Jack & Naree wrote:
Yes, it was me, I did rant, I do apologise, but I'm just pissed off with proper English being treated like this.
You have Wikipedia in Klingon, in tiny tribal languages, and now in Scots (and I'm Scottish btw) - which is basically as similar to correct English as American-English is - at least I think most native English-speakers can probably read it.
Actually, we don't have a Wikipedia in Klingon. It's a Wikicity, which is hosted by Wikia, *not* the Wikimedia Foundation.
BTW, have you considered contributing to sco.wikipedia?
"- I think we can safely consider this as not providing a great deal of useful insight into our language policy :-)" Why not? Ok, I ranted, but this not an illegitimate point, why should we (and I say that because you have a ".uk" address) be forced to accept Americanisms?
Really? I thought it was en.wikipedia.org...
If you're British, do think we should start changing our spellings to American ones? Start changing our grammar too? someone at Wikipedia ages ago wrote to me that he thought it was fine for articles in the English section to remain in the dialect relevent to their subject matter - he basically said, if it's about the UK it can be in English, but everything else is to be in American-English, but called English - and he said he was British!
Actually, the policy is (or at least was):
* If subject of article is British (or other Commonwealth English)-related, use Commonwealth English. * If subject of article is USian, use US English * If neither applies, majority style (in case both are used) of original author is preferred.
I mean there are several issues here: cultural imperialism, ambiguation (because of the many differences in American-English and English usage), and English learners learning to spell incorrectly and talk like Americans - why is it wrong to resist that?
You are welcome to create your own fork of the site in Commonwealth English, provided you comply with the GFDL.