Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Transwiki/merge. This is tricky. First, throw out the "it's not encyclopedic/its useful" arguments. There are valid concerns that it fails DICT (from my perspective, I believe they have provided adequate evidence of this), and it is an inherently subjective and worldview biased scope. The general kernel of distinction this list is based on *is* encyclopedic, but the presentation doesn't meet our criteria. To Wiktionary, or better served as a summarized part of a larger topic, I leave to editor discretion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom

edit
AfDs for this article:
List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

The article is not encyclopedic. The article is just a list. The list is subjective. There are no reliable sources for the article (Common words may be found in a dictionary, but even that isn't a reliable source for uncommon words. Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why I propose deletion

Firstly, modern British culture is to a large extent American culture. Of course there are many differences, but the movies are largely American, the TV shows are mainly American, the shoes are American, the soft drinks are American etc etc. Youth culture is particularly Americanized.

Secondly, there are always a lot more young people than old.

Thirdly, language changes very quickly, even within a generation let alone between generations.

Fourthly, language use differs widely between "speech communities" (A term used in Socio-Linguistics. Definitions of the boundaries of these include, but are certainly not exclusive to, age and region). [Part of Socio-Linguistics 101]

Because of all the above, there is no reliable source. Lists printed in books are necessarily out of date, no one person is representative of the language as a whole, and so there is no expert opinion. Only the negative is possible: "I know those words, I hear them often, so they are not uncommon (to my own Speech Community)." Or, much out of date, sources for the use of those terms in British books and/or British TV shows becomes available.

So,

  • The article is barely suitable for individual editing.
  • Consensus as to what *is* uncommon is never going to be reached.
  • Consensus as to what *isn't* uncommon is unlikely to be reached.
  • Where consensus is reached, the data will almost certainly be at least a generation and a half out of date.
  • Wikipedia is not a dictionary. And this page requires dictionary-level research.
  • A page for which individuals cannot hope to find anything close to up-to-date data has no place in an encyclopedia.
  • Wikipedia is not for keeping arbitrary lists with no basis in fact.
  • Hence this list is not informative.

--Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per the points I made here a couple of nominations ago. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the nominator's points. Very subjective and not notable. Dalejenkins | 22:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (though I don't like disagreeing with S. Marshall!). I've read through all the other AfDs, besides the articles; some of those AfDs are more contentious than they should have been. I believe (as did many, many others before me) that this is not an encyclopedic list (and not just since maintenance is a drag) and might well find a place transwikied onto Wiktionary. I do believe that this kind of list is almost impossible to manage, but worse, the way I look at lists, they should be composed of entries that are individually notable (otherwise WP is a directory), and that can only happen on Wiktionary, since the entries are (for a large part, the most part) words that are in and of themselves not notable outside of a dictionary. No one in their right mind would deny that differences between AmE and BrE exist and are notable, but that is a matter to be dealt with on a higher level, in an article, not in a list, and that article exists: American and British English differences, with the associated Category:American and British English differences. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though I often disagree with S. Marshall!) I agree with Marshall that this can be sourced; there have been reference books that "translate" American to English and vice-versa, in that it is a topic that people would consult a reference work for. I don't agree with the "it's subjective" argument that could be called the "define this, define that" school of thought (i.e., define "notable", define "widely used", etc.). Let's face, it Wikipedia is heavy on Brits and Yanks, and "en.wikipedia.org" is the English-language version of the encyclopedia where, regardless of what continent you're from, you'll encounter two versions of English. Our contributors don't have a consensus about whether they should write "humor" or "humour", and one can often tell the whether the writer is US or UK by what words are used in the article. Yes, we should strive to have a global outlook, but that doesn't mean that we have to apologize for having an article about American English and British English. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But dear Mandsford, the point I'm trying to make is that this is NOT "an article about American English and British English," as you called it--it's a list, not an article. The article already exists--this is at most an appendix, but really ought to be among other lists of words, such as found, well, on Wiktionary. While you say many a true and helpful thing, they're not to the point here. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is indeed not an article. As a list, it's even harder to maintain than a dictionary: it's a list of uncommon not common words. Those are the reasons I say it can't be reliably sourced. Nothing to do with pedantry re definition.Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree with Drmies, delete. If the only purpose of this article is to list words that happen to be Americanisms (or, weirdly, "American words" not used in the UK, as if those are the only two English dialectical regions), then it is nothing more than a dictionary. An aricle on the conceptual differences between the regions, even with ample examples, is fine, but a simple list of words specific to one dialect does not belong at Wikipedia. If I get a chance, I'll transwiki the article to Wiktionary, where I am an admin. Dmcdevit·t 06:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. There's no need to transwiki the article to Wiktionary. On Wiktionary, words are appropriately defined and tagged at their respective entries, and lists of dialect-specific words can be automatically generated via categories. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- From a spelling point of view, there are only two dialects -- American and The Other Fifteen English-Speaking Countries. But I agree that spelling isn't everything and there would be a place for (for example) a List Of Words Not Commonly Used In Australia. -- I think "it's hard to maintain" is a rubbish reason for deletion, and untrue to boot when I have half a dozen sources on my bookshelves. But for me, the most important reason to keep lists like this is because we have policies like WP:ENGVAR that require editors to write in a dialect with which they're unfamiliar. So I feel that if the consensus is to delete this list from the main wikipedia space, it should be moved to a subpage of the WP:MOS.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While that's not precisely true about spelling (Canadian English differs from both British and American, for example), in any case the article at hand is a list of regionalisms, not a list of spelling variants. I sympathize with your point about WP:ENGVAR, but the mere fact that we have that rule does not mean we ought to be sticking non-encyclopedic content in the project. If someone needs to look up a word they are not familiar with, they should go to a dictionary, anyway (and not a manual of style). We even happen to have a dictionary handy, and one with a useful group of categories for all regional English words. Dmcdevit·t 09:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not so much making an argument as rebutting the argument of the nomination which starts by asserting "The article is not encyclopedic.". This assertion is clearly wrong. The rest of the nomination has a similar quality, making little reference to our standards. Your examples are likewise irrelevant since our article is not an entry of this sort. Here's another encyclopedia with a more relevant example. My opinion stands. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This vocabulary is not indiscriminately chosen, is all capable of proper citation and referencing, and reflects a notable aspect of Anglophone culture. Care should be taken to maintain a high standard of citation, and to prevent this becoming a mere colledtion of dictionary definitions. Moreover, I would comment that the remark by nominator Ddawkins63 that modern British culture is to a large extent American culture is substantially false, misleading, irrelevant to this discussion, and prejudicial to the conduct of the AfD. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I narrowly avoided taking umbrage at that myself, but it's not productive to raise it here.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (while for the moment I sit on the fence) - if this article is deleted, then List of British words not widely used in the United States must also go. These two articles need to be considered together. In favour of keeping them: There surely is a core of words that are distinctively American-and-not-British, and vice versa, and it is perfectly possible to back up a list of such words with reference to various sources. I utterly reject the nominator's ageist reasons for deleting, and the nonsense that British culture is American culture. And yet there are also reasons to delete: This pair of articles are extremely useful, utterly fascinating, and a great deal of work has gone into creating and maintaining them - but all our time would be better spent helping to improve the more general information at American and British English differences. The two lists are constantly liable to degrade into unreliable and misleading uselessness, attracting a fantastic quantity of original research and unfounded personal opinion. The problem is the list structure, which acts as an invitation to add "my two-cents-worth" or "my tuppence-worth". The more discursive article on American and British English differences is far more valuable. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 18:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The surprisingly-POV views expressed by Ddawkins73 can't detract from the point that, whilst Wikipedia articles should not simply comprise lists of facts (or assertions!), people nevertheless come here to be informed. By the very nature of this publication, not every article can be either exhaustive or even a proven fact. This is a valid article.Blitterbug (talk) 19:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The page is not an article, it is a list. It is not an encyclopedic article. These are covered by WPs eg WP:NOTCATALOG. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
As for POV, let's use some common sense: I gave socio-linguistic reasons as to why there is no point looking for sources. To wit, linguistic researchers spend lots of resources, interviewing many subjects, to gather data that is far from exhaustive. There's POV and there's using knowledge to tell people not to make square wheels, or that building a jumbo jet requires expertise.
That's somewhat by the by, however. Ultimately, the relevant point is that if there were or are reliable sources that could be used, they would be dictionaries. wikipedia is not a dictionary.
WP:INTERESTING is overridden by "wikipedia is an encyclopedia" and "What wikipedia is not", as per the Five Pillars. There are lots of interesting things on the web. Common sense, let alone WPs: Don't try to keep or include everything that may be interesting. The difference between an encyclopedic article and a list or a dictionary entry is that an encyclopedia article tries to encompass the topic. It gives information in a context whereby the reader can make general inferences. If our heads were a bunch of lists rather than general rules and examples, we would be incapable of learning. An encylopedia is a learning tool, it is educational. WP - wikipedia is not a repository of information. What do you think the WPs exist for? "wikipedia is an encyclopedia". If you can't find WPs to support that (you can), then it is IAR anyhow. Ddawkins73 (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Of the nominators reasons:
    • "not suitable for individual editing" whatever it means, does not seem reason for deletion. And why isn't it suitable?
    • "consensus as to what is uncommon" is difficult.--That's for the talk p. of the article.
    • "consensus as to what isn't uncommon" is difficult --also for the article talk p.
    • "the data will inevitable be a generation and a half out of date" -- but even if this were so, what of it? We carry historical topics also.
    • "not dictionary", the functions overlap--articles with encyclopedic information about words are suitable for both.
    • "individuals wont find up to date data" but WP is not a textbook, this is not the place to learn the idiom of the language.
    • "arbitrary list with no basis in fact" there are many potential references--people have been writing books and articles on this subject since at least Noah Webster.
    • "therefore not informative" -- but it gives the information it says it does.

therefore, no valid reason given for deletion. DGG (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re point on "barely suitable for individual editing" - What I mean is, for the reasons given in the nom, no one individual :::knows. I concede this comes down to the fact that an individual shouldn't add anything without sources. So the issue here is :::Reliable Sources and using them.
re point on "The data will inevitably be a generation and a half out of date" - Wikipedia does carry historical topics, but then :::the name of the article should be changed. eg to "Historical list of American words supposedly uncommon in the UK, as per :::wikipedia Feb 2009"
Which makes it spurious. And so strong candidate for deletion.
re point on "not dictionary" - Granted, but this isn't an article describing the current state of human knowledge concerning :::UK-US word usage. I'm not putting anything like that up for deletion. This page is purely a dictionary effort.
"it gives the information it says it does" - Well, no, it doesn't. It gives unsourced incorrect information.


Response to all - I concede that lack of sources is not reason to delete the whole page. However, I will note that unsourced entries should be aggressively deleted. Which leaves "AMBER alert", which I'm pretty sure is out of date.

Who is going to go through and check the sources, every time either one of a reputable new US or UK dictionary comes out? The thing with dictionaries is that they are highly unstable sources.

The only alternative is a dictionary of US words which are uncommon in the UK.

If such a source is found then delete/keep rests on "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" alone.

As the sources are highly unstable, if the page were kept it must have, in order to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia, "All words verified as of [Date]" at the top of the page. And that must be true.

Otherwise wikipedia is peddling unverified information.

Simply put, maintaining this page, unless a "dictionary of US words which are uncommon in the UK" exists, is beyond the scope of wikipedia. The pace at which language changes it would be like maintaining a fortnightly weather report: The knowledge gained is not in the least sense enduring, so is of trivial value as encyclopedic knowledge.

If not one single reliable source exists then the IAR is that this page necessarily degrades the accuracy of wikipedia. That's not POV, it's common sense based on knowledge of linguistic change: We are going through a similar rate of change to that of England during the Renaissance. This is in basic Linguistics course books. Other than the Norman Invasion, British English is changing as fast now as it has ever done. Not all of that, but a significant part of it, is down to globalization. Look, even the OED team can't keep up: [[1]]

I appeal to common sense: wikipedia cannot maintain US-UK dictionary pages. It isn't set up to do it.

I would update the page myself now, removing the unsourced words, but it would be regarded as uncivil, since there would only be one entry left. I should overrule that on the basis of the WPs re reliable sources, but I will at least wait until the deletion issue is resolved.

Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "widely used" is wholly subjective, and the list is unsourced. - Biruitorul Talk 08:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as simply too subjective and often wrong. A similar article with sources would be useful, and there is nothing wrong with sourced lists, but this is not that article. Starting from scratch (in userspace?) is preferable to keeping a page of 99.9% OR.Yobmod (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (still fence-sitting) - There are clearly words that are distinctively American rather than British, such as elevator and faucet, and distinctively American variants, like airplane. Maybe this is a historical fact rather than a reflection of all current usage, and there is more mixing and cross-fertilisation today, but it is nonetheless a fact, and is surely worth documenting. Edits like this one do not help at all, merely imposing one editor's impression, based on no adequate data, on the article. If that sort of biased opinion-pushing is what the article is doomed to suffer, then we'd best delete. But I still think there is a core of well-sourced (or sourceable) matter here. Still unsure. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is worth documenting, I agree. Has a natural link to a discursive article too. The scope and subjectivity (and verifiability) of "words not widely used" is something completely different, though. Ddawkins73 (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that an article discussing the differences is useful (and surely already exists?), just an unsourced list is not.
How is adding fact tags not useful? I am from the UK and dispute that the words i tagged are not widely used. "Adequate data" should be provided by whoever added it. It is not POv pushing to challenge original research to be verifed with sources. I am from the UK and say "Lift", but i also would say "elevator music" and have read Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator, a famous book by a famous Welsh author. Is wales no longer in the UK? Saying "elevator" is not used is simply subjective and demonstrably untrue, unless sources can be found for the "not widely" part. Yobmod (talk) 16:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in essence the page is unsourced, inaccurate, original research. As it is this list could not be cleaned up, it would have to be started again from scratch even if a suitable article on the topic could be possible. There are so many problems it is difficult to list them all. For a start most of the items listed are not even words, if you can list something like AMBER Alert you might as well list University of Virginia. On top of that a lot of the words listed are widely used in the UK due to the expanding influence of American culture. More than any of these problems with the content I think the underlying principle of Wikipedia is not a dictionary applies. American and British English spelling differences treats the subject matter in an encyclopaedic fashion, currently the only salvageable (and sourcable) items on this list would be "translations" from US to UK English. Are we going to have lists translations between English and other languages? Or between the different dialects of Chinese and Portuguese? I do not believe that such lists are the function of Wikipedia. Guest9999 (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Change to Merge to Differences between American and British English (vocabulary), User:JackLumber makes a good point about my mixing up of vocabulary and spelling but I don't see there being enough appropriate entries on the list justify a standalone articles. If a list like this is to exist all entries should be sourced before inclusion or it will descend into the kind of mess we have here. Guest9999 (talk) 11:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objection. The article we're talking about is about vocabulary; American and British English spelling differences is about spelling. If this article is deleted, we're going to have to start all over again and take a different approach to the subject matter, i.e. American and British English vocabulary differences, which by the way is intrinsically encyclopedic, since countless books have been written about it. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Nominator doesn't contend there are no differences. Nominator wouldn't contend such patent nonsense. Nominator contends there are no reliable sources for such a subjective list as "words not widely used".


Helpful Suggestion - Delete this list. I will start a new one (or revise it, if one already exists) on "Variation between British English and American English", containing the proper provisos and accurate characterization, thoroughly sourced from reliable texts, with evidence for regional variation. The nature of this evidence being etymological and extensive field-study research.
How's that? Can people please reconsider in the light of this?

Ddawkins73 (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Objection. The topic is encyclopedic, no doubt about that. It's just that the article doesn't work; it just doesn't serve the purpose. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic is clearly "encyclopedic", as its appearance in traditional encyclopedias attest to. There are reliable sources documenting this, therefore it doesn't take original research to create a list such as this. If there are specific items not supported by reliable sources, that is solved by editing, not by deleting the whole list. Finally, if you think the subject is better covered in an article called "Variation between British English and American English", then that is a rationale for a merge, not deletion, and it should be discussed on appropriate article talk pages. All other concerns have been adequately addressed by the "keep" arguments above. DHowell (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 1951 EB notwithstanding, unsourceable hearsay is unencyclopedic in 2009. Nominator still contends there are no reliable sources for "words not widely used" and wishes people would stop saying there are without providing those sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddawkins73 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Here's a source for some words. Here's another. Here's one from the LA Times. This New York Times article from 1956 has many examples of both American words and British words which were relatively unknown across the pond back then. (I realize these last two articles are pay-per-view, but if you have a library card, you can probably find access to them for free). And don't you think the Encyclopaedia Britannica itself is a reliable source? Yes some of those articles are old, but an encyclopedia should cover topics in a historical as well as in a present sense. And have you checked to see if a newer edition of EB has a similar list that is more up-to-date? DHowell (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely agree it should cover topics in a historical sense. Hence: page name "list of words not widely used" (implying "now") is misleading, it should be made clear that the sense is historical, the entries are unsourced. Also why I ended up writing a new page as an article which makes all those things clear.
I do recognize the historical fact of two separate dialects, funnily enough. I even recognize two dialects today, now! Proposal says "Of course there are many differences..."
Existence of different dialects is not disputed. The point re Americanization of BrE was an effort to point out the futility of trying to maintain a list of what words BrE users don't widely use.
I'm not going to labour that point. Simply, whatever the topic, unsourced material shouldn't be added or deletions of unsourced material reverted. Concentrating on the non-authority of individual "common" knowledge on the matter, while a genuinely sensible reason to delete (we can't hope to independently teach all editors that is a matter of Linguistic analysis, i.e sources), has just inflamed the issue, so I'll move on.
I haven't checked the EB, no. Are you telling me or asking?
Ddawkins73 (talk) 06:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


New Page - I have created a page for Differences between American and British English (vocabulary). Category : Linguistics. There is a word list on the page.
Differences between American and British English can link to that. Ddawkins73 (talk) 08:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- You don't need to go through the AfD process to do that. What'll happen is, the closing admin for this AfD will decide that it's a "keep" or a "no consensus" (which is a de facto keep) and close the debate. But afterwards you can just make whatever changes you want to to the new page and redirect the old one to it on your own authority (WP:BRD). AfD's only for when you want a discussion about whether the article should be deleted, you don't need it for a merge.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 08:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I'm confused. I wasn't planning to write a whole new page myself when I started the AfD process, and a major problem with the page up for deletion is the name. Could I have renamed it myself? Either way, the inaccurate page up for deletion should be redundant now.
I wrote the page because, if a list of vocab differences is wanted (and Jack Lumber wants it, for one - for a legitimate reason), that's how it should be. Sourced and with provisos - and no subjective nonsense like "not widely used". Ddawkins73 (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We actually need more than just one or more lists of words. More often than not, different words or usages cannot be simply pigeonholed or compartmentalized. Way back when, I did try to figure out a different approach: See User:JackLumber/The Sucker. We can use that as a starting point, or a stepping stone. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 20:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't try to re-name the page, I'd simply create a page with the new name and redirect the old one to the new one. You can do that without invokin g AfD. AfD is really for when (a) the material needs to be deleted rather than moved (e.g. attack pages, content that fails a core policy like WP:N or WP:V, etc.) and (b) you've tried a {{subst:prod|reason}} or similar and the prod is removed or contested.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can work together on this, Jack. Obviously I've got an interest in tidying up the lexis section of your page now (It's not yours, but you know what I mean). Anyway, shall we take this part of the discussion to Talk on the AmE/BrE Differences page? ('san edit: I read "can use as a stepping stone" as "can't"- if anyone read the first version) Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of the content on "my" page can be properly sourced (see also under "References" at the bottom of the page); some example footnotes are already in place. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 22:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only mentioned that page as in "what shall we do about the 'see also' link to the AfD'd article?" Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the key issue here is, if we are to work on a new article on vocabulary, what are we going to do with List of American words not widely used in the United Kingdom and its siblings, i.e. List of British words not widely used in the United States and List of words having different meanings in British and American English? These three articles originated as spinoffs of American and British English differences--the main article in our little series--and were supposed to cover the whole vocabulary topic. However, this approach was flawed from the very beginning, as I showed when I nominated the threesome for deletion for the first time (see the relevant link at the top of this page). And, since this is not the first time we are discussing this, it may be helpful to review some past discussions here. I'm Jack(Lumber) and I approve this message. 23:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_American_words_not_widely_used_in_the_United_Kingdom&oldid=1137990814"