Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Manual of Style

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.183.128.36 (talk) at 17:13, 15 May 2011 (→Flag icons at Variants of English templates: cmt on flags). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts

Proposal to standardize citation style across all articles

Editors here may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/example style#why_not_standardize_on_one_format.3F, an effort to impose a one-size-fits-all citation style on every article. My overall impression is that the goals are to ban general references, to require the use of <ref> tags (banning WP:PAREN and all other forms of WP:Inline citations), and to require the use of citation templates.

I'm leaving this note because the discussion is taking place on a fairly obscure talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject guides moving to MOS space

FYI, a large number of WikiProject local guides are being renamed to MOS names, without any indication that those guides have any support other than local wikiproject support. See WP:RM contributions by user:Bernolákovčina

65.93.14.196 (talk) 06:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors here may want to see User talk:WhatamIdoing#I_Am_Trying_To_Cleanup_The_Category, where Bernolákovčina (a "new" user with extensive knowledge) has explains that s/he "needs to" tag {{Wikiproject style advice}} pages as community-wide {{MoS-guideline}} pages, and possibly delete Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation of TV show titles

An issue has arisen regarding the Canadian adaptation of the UK TV Series Being Human.

I have just moved Being Human (Canadian TV series) to Being Human (2011 TV series) as WP:MOSTV states "If a television article already exists with the name of the show that you are trying to create an article for, use (YEAR TV series) in the title: Show Title (YEAR TV series) (e.g. The Incredible Hulk (1982 animated TV series) and The Incredible Hulk (1996 animated TV series))."

However, WP:NC-TV#Additional disambiguation isn't so sure. It states "Prefix the country of broadcast" first, then follows with "Prefix the year of release or series debut"

Any opinions on this?

Rob Sinden (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the conflict is a bloody mess. I mean the policy conflict. I moved it from Being Human (U.S. TV series) to Being Human (2011 TV series) and i had to prove that it is made in Montreal by a company based in Montreal and that Montreal is not part of the United States of America. If one goes with the country then there is the massive fight, of which it might be me against everyone else, over whether to put in US or Canadian TV series. It has become somewhat of a theme from me to come along and say, "Sorry folks but this 'American' show is actually made in Canada by a company based in Montreal/Toronto/Victoria/Calgary/etc for THIS Canadian channel and has simply been imported to the US so we can have Canadian or YEAR or North American if disambiguation is needed." People i am finding more often than not really, really, really, really hate being told that a tv show is not American. An obvious British import is ok. Sneaking a Canadian show into a schedule is not so ok. I moved Being Human from US to 2011 because it seemed a good way to avoid a fight. Someone came along and moved it to Canadian because the original version is still ongoing and then there was objection to such overt labelling of it as Canadian (moreso in comments on many external sites than here on WP). The remake of Skins is in the same situation but there is a fight/discussion regarding Skins. Both of these shows are made in Canada by Canadian companies for Canadian cable channels but due to their also being shown in the US they are de facto labelled as American when the articles are written because American press is more prominent. Queer As Folk existed for many years on WP being called an American series despite it being made in Toronto by a Toronto-based production company for a Toronto-based Canadian cable channel just because it was shown on Showtime in the US and Showtime tossed in a little bit of money to get co-production credit. Now we have a rather long title that of late noöne is fighting over, Queer as Folk (North American TV series). Since all of these shows require disambiguation in the article names due to being remakes of British TV this presents quite the problem. Personally i prefer labelling bi-national remakes of British shows by year of premiere because "North American TV series" is just really long and uncommon and to avoid the intense fighting over nationality of the shows mostly because rarely is a discussion not dominated by Americans and the plethora of American reliable sources they can site to show i am wrong or in the minority for saying the company making a show and its principal channel are Canadian. What mention there was of Skins being made in Toronto and starring many Canadians has been almost entirely removed from the article so as to solidify its Americanised status. Haven (TV series) presently requires no disambiguation for tv remakes but it is another bi-national production between Shaw Media and NBC Universal. Shattered (2010 TV series) is set in Canada but bought for international broadcast by NBC Universal. Rookie Blue is made by Canadian companies for domestic broadcast and is set in Toronto but bought by ABC for US broadcast and by NBC Universal for international broadcast. For a year the article on Rookie Blue called it a forthcoming American TV series. Then there is The Listener (TV series); i have heard rumour of there being remakes elsewhere which if they materialise would necessitate disambiguating those. This might not all be so on-topic for here but the policies and guidelines are reflective of the editing and the editing can in places be extremely anti-non-American and it is very frustrating to be a (relatively) lone voice. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 00:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I moved Being Human (2011 TV series) to Being Human (Canadian TV series) yesterday because the original show is still airing with a new season out this year. The example of Shattered (2010 TV series) that you gave is not really valid in this case because the original show only existed in 2004 and is not being produced at the same time. Hopefully we can get some consensus from some other members regarding this. Themeparkgc  Talk  08:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Shattered is an example of a word common enough that it is possible a third show of that name could come along 2 years from now. Problems now and potential future issues with the naming was what i was showing. The issues are not all the same but i was trying to show the variety of issues connected to disambiguating shows of same name or of a single common word that may be from the same or different countries and might be overlapping or not and multinational or of one country. With the increase in popularity of importing Canadian shows to the US or co-producing shows with Canadian companies the national disambiguation gets very tricky, especially if the show is really popular. There is a precedent for use of "North American" but it is both long and uncommon to search for so national redirects ought to exist. "North American" very easily gets shortened to "American" and then MOS corrected to "U.S." and it is right back to where it started. :P delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 08:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the credits of the Canadian/North American/2011 version include "U.S. casting by Deedee Bradley" and "Developed for North American television by Jeremy Carver & Anna Fricke". This shows that a) although it's made in Canada by a Canadian company, the casting at least had US production involvement, and b) the phrase "North American TV" is supported by the production itself. Since the year is ambiguous and "North American TV series" is both unambiguous and supported by the source, I say we should go with that. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to avoid all this U.S./Canadian/North American confusion, wouldn't it be best to disambiguate by year, using nationality only as a secondary disambiguation if necessary, much like with films, and then have hatnotes in the case where both shows are still in production? The conflicting guidelines should be updated also. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that if two shows with the same name are made during the same year, then using the year as a disambiguation doesn't actually, y'know, disambiguate. The purpose of disambiguation is to distinguish articles which would otherwise have the same title, but "Being Human (2011 series)" could refer to either the North American series or the third series/season of the UK programme. (The fact that British television uses "series" where North American TV uses "season" adds to the confusion: UK media will refer to "the third series of Being Human", or even "the 2011 series of Being Human" to refer to the run of episodes starting next Sunday.)
If we go back to the purpose of disambiguation, in this particular case we need to use a geographical disambiguator. And "North American" makes the most sense, since it's used in the source material. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 20:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I support the "North American" disambiguation. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it to Being Human (North American TV series). The point of disambiguation is to disambiguate, and if one show with this name is still being made in 2011 then using "2011" as a disambiguator for the other doesn't disambiguate at all. Added to which, as Josiah Rowe says, "series" in British English also means "season" in American English. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, anyone have thoughts on the remake of Skins and what i can do? I had moved it to Skins (North American TV series) about a week ago and it was moved back. Among many other things I have been told not to make up stories that Canada and the US are in North America and there are somewhat not-veiled threats to block people who add any bit of Canada to the article and that Canada should get its own version - the discussion there is going nowhere. I am not sure if those objecting understand the disambiguating of article titles. If you are able to see the end credits of the premiere then you can see the info that says it is produced in association with the two Canadian cable networks that show the series and other stuff that actually has it more Canadian than American. The problem in that is that mtv.com cut the end credits from their stream and maybe from their broadcast of the ep too; you can see the credits on the stream from the Canadian broadcaster. I wrote a lot there but it is mostly trying to find a way to explain how a show could possibly be made by companies from more than one country with more than one intended market. I just don't know what to do about Skins and i don't want it to be another QAF where the article existed for years full of nationally skewed info purely for being set in a US city. And yes, a few days ago i thought North American TV series ought to be used on Being Human too but i thought everyone had heard enough from me. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 22:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have over complicated this. Lets base the name the way that other popular shows do.... (e.g. X Factor and American Idol) Being Human (TV series) is what the British (original) version of the show is called. So the Canadian version should be called Being Human (Canadian TV series). If subsequent versions are made then yes Being Human (TV series) would need to become a dab page. But for now this should suffice. A hate note about the canadian version would suffice at the current page. All other na,e deviations are non-standard. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 01:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point, Lil-unique1. Nobody's talking about moving the articles for the British originals; we're talking about what the best disambiguator for the remakes is. There is a legitimate ambiguity about whether these shows are best described as US or Canadian productions; they're filmed in Canada, by Canadian production companies, but they're set in US cities, made primarily for the US television market, with cast from both countries. In the case of Being Human, the show's own credits describe it as "developed for North American television", so it would seem that "North American" is supported by the source material over either "US" or "Canadian". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note I have move-protected the page for now. Once a consensus has become clear here I'd be happy to do the move myself or remove the protection. If I am not available any other admin is free to use their own judgement. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the title Being Human (North American TV series) because it's a Canadian-American co-production. As it would be ridiculous and overly long to disambiguate it as Being Human (Canadian-American TV series, just "North American" makes sense. WoundedWolfgirl (talk) 17:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the title Being Human (North American TV Series) would be appropriate since broadcast and production are not country specific. However discussion regarding the disambiguation of the name of the article also brings up the issue of country of origin for this article. At current the article states that the country(ies) of origin are the United Kingdom and the United States. If referencing the concept or idea for the show then the United Kingdom would be correct, but I don't believe this is the intended "origin" to which the heading in the info box refers. If country of origin refers to the filming of the show, would Canada not be appropriate? Or Canada and the United States? Could this perhaps be an issue with other TV show articles? Sorry to throw another issue into the mix. Generic1487 (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Generic1487 et al., I am the one was so mean, and nasty, and disruptive in pointing out all of these shows premiering this month that are all made in Canada by Canadian companies for Canadian broadcasters that have been labelled as American due to their also being shown in the US. It has annoyed some people to no end. The fall out has not been so pleasant for myself either. Still, in light of Rookie Blue having been called an American show for a year before it premiered despite being made by, in, and for Canada with US broadcast rights later sold to ABC and Queer As Folk being called American for some 4+ years despite it being made in Canada by a Canadian company and intentionally bi-national from its inception i could not just sit by and edit the articles without saying booo about this application that if it is on American TV it is American unless it is obviously British. Oddly enough i then get called POV-obsessed for saying shows are Canadian despite what all of the American press calls them. Americans citing American sources to call shows made in Canada to be American shows is just so offensive to myself and is basically usurping Canadian entertainment industry through perpetual ignorance and misinformation. Nikita is one of many American shows made in Canada. Reliable sources can be wrong. The critic for the Wall Street Journal called the version of 18 to Life that was picked up by The CW "adapted from a Canadian hit".[1] It wasn't a remake but the "Canadian hit" itself. So much for accuracy of a reliable source. So i removed England from the country of origin for the Being Human remake but i left US in because i am just not in a mood right now for that much of a fight. Country of origin is well the country of origin. It shouldn't be that hard. Unless the US has invaded Montreal then the country of origin is simply Canada.
Being one of few Canadians who edits Canadian tv shows that are also popular in the US i see this same stuff on many shows' articles. When it is myself against 3 or 7 people and their pile of American sources they can simply bury me with consensus despite them and their sources not really being accurate but they are from generally reliable American publications that i might use in some circumstances. It is a most futile experience. No American show that gets picked up by a UK channel suddenly is a British show by virtue of being transmitted there. Even with House's titular character being portrayed by a British actor and Sky1 acquiring rights to the show it is still an American show. So why do the American editors here and the American press in general essentially steal all of the Canadian shows that are "good enough" for American viewers? Will they do the same should an Australian show make it to NBC at some time in the future? Why does noöne claim Doctor Who is American because it is on BBC America or Merlin to be American because it is on Syfy and was on NBC? Anyone who says it is the target market being US that makes it American is claiming that Shaw (a Canadian TV network-cable channel-cable company-isp-mobilephone-satellite tv-radio-tv production company) is making shows for the US rather than their own distribution system. Sure, many of the shows currently being made by Shaw are of such quality that someone bough US broadcast rights to most of them. Not one of them is actually being co-produced by a US company. As an example: Rookie Blue is an American tv police procedural drama set in Toronto that is filmed on location in Toronto and at production company Shaw Media (formerly CanWest)'s studios in Toronto which stars American actors Missy Peregrym and Gregory Smith and debuted on ABC on June 24, 2010. If you see nothing wrong with that sentence other than its poor structure then :( I think it best i watch some tv rather than write about it. Laters. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 07:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purpose of MOS

What is the purpose of editors attempting to write these guidelines when they are completely ignored on pages with the usual cry that it is only a guideline. The consensus reached on the numerous MOS all by different editors should carry some weight. Mo ainm~Talk 21:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compliance with the MOS pages is required for featured articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons at Variants of English templates

A number of parallel discussions are currently underway at three of these template talk pages namely

Other templates that would potentially be affected include Template:Australian English and Template:Canadian English, among others.

If there is a legitimate issue with a flag on a particular template (which appears to be the case with Hiberno-English), then replace it with something else (i.e. the outline of Ireland or something). Otherwise, I'm not sure there is a wider problem. I don't see any issues with the Australian and Canadian flags on those respective templates. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was strongly suggested at Template talk:British English that a centralised discussion take place. This seems the logical place for it to happen. If a consensus is to emerge it may affect all these similar templates. RashersTierney (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you think I disagree with having a centralized discussion. I just don't think a specific problem requires an across the board solution. The Australian and Canadian flags are the visual aids that are most likely to be recognized as symbols of those two variants. Much better than any of the other solutions suggested in those discussions mentioned above, all of which seemed more concerned with political issues than what visuals are likely to be of most assistance to the reader/editor. If people think there are more appropriate/less offensive alternatives for the British and Irish templates, power to them. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ther ar two main arguments for the removal of the flags

  • "British English" spelling isn't only used in the UK. Other states wher it is widely used include the Republic of Ireland, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and Pakistan. Therfore, it's inaccurat to use the UK flag to represent it. The same applies to "American English" and the US flag.
  • Some editors deem it provocativ and/or offensiv to show these flags on certain articles.

(UTC) ~Asarlaí 19:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not true that it's inaccurate to use the Union Jack. The flag indicates that the version of the language originates in the UK, and that is useful information (same for the US flag on the AmE template).
They are not shown on articles they are shown on Talk pages. Some editors also find it offensive that flags should be removed to placate what might be seen as a nationalist POV. LevenBoy (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011
@Skeezix1000 The issue was first raised as far back as March on the 'American English' page. RashersTierney (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So? You seem peeved somehow that I don't take it as it an accepted fact that we must absolutely come up with a solution that affects all the templates. If there is a problem with a flag on a specific template, fix it. If there isn't, leave it. I'm not sure why I am not allowed to have that opinion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:29, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not peeved. I made a proposal as suggested by another ed. elsewhere. RashersTierney (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So then why are you posting these responses? I'm still wondering what the start date of the U.S. discussion has anything to do with what I said. I probably wouldn't have contributed aything to this discussion other than my initial comment, but you keep responding as though I have missed something or I am not getting something. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put simply, I don't see how the flag icons could be replaced at the first three templates without a logic emerging that also affected similar templates. I have no wish to antagonise, but how else can I address your doubts other than by responding as best I can? RashersTierney (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I suspect that's a widely held opinion. I'm not sure I agree, though. Why is there any need for them to be consistent? By their very nature, none of these templates will ever appear on the same talk page. We don't have standardized visuals for Wikiproject tags, why would we need them here? Personally, I think the goal of using the most recognizable/helpful visual aid trumps standardization. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me try to summarise the main points that we need to consider:

  1. When these templates are used correctly, the flags correspond very well to the political entities representing the region where a language variant is spoken.
  2. The flags are easily recognisable, much clearer than almost everything that could replace them, except that we could consider adding a symbol that makes it clear it's about the language. (Otherwise the template looks a bit like a project template for the state in question.)
  3. The flags may occasionally appear on the talk pages of articles with no intrinsic relation to the state or the variant of English, because a speaker of that variant was the first significant contributor to the article. This should not normally be a problem.
  4. For various reasons, variants of English that are not American English are likely to be (incorrectly) classified as British English, even if they are not British English but some other variant such as Hibernian English, Australian English, New Zealand English or Canadian English.
  5. This can lead to the Union Jack appearing on the talk pages of articles where it should not appear; in the worst case on the talk pages of articles related to Ireland, but more likely (and with similar disruptive potential) of articles created by Irish editors.

In my opinion item 4 is the real problem. Ideally editors would not abuse the "British English" template for "not American English", but I don't think we can change this. This is a pity, because it means that many articles are tagged incorrectly and we can't really do anything about it.

Here is one idea: We could give {{British English}} an optional parameter "reallynotsomethingelse". So long as this parameter is not set, the template will display an alternative icon (not a flag, though maybe a collage of flags), and it will say: "This article is written in British English or possibly a similar variant of English, but not in American English. According to the relevant style guide, the article's variant of English should not be changed without broad consensus. (If this article is written in British English proper, you can add 'reallynotsomethingelse=true'. Otherwise you should replace the template by the template of the correct variant of English." Hans Adler 20:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an icon - we have very gifted graphics people who make great templates with great icons - but we don't need them - certainly not this one. Possibly some of those objecting to the flag have "agendas" which they shouldn't be exercising on templates for talk pages, possibly some of those resisting do too. Really this is second order trivia, though possibly "broadly British spelling" might be more accurate, we all know what the template means it means "colour, honour, armour, defence, offence, popinjay" and so forth. Fragmenting the ENGVAR too much is counter productive - "North Yorkshire English" - "Eastern Enfield English" we could reduce it to code-switched-idiolects and then WP:OWN can be consigned to the bit-bucket. Alternative icons are likely to be as fraught - a big en-gb for example. So either everyone has to grow up and not take offence at a flag, or we dump the flags. Whichever is fine. Rich Farmbrough, 21:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Rich, you started out great here, and better in the middle, but you end up going off the rails at the end. Not only do you take a slap at one side, you offer no solution other than a cynical false choice whereby you are somehow to be viewed as above it all, "whichever is fine". Can't anyone make a comment without belittling someone else? You give good arguments, but then unnecessarily and unsolicited you proclaim that this discussion is being propelled by people who need to "grow up". That is really not helpful at all.
As someone who has been dealing with images and graphics since the late seventies, I can tell you that there is a short period of time when the eye meets the page that causes multiple reactions in the brain. The largest words and most recognizable symbols take precedence when there is an over-abundance of information presented. On some of these talk pages, there is an incredible amount of information. A grown-up octogenarian is just as likely as a teenager to focus initially on the prominent, and placed near the top, flag of a sovereign nation when viewing a talk page for the first time. Then, they will read some of the text, and "get it". But at first, they will see, and make assumptions right or wrong due to, the flag. If there is a lot more visual information, their minds may be making decisions about the situation at hand in a less than logical way. Flags are based on military semiotics, right or wrong their display evokes emotions ranging from fear to pride. The designs of the tags, their use, the page structure and the talk page system are all much more at fault than talk page visitors, and that should be addressed. The flags are unnecessary, avoidable and in some cases unwelcome. It is not a valid argument that people who are not comfortable with the tagging of talk pages with flag icons, on a worldwide website, are somehow immature and not "grown up". At times it is about things other than sovereignty or geography. Adding flags to indicate spelling differences is a small and unfortunate symbol of article ownership and should be ended. Stopped. Eliminated. It is a bad editorial practice. Hans, parameters which turn the flag on or off would be even worse than the current situation if that is possible. It just sweeps the lack of need under the carpet by allowing yet another arbitrary decision by a fallible human to determine which type of clutter to add! My suggestion is that hidden categories, based on some approval process for good and feature articles where the spelling is truly a significant and unavoidable concern, should be allowed. A bot monitoring articles in the cats can autorevert spelling changes and notify editors who mistakenly make changes based on their own ENGVAR. Only very few articles where strong community consensus has determined that having "color" or "colour" appear in text is something worth enforcing should even have this category added. Message: stop putting national flags on internationally edited articles. It is really, really not about just one group. Ever. Veteran editors, please do not assume that you are somehow more mature than those who find a reason to not have these flags plastered all over. Age means jack shit when it comes to wisdom, and there is no wisdom to be found in keeping the flags, or even the ownership-tinged templates in general, on these pages, in spite of the convoluted reasons given here and elsewhere. Sswonk (talk) 16:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice essay. Unfortunately many of the points you make are dressed up as fact when actually they are just your opinion. I agree with the "grow up" sentiment. Editors who object to the use of flags as being discussed here should grow up! You've tried to introduce science to explain away POV, and it doesn't work I'm afraid. 212.183.128.36 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a template called {{Commonwealth English}} Commonwealth English, which is what is usually meant by "non-American"; 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, some Brits seem to mean {{North American English}} North American English, when talking about Canadian and American, tagging articles that should use Canadian English, or either Canadian or American with the American English banner. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about no icons? Then there's no more hurt feelings, no more ruffled feathers, and no more mkindbogglingly dumb MOS wankery. Who's with me? → ROUX ₪ 03:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I don't see a problem with most of the templates, and any problems with the Br-en template seem to be nicely addressed with Hans' optional parameter solution. The flags are a good visual aid, and removing them is overkill. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion for AmE have an image of "O+Z+e", for BrE have "OU+S+æ+œ", for CanE have "OU+Z+e"; seemingly the major differences in spelling are Americans don't use the U, Brits have stopped using Z but retain the encyclopædia and fœtus spellings, Canadians use both OU and Z but have dropped "ae" and "oe". 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Manual_of_Style&oldid=429259458"