, and right now, a group of us aren't convinced yet. For a number of people, having some regional consistency in spelling is important. I'm also not convinced your proposed rule is as practical as our current one. Some of our guides have very extensive histories - it seems cumbersome to go back and try to find the very first instance that center or neighbourhood is used. I don't have experience with wp, but it seems much simpler and clearer to use our current rule. Re articles that aren't guides, like LGBT, wouldn't they use the default, which appears to be American English? I'm not trying to be resistant change here, but so far what you seem to find compelling is anything but to me (and I'm guessing what seems compelling to me isn't so much for you). -Shaundd (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

If you read the long history of these varietal spelling disputes, people regularly come out with a version of "it isn't that important, but...".

It really is time that we put all this contention to rest so that the wikignomes can point to something definitive when an editor used to working on South Korea articles (where US English is the preferred national variety) changes some (but not all) of the existing non-US English in our North Korea article.

I propose that

1. For non-destination articles we retain the first variety that is used in a significant edit.
2. For destination articles, we do divide the world up into "language spheres of influence" on a country by country basis so as to ensure consistency within the "pages" of our country guides.

To start the ball rolling, (except for Canada, Belize, Falkland Islands, Guyana, the Caribbean and St Pierre et Miquelon) I suggest we assign North, Central and South America to US English and Africa to Commonwealth English. -- Alice^✉ 09:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(1) is clearly an improvement. (2) smacks of European/American imperialism from the 19th and 20th centuries. Spheres of influence??? Aside from that unfortunate symbolism, you mean Vietnam-related articles must use UK spelling, but South Korean–related articles must use US spelling. Indonesian-related articles must use UK spelling, as must Philippines-related articles (yet US spelling prevails in the Philippines). God knows what we must use for China-related articles; and Hong Kong–related articles? This is a mess on a large scale, whereas adopting the same policy for non-destination and destination articles (that is, Alice's (1)) is simpler, avoids colonialism, avoids this US-centric bias in the "default" statement, avoids obvious distortions, and is always verifiable if one could be bothered, by examining the first few versions in the page history. Errmmmm ... what about Mongolia? And does Nepal have "no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use"? Who wants to do all of that research to come up with what in many cases will be no clear solution. Tony (talk) 09:15, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to assign American English for Guyana, Trinidad, Barbados, Grenada, the Bahamas, the British Virgin Islands, etc. It definitely would make no sense to assign British English for the Philippines. China does prefer British spellings. And I think it's probably a safe assumption that Nepal does, too (I haven't been to Nepal, but of course it borders on India). Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

(If you knew my political history and could see my racial origin, I doubt you would accuse me of being an apologist for either US or European cultural or economic neo-colonialism, Tony!)

We do need a practical rule to avoid editors wasting their time unnecessarily changing varieties, Tony and for having articles using a consistent variety within each country.

Despite what you might think, I can see no easier rule for our destination pages than to divide it up country by country. If we can agree on that principle then I think the rest will follow rather naturally.

(To answer your questions: The Philippines and South Korea will both use US English, I assume. For non-obvious countries like Mongolia, I suggest we develop a standard e-mail to the cultural attaché of that country's major English speaking embassy {usually the Embassy in Washington DC or London} asking which variety they prefer and which variety is taught in state schools. I assume that both China and Vietnam will not reply, but that Nepal will quickly state the obvious: Commonwealth English. I would await the reply of Indonesia with bated breath and I suspect that this might reveal one of the weaknesses of this plan - the reply may be different from the US and UK missions! However, less than 40 out of 200 are contentious I would have thought and, once the assignment has been made, no more argument until there is a regime or policy change within that counry - there is continual debate in Singapore about switching versions, for example.) -- Alice^✉ 09:48, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Two statements above concern me: (1) "a rule based on the first variety used in the article could result in Tokyo being written in one variant and Kyoto written in a different variant"—who cares? (2) "People frequently plan a single trip to visit Kobe, Osaka, Nara, Kyoto, and Hiroshima. Why should we not try to present them as consistently as possible?"—yes, and they might then go to Hong Kong or Vietnam on the same trip. You're forcing a change under the existing system. And under the existing system, I might have print-outs on Egypt (BrEng) and then Jordan (AmEng, is it??). Perish the thought.

Most readers are exposed to more than one variety on the internet, anyway. (2) Under the current scheme, Indonesia-related articles must use UK spelling: why? Like the Philippines (which was part of the American empire for quite a long stretch), US spelling is predominant in Indonesia. Why is world being divided into these complicated patchworks of post-colonial dictum? Why make prescriptions, except for the six countries in which the majority of the population are native-speakers (that's probably necessary because some editors and some readers will get their knickers in a twist if you don't prescribe for them). By contrast, no one gives a toss whether the article on Shanghai uses UK or US spelling, and whether the article on Beijing uses the same or the other variety—as long as it's within-article consistent—what about Hong Kong? And unless the variety is an inconsistent mess, you don't go around swapping from one to the other. Many people are likely to be very uncomfortable about the prescriptivism in dividing the world up according to the whims of certain native English-speakers. Why go there?

Here's the bit from en.WP's guidelines that I believe is relevant, tweaked for the purpose:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation (e.g. the US, the UK, Canada, Australia, Ireland, and NZ) should use the English of that nation. For other articles, Wikivoyage favors no national variety of English, but within each article one particular variety should be followed consistently. When a variety has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. Tony (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your examples in brackets are rather restricted, Tony. I believe that there are (a bare majority of more than) 109 countries in the world that have a strong and unequivocal connection to a particular variety of English. -- Alice^✉ 10:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Make the exceptions for the six native-speaking realms to stop trouble; the others don't give a fig, so make the rule for them easy, and conducive to stability: no one has to do any research on Mongolia or Nepal; and no one's allowed to go around doing mass conversions. Everyone's happy then. Tony (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Tony: I respect your conviction and tenacity, but I don't think you'll get a consensus behind your point of view. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm certainly not going along with any default US English enforcement; and I'll encourage other editors not to do so. That's the state of play. Tony (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree that that's the state of play at all. Where are you seeing American English enforced in articles about the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Malaysia, Singapore, Jamaica, EU countries, etc., etc.? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Under the current chaos, which variety should be used for EU countries, please? Tony (talk) 05:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious that EU countries prefer British English? That's been my experience; has yours differed? Nor do I consider the current situation "chaos." If anything, your proposal for mere internal consistency in spelling would be more of a free-for-all - not that spelling is the most important thing, because it really isn't. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No, it's not at all the case, I'm afraid. Europe is a patchwork born of whichever spellchecker you grew up with, or whether your English teacher at school used UK or US spelling. Fortunately, the varieties are so similar that they're mutually comprehensible (very easily, too). Ireland and the UK are the only clear ones. This knowledge arises from my vast experience in gnoming en.WP articles on European countries. Tony (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

My experience is that officially, in EU countries I've spent time in, like France and Italy, British English is used (such as on signs and official documents). Of course, people who don't know English too well make various kinds of ESL/EFL mistakes, but we aren't going to be adopting a standard of "Italian English" for Italy guides on this site. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

• I believe there's no "official" variety in mainland European countries. Could you provide supporting links, please? Why do many of my European wiki-associates use US spelling in their emails to me? Tony (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Your European associates probably happen to know American English better, for personal reasons. My experience is with looking at English-language signs, brochures, forms, and the like in person in France and Italy, and while both of us could find numerous links to English-language documentation on official tourism sites, I don't see any reason to spend time doing so. If you'd like to do it, be my guest. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't want to do it, and nor should anyone bother. But the current rules suggest that we should do this investigation to determine whether each European country has a "clear preference" for one variety. My experience is that in Europe both varieties are used, both in signage and by the local population when writing in English. Yet the current rule says that if there's no clear preference, US spelling should be used in Wikivoyage articles. It's quite impractical. What's the deal for Romania, then? And Poland?

This is why I believe—for articles related to countries other than the six majority-native-anglophone countries—the simple rule should be to leave them in whatever variety they've grown in (that is, unless they're in a jumble of both varieties, in which case the original choice should be respected from the page history). Tony (talk) 10:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

"traveller" vs. "traveler"

Swept in from the pub

I keep seeing "traveler" spelled with two L's and as an American English writer it's grinding my nerves. I saw on the policy page that American English should always be the preferred spelling unless the page is based in a location using another dialect. Can we change all the Wikivoyage pages to "traveler" or is there a reason for this? It looks like it's just a holdover from the Wikitravel page titles. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh god. We've discussed things like this a bajillion times and have been driven insane, to only come to the conclusion that it doesn't really matter. It doesn't make any difference to our primary goal which is to provide travel information to the world. For the record, 'traveler' gets 83mil hits on Google, while 'traveller' has 729mil. I think it's clear which is more used and better accepted. JamesA ^>talk 13:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

That is because there are more speakers of British English than American English (India has a billion people, plus Canada, Nigeria, UK, Australia, etc. vs. just the US alone). "Traveller" is more common in British English, whereas "traveler" is more common in American English, as confirmed on Wiktionary. If your policy is to use American English spellings (since Wikimedia is founded in the United States) then you should be consistent and use "traveler." I know I get a double-take every time I see the unusual (for me as a US American) spelling of "traveller." Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

From Wikivoyage:Spelling: "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling. This isn't because US English is somehow better or to stomp on the rights, heritage, and cultures of other English-speaking countries. We just have decided to pick one default spelling style for consistency." According to that policy statement, "traveller" should be changed to "traveler" and I saw somewhere "organisation" which should be "organization." I am fairly certain that pages using British English are from Wikitravel and just haven't been altered for Wikivoyage's policy of American English spellings. Nicole Sharp (talk) 13:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No, the preference for American English is an old WT policy that WV inherited. It was controversial on WT (see Wikivoyage_talk:Spelling) and, in my view, should be corrected on the new site. A suggestion I made years ago was:

• writers: use either American or Commonwealth English, whatever you are comfortable with.
• editors: do not "fix" dialect differences; there are far better uses of your time than changing "center" to "centre" or "traveller" to "traveler, or vice versa.

I think the whole notion that we need a "standard" here is misguided. Pashley (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

So whoever makes the page first then uses their own spelling variant (British vs. American)? You should change the policy statement though. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I would still like the opinion of another US American English native speaker though on the policy, Canada and Australia both use British English spellings. Maybe it is just a USA thing but British spellings give me headaches, American English spells words more like how they sound in my opinion, the British spellings seem like holdovers from Norman French. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Traveller with 2 l's was made standard when we had to use wikitraveller all the time. Now that we have wikivoyagers instead, I don't see any reason why the word shouldn't be treated like any other word, using just one l in articles which otherwise use American English. Texugo (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Well if you're an admin you can create a move/redirect, it's not like the British spelling will be deleted, not sure about the side menu though. My personal opinion is the silent L is more confusing, especially perhaps for non-native English speakers, but if it isn't changed you should change the Wikivoyage spelling policy to reflect that. Nicole Sharp (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure this is a critical issue and one that appears to have been discussed many times before. Wikivoyage is always going to find itself home to a number of different regional spellings and as long as they are clear to people more familiar with other variants, I can't see that there's a huge problem. Whether it's spelt 'traveler' or 'traveller' I can't imagine that anyone could misunderstand what is written. Part of the attraction of a project such as this is that people from across the world participate and, as a result, it's possible that one may see different spellings of common words ('colour' and 'color' spring to mind). I think that unless it causes a severe issue with interpretation (which in this case it does not), there is no need to define a 'right' way of using English. As a Briton, I don't seek to inflict 'Norman French' upon the world, but rather spell things as I always have done and was taught to do so and I respect the right of others worldwide to do the same. I think that such variation brings a nice international flavour (or flavor) to this project which surely, in a travel guide, is not undesirable. As long as it is intelligible, it's alright with me! --Nick (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is mutually intelligible of course. However flexibility of spelling should be indicated in the official Wikivoyage spelling policy, indicated above. Perhaps the admins can take a vote (with the same number of US and non-US voters). Wikimedia Foundation however is based in the United States and subject to United States law, so that does give some credence to the US spelling (since that is what is used for any legal documentation for Wikimedia). Additionally, if people are looking for new experiences, then statistically more people use British spellings, so would be more likely to find the US spelling as interesting and new, not the British one. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. What's confusing and what's preferred just depends on how you're educated. As there's millions of Americans, surely many people will share your headaches, Nicole. As people in India and most of Europe are educated in British English however, it'll be the other way around for them. The general idea of just making sure an article consistently uses one kind of English makes sense to me. Which one isn't all that important. Edit: actually, I don't even think the policy is all that far off. Yes, it says if there's not reason to go on or the other way, Wikivoyage prefers US English, but it also clearly states that it's all no big deal and people should just use whatever version they're comfortable with. I don't mind changing it, but I don't see a major problem, really. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes consistency is what is important, that is why I suggested a vote to change the user policy. As of right now the official user policy is to use US American English spelling conventions for any pages that are not about a region which uses another spelling convention. However, this is a wikisite, not a website, it is very easy to keep both spellings, but only one would show up in the menu/title, the other would have to be a redirect. A much easier solution is to just call everyone (wiki)voyagers though? Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a bit of a stickler for spelling unfortunately, so maybe it is just me. I'm sure a lot of people could care less when a word is mispeled :-/. I'm the sort of person who always apostrophizes their elisions when writing slang. Nicole Sharp (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I too like spelling to be correct, but I think that, when using the web at all today, we have to realise that it is an international phenomenon and versions of English won't necessarily correlate. Whilst consistency within articles is important, there are far larger issues on this site than the use of 'traveller' that need to be dealt with first, but I admire your determination! :) --Nick (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I am a native U.S. English speaker who edits largely Thailand. In Thailand, despite the massive U.S. presence during the Vietnam War, British English appears to be the de facto standard. Perhaps due to Malaysia and Burma being former British colonies. Hence, I use British English for the country and those bordering it. FWIW. No problem. I can read Dickins or Vonnegut and still understand what is being communicated. Seligne (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. british english is the norm here. —The preceding comment was added by MyThailandOrg (talk • contribs)

• I just want to remind people that I encourage editors to ignore the WV guideline on spelling, which I regard as one of the worst solutions possible. Tony (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

American magazine with doubled consonants

The New Yorker uses "travelling". "focussed", etc. Pashley (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

How naughty of them! Don't they know where they are? -- Alice^✉ 11:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We use "theatre" quite a lot in New York, too. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Spelling trolls

Swept in from the pub

This is probably partly because I'm irritable from a nasty cold I'm struggling to get over, but right now, I feel like there's nothing more annoying than a spelling troll, especially when they're (or if you prefer, "he or she is") wrong. Changing articles about Uzbekistan and Ethiopia from one form of English to another without providing a good reason for doing so is dumb, and changing articles about a place like Taiwan, that has a long and close connection with the U.S., to British spelling, is downright wrong (similarly, I reverted a change of an article about a place in Belgium from British to American English). I think some people are actually ignorant of forms of English other than the one they speak, which is pitiful because it shows how little good literature they've ever read in their life or/and how little they know or care about the rest of the English-speaking world, but most people who do this are on some level trolls, and if they edit war, they can be blocked for that reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd go so far as to call it trolling, but it's certainly not ideal behavior (behaviour?), that's for sure. It seems like something that can be dealt with the same way as other low-level vandalism. I'd be hard-pressed to recommend anything beyond a friendly reminder on the user's talk page for a first offender. But I see no reason why a full-fledged edit war would not subject the offender to a block, etc. as deemed appropriate by an admin. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not trolling: it's what you get when you have really dumb rules for spelling. I've already announced that I discourage editors from taking any notice of those rules. The solution is to make them more practical and less like US imperialism. Tony (talk) 07:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Tony on this. See #Suggestion above. Pashley (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the important thing is to have a lively travel guide with accurate, up-to-date and sparkling prose - and the MoS should emphasise that prominently. That said, not all of us have the talents of Dickens or Shaw and prefer to beaver away at those little spelling and grammar mistakes - often in the forlorn hope that they will pass as non-controversial. Almost by definition, a MoS does need to be prescriptive - even if it only prescribes a choice.

I've had to make a revision today which effectively contradicts G-T's edit summary statement (when reverting) that "Thailand has no culture of using British English".

http://genkienglish.net/teaching/british-council-press-release-genki-english-now-part-of-thailands-official-teaching-materials/

However, although most Thai students have been schooled in British English (and that is the variety used by the royal household since the times of the "The King and I", and which royal household still has immense prestige), with the advent of capitalism and Western consumerism (spreading Tesco supermarkets notwithstanding), an increasing number of Thais prefer to learn US English over British or Australian English. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 15:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

In Thailand both varieties are teached and used in daily life, and often mixed up. I'd say American English has the slight overhand, but overall, it's a typical country that has no preference for either version. Globe-trotter (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Nevertheless, of the two edits:

1) United Kingdom and most Commonwealth countries including all of South Asia and large parts of Africa and Southeast Asia: British English

and

2) United Kingdom and most Commonwealth countries: British English;

Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar, all of South Asia and large parts of Africa: British English

naturally I prefer the first, since

a) it's shorter

b) it's a little more ambiguous, thus allowing more editor choice to be resolved on the individual country level discussion pages

c) it does not say "most Commonwealth countries" and then belabour the point by specifically just including the two Commonwealth countries of Brunei and Malaysia, while raising (irrelevant?) questions in folks' minds as to whether Myanmar (as a successor state of British India) is still to be regarded as in South or South East Asia. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 17:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Can we please stop this idiotic debate? The basic principles that I think apply are:

• Nobody should waste time on edits that "fix" varietal differences in English usage. Arguably, ensuring consistency during cleanup for a star nomination is a justified exception, though I think even that is debatable.
• Nobody should make substantive changes on policy pages without first getting consensus on the relevant talk page.
• Nobody should edit war, ever.

W. Frank; even though I think you are correct about Thailand, I am very close to slapping you with a few day's ban to cool off because, as I see it, you have been repeatedly violating the last two above. Pashley (talk) 19:09, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Unworkable, not based on reality

This and adjacent edits underline why dividing the world up into post-colonial British and American nation-states is a very bad idea. It might have been a stop-gap solution way back in the early days of Wikitravel, but it's now looking ridiculous. Where's China, where's Hong Kong in this arbitrary mix, please? What does "most of Africa" mean? Tony (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a well-travelled and rather opinionated Canadian, sick of these squabbles, and feeling curmudgeonly just now. As I see it, US spelling is merely a deviant local variant that should obviously be ignored anywhere else. Every other country where E is a major native language uses the spellings that might be called "British" or "commonwealth" or "traditional" or even just "correct". We should use US spelling only in the US, possibly with a few exceptions for sensible simplifications like programme->program or countries like the Philippines or Mexico with heavy US influence. Unfortunately, that notion seems impractical.

For a practical solution, I suggest we junk our own policy page and just link to w:Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#National_varieties_of_English. That is more detailed and better written than ours. All we actually need here is some text to emphasize that no-one should waste time changing varietal spelling differences. Pashley (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Good, practical suggestion. I think this may be the actual link. though.

I'd suggest that if we do adopt this, we link to a particular edit version, since we wouldn't want to change our own pages every time there was a Wikipedia style change.

However, I do warn that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#Strong_national_ties_to_a_topic does not necessarily resolve the arguments we sometimes have with borderline countries like Thailand. (I'd probably still argue that the Government and Royal Household have specifically chosen non US English varieties, but this might then be vehemently denied in an effort to trump with with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RETAIN#Retaining_the_existing_variety) --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 16:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

We should not link to a diff. I've corrected my link above, adding a missing namespace specifier. Pashley (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Genuine question, Pashley: why shouldn't we link to a particular revsion such as  ? Why should we want the chore of updating an external link every time WP changes the name of the section or (more rarely) a material part of the guide?

Incidentally, what do you think of the deep green and maroon colours used there for "good" and "bad" practice? --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 17:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

As I see it, we should link to WP or Meta policy pages wherever that is reasonable, and no link anywhere should ever go to a particular revision, except when that is needed to illustrate a talk page discussion. If updates affect us, we should discuss that on talk pages there, not change links here. Pashley (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think I've just realised why this weird post-colonial nation-state-based ordering of the world arose on Wikitravel: it's because (anglophone) travellers have a mindset about nation-states. It's understandable given that so much of the business of travelling is defined in terms of nation-states: currency, laws, border crossings, visas and the rest. But this translation of whole nation-states into varieties of English is not functional in terms of running the site, and indeed carries a certain bad odour symbolically. In terms of running the site, the definitions are vague and arbitrary, and are likely to be widely disregarded, especially by casual editors. Truth is, what will jar with readers (whether consciously or subconsciously) is the mixing of spelling varieties (and time and date formats, etc) within an article. Like it or not, the article is the most fundamental unit of a wiki, not collections of articles that happen to be related to a region.

  I think we have to acknowledge that editors and readers are more likely to object to using US spelling in a NZ- or Ireland-related article, where there's a strong majority of native anglophones with a history and separate identity, than in many parts of the world, like Thailand, where it's my understanding that both US and UK/Aust/whatever varieties are used. It's making a rod for our backs to insist that whole nation-states bend to one or the other (except, sigh, for majority-anglophone countries). The more practical way, related to the task of copy-editing or auditing an article, is to emphasise within-article consistency for articles not related to majority-anglophone countries. No one's gonna copy-edit hundreds of Thailand-related articles all at once—it's just not practical. Tony (talk) 03:42, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

100% agreement with your analysis, Tony. And, if my suspicion of the logical destination consequent on that analysis is correct, with your presumed destination, too. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 11:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I've created a draft of what I think the policy ought to be, except that I did not change the default from American to Commonwealth English. It is at User:Pashley/Spelling. Comment solicitedPashley (talk) 03:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Does that mean you're giving up on the idea of junking our own policy page and just linking to the Wikipedia policy page that's more detailed and better written than ours? What a shame! --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 11:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem with an article-based spelling variety is that Wikivoyage guides (unlike Wikipedia) are related. A Wikivoyage guide to Thailand includes underlying articles in the hierarchy. To have different spelling varieties in them would be inconsistent and confusing. The same counts for city articles. If Bangkok, Bangkok/Sukhumvit and Bangkok/Silom all use a different spelling variety, this would be very inconsistent and messy for the reader, especially when printed. Current spelling guidelines are consistent, which I think is important. It's not like the Lonely Planet would use different spelling varieties for different cities within a guidebook. That's unprofessional. Globe-trotter (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, none of us get paid for our work and, in the best sense of the word, are amateurs. I concur with Tony's analysis that we are making a rod for our own backs if we continue to mandate US English for articles related to countries such as Mozambique South Sudan which are neither primarily English speaking, don't have English as an official language but either have expressed an official preference for Commonwealth English (such as Northern Cyprus and Thailand) or have a strong connection with a particular variety because that variety is taught in their schools (eg: Norway) or because of historical ties (eg: Malaysia).

As I understand the draft proposal currently in Pashley's user space, he is not proposing to abandon consistency (especially where Star and otherwise featured articles are concerned), just to be a bit more relaxed in articles related to countries like Mexico and Colombia where they are still at an early stage of development. --W. Frank^e-mail_talk 12:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• Globe-trotter: you say, "The problem with an article-based spelling variety is that Wikivoyage guides (unlike Wikipedia) are related. ... A Wikivoyage guide to Thailand includes underlying articles in the hierarchy". I can't see why the hierarchy presents a problem: it's an editorial tool for conceiving, creating and organising articles—and a good system, very useful, for that; but it's not all that important for the way WV is read or the way it's edited by both casual visitors and regulars. Copy-editing/auditing a single article is quite a big heave, and we do need to do more of it if WV is to maintain and increase its reputation for quality. But it's not usual to take on garderning duties for a huge taxonomically related bunch of articles. If someone does, that's great, but it's rare: almost all weeding, pruning, updating, filling out of WV is done on single articles at a time.

  You make two more points: first, that different spelling varieties would be "confusing" in articles on, say, two different Thai resorts (whereas they wouldn't be "confusing" in relation to the current forced rule that Malaysian is BrEng and Indonesian articles are AmEng?). The experience in other wiki sites is that readers notice inconsistent spelling and formatting within an article, since they're more likely to be exposed to it in one go (or to return to it shortly after). The article is the fundamental unit in a wiki, unless I've got something very wrong. Moving to a related article in the hierarchical taxonomy is a psychological leap, as it were.

  To address your concern that en.WP's article-consistent rule is fine for them, but not for us: I question the premise that en.WP articles don't come in thematic bunches just as en.WV's do. The category system is a quick link between structures very akin to WV's hierarchies. I've heard no complaints that the article on "Liver" might be in BrEng but the article on "Heart" might be in AmEng. And even closer cousins could be found in seconds, all over the site. Tony (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It is confusing that Indonesia is AmE and Malaysia BrE. Ideally they'd use the same variety, and the whole site would use one variety. But this especially counts for cities. When you read a travel guide to Bangkok, its articles lower in the hierarchy are related. General information for the city is included in the main city page, while specific information (like listings) is included in the district pages of that city. If the main city page would use American English and the district would use British English, this wouldn't be consistent language use. It'd be very sloppy presentation to the reader of the guide and could be confusing too.

Categories in WP are different. You can put one article in many many categories. There is some relation in their articles, but it's a weaker one. Wikivoyage has a strict hierarchy with articles that can't be read without consulting other articles. Globe-trotter (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The very first link on this page has the original site founders, Evan & Maj, one proposing and the other supporting a switch to Commonwealth English, way back in 2005. Pashley (talk) 20:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Israel and Saudi Arabia

Just to be ready for some Star nominations (I hope) and to prevent unproductive reverts, I think we should add both Israel and Saudi Arabia to our list of countries that prefer US English. Before I add them, does anyone object and, if so, why? --W. Frank^email_talk 17:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

The argument is always just to be ready, and then we end up with hundreds of trivial edits pushed through to the articles in question. The overwhelming consensus that I see each time these issues are raised, is that until they are at the point of a starnom, this kind of copyediting doesn't matter. Your concern is unproductive reverts, yet, as soon as this goes through we're going to get hundreds of unproductive edits. --Inas (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I've never understood the stance that we should deliberately leave our policies vague and opaque so that they can be decided at each separate nomination for Star status. Star nominations should be determined by policy - not the other way round. As an editor, I would rather write in an article using the correct language variety rather than give my colleagues extra work later changing my edits in order to bring the article up to Star status. Unfortunately, since Israel has a short history of being administered by British mandate, it is not completely obvious which variety should be used. --W. Frank^email_talk 10:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Neither of these places are part of the US; why should there be a preference for that dialect? K7L (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Because of the number of Israelis and Saudis who go to college, live, work, and do business in the US. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it goes beyond that, IK. Both the Israeli and Saudi governments seem actively to prefer the US version of English (because of their favourite Uncle?) and our current policy states "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling. This isn't because US English is somehow better or to stomp on the rights, heritage, and cultures of other English-speaking countries. We just have decided to pick one default spelling style for consistency." I think the current policy is both reasonable and, in many cases, reasonably clear. The difficulty arises only because, prior to the late 1940s, there was a history of using the British variety of English in some countries before Britain's imperial power and influence drastically declined. My position is that it would be best to leave as few ambiguous gaps in the list of countries as possible.

Incidentally, I need to formally point out here what I have already highlighted in the pub: In the Northern Hemisphere fall of 2003, Evan made an executive decision to try and put an end to unproductive language variety to-ing and fro-ing. The decision was to mandate a default of US English for all destination articles (except those that had a history of using a different variety of English or a clear preference for using a different variety) but to diplomatically mandate the spellings of traveller (rather than traveler) and travelling (rather than traveling) since they were also (rarely used) US spelling variants. Those decisions have never been overturned by a consensus (as most know, we have a conservative bias in favour of the status quo ante) so it ill behoves editors to make finicky (wrong in policy) edits like the first part of this one. --W. Frank^email_talk 10:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

This is just ridiculous, carving up the planet into these binary US–UK post-colonial spelling regimes. Since I strongly object to any default, and to insisting that all articles related to whole regions (where native English speakers are not in the majority) be pigeonholed in this way, I also strongly object to this latest attempt to declare more territory for the American empire. Tony (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

While Evan did indeed make an executive decision that American English should be the default, that decision is not necessarily binding on the project today. Also, he thought better of it a bit later Wikivoyage_talk:Spelling/Commonwealth_English_proposal and was supported in that by his co-founder Maj.

My take on this is that we should look at WP or global WMF policies on this and adopt them if they make sense here. If not, we should re-examine Evan's Commonwealth English proposal; to me it makes far more sense for an international project than current policy. Pashley (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding "traveller", my understanding is that Evan preferred it as a charming affectation in our otherwise US-English project space, but decreeing it to be policy that it be spelled that way throughout our travel guides is absurd. LtPowers (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think "traveller" was a special case for standardization there because we were "wikitravellers" and hence it seemed best to standardize the word traveller everywhere. That situation does not apply here and I don't see why they word traveler should be treated differently from any other word with alternate spellings... Texugo (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason we couldn't have spelled it "wikitraveler", is there? So it seems like just another case of the chosen affectation rather than something that required us to match its spelling. LtPowers (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

No, no reason. I'm just saying that "traveller/traveler" may not be the best word for people to latch onto as an illustrative example, given its extenuating circumstances at the time. Texugo (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I think people are getting confused again.

LtPowers and Texugo: Have I understood you correctly? Are you really trying to maintain that Evan Prodromou was utterly wrong and completely in error when he put forward the notion that the spellings of traveller (rather than traveler) and travelling (rather than traveling) were (at the time he was writing in 2003) also (rarely used) US spelling variants? Have the American Heritage Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary got this wrong too?

Tony and Pashley: I understand that you may be unhappy with the current policy, however, I am not seeking to change the current policy, just to ensure that editors like LtPowers and Texugo do not waste their valuable skills in making unproductive efforts "correcting" traveller (to traveler) and travelling (to traveling) wherever they appear in any article whatsoever, whether the page is to be found in Wikivoyage namespace or in a US article or in a Mongolian article. The reason those types of edit are contrary to policy is at least two-fold:

1. ) They are acceptable US spelling variants and, as such do not change the language variety from US English
2. ) The variations of traveller and travelling were the variants mandated in 2003 for all occurrence of the word (as a diplomatic consolation prize in 2003 to those who proposed that the most widely used Commonwealth variety of English be the default rather than US ENglish.

Now I have to tell you that if, after 10 years you are seeking to re-open the decision about traveller and travelling, then this throws everything into a new light and would cause me to question the other part of the 2003 decision: to mandate US English as the default. I really don't think you can "cherry-pick" which parts of the current spelling policy you wish to obtain. --W. Frank^email_talk 20:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC) --W. Frank^email_talk 20:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Repeating points I have made before:

In general, writers should write in whatever variety of English they use themselves. Of course, there are special cases, but they are rare exceptions. Where there is a clear local standard, try to use it. Commonwealth English for the Commonwealth, American for the US. Anywhere else, don't worry about it.

Local oddities, like much of Asia using "godown" where the rest of the E-speaking world uses "warehouse" or Americans asking for the "check" in a restaurant where anyone else wants the "bill", should be explained in the articles about the areas where they are used if they are relevant to travel. In any other article, treat them as an error to be expunged.

Editors should not waste time "correcting" color to colour, traveller to traveler or vice versa. There are plenty of things to do that are both more useful and more interesting. There may be an exception for final edits for consistent style to bring an article up to star status. I'd say even that is debatable; certainly in nearly all cases other things are more important.

For similar reasons, no-one should waste time debating this stuff on talk pages. Yes, I am succumbing to temptation myself here, but I realise it is a waste of time. Pashley (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The "check" in a restaurant? To "check" is to verify, the banking document is a "cheque". K7L (talk) 15:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Americans spell it with a 'k', and use the same word and spelling for a restaurant bill. LtPowers (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Evan said ten years ago that "traveller" was an acceptable spelling variant in some parts of the U.S. What does that have to do with anything we're doing right now? There's no cause for changing one widely accepted spelling variant to another less-widely accepted spelling variant just because you think it's policy. Where was the double-l variant "mandated in 2003 for all occurrence of the word"? Start showing some diffs. And even then, I hasten to add, what was done in 2003 does not have to bind us as if it's holy writ. Policy is dictated by practice, not the other way around. LtPowers (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No serious editor should be going along with the idea "let's not bother correcting spelling errors". If this site is going to survive, and I have my doubts, it needs to attract and retain a corps—even a small corps—of "gnoming" copy-editors who will harmonise language and formatting so that it is at least article-consistent. "Editors should not waste time "correcting" color to colour, traveller to traveler or vice versa" is the unprofessional way to go, and will increase the chances of not being taken seriously. The notion put years ago that double-L should be used as an exception to AmEng spelling is mere invention by one individual; it is not acceptable in standard usage, so let's dispense with it now, once and for all. All articles should be in an internationally understood major variety of English (not a hotch-potch), and for articles related to countries with majority native-English-speaking populations, this should be in their variety. Elsewhere, you do the practical and time-tested en.WP thing and go with the existing variety used in an article (if that variety is clear and reasonably consistent; if not, you harmonise as you see fit). We need to update from what in many people's view were inadvisable practices established in the early days.

On any wiki, but especially one that we hope might be edited by one-off or very casual visitors-as-travellers, gnoming is important. No one's going to get into a twist if an editor does the wrong thing; but equally, gnomes need encouragement and logical, viable guidelines so they can go about their housecleaning. Tony (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Considering we've been around ten years, I think your worries about the site's survival are not only misplaced but rather insulting. Indeed, one could argue that our own policies are just as time-tested as en.WP's, give or take a few years. LtPowers (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Participants who intend to resist any change to "their patch" will use a number of strategies. Framing critical comments as "insulting" is one of them. I suggest you drop that kind of knee-jerk reaction and give mature consideration to what I'm saying. A positive, dynamic environment among editors is what will save a site that is, as you know, losing readers hand over fist. Tony (talk) 01:41, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

We are simply not going to get Americans writing articles about US destinations with British spellings, nor are we going to get Britons writing articles about UK destinations with American spellings. Once we all accept that as fact, other things can be discussed, but the suggestion that we should select either American, British, or some other form of English as a worldwide standard and enforce it really makes no practical sense on its face and needs to be dispensed with. Or you can continue to hold such an opinion (if that's indeed what you're suggesting) and concede that you will always be in the minority. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Who was suggesting that? Tony (talk) 13:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ikan, Tony is suggesting that we keep each article to a consistent recognized English variant rather than mixing and matching (vis a vis "traveller") within an article. Nothing wrong with that, and I believe it's consistent with site policy. He is further advocating that we drop our usual "editing articles only to change between varieties of English is a waste of time" position. The problem with that is that we end up with endless arguments over which variety is preferred. But then, it seems from experience on WP that Tony enjoys such endless arguments. (Also: losing readers hand over fist? It is to laugh.) LtPowers (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I misunderstood that. I agree that there's no important reason to require the use of "traveller" in US-English articles. But I do think that in cases in which it isn't very clear that one version of English is preferred, it is a waste of time to edit articles. For example, the "language policeman/-woman" who loves to turn articles about China and Thailand into what reads to me like the most colorless, aggressively English British English is engaging in very annoying pedantry that's not very useful at all, in my opinion. And I say that despite my experience that British spellings (though not necessarily idiomatic English English) are somewhat preferred in China. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Lt Powers, it's disappointing that you can't find it within you to avoid insulting other editors. Please be civil. Whether copy-editing an article—for matters of consistency among other things—is a waste of time is largely up to the individual editor, and I ask you not to put hurdles in front of those who do want to improve the site in that way. The site is unusual, even for a wiki, in the number of whistle-stop edits it receives, often providing valuable on-the-ground information. Therefore the tendency for inconsistency (even mess) is higher than normal, and maintenance by those who want to do it is important.

If we can go back to the theme of this thread: it is not appropriate to legislate for articles related to whole countries like Israel and Saudi to have to follow US or UK spelling. However, where an article concerns a majority of English native speakers, historical and cultural identities strongly suggest that the local variety should be used unerringly. Tony (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

I basically agree with you, Tony, especially the part about countries with a majority of English speakers, but the thing is, if we legislate British English for the Indian subcontinent and Malaysia - and I certainly think we should - Israel has just as high a percentage of English speakers as those countries. China and Thailand, however, I believe (and someone should correct me if I'm wrong), do not. So it's more a sliding scale of importance, considering the relative degree of presence of English in particular countries, than something black and white. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• [indenting back] Ikan, yes. But my point from the start (and I think there's support among some other editors such as Pashley (?)) is that while you can't get around the sensitivities of the anglophone-majority countries to their own spelling varieties (there are six of them, I guess, and people get emotional about their own variety), legislating beyond them for the whole world is like trying to control an economy with Soviet-style central planning. It's really not very workable (regular editors object, and travelling visitors wouldn't give a toss or don't care when they edit—who's going to look up the rules about Pakistan?). This is why en.WP has taken what I believe is a much more practical, low-maintenance approach. There used to be the odd squabble, but that's very rare nowadays. The German WP, with German, Austrian, and Swiss varieties; and the Spanish WP, with Spanish and South American varieties, seem to work it out similarly, without leglislating that articles related to South Korea will be in Argentinian Spanish and Japan in Spanish Spanish. That would be weird trying to do that. Tony (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

  I thought framing critical comments as "insulting" was a bad thing, Tony? Regardless, I'm not really clear on how drastically your proposal differs from our current practice; can you state your proposal as you might expect it to be worded on the policy page? LtPowers (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I'll address a few points, but the short version is that I would disagree with any policy that supported articles about Pakistan being considered equally valid in US English as in British English (Subcontinent-modified as appropriate. The longer version: (1) English is much more of a world language than, well, I believe any other. So one thing we should be doing (within reason, as we don't want to require Bahamian English from our editors) is presenting articles in the variety of English people are more likely to see in a given country, except for the fact that it should follow standard English grammar rules (and therefore not be in Singlish, etc.). (2) German is not nearly as much of a world language, so whatever standard they work out is fine. (3) Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that though there are standard versions of Spanish in various Latin American countries, Castellano (Castillian Spanish) is also standard in most every Spanish-speaking country to a much greater extent than British English is standard in the US and heavily US-influenced countries like the Philippines. And all squabbling aside, I, too, would like to see a full fleshed-out version of your proposal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Lt Powers, why don't we just talk about the matter at hand without personalising it. Ikan, it would be unusual to find a single variety of standard English used by everyone in a particular country such as Pakistan. It depends on which language school/teacher someone was exposed to, even if there are tendencies towards AmEng or BrEng overall. And if the truth be known, I suspect that a lot of second-language speakers do a bit of mixing of spellings. This does undermine the argument for attaching particular varieties to places like India, Pakistan, Saudi, or Poland ... and I can't see the point of researching this for every other country in the world and expecting contributors to look up this page to remind themselves.

What is the concern is that articles not be a mixture of spellings and varieties: that's almost universally regarded as disruptive to readers in a single, continuous text. By contrast, insisting that all articles related to a particular country (like Vietnam, or Poland) be in the same variety of English is not going to add value for readers: this brings little return compared with all the trouble and current non-compliance it leads to at the moment.

The practical thing to do, as Pashley has said on this page, is to plunder (more of) what is useful from en.WP's time-tested approach for copy-editors, without causing any reverse-engineering task. I suggest something much slimmer and simpler for Wikivoyage. The opening would be much the same as overleaf, now, down to the bulleted list:

Wikivoyage prefers no major national variety of English over any other. American and British English can differ in vocabulary (soccer vs. football), spelling (center vs. centre), date formatting ("April 13" vs. "13 April") and very occasionally surface grammar. Some words are unique to a variety; in such cases, it's useful to gloss the meaning or the equivalent word in another variety in parentheses immediately after the first occurrence ("some drivers charge extra for the use of the trunk (boot) of their cab"). Here, trunk and boot might not be known in some varieties, although cab and taxi are probably so widely known everywhere that it's not worth bothering with an explanation.

But it's no big deal. Don't worry if you're not familiar or comfortable with a particular variety of English. Just write in the style you're accustomed to, and eventually someone will come along and check it for you.

The rule of thumb for articles related to the following majority English-speaking countries is:

• United States: American English
• Canada: Canadian English
• Australia: Australian English
• New Zealand: New Zealand English
• Ireland: Irish English
• United Kingdom and most Commonwealth countries: British English;
• Brunei, Malaysia, Myanmar, all of South Asia and large parts of Africa: British English
• Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Taiwan: US English

If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling. This isn't because US English is somehow better or to stomp on the rights, heritage, and cultures of other English-speaking countries. We just have decided to pick one default spelling style for consistency.

For articles related to other countries, Wikivoyage does not favor any national variety of English, and within a given article the conventions of one particular variety should be followed consistently. When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the first sign of a variety in the page history is generally considered the default. Disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged; such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive.

Remember not to alter quotations, proper names, or titles to match the variety used in the main text.

[the rest unaltered ...]

Tony (talk) 03:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Seeing we largely organise articles by geography, if we *have to* have a spelling variant specified for each article, it would make sense to me to have the sub-geographies as consistent with the super-geographies as possible. The only way this kind of policy makes sense, is if we use the variety the traveller is likely to encounter in that country when they do encounter it. --Inas (talk) 09:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Inas, thanks. You make two points. The first is to favour the status quo of grouping large numbers of articles into branches of a tree, as it were, that each have to comply with a legislated variety. That's what we've had until now, except that it doesn't work. This Israel/Saudi thread underlines why large-scale legislation is clunky and inappropriate, except where we have to bend to majority native-speaker sensitivities (US, UK, Canada, Austr., Ireland, NZ, basically). Who knows how many Saudi second-language speakers use US or British spelling, and who cares; it's almost certainly a mixture.

So as soon as you get away from legislation of huge geographical areas, you have to sacrifice one thing: this enforced uniformity in large groups of articles. A quick survey of the existing state of affairs will quickly reveal that this is an unrealised dream. And copy-editors just don't devote themselves to going through 100 or 500 articles on Germany. We'd be lucky if they went through a single article, actually. That practical reality should be driving us to treat the article as the unit, because that is more akin to how the housework is done, and requires no legislation.

Your second point is that there's some value in using "the variety the traveller is likely to encounter in that country when they do encounter it". Apart from the fact that English-variety usage tends not to be uniform in second-language countries, I'm struggling to see why this is relevant to a travel-info site. Tony (talk) 10:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

English is an official language in India and widely spoken. I'd include it. I also share concerns about having different varieties of English in articles on neighboring destinations; it just seems unprofessional. I don't mind paring down the list of countries with a recognized variety of English, but I think we should retain our selection of a default variety for areas not on the list. LtPowers (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Defaulting is a deal-breaker for me. I've set out the disadvantages of this scenario, and the fact that on several critical levels it hasn't been working. "Unprofessional" for neighbouring destinations? Far worse what we have now, which is mish-mash within articles. No one's going to audit hundreds or even 10s of neighbouring articles systematically. Oh, and you do agree that whatever is used, it needs to be standard English? I worry about the splintering of English in second-language parts of the world. Standard varieties are more widely understood. Tony (talk) 13:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I see a difference between an organic mish-mash, that I'm quite happy to cope in a user contributed guide, and a first-in-first-served rule, that could mandate different neighborhoods of the same city having different spellings. --Inas (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tony, you've laid out the problems with assigning (somewhat arbitrary) varieties of English to countries where English isn't a first language. But I don't think you've addressed the possibility of preferring one particular variety in all such countries. LtPowers (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Showing that there are problems, and addressing the possibility, seem to concern the same practice, don't they? This seems illogical, unless I'm not getting something. The practice we've had for years and that doesn't work—that defies the way editors gnome, houseclean and copy-edit, that leaves much of the world unlegislated (um ... like China), and that leads to the mish-mash we have now. This is a hopeless mess, and taking a simple practical measure that works well elsewhere can put the site on a better course without causing reverse-engineering problems. Tony (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we're not communicating here. Let me try again. You've addressed the problems with saying "Well, when people in (say) Vietnam use English, they use such-and-such variety, so that's the variety we should use in our Vietnam articles", and then having a whole big list of country–variety correlations that a gnome would need to check before copyediting. We get that. But I don't think you've specifically laid out problems with defaulting to, say, American English throughout the site except where another variety of English is native to a particular region or country. LtPowers (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It is worth discussing this further, but not until the rank bullying stops. Tony (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Traveler/traveller, traveling/travelling

Swept in from the pub

In the last decade and before Evan sold Wikitravel to Internet Brands, I seem to recall that there was an executive decision made to try and put an end to unproductive language variety to-ing and fro-ing. The decision that I recall was to mandate a default of US English for all destination articles (except those that had a history of using a different variety of English or a clear preference for using a different variety) but to diplomatically mandate the spellings of traveller (rather than traveler) and travelling (rather than traveling) since they were also (rarely used) US spelling variants. I've been searching for a while now to find the original discussion but can't find it. Does anyone know where it is, please? --W. Frank^email_talk 16:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

To save fruitless searching, I know the discussion isn't preserved at Wikivoyage talk:Spelling because after Evan wrote "Wikipedia solves this issue by saying that articles dealing with Commonwealth issues will have Commonwealth spelling, and others will be in American spelling. I think that that's kind of forced for Wikitravel -- is Thailand in Australia's sphere of influence, or America's? What about Antarctica or Disabled travellers? I figure just choosing one spelling style is the best. If anyone has a particular spelling style they write in, that's fine. But if we have a rule, we'll know why stuff gets edited. I'm willing to change it to Commonwealth spelling if we have enough support for it." at 15:50, 9 Aug 2003 (PDT) he made the traveller/traveler decision (as is evidenced by his edit here when he created our "The traveller comes first" article and deliberately used the "traveller" variant at 21:01, 10 October 2003). Do you remember where this is recorded, Evan? --W. Frank^email_talk 16:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Though before my time, the list of common misspellings page was initiated circa August 2003.. It has both variations (ie. traveller or traveler etc.) There are many other word variations as well used throughout Wikivoyage... Churchill I think said something about the only thing separating the US and Great Britain was a common language.. probably should be updated to include all English speaking nations - :) -- When doing minor edits and in doubt, I have been letting variations stand (hope that is correct thing to do?) Matroc (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that this page is the Traveller's Pub, not the Traveler's Pub. Also, while I'm an American, I use double-L almost exclusively in my own writing (on and off WV). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess that's just because "a pub" is thought of as such a quintessentially British institution - although there are many fine examples in Ireland, New Zealand and (even) Japan, too!

The discussion that I remember was where a lot of time was being spent arguing about the language variety to be used on Wikitravel. Although he was an American like yourself, André, in 2003 Evan had written all of the very early Wikitravel policy articles using the (more rarely used in US English) traveller / travelling spelling variants (also like yourself, André) and he was pulled up on it. I seem to remember that for a very short time he was leaning towards using Commonwealth rather than US English, because by far the greater number of countries used (use?) that variant, but in the end he was persuaded to change the default language for Wikitravel destination articles (where there was not a strong local connection to another language variety) to US English because the USA had (still has?) the greatest number of native English speakers. I seem to remember that (as a consolation prize?) it was agreed that the traveller / travelling spelling variant would be the orthodox spelling in all articles. Here's an example of Evan "correcting" the spelling. --W. Frank^email_talk 12:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I shall be sticking with "Wikivoyageler" as the established usage. K7L (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC) a proud Wikivoyageler :)

You are a naughty Wikivoyageur! --W. Frank^email_talk 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Spelling for Germany

Right now all members of the European Union (and for some reason Switzerland) have British English as their default spelling here on WV. I doubt that for most of Europe but for Germany I think it is downright ridiculous. Germany has way more American soldiers stationed there than British ones. Words such as Shoppingcenter are spelled as if they were American words (I have never ever seen anybody use the word "centre" for anything in Germany unless it was in French signage that for some reason still employed at train stations) and there is a American TV shows to British TV shows ratio of at least 10:1 (with some selected few actually being shown in their undubbed English on pay TV). Therefore I have to ask: What is the justification for using British English in articles about Germany, Austria and Switzerland but particularly those about Germany? Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That the flavor of English taught in Cyprus, England, Gibraltar, Ireland, Malta, Scotland and Wales is also the variety most commonly taught in most Austrian, German, Lëtzebuergesch, Liechtenstein, Swiss and South Tyrol schools and the version mandated for official documents of the EU ? BushelCandle (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Europe

For some reason there now exists an assumption that Europe or at least the member of the EU "ought to" use British spelling, when this article says nothing of the sort and in fact implicitly states the opposite that unless there is a good reason for British English (and none is given in this article nor anywhere else for that matter, besides an obscure EU manual that nobody ever reads that I found after hitting the googles). So... Should we a) include Europe in the "speaks British English. Writes British English" section (clearly not the thing I want) b) have Europe listed under meh, but use American anyway c) Come down hard on the other side and make American English "official" for Europe (excluding the islands in the North Atlantic that got us into that mess ;-) as well as Malta) d) declare a "live and let live" policy e) resort to some sort of "popular sovereignty" with spelling decided by consensus on each individual country article (which begs the question on how spelling on Europe is handled, but one step at a time. Anyhoo. I hope not to wake sleeping dragons with this. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe the intent of policy is that we default to U.S. English unless a different variety predominates locally. Powers ^(talk) 20:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Which means exactly what for - say - Switzerland? Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea. Switzerland doesn't have a lot of English speakers, so I doubt it would be possible to say that any one variety predominates, but I can't say for sure. Powers ^(talk) 19:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well as of now somebody decided for it to be written in British English and reprimanded me for making a contribution in American English. Or changing some spellings while correcting other things Hobbitschuster (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Switzerland does have a fair number of English-as-a-second-language speakers. Hobbitschuster, I hope you didn't feel too reprimanded. I don't have a personal stake in this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Policy explicitly prohibits making a big deal over spelling. Whoever reprimanded you is wrong. Powers ^(talk) 21:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

My understanding of policy is that people shouldn't be changing existing spelling in an article without having a good reason. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

That's correct, but correcting it in the course of making other edits seems like it would be okay. I admit, though, I read Hobbitschuster's comment as indicating that someone else was changing spellings; I may have misread it. Powers ^(talk) 19:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I think (if I recall correctly) that I made a change concerning something and seeing that some things were spelled "wrong" (my spell-check is tuned to Noah Webster English, not to pseudo French) I corrected them. Assuming, as this pages seems to indicate, that as there is no history of Switzerland being part of the British empire or having English as its official language, it would be appropriate. I have found this policy as stated on this here page to not match the way it is in fact practiced and enforced on several articles, that should be in the non-imperial English camp but de facto aren't. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Powers, that's really the issue, isn't it: Whether turning spellings in articles about European destinations from British to American spelling is "correcting it." As I said, I have no personal stake in this, but as long as Wikivoyage policy is that European destinations use British spellings by default, I don't think anyone should be changing their correct spellings from British to American. I don't really care much what the policy is; I'd just like a clear one. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

This article has a (very haphazardly collected) list including such gems as "most of Africa" that doesn't include Europe and than goes on to say, that in all other cases there is a mild preference for American spelling. Now I am willing to accept British spelling, although I do think they were changed by mister Webster for a reason, if there is a clear and logical basis to support it. There has never been (to my knowledge) any debate whatsoever whether British or American spellings should be preferred for any number of European countries and they are, I think I am repeating myself, not mentioned at all here. I think we should have American spelling at least for Germany (where it is the default for almost all loan words, as evidenced by the "Shoppingcenter" almost every city has) and the countries that are not members of the EU. My preferred proposal would be to have American spelling everywhere except for countries where English enjoys (de facto) (co-)official status at the national level and is explicitly stated to be written a specific (i.e. the British or Commonwealth) way. But alas I fear for some places that ship has long set sail. Still we need to clarify this policy lest we have the same debate again when another ignorant newbie comes and changes the spelling of - say - Laos from one variant of English to another. Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

That ship went to sea, but ships at sea usually reach a port and can then refuel and sail back. If you can achieve a consensus for your view, you will have won the battle. So basically, it sounds like your proposal is for US spelling except for most Commonwealth countries, and where else? How about China, where British spellings (centre, e.g.) are presumably still preferred, and perhaps America's mortal enemy, North Korea? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the way you extended my metaphor ;-) And while I don't know all that much about either China or North Korea, I could live with that proposal ;-). Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

You should probably start a new thread with your proposal and post to Requests for comment and the Pub to try to solicit comments. But don't be surprised if, because of exhaustion over debates about spelling with a user who was eventually banned, not too many people want to take a view on this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if my posts haven't been composed with maximal clarity or accuracy. My impression of the consensus is that while the site has a mild preference for American spellings where English isn't widely used, most people would prefer to leave individual articles as they are (spelling wise) even if they don't match that guideline, absent a star nomination. But I could be wrong. Powers ^(talk) 01:16, 27 March 2015 (UTC

(left side beginning thingy stuff) I think the "policy" by default is that anybody writes the way he or she pleases and in some articles spellings have been determined by one side just giving in after the other changed the spellings (hint it is usually the British that end up triumphant). And the vast majority of contributors seems to be a fan of the bigger marine vertebrate frying hypothesis which - I must admit - is not entirely wrong and has a lot to it. But I think we should have a clear policy that matches the reality "on the field" precisely to avoid the kind of edit wars that some contributors seem to be still a little shell-shocked from, if I may say so. If we can link to a clear guide on spelling when somebody changes all of Europe's theatres to theaters, this person will either cease such behavio(u)r pretty soon or there are good reasons for blocking that person. As of now the rule is so ambiguous as to be worthless and spelling will crop up from time to time leading to either frustration or edit wars on the part of those whose preferred spellings are unceremoniously reverted by the powers that be without any policy giving a hint as to why. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think like it or not, British English is the de-facto spelling in the bureaucracy of the European Union, which dominates Europe. Switzerland is also associated strongly with the EU (barring recent referendums). As a European yourself it probably doesn't make a massive difference to your everyday life, but WV isn't just about personal preference.

Have a look at Wikipedia who have already worked this one out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_European_Union/Style_guidelines

If someone were to make a proposal to just make the entire Wikivoyage American English then actually I would just support that. Otherwise there will be grey areas such as China and North Korea, where people don't really spend much time wondering if they should use 'center' or 'centre'. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Also check out this riveting official document on CONSOLIDATED VERSIONS OF THE TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION AND THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION and note the style used. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

While I don't think "some unelected Eurocrat" (hey that's the British technical term) should determine policy here on WV, if we make this spelling official policy it should be on this page. I think part of the problem is, that many Americans are too focused on the US of A to care about the spelling other countries use, whereas Great Britain often feels its national integrity threatened if Uruguay switches from teaching the spelling "theatre" to teaching the correct spelling. It's kind of the same with French being considered a "world language" by virtue of French government institutions all over the world offering French classes. If you want to learn German in Managua for example you have to go to the French thingy because there is no "Goethe-Institut". Anyway. Bottom line is: Even if a consensus to have British spelling all over Europe (which I am against) is reached, we should put that on a policy page and be done with it. I do think doing so saves us a lot of trouble down the line. Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Americans actually elected Webster either, so unfortunately that is a non-sequitur.

Policy as it stands is to use the variant employed by the country, which in the case of EU/EEC is..... British.

I'm cool to change the whole of WV to American English, but if we are to follow existing policy then Europe will stay Commonwealth English by virtue of its official status. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

By definition, "English" is the language spoken in England. "Theatre" is perfectly valid and I wouldn't hesitate to revert an edit which changed "London Theatre" to the language of some other country. Leave the Americanism for "Ford's Theater" or something similar which is part of the history of that country. K7L (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

We often use "theatre" in New York, too. I don't think you'll find a New Yorker who thinks that spelling is incorrect or even foreign. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

(undent) I hold to the opinion I gave years ago above:

I'd make it even more general:

• writers: use either American or Commonwealth English, whatever you are comfortable with.
• editors: do not "fix" dialect differences; there are far better uses of your time than changing "center" to "centre" or "traveller" to "traveler, or vice versa.

I think the whole notion that we need a "standard" here is misguided. (WT-en) Pashley 03:26, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

That said, if we need a standard for Europe at all, then (I think, obviously) it should be British spellings, since that is EU policy. Pashley (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth pointing out that Switzerland isn't part of the EU? Powers ^(talk) 15:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That's already known. They claim to be neutral, then join EFTA, Schengen and basically most of the same clubs as the EU and Iceland. K7L (talk) 17:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

If our de facto policy regarding the greater European area (do we have to change everything back if Farage gets his way and the EU decides to switch to correct English?) is to stand, I suggest we make it official by putting it on the page here. I still think there is next to nothing in favor of it but one obscure style guide in Brussels that shouldn't be binding for us, but I like clear rules even if I don't like what those rules say... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you'll help your case a bit if you stop treating British spellings as "wrong". You sound more chauvinistic than us Americans: I don't know any Americans who think British English is "incorrect". Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah neither spelling is "wrong". One is just in my humble opinion better. A first step to making English spelling somewhat more logical. Unfortunately no further steps were ever taken. But that is beside the point. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage is basically split into a tiny minority who openly hate American spelling (most of whom tend to end up getting banned for general extremism), a new minority of one person who comes across as Anglophobic and about 95% of all other editors who are completely fine with the status quo. Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not an anglophobic person. I personally prefer American spellings and I do think there were good reasons for the unpleasantness of 1776 (though slavery would probably have ended sooner without it, but that is besides the point). I would even welcome it, if our current policy regarding Europe were to be made official and quotable (and mentioning "well there is this one thing the EU mentioned once" is not a policy imho). Would I like American English to become official policy? Absolutely! Do I want to force Websterian spellings down the throat of Aussies or Brits or Canadians? Absolutely not! Are some Brits or British apologists trying to de facto impose British spellings in articles where there is no official policy or even one explicitly contrary to that? It might appear that way. That being said, despite my advocacy for American spellings I am willing to accept a policy of British spellings (which I would find to be ridiculous as this page and the very concept of wikis as well as the Internet were invented in America and by Americans) if such a policy were to be introduced. What I don't like is this kind of policy by failure to object that has crept into some articles. I am not only talking about Europe, but also the fact that the article on time travel (the April first article) despite our policy suggesting American spellings is spelled the British way... Even in those small parts that deal with the whole big world of not Britain. Bottom line: what ever you decide, our current spelling policy is not the way this page tells it and I am against that. I would accept any kind of clear policy but would favor a "red-list" (for the red ensign, you see...) for pages on which British spellings (or local equivalents) are to be used with all those pieces of dry land (and travel topics concerning them) not mentioned on the "red-list" using American English by default. That would be a clear, logical and imho fair policy, that would settle this issue once and for all. Anyway, I hope the BBC gets their act together and gives me the new season (sorry, series) of "Sherlock" soon ;-) Best wishes. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage:Joke articles/Time travel covers disproportionately the British and Roman Empires due to their historic rôle and importance, along with a wide selection of historic destinations that are non-British and non-American. It is not to any great extent an article about the United States, an apparent failed British penal colony of relatively recent historic vintage where the rabble dumped the gov'nors blimey tea in the harbour less than 250 years ago. As such, it makes little sense to arbitrarily force the entire article to be American. You were editing that article to change English spelling to American spelling on items like "London Theatre" "London Theater" and "dialling" "dialing" 01, 71, 171 or 20 at random as the area code of the week to reach w:London Director Area numbers in inner London, UK. That's neither helpful nor constructive; you are indeed forcing Websterian spellings down the throat of Aussies or Brits or Canadians. H. G. Wells style time travel, like Dickens' ghosts of Christmas past, present and future before it, is clearly a British invention... much like the impractical Charles Babbage contraption which will most certainly amount to nothing, despite the later covert tinkering at Bletchley Park. K7L (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

A house divided can not stand, if I may say so. And rather than have an article divided by spelling into British and American sections, I will let the British spelling be maintained throughout the article. I will probably still contribute in wrong, err I mean American spellings if I get any new ideas before April first ;-). If there is one thing about the current non-policy that I like is that it sorta kinda indicates that WV prefers whatever spelling is used to used consistently at least within each individual article (unless we have bigger marine vertebrates sitting around in our kitchen freshly caught and yet not ready to eat, that is). Best wishes. And I am still in favor of being in favor rather than in favour of stuff ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The "consistently one variant" is only a transient status: every interesting article will have people add prose without thinking of the variety used (or not mastering it or English at all). Thus I think the history of an article is much more interesting than its current status for determining language variant.

An example about official languages in Europe: Finland is bilingual, with Finnish and Swedish, but English as the "second domestic language" or as "Foreignish" are standing jokes: most of the population knows English and will use the language with any foreigner, some even with compatriots speaking the other language. This means that there indeed is "English as used in Finland" despite it not being official.

--LPfi (talk) 07:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Usage of the word "travel(l)er"

Swept in from the pub

One of this site's heritages (is this a word?) from its time at that other place is the frequent use of the word traveler, often in the idiosyncratic spelling traveller. Now I know we don't have anything against our history or against that other site per se, but maybe we could distinguish ourselves some way or another. Our section headings are not what you would find in "any other old guidebook" and the spelling "traveller" was made to distinguish us to begin with, so maybe we could or should replace it with the word "voyager" or else use turns of phrase like "bon voyage" where appropriate? I know that the name was not a 100% free choice, but just as moon handbooks put moons all over their stuff, we might get ourselves a unique selling point out of something that started off as a second choice. And please don't let this descend into a flamewar, I am merely thinking out loud and will gladly retract the idea if consensus is that we should keep "travelling". Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd prefer our trademark to be exceptionally well-written travel guides rather than some contrived gimmick. As for the tradition of spelling "traveller" with two L's, I have no strong feelings about it either way but would note that the status quo does no harm and would take a monumental effort to undo (as we would want to preserve the double-L spelling in articles that take Commonwealth English, it would be difficult to assign this task to a bot). -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I know that tampering with spelling or policies related to spelling is a touchy subject indeed and don't think changing the spelling (unless we do it globally for all articles, which would make it idiosyncratic again) would do much good. However I have seen, that in some places we use the word "traveler" instead of "visitor", "tourist" or other words for the apparent reason of the former name of this site. And as to contrived gimmicks versus good content: Why not both? maybe a contrived gimmick gets us an article in a newspaper or a mention on the interwebz and if we only gain one contributor through that, we have already won a little, haven't we? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, we have traditionally avoided using the word "tourist", both because of its somewhat negative connotations in English as well as to be inclusive of other types of travellers i.e. business travellers, etc. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

As Andre has noted I don't think there is any value in tampering with article content, but if the suggestion is to do a bit of branding by making some project changes such as renaming "Travellers' pub" to "Voyagers' pub" then I don't see any harm. -- Ryan • (talk) • 22:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense.. we are 'Wikivoyagers' after all. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Another word for "gimmickry" is "marketing". Let's please keep that in mind. And for those of you who don't know the show "Gypsy", make sure you listen to "You Gotta Have a Gimmick". Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Travellers are fine. How about writing articles that benefit them? PrinceGloria (talk) 05:35, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the "traveller" in "Travellers' pub" was intended to refer to "wikitravellers" specifically, just to travellers in general. "Voyagers" is a much less euphonious and familiar word in English, though "voyageurs" is lovely and evocative in French. =) Powers ^(talk) 14:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hobbitschuster's idea is a good and necessary one IF it's necessary to distinguish this series of guides from the Wikitravel ones AND we had a physical presence (in book stores, for example).

Since both are not true, the more important job to be done here is to boost our search engine (read Google in most markets) visibility.

What's being done to persuade Google that this isn't an inferior mirror site to be placed on the second and subsequent pages of search results?

Why have you preserved the inferior naming scheme and weird section headings you inherited? 118.101.139.200 01:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

In terms of why certain things about our article organization are the same, it might be more helpful to think of it as that other site being a inherited copy we had to leave behind when most of the editors came here to get away from the corporate dictators. "Inferior" and "weird" might be your opinion about the headers, but we are the ones who came up with the scheme, not those keeping the other site on life support, and a lot of us are rather fond of it. Texugo (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's understandable that you feel proud of your history and miffed that you were booted out, but you need to move on just as Canada did with its new and distinctive flag (and now even the naysayers concede that was a great move). It's no good having better articles (and maps!!!) if readers can't find you because Google is entirely blind to the quality and accuracy of your writings and just carries on thinking you're an inferior Johnny-come-lately copy, is it? 118.101.139.200 01:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

The Other Site maintains an outright hostile relationship towards Wikivoyage. Users who barely mention Wikivoyage somewhere at the site, are blocked indefinitely. We should, anyway, try synonyms for travel and traveller where appropriate; today, they are overused. As said, tourist is not always a good replacement, except in context such as Film and TV series tourism, where the intent is clearly travelling for pleasure. /Yvwv (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Use traveller, traveler, tourist, visitor, trip, excursion, expedition and any other word you can think of as relevant; and vary the use through articles. Do not just remove the word from articles, replace it with another relevant phrase. We cannot predict which word someone will use in a search engine. Using a single word too often in a page will actually reduce the search engine rating. --Traveler100 (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

On the sub-headings, they may be a little odd but I think they are short and to the point. However I do think each section should have an introductory sentence or two, not just with specifics for the location but to use other key words such as accommodation and restaurants. How about building a thesaurus to help people vary what words are used throughout the site. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just stumbled upon this page, and after a few minutes of shocked incredulity am now given to respond to the earlier comment "traveler, often in the idiosyncratic spelling traveller." Idiosyncratic?!? TraveLLer is the spelling as stated by the OED, which is the accepted reference for the definitions and spellings of English. It's up to other's foibles should they wish to use a different spelling, but to then claim preeminence and denigrate convention is, at best, laughable. —The preceding comment was added by 179.43.141.169 (talk • contribs)

The OED, whatever its merits and faults can not and in fact does not claim jurisdiction over American English. As this page claims to have a slight preference for American English as a "default" where other spellings wouldn't be self-evident (such as in an article on England), the spelling "traveller" is indeed idiosyncratic when it appears in the same text as "flavor" or "center". I hope that clears that up. Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I think part of the issue is, as Powers intimates, 'voyager' sounds, unfortunately, rather clunky in English. Whilst I'm a big fan of the Baudelaire quote on my User Page and the effective arkeeting of this site, I'd rather we didn't end up making things sounds too contrived. Is there another way around this? --Nick ^talk 22:40, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dealing with pages like xyz "travel"

We have a lot of pages with names such as historical travel. If we want to reduce our use of said word(s) maybe we could or should find alternatives? What are your thoughts? Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Why do you think we should reduce the use of words like "Historical" in article titles? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think Hobbitschuster was critizing the use of "travel", not "historical". As in X travel, Y travel, Z travel, etc. Texugo (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

How would you propose to retitle such articles, in that case? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It would seem that in some cases the word tourism is not entirely inappropriate... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:53, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing a problem that needs fixing here. Texugo (talk) 23:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is one of distinguishing us from that other site, and thus maybe gaining recognition and/or search engine benefits... Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Spelling for Liberia

First a disclaimer: I have never been to Liberia and know little about it. Here goes: As Liberia was founded as a sort of kind of American colony and up until 1980s all its presidents were (descendents of) African Americans who had been (or whose ancestors had been) brought to the US as slaves, is it safe to assume (and thus prescribe) American spelling for Liberia? Or is Liberian English more in the British vein? Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Liberia is named for its historical role as home for liberated American slaves after the Underground Railroad and Civil War eras had ended Caribbean slaves, repatriated by the American Colonization Society from 1822 to 1847. Its capital Monrovia was named in 1824 for Monroe, a US president who supported the scheme. De facto, it's a former US colony, independent in 1847. As such, I can't be arsed to "fix" any Americanisms which creep into the text. K7L (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, from what I understand, American English is definitely standard in Liberia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Linking slaves to the "buy" section of the US article is harsh. But I like your sense of humor ;-). So we can put it into mainspace: Liberia-American English? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, as only one other country comes to mind with a national capital named for a US president. Oddly, Monrovia#Understand says little or nothing, but w:Monrovia has the background and Liberia#Understand has some info. For that matter, is there a chance we can drop the huge warning box on the article indicating Monrovia as a Dallas-sized cesspool of Ebola? It's over now. K7L (talk) 01:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You know how the (somewhat stupid) saying goes: it's a wiki... ;-) Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Spelling in articles that mention places in the US and British Commonwealth cultural spheres alike

Swept in from the pub

There have recently been issues about spelling (I myself am probably not entirely innocent to say the least). Our general policy appears to be rather straightforward at first glance (though it has by no means been without controversy, again I am not innocent on that front). But now I think there may be an issue that does not have a good solution either way.

While I favor American spelling on the account of it being slightly more phonetic and less "French" in the spelling of "center" and "flavor", the thing I favor more is internal consistency. So if an article is spelled entirely and consistently in British English (even if that goes against policy) that is fine with me.

However, there remains the issue what we do with travel topics or itineraries or other articles that cover countries where British spelling applies and other countries where Websterian English applies. Say for example an article about travel related organizations/organisations from Australia and the US. If we spell stuff British in the parts that are about the Commonwealth and American for the parts that are about America or her allies, the overall consistency and uniform "feel" of the article is lost (no small thing in a well written article, if you ask me) if we apply one spelling throughout the advocates of the spelling we did not chose will be (understandably) angry. How do we extricate us from this quagmire? Or is this a total non-issue that only a handful of users even notice, let alone care about? Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that our site favored U.S. English unless a clear-cut, unambiguous case could be made for some other dialect. If that's true, then it would seem to me that any article that dealt with multiple different dialect areas would default to U.S. English. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mostly a non-issue. See Wikivoyage_talk:Spelling#Suggestion. Also Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, ...". Pashley (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If the article is started in British, Australian or Canadian English, I see no strong reason to change that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

But what if an article didn't start in any specific variety per se but was written by more than one author in more than one dialect to begin with? And if consistency were unimportant, why not start spelling everything with our very own spelling? After all, some newspapers in Germany actually did that when they disliked some of the changes to the German orthography that were made starting in 1998. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If some spelling variant or destinations using one of them dominate, then a person copywriting should probably use that. Otherwise using US spelling or the variant one is confident with should probably be OK. This is hardly a big issue, unless somebody starts searching for this kind of articles and changes them according to his preferences also where some other variant would be the natural choice. --LPfi (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

kilometer (sic) and liter

Swept in from the pub

I propose that Wikivoyage:Spelling favour the spelling "kilometre" and "litre". No one uses "kilometer" or "liter" in the real world, as Americans are stubbornly non-metric every inch of the way and the rest of the world does not Americanise the spellings of these words. This should be reverted. American cars are rated in "miles per gallon" and, anywhere else, it's "litre". K7L (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

We do use liters in the U.S. Coke comes in 3-liter bottles, I do believe (as a non-Coke drinker). Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? Americans do not stubbornly refuse to recognise that the metric system exists, they just prefer not to adopt it wholesale for a multitude of reasons. Feel free to check out w:Kilometre if you want the correct American English spelling. (Spoiler alert : It is Kilometer ) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I did look at w:Kilometre#United States and w:Metrication in the United States. No sign of any use of metric on US highways. K7L (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But liters are used. Bottles of 750 cl are also sold here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Whenever possible, avoid using either the -er or re spellings; use "km", "ml", etc. instead. Pashley (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Isn't this just like every other regional variation in spelling? We use kilometer in articles about America and which have a preference for American spelling (Japan, Korea, Israel, etc), and kilometre in all the others. In articles which have no preference either way, such as Ecotourism, then our policy dictates we should use the American 'kilometer' (as much as it pains me to say it). Both kilometer and liter are used, both in and outside of America. For example, Japan appears to use 'kilometer', including on their official tourism website. James A ▪ talk 04:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Japan is not an English-speaking country and doesn't even use the same alphabet. K7L (talk) 14:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not the point. Japan has a much closer connection with the US than Britain, so more Japanese people know American than British English. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Japan usually uses the same abbreviations as we advise: km and L. Since the U.S. has been known to change its spelling orthodoxy for fashionable reasons (eg: Theater -> Theatre) maybe we could be ahead of the curve for once and take up km7L's suggestion? BushelCandle (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it that the spelling of theatre was changed from theater in places like New York, or that we never fully embraced a change in spelling theatre here, in the first place? I don't know the answer. Do you? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In the sciences, metric units are used almost everywhere, including the US (if they don't, some Mars rovers may be lost). And as the US are the leading country in science, they prefer the spelling "liter" and it has thus become a de facto standard in most of the English language science papers. Furthermore changing the spelling would fly in the face if longstanding policy. And as I know from personal experience, changing policy on spelling is more pain than it is worth. Hobbitschuster (talk) 09:51, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, NASA has used only metric units at least since 1999... Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's rather far outside our project scope, unless this is a joke. United States of America#By UFO anyone? The traveller is going to see Interstate highways, in miles, is going to see filling stations, in "US gallons"; crashing unmanned probes into Mars is out of scope because they're robots, not people. Sadly, if there are any US awards for metric achievement, they're not being conferred on this lot of rocket scientists. I suppose cocaine smugglers *are* travellers, but are they our target market? The hapless voyager trying to guess whether the price of petrol in Clayton (New York) has gotten just as bad as the rest of Gananoque is going to have some serious number crunching to do, with differences in both units of measure and currency. 3.78 litres? That's the state of the road every mile of the way, travel by rail in North America is even more stubbornly non-metric. Even waypoints on non-US rail lines are miles here. K7L (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere fast. There are official American spellings of metrics measurements, and unless Wikivoyage wants to create a brand new variant of American English then just leave well alone. There is seriously no benefit to anyone for creating exceptions which would confuse even more. Andrewssi2 (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree for the few cases where spelled-out units are needed. However, often just abbreviating to "km" or whatever avoids the problem; that should be the default choice. Pashley (talk) 22:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with Andrewssi2; this entire discussion strikes me as little more than an excuse to take cheap potshots at American dialect and units of measurement, with the actual problem we're trying to solve yet to be articulated. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I only raised the issue as one user has been following my edits to travel topics by taking out the word "kilometre" (which is valid English) and substituting "kilometer" for no clear reason. This has been going on since March or so, as I recall the April 1 time travel joke was one of the affected pages. If saying that "America's roads are in miles" is somehow a cheap shot, so be it. I just don't like being told I've done something wrong because I've (validly) used "x miles (1.609x kilometres)" as a distance in some topic which has nothing to do with the USA per se. K7L (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. The pub is meant as a place for informal discussions of all sorts, and it's important to assume good faith. It's perfectly acceptable to suggest that a discussion is meandering, but suggestions that a discussion shouldn't have been started at all are perhaps a bit across the line; anyone who doesn't care about a subject has the option to not participate.
2. Regarding the comment that K7L was chastised for using a certain spelling variety ("I just don't like being told I've done something wrong"), feel free to reference Wikivoyage:Welcome, copyeditors in response to anyone who complains - specifically "there is never a need to jump on editors using a different variety. Give some space and let the article evolve." Unless someone is specifically changing correct text to incorrect text, the nuances of spelling varieties, abbreviations, or other copyediting concerns aren't something that we should be harping on.

-- Ryan • (talk) • 02:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything posted by anyone suggesting that K7L should not have started the topic. I did suggest that the entire discussion was going nowhere when phrases such as "I suppose cocaine smugglers *are* travellers" are being used as a point of argument. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think policy is rather clear. Were nothing indicates one spelling or another (such as a travel topic about multiple countries) American spellings are to be used preferably. If we want to introduce a further idiosyncrasy (besides our use of the double l when "travelling") it should be well thought out and well reasoned for. The fact that many Americans are struggling with metric units is imho not a sufficient reason. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It's true that American spellings are preferred, and "kilometer" is included in that. But much more important is the principle that we don't just go around changing one valid spelling into another for the sake of "consistency". Unless we're talking about a star nomination, it just doesn't matter. Powers ^(talk) 18:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hawaiian spelling

The Hawaiian alphabet has two features not found in English, which are routinely used in place names: (1) The ʻokina (the thing that looks a little bit like an opening single quote) is considered a letter and is not omitted in official "correct" spelling (example: Kauaʻi; Hawaiʻi). (2) All of the vowels have long versions with macron (kahakō): Āā, Ēē, Īī, Ōō, Ūū (example: Wailuā). In English Wikipedia, the page names for articles about places tend to use the English version, so that Kauaʻi redirects to Kauai, but the island is spelled Kauaʻi throughout the article. The Wikipedia wp:DIACRITICS guideline governs article names. So, here is what I propose for Wikivoyage articles about places in Hawaiʻi: (1) Use the common English spelling for page names, with a redirect from the local spelling. (2) In the introduction, use both the English and local spelling, e.g., "Kauai (or Kauaʻi) is...". (3) Use local spelling throughout the rest of the article. (4) The adjective "Hawaiian" should always be spelled without the ʻokina, because this is a common proper adjective in English. Peter Chastain (talk) 13:43, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me, but I don't know much about Hawai'i. Pashley (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to spell things differently in titles versus in prose. In fact, it's more confusing that way and requires the use of pipelinks (or redirects). The only reason Wikipedia does it that way is because the pro- and anti-diacritic factions can't agree to change either the article titles policy or the spelling policy, so both remain in their current states. There is no way we should import a "rule" that exists only due to Wikipedian dysfunction. Powers ^(talk) 02:19, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Speling and travel topics

Swept in from the pub

Do we really need this sort of edit? This is a travel topic with no clear reason to favour or favor one regional spelling over another, yet someone keeps changing spellings in valid articles just to edit-war specific English language varieties into pages. K7L (talk) 19:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This kind of thing is a distraction and doesn't advance our goals in any way, but there isn't any policy as such that prevents it. I would just urge our regular contributors to not change spellings unless it is to pursue consistency in an article. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

We should avoid having travel topics that freely mix American and British spellings. Something like that just looks hodgepodge and does us a disservice. If I am not mistaken the article was a mix of British and American spellings before that edit. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:06, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

(reply to Andrewssi2) WV:Spelling and WV:Welcome, copyeditors are the two guidelines that are relevant, and both have sections about changing spelling variants that suggest leaving things alone in most (but not all) cases. -- Ryan • (talk) • 21:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

They do not say many words on this (i.e. what a slight preference means remains unclear). The practice on sw-wp is to do such changes (e.g. get rid of archaic phrases) only when doing more extensive copyediting. Searching for some such specific "error" and fixing it in a batch of articles is frowned upon. I think that practice should be followed also here. Unless the language otherwise is near perfect in some article, mixing variants is no big deal. I have the impression Americanization is done also in articles without variant consistency, when a non-American edit is seen on the last changes or watchlist, which is quite irritating. Whether allowed or not, irritating other users is hardly good for the site. There are many less well written articles out there, which really need copyediting. --LPfi (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I edited this policy

See here for what I added. If you disagree with my additions, please discuss it here. Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Third choice

I would like to add text along these lines:

Whenever a dialectical difference in either spelling or word choice can be avoided, it should be. Do not use either "kilometre" or "kilometer" where "km" can simply be used instead, avoid both American "drugstore" and British "chemist" by using "pharmacy", and so on. This applies even in articles on US or UK destinations since our readership is international.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Instead of saying "Whenever a dialectical difference in either spelling or word choice can be avoided, it should be" could the wording be "In cases where a dispute over a dialectical difference in either spelling or word choice can be resolved by using a different word, it should be"? There is nothing wrong with using "drugstore" in a US article or "chemist" in a British article. -- Ryan • (talk) • 19:33, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not only is there nothing wrong with it, but I'd say it's preferable; we should be using language that the traveler will encounter in the destination. Powers ^(talk) 01:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we should avoid confusing readers with terms they are unlikely to know. And some Britishisms are very much unknown outside Great Britain itself, whereas some American terms might be obscure (or appear misapplied) to non-Americans. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have much trouble figuring out what a "drugstore" is, but a "chemist" in the U.S. is a scientist. I would favo(u)r "pharmacy", but I don't think anyone should spent one second replacing "chemist" with "pharmacy". Think about it: Logically, an American reading is not going to think a chemist (scientist) is going to be listed in an article, right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Traveller / traveler 'rule'. Let's get rid of it.

The singular preference for the spellings "traveller" / "travelling" over the "traveler" / "traveling" spellings is a strange policy that should be revoked. Here are my reasons:

• On the pub, User:Ground Zero wrote "It would be absolutely bizarre to tell people to spell one word a particular way for the pub and policy pages, but not any other words." I quite agree, but it is not just bizarre on those particular pages; it's bizarre full stop. We don't mandate the 'correct' spelling of any other word, even those which are intimately linked to travel.

• The policy seems to have no justification for existence, other than vague historical reasons. So "it dates back to the origins of the site." So what? This is an ostensibly pointless tradition perpetuating itself just because "that's the way things have always been done."

• Enforcing the two-L spelling on destination articles where American English is spoken is particularly egregious and counterintuitive to most people editing those pages, who are used to using American English on those articles even if they normally use another variety of English. It is also likely to be jarring for anyone reading an article to be confronted with the "wrong" spelling for the geographical area they're reading about.

• There are just as many search results for "traveler" as for "traveller", which suggests the rule is either not widely known or is widely ignored. It's not a rule if only a minority of editors follow it.

• It doesn't serve the Traveller to see his name spelt only one way rather than another. Whether we have this rule or not has no bearing on the traveller comes first, therefore it is a rule simply for the sake of having a rule, of the type which I believe Wikivoyage normally does its best to avoid.

• Changing this rule doesn't mean we have to change anything else, such as the spelling of the name of the Travellers' Pub. There is no effort involved in quietly letting this one die.

So, rather than waste time trying to enforce the 'correct' spelling over thousands of articles in adherence of a rule with no clear raison d'être, let's abandon the rule. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment - it would be useful to see what the original rationale for this rule was. I suspect that it comes from Wikitravel, but I have not been able to find that discussion. Does anyone know where it is? Ground Zero (talk) 14:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I also suspect it comes from Wikitravel, which may indicate why this word was considered so "special" :-) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree. With all due respect to Evan, the founder of Wikitravel, IMO, this is a silly guideline, let alone rule. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the statement that was added in this Nov 2013 edit, viz. "One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage documentation—this dates back to the origins of the site." What it means is that we have pages in the "Wikivoyage" namespace with names such as Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first, Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub and Wikivoyage:Fellow traveller Expedition. These pages date back to the origins of the site. The text in these pages (excluding pub discussions) uses the "traveller" spelling for consistency with the page titles. There may be other long-standing pages in the "Wikivoyage" namespace that do not have the word "traveller" in the page title, but do have it in the text of the page (I haven't checked). I assume the intent of the statement added in Nov 2013 was to forestall editors wasting time by changing long-standing text in "Wikivoyage" namespace and having others revert it – and to document the history of the usage by way of a kind of "frequently asked question". It has nothing to do with destination articles; it does not apply to "thousands of articles". There seems to be a misunderstanding about what "Wikivoyage documentation" means. Nurg (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There is definitely confusion. See the pub discussion too. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 11:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing in the current policy preventing anyone from stating "travelers on Route 66 should stop in Radiator Springs to soak up the local color" in a discussion of the U.S. Numbered Highway System, even if its not proper English. The wording is "One exception to this is the preference for the British 'traveller' rather than the American 'traveler' in Wikivoyage documentation—this dates back to the origins of the site". An article on Peach Springs, Arizona (or whatever other random US66 point) isn't "Wikivoyage documentation", it's a geographic destination page.

I can't see renaming "fellow traveller" to "fellow voyager" as the term is a reference to the Sputnik of the Soviet cold war era (to which an infurated US responded "To the moon, Alice! To the moon!" before sending a Voyager as the first Mars lander a couple decades later). Some of the others might be worth changing to "voyager", for instance "The voyager comes first" as the one central principle.

If anything, I'd leave "traveller" alone (as the current policy only affects "Wikivoyage documentation", a very narrow scope) but put an end to the endless, arbitrary replacements of valid English spelling with US spelling in non-US, non-UK destinations. If our rationale for those edits is that Evan used to live in the US before he moved to Montréal, that is a bizarre and arbitrary decision which need not be perpetuated. K7L (talk) 17:31, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

So my original thoughts about this policy (that it was simply for policy pages and other off-guide pages like the pub) are confirmed to be true by people who were here back in the days of WT. However, the fact remains that some editors (certainly User:AndreCarrotflower and User:Ground Zero, probably others too) have interpreted "Wikivoyage documentation" to mean "everything every article on Wikivoyage." Therefore, if we don't get rid of the rule (and I still don't see a reason to keep it, even just for policy pages), the wording at the very least needs to be changed to avoid this kind of confusion again. Also, voyager is a clunky and pompous-sounding word in English and is best avoided, IMHO. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

No-one has interpreted it to mean "everything on Wikivoyage", as it would be ridiculous to have a spelling rule for user pages and talk pages. If we don't want this rule to apply to articles about destinations, let's make that explicit, to avoid confusion as ThunderingTyphoons! suggests. I think it makes sense to keep it for things like Wikivoyage:The traveller comes first, Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub and Wikivoyage:Fellow traveller Expedition to avoid debates on renaming those pages. Ground Zero (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Regarding my comments in the Pub: regardless of what "Wikivoyage documentation" means, the "traveler"/"traveller" rule has been enforced (inasmuch as it has been enforced at all) as if it applies to mainspace plus projectspace. I, too, have used the "traveller" spelling in my writing exclusively, whether about U.S. or non-U.S. destinations; I imagine those instances will have to be edited. However, in the end I have no preference for the double-L spelling, nor (with all due respect) do I see Evan's long-ago arbitrary spelling decrees as carrying any weight in a democratically governed community that he hasn't been a member of in any real way for over a decade, so I'm fine with whatever consensus decides here. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

They won't have to be edited. I think the point here is that it's silly to have any guidelines that are interpreted as enabling edits specifically to add an L to the word in articles about the U.S. and such. We still will have guidelines discouraging people from wasting time with such unimportant edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

To move this along, I propose to replace:

"One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage documentation—this dates back to the origins of the site."

by

"One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage project pages such as policy and guideline pages, expedition pages, and the name of the Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub. The general rule of following local usage in English-speaking countries (and using "traveler" elsewhere) applies to articles."

This is probably longer than needed, but given that we are trying to clarify things here, it is probably worth it. Ground Zero (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Support - a long winded, but clear, policy is better than a brief and ambiguous one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Support, maybe changing the words in brackets to "(and using "traveler" if appropriate elsewhere)", so that nobody is tempted to go changing UK articles. AlasdairW (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. The policy, as it stands, is more than clear. If anything, the new proposal is more confusing - and it appears to be formulated as a pretext to replace valid uses of "traveller" in non-US destinations and topics with "traveler" for no good reason. If something isn't broken, don't fix it. K7L (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• The discussion above demonstrates that the current policy is unclear. Seasoned editors can't seem to agree what it means as some of us, but not others, think that it means that "traveler" should be replaced in all articles by "traveller", a policy that doesn't seem to have much rationale. Our general policy on spelling is to "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling." Ground Zero (talk) 01:13, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• There are two separate issues at play here: one, the definition of "Wikivoyage documentation" (which, yes, is ambiguous), and two, how the policy has been enforced in practice (i.e. as if the "traveller" spelling was de rigueur across the board with the exception of talk pages). It's a confusing jumble, and I absolutely support the idea of amending policy to clarify. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the proposed wording is as clear as mud. It also creates problems by encouraging the pointless removal of "traveller" from non-US destinations where it's perfectly valid. K7L (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'd welcome any suggestions you would have to make it clearer. Ground Zero (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Here is a revised proposal to bring the clarification closer to the wording of the general rule: replace

"One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage documentation—this dates back to the origins of the site."

by

"One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage project pages such as policy and guideline pages, expedition pages, and the name of the Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub. For articles, the general rule applies, i.e., follow local usage in countries that use English or have a clear preference for the variety to use, and use "traveler" elsewhere."

Ground Zero (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that looks fine. Orrr, we could just remove the current rule and not replace it with anything. Why have this one-word exception at all? As noted above, we won't be obliged to change the spelling of the Travellers' Pub etc. That is still an option. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I think I agree with this. It'd be simplest to remove the rule. However, if we want to use the language above (which I'd approve in the absence of the deletion of the rule), I'd replace "For articles" with "For other articles". Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You're still opening the floodgates for a lot of pointless replacements of "traveller" with "traveler" in non-US, non-UK destinations. I'd remove the entire second sentence from what you've proposed; there's no need for this and nothing in what we have now prohibits "traveler" being used to identify the voyager to a US destination. K7L (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Ikan and TT: the rule, as amended would be intended to avoid squabbling over the name of the pub, and policy and guideline pages. Maybe we don't need that any more since these things are long established. Deleting the rule would be the simplest option. K7L: since the second sentence merely restates the general rule on spelling variations, there would be no floodgates opened. Ground Zero (talk) 00:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with any of the three solutions already proposed, btw. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the rule might suffice, if most of those who remember the existence of such a rule remember this discussion. Otherwise some may remember there was a rule, but cannot find it and use their memories instead. If we change the rule and add the clarifying sentence, then the clarification should agree with how the general rule is defined elsewhere. Just saying "... the general rule applies." is the safest option (the wording above shows a greater preference for American English than the current "general rule"). --LPfi (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If the only reason why we had a preference was that User:EvanProdromou used to live in the US before moving to Montréal, given that he hasn't contributed to a Wikivoyage destination article in four years, perhaps we should simply go to "no preference" for non-US, non-UK destinations. Period. K7L (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The reason we had a preference is that the traveller comes first. Mixed spelling on the same page or different pages is irritating to read and causes needless edits. Having a simple site-wide style guide is best for readers and contributors. It breaks my heart every time a wasteful and extended discussion of the spelling guide happens here. Good luck with whatever the new proposal is. --EvanProdromou (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

If you had wanted to preempt spelling arguments, starting this guide with a rule that all spelling would follow American or British or Canadian or some other dialect of English would have been the way to go. Making an exception for a single word doesn't help; it just confuses people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikivoyage.org/w/index.php?title=Wikivoyage:Spelling&oldid=1793556 . Good luck with the change. --EvanProdromou (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I see. We should have stuck with that simple language! Unfortunately, I think it's probably too late to go back to it, but I would support reverting to that version. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Third proposal

Here is a third proposal to try to land this: per LPfi's suggestion, replace

"One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage documentation—this dates back to the origins of the site."

by

"One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage project pages such as policy and guideline pages, expedition pages, and the name of the Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub. For articles, the general rule applies."

This is my last attempt to resolve this, so if this is not acceptable, (a) someone else could try to mediate where I've failed, or (b) we just leave things the way they are where longtime editor's can't agree on what the policy says. (I'm not in favour of that option, but I've tried.) Ground Zero (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• I'm OK with this, though I wish we could revert to the simple language Evan linked to. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I would expect that after that was written, Wikivoyage was joined by many speakers of non-US varieties of the language who were not happy with the adoption of US English as the standard and argued successfully for a change to the policy. I think opening that can of worms again would not be a good use of our efforts. Ground Zero (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed. It was a bad position for Wikitravel to take when it was independently run, worse still for Wikivoyage as a member of the WMF family with a well-established worldwide userbase. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:04, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support the new proposal by Ground Zero. This wording is the best yet, haha. ThunderingTyphoons! (talk)

I also agree with the point that trying to rewrite all the spelling rules is not in the site's best interests. There's nothing broadly wrong with the status quo, just this minor "traveller" issue, that we're about to resolve. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Support, with thanks to Ground Zero for coming up with this wording. Let's settle this issue so we can move on. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:50, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
• Support AlasdairW (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to plunge forward and declare a consensus on this, and make the change. As with all Wikivoyage policies, it's not etched in stone, so if anyone wants to propose further refinements or a wholesale change, they are welcome to do so. Ground Zero (talk) 14:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks for taking this by the horns and dragging it over the finish line. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Seconded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

History question

When did Wikitravel (because this would have happened on Wikitravel) make the decision to complicate things and go away from the very simple policy of favoring American spelling that was in the "spelling policy" version Evan linked to above? Why was the decision made? It would be so good to revert to that, though I doubt going back to it could attain a consensus. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Weren't there some very vocal partisans of British spellings? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I would think that an international project trying to attract an international readership would not want to present itself as using only one variant of the language, even for simplicity's sake. Dialectical hegemonism seems contrary to the spirit of the project. Ground Zero (talk) 17:03, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Is there a typo in there, Ground Zero, or have you changed your mind? We have at least one very vocal partisan of a particular dialect, but he's not for British spellings ;-) Honestly, I think revisiting this discussion will cause the project more harm than good. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Corrected. Thanks TT. Ground Zero (talk) 17:55, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

British vs. American spellings

Swept in from the pub

I've long had the understanding that on this site we use British spellings in articles about places under the sphere of British influence (e.g. the EU and the British Commonwealth), and American spellings in articles about places under the sphere of American influence (e.g. Mexico, South Korea, etc.). So I was very surprised when another editor disagreed with my use of the American spelling of the word 'traveler' in an article about a place in the US, and insists that the British spelling of the word is more appropriate as it is 'Wikivoyage style'. A search reveals many many uses of both British and American spellings on this site, and I cannot find a policy page anywhere that states that only the British spelling of this word can be used. Could someone please point out the relevant policy page? –StellarD (talk) 17:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The policy page was linked in the second edit summary. The relevant section is: "If the destination has no history of using English and no clear preference for the variety to use, we prefer US English spelling. This isn't because US English is somehow better or to stomp on the rights, heritage, and cultures of other English-speaking countries. We just have decided to pick one default spelling style for consistency. One exception to this is the preference for the British "traveller" rather than the American "traveler" in Wikivoyage documentation—this dates back to the origins of the site." -

Personally, I interpret "Wikivoyage documentation" to mean policy pages, the pub, maybe talk pages and travel topics that aren't geographically restricted, but not to most articlespace, and certainly not to destination articles for places in the U.S. That would be absurd. What does anyone else think of my reading? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I do find this exception to be odd, and I don't know where it comes from (way before my time). But it is there, and I linked it in the edit summary. It might be time to revisit this policy on its talk page if other people object to it. Ground Zero (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I would edit neither spelling in articles about the U.S. or any other country where the "ll" spelling isn't indisputably standard. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The relationship between British and American English is dynamic. Americanisms (such as World War I instead of the First World War) tend to dominate in domains which are not defined by geography. /Yvwv (talk) 22:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

"Wikivoyage documentation" is pages in the "Wikivoyage" namespace, e.g. policy pages and the name of the "Travellers' pub" – not travel topic articles. Of course, you can use whatever spelling you like in pub discussions (and Talk pages), but the name of the pub page is spelt "Travellers' pub". For articles about US places, it's better to use "traveler", which has has been the more common US spelling since about 1910 (before 1910, "traveller" was more common in the US). Nurg (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Again, Wikivoyage convention is to use the double-L spelling for "traveller", irrespective of whether the article is about a U.S. place. This has been held to supersede the guidelines laid out in the rest of Wikivoyage:Spelling#National varieties of English dating back to the origins of the site. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

That's a very permissive interpretation of "Wikivoyage documentation" (which is actually quite unclear wording, since we can't agree on what it means), and clearly not one which is adhered to in reality; there are just as many search results for "traveler" as for "traveller". Even if the original intention behind the rule was to make the "travell-" spelling standard across all WV articles, which I doubt, vague historical convention is not a good enough justification in my books to perpetuate an arbitrary and pointless rule which probably isn't followed by the majority of editors on this site and which it seems nobody has bothered enforcing until this Southeast Arizona disagreement came to light. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Big-Endians and Small-Endians - does it really matter so much which area of a boiled egg to break open in order to eat it. -- Matroc (talk)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘We don't prescribe spelling for non-article spaces anywhere else. It would be absolutely bizarre to tell people to spell one word a particular way for the pub and policy pages, but not any other words. Unless we have a written definition of "Wikivoyage documentation" somewhere that says otherwise, the only logical interpretation is that it means articles. I am far from the first editor to change this -- I have seen lots of others making this change. That is how I became aware of this oddity in the first place. Yes, some editors don't follow this rule, but that's true of all of our rules, including "don't tout" or "be fair" or "avoid negative reviews". That isn't a good argument for abandoning a rule. If people don't like the policy, they should propose a change on the policy's talk page, as I suggested above. Ground Zero (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I don't see the point in moving discussions that have already got going from one place to another. This is all going to get swept to the policy page eventually, and the pub is practically the most visible discussion page on the whole site. However, it's another one of these peculiar WV traditions, so I've opened a discussion at the policy talk page. Please direct your thoughts over there. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

A lot of this discussion has been about whether the rule applies, or about ignoring the rule. I think it is better to have an explicit discussion about changing the rule so that it is clear what we are talking about. Thanks for getting it started. Ground Zero (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I would like to propose changing the main policy and not use American English in some parts of the world and British English in others. Lets be consistent and have the same everywhere. To avoid arguments from US and UK supporters lets change all to Canadian English. --Traveler100 (talk) 06:31, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah and after we do that, let's all go on a team-building retreat. I hear Mars is beautiful this time of year. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

What about German capitalization and phonetic spelling tho? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Đat wüd nevə wurk. -- ÞunderingTīfoons (Tork) 21:44, 1 Æpril 2018.

Per the discussion on the talk page, this policy had now been revised/clarified. Ground Zero (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

School vs practical usage

I just realise we have a bit of an issue here in picking which variety to use. To my knowledge, in many non-English-speaking areas like Europe (except the UK, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta of course), China and Thailand, people learn British English in school, but due to exposure to Hollywood films, songs and TV series, in practice people who know English are more likely to use American English. So which variety should we use then? The dog2 (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)