Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 July 29

< Wikipedia:Templates for discussion | Log

July 29

edit

Template:Wenard attribution

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 August 7. (non-admin closure) Left guide (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Use Cameroonian English

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was Delete The side supporting keeping has made their case but it comes down to them being heavily outnumbered and not having an underlying principle so strong as to overwhelm that numerical disadvantage. Sure, you can interpret guidelines like MOS:COMMONALITY they way Asdfjrjjj did in favor of specific dialects, but you can also interpret them in the way the nominator did, as requiring only broad-scope dialects that can't be included in more common cases. And I can't resolve this guideline- or source-interpreting dispute in any way other than to respect the numbers in favor of deletion, because doing so would be a supervote. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These recently created templates recommend the use of a dialect of English that is not suitable for Wikipedia, per MOS:COMMONALITY. I do not question that Cameroonian English exists or is used for communication, but none of the examples of this dialect are acceptable standard English. A template advising their use is actively harmful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this template is deleted, Template:Cameroonian English should be deleted as well. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I would argue that Cameroonian English#Expressions lists examples of informal idiomatic phrases, which shouldn't be included in articles as they don't represent encyclopedic tone, and that there are plenty of phrases like this in all varieties of English. This doesn't mean that formal Cameroonian English used in official writing and communications in Cameroon would be unsuitable for use on Wikipedia (see Cameroonian English#Varieties).
    If consensus disagrees with me on that, then how about a rename to Template:Use Cameroonian English spelling instead of deletion here? This would avoid encouraging inclusion of any Cameroonian English grammatical constructions, vocabulary, etc. that aren't shared by other national varieties. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an example for comparison, Template:Use British English and Template:Use American English imply the use of formal varieties of BrE and AmE. They don't give a mandate to use less standard, more informal varities such as Multicultural London English or Southern American English, because even though these fall within "British English" and "American English" respectively, they wouldn't meet the needs of a general audience and wouldn't match encyclopedic tone. As @Jonesey95 points out, MOS:COMMONALITY is policy, so vocabulary and grammar that are shared among multiple varieties are preferred in all circumstances, no matter what Use English template is in place at the top of the article. See also British English#Negatives and Nigerian English#Lexico-semantic innovations, for example, which discuss features that are specific to those varieties so wouldn't necessarily be suitable for use on Wikipedia due to MOS:COMMONALITY and WP:ENCSTYLE. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I also think those of us who speak a more "standard" variety (AmE or BrE, for example) of English natively should try and be aware of the risks of standard language ideology when discussing these issues. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Another option is a rename to Template:Use Cameroon Standard English, as this is another term used in the literature to refer to the formal variety. Pineapple Storage (talk) 19:08, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cameroon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Language, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:12, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    One final note from me, then I promise I'll leave the subject alone. Wolf (2001, p. 215)[1] discusses pretty much this exact issue, of whether standard Cameroonian English is intelligible with other international varieties: Apart from the valuational issue, does the lexico-semantic indigenization of textbooks of English jeopardize intelligibility? From both a Cameroonian "inside-out" and a foreign "outside-in" perspective, the answer is no. ... it poses no problem for an outsider to read and comprehend an indigenized textbook of English or a novel written in English by a Cameroonian, for that matter. Pineapple Storage (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonesey95 @Johnuniq @Dgp4004 Does anyone have any thoughts in response to the passage quoted above, from Wolf (2001)? Does this change anything for you or do you still think the template should be deleted? Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For myself, I'm not sure that the 'lexico-semantic indigenization of textbooks of English' is particularly relevant here.
    Are you able to provide some examples of English spellings in Cameroon that differ from British English spellings please? Something that a bot might be programmed to correct? Dgp4004 (talk) 08:05, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dgp4004 The relevance of that passage is in its discussion of the intelligibility of written, informative text; it's pretty emphatic that intelligibility is not impeded by such a text being written in Cameroonian English. A textbook and an encyclopedia (ie. Wikipedia, in this case) are very similar use-cases for a language variety; if the passage had been discussing the use of spoken Cameroonian English or, for instance, use of CamE on social media, then I would agree that it isn't relevant, but this is not the case.
    Cameroonian English hasn't yet been formally codified, so there isn't a definitive source for "correct" Cameroonian spelling (comparable to, for instance, Merriam-Webster for AmE or OED for BrE). However, Simo Bobda (2000)[2] gives as examples of spelling differences "occured/occurence" (p. 66; one r, comparable to "traveled" AmE vs "travelled" BrE), "truely" (p. 62), and "infront" (p. 66; univerbation, comparable to "all right"/"alright"), as well as vocabulary differences such as "parlour" CamE replacing "living room" AmE and "sitting room" BrE (p. 63). A lot of the literature about CamE (including about intelligibility) focuses on spoken differences from other varieties of English, ie. pronunciation, intonation, etc, but these differences don't affect written Wikipedia articles. Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need worry about those examples too much. Parlour is a word in British English, albeit an old fashioned word. So it won't be corrected by a bot. And if none of this is codified, we can't really enforce a 'Cameroonian English'. So I'll stick with my delete vote I think. Dgp4004 (talk) 13:38, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Those examples aren't meant to be exhaustive, they're representative of a wider system of features unique to CamE. Also, use by bots isn't the only purpose of Use English templates. We've established that CamE is not identical to BrE; in practice, if Template:Use British English is "enforced" on Cameroon-related pages, that would force anglophone Cameroonian editors to use a variety of English from another country (not to mention, a country that Cameroon gained independence from), even though English is an official language of Cameroon and the country has its own variety. That would definitely not be in the spirit of WP:ENGVAR. It's also worth bearing in mind that in practice (eg. from the perspective of a bot), Indian English spelling is identical to British English spelling, according to Template:Use Indian English/doc; despite this, Template:Use Indian English is in use on nearly 170,000 articles. (This is relevant per WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, an exception to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) Per WP:ENGVAR, CamE is not identical to BrE, so Template:Use British English (or Template:Use American English etc.) shouldn't be used. Pineapple Storage (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These templates exist to provide guidance to editors about what spelling to use in an article. If the spelling differences in Cameroonian English are not codified anywhere, guidance about spelling is not possible. Hence, this template is not usable. Also, examples given above as differences are "occurence" and "truely"; I don't think you could get consensus that these are anything but typos to be fixed (see Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Typos#O), regardless of their use in some countries. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jonesey95 After another look, it seems there actually is a dictionary of Cameroon English (Kouega, 2007).[3] Unfortunately I don't have access to it at the moment, but I'm happy to seek it out in a library when I can and expand Cameroonian English based on that source. From the other literature I've read, it seems likely that for some of the key spelling patterns (eg. -ise / -ize) either BrE or AmE customs can be used (similar to quite a few varieties compared at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart), while others (like instalment etc.) tend to follow BrE. Re "occurence" and "truely"; I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to either add a comment to the typo list where necessary to explain the usage in some varieties of English, or to move those spellings to Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings to avoid unnecessary "correction" of legitimate usage. Pineapple Storage (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The above changes nothing as far as I am concerned. How are editors supposed to edit an article with this template? How many regions have a significant number of people who can speak English? Should each of them have a template? If so, how would that benefit the encyclopedia? Wikipedia's US/UK procedures are mainly to solve intractable arguments about things like color vs. colour. The US and UK have special consideration because their populations largely speak English as their first, and often, only language. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnuniq I'm not sure what you mean by Wikipedia's US/UK procedures... Those varieties explicitly don't have special consideration. See WP:ENGVAR: The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others. There are plenty of non-US, non-UK varieties in use; see Template:Use Indian English (used on nearly 170,000 articles), Template:Use Australian English (nearly 135,000) and Template:Use New Zealand English (nearly 40,000). This isn't just a question of having a template for regions [that] have a significant number of people who can speak English; English is one of the two official languages of Cameroon, and out of the 53 countries and territories that have English as a de jure official language, it's the 13th most populous. To answer your question how would that benefit the encyclopedia?, see Wikipedia:Systemic bias (eg. § Why it matters). Pineapple Storage (talk) 12:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pineapple Storage As for not having an encyclopedic tone, what about terms like "in whole India" which appear in Indian English? Should such phrasing variants be permitted on Wikipedia? 50.78.178.33 (talk) 03:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    MOS:COMMONALITY tells us that structures like this, that aren't common in many varieties of English, should ideally be replaced with a more universal equivalent. (Personally, as a native speaker of a variety other than Indian English, I wouldn't object to seeing "in whole India" in written text. Common sense and basic inference tell me this phrase is equivalent to a shortening/streamlining of "in the whole of India", and is exactly analogous with "in all India", which might be closer to "standard" phrasing; because of this, it wouldn't create a barrier to communication/intelligibility for me. But I understand that Wikipedia's guidelines on commonality exist for a reason, to make the encyclopedia as accessible to as many people as possible, not all of whom would feel the same about this kind of phrasing.) As far as I know, none of the arguments I've presented in this discussion have suggested that opaque CamE (or IndE) phrasing or vocabulary (ie. features that would actually be unintelligible for speakers of other varieties) should be included on Wikipedia. The thrust of my argument is just that there's no reason why standard/formal Cameroonian English (or any of the World Englishes, for that matter) should be excluded from use on this global encyclopedia if its use wouldn't create a barrier to communication. Pineapple Storage (talk) 04:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just realised I didn't address the point about encyclopedic tone. The phrase "in whole India" is not inherently informal, so I would consider it to fit with encyclopedic tone. Its lack of commonality with other English varieties is the only reason why it might not be suitable for Wikipedia, in my opinion. Pineapple Storage (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For comparison, a phrase like the world and his wife BrE; everyone, many people would fall outside of encyclopedic tone because it's informal and idiomatic. Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:02, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pineapple Storage I'm not seeing what makes "of recent" (that's a phrase I've heard in American English), "detailly", or "installmentally" inherently informal. The latter is an analogue of common adverbs like "monthly". 50.78.178.33 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you! I don't think "detailly" or "instalmentally" are informal. They're just not used by most varieties of English, so according to MOS:COMMONALITY they should be avoided in favour of more universal terms on Wikipedia, or glossed when they are used. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both Most usage of this variant on WP will be subsumed per WP:COMMONALITY. From Cameroonian English: "institutional" variety of Cameroonian English, [...] is based on British English. Furthermore, there are no words belonging to key variants like "realize", "favour" or "travelling" that might result in a proliferation that, if left unchecked, may result in the creation of {{Use Chinglish}} template. -- Ohc revolution of our times 18:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohconfucius there are no words belonging to key variants I'm a bit confused by this, on a grammatical level. Where are there no words? Where should they be? Also, I'm not sure about a parallel with 'Chinglish'; English isn't an official language in China, but it is in Cameroon, and according to Chinglish, The degree to which a Chinese variety of English exists or can be considered legitimate is still up for debate, which again cannot be said for Cameroonian English. Pineapple Storage (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohconfucius In my reading around this subject, I've realised that Kachru's Three Circles of English encapsulates what I was trying to say in the comment above. Nobody (to my knowledge) is suggesting that "Expanding circle" varieties (including Chinese English) be put into use on Wikipedia; it is "Outer circle" varieties that these conversations (including this one) are about. To restrict Wikipedia, a global encyclopedia, to "Inner circle" varieties would be giving in to systemic bias (and in a worst case scenario, neocolonialist or cultural-imperialist attitudes and practices). "Outer circle" varieties make up a very significant portion (maybe a majority?) of English speakers worldwide, and I would argue it shouldn't be for "Inner circle" speakers (like me) to adjudicate that a proliferation of "Outer circle" World Englishes on Wikipedia is undesirable. Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:33, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pineapple Storage:. I'm not trying to argue for the merits or otherwise of, or the existence or not of a veritable dialect of, Cameroonian English, but against the proliferation of templates of marginal utility. I initiated this project as a means of harmonising spelling within any given article and in light of consensus reached on how to deal with the mixing of spellings. It was a recognition that there are fundamentally four varieties of English spellings that needed editors' particular attention when writing articles, and that it was undesirable for spellings such as "vapor" and "realisation" to coexist within the same article space. I surmise that the multiplicity of templates that exist today are the result of the perception of obvious problems with tagging a bunch of articles {{Use British English}} when the subject manifestly isn't British, but we have what we have. And just because deletion debates for Ugandan and Hiberno English templates have sided on "keep" proves only that other stuff exists. If it can be demonstrated that Cameroonian English has its own pattern of spelling that represents a distinctive departure from the 4 "core" varieties, then so be it, but as is already mentioned in my opening argument where I referenced the defining characteristics of Cameroonian English being that "institutional" variety of Cameroonian English, [...] is based on British English]], and based on the principle of WP:COMMONALITY – where it is made clear that we must eschew use of "native words" that may have passed locally into English usage, such as Indian words "lakh" and "crore – your arguments obviously do not apply.  Ohc revolution of our times 06:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohconfucius I'll address your points one by one.
    Again, I'm confused. Where does it say that we should only consider four varieties? MOS:TIES lists 12, and doesn't claim to be exhaustive. Which four are you referring to, and when was this decided? Can you link a discussion where these four were identified? And if this consensus exists, why hasn't WP:ENGVAR been updated to represent that only those four varieties are allowed? It currently still says The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety over others.
    How can it be undesirable for spellings such as "vapor" and "realisation" to coexist within the same article space when according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart there are multiple (inner circle) varieties that do mix these kinds of patterns?
    As I pointed out above, the consensus reached in the Ugandan and Hiberno-English discussions prove that WP:Some stuff exists for a reason, which is an exception to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.
    As @Asdfjrjjj pointed out below, the article for Cameroonian English shouldn't be treated as an authority on the language; it was me who added the mention of formal CamE to the article, and that was before I had read as much of the literature as I have now. (Integrating all the sources into the article will take time and effort that I haven't yet been able to spare, but I plan to do this at some point.) As I've since laid out (for instance, here), formal CamE is not identical to BrE or AmE, or any other variety.
    MOS:COMMONALITY and MOS:CRORE explicitly do not tell us that we must eschew use of "native words"; more universal terms are preferred, but loanwords (such as crore and lakh) can be used when they're contextually relevant, and in these cases they should be glossed or linked to allow readers to familiarise themselves with the terms.
    I'm surprised by how much resistance there seems to be to outer circle varieties on this global encyclopedia. Again, I encourage you to consider standard language ideology, Western-centrism and systemic bias. Pineapple Storage (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pineapple Storage:As has been explained on this page by User:Johnuniq, WP:ENGVAR was put in place as an arbiter to avoid the rampant battles that once raged between two camps, those of British vs American English; it was also argued that the "~ize word" was also recognised as a significant variant because of its widespread use (due to the influence of the OED); Canadian spelling is also well document and spellings used by Canadians is consistent. Indeed in the absence of strong national ties WP is dialect agnostic so that, for example, an article on Vietnam may or may not be written in British English (but instead is determined by the "first significant contributor"), our MOS ony requires the variant chosen be applied consistently. As far as I am aware, there are no documented examples in any of the 4 variants where words such as "vapor" and "realisation" mixed and matched; even less so to see "color" and "flavour" in the same page
    WP:Some stuff exists for a reason sounds much like WP:Ignore all rules. In that discussion, I'd say the most pertinent and persuasive argument for the retention of Hib English seemed related to considerations of having {{Use British English}} on an article about Sinn Fein, which I understanda completely. It's one that made me fight hard to keep {{EngvarB}} but I was outvoted.
    Original research is to be avoided like the plague; important assertions in each article ought to be fully cited. As such, the article for Cameroonian English really ought to be rigorous and backed by citations that would give it due authority. I would love it if you could demonstrate from scholarly sources how words like "travelling/traveling" colour/color" are employed consistently in ways that would define Cameroonian English as a variety in its own right. Perhaps then, your argument would hold. At the moment it doesn't. I don't disagree with what you say about loanwords (such as crore and lakh), and I'm not threatening their existence, but it's certainly undesirable to use same repeatedly once they have been glossed.
    Haha, I'm equally surprised at how some editors tenaciously defend given country templates, as if a lot of nationalistic pride was invested in it. It's really not about WP being or not a "global encyclopedia". WP is universal. We try not to be too ideological, or to succumb to systemic bias. It's about the practicalities of writing and maintaining articles in a multicultural context, making sure it's accessible to all and ensuring that editors work together harmoniously. -- Ohc revolution of our times 16:14, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohconfucius Rest assured, I understand the purpose of WP:ENGVAR, and that is the reason why I support the use of World Englishes on Wikipedia. You still haven't told me which four varieties you mean (from what you've said, I assume BrE, AmE and CanE are included, but the fourth?), and you haven't directed me to a discussion where consensus was reached that those are the four that should be used, which would override the wording of MOS:ENGVAR and the 12 varieties listed at MOS:TIES. (I can't help but suspect that's because such a discussion doesn't exist...)
    Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart, which is a formal editing guideline, doesn't list "vapour" or "realisation", but it does list "vigour" and "organisation", and under Canadian English, "vigour" and "organization" are listed as the only correct options, so it's perfectly feasible that these patterns could appear in the same CanE text.
    I don't think WP:SSE is equivalent to WP:IAR; it's merely saying that precedent should be taken into account regarding matters of style, which is what this discussion is about (given that MOS:ENGVAR and MOS:TIES are Manual of Style issues). I get what you mean re Hiberno-English and Sinn Féin, and I would argue that as a postcolonial nation, it would be similarly inappropriate to slap Template:Use British English on, for instance, History of Cameroon. I would again point you to the Ugandan English TfD, where plenty of relevant arguments were laid out.
    There was no OR involved in my edits to Cameroonian English, and the important assertions in § Varieties are fully cited, so it is rigorous and backed by citations that would give it due authority; I based that section on Anchimbe (2012),[4] a reliable source that I sought out, added to the article, and cited (twice). The information currently in § Varieties is accurate and reliably sourced, it just doesn't cover all the detail and perspectives that are laid out by the literature as a whole, because I haven't had the time or effort to spare to gather all the reading and research I've done on this subject and incorporate it into the article (in part because within about 2 hours of those first edits being made, this TfD had been opened).
    Re spelling patterns being employed consistently in CamE: firstly, as mentioned above, the only source that claims to be in any way comprehensive (at least that I've been able to find) is a dictionary that I won't have access to for at least a couple of weeks (if I decide to order a copy and wait for it to be delivered), or until the next time I can get to an in-person library (I don't know when that might be). So, at this moment in time, I can't give you a definitive answer; however, I would point out that (again, according to the editing guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling#English spelling comparison chart) there are several varieties in which some patterns are flexible and don't stick to one custom or the other (see the table, where pink boxes are present in SAfE, NZE, AusE and CanE). So for a variety to qualify for use on Wikipedia, consistent application of one binary option from the classic spelling variations isn't required; it just needs to be established that the variety is different from other existing varieties (which we have already established for CamE; see above and below). The exact details of which patterns should be used can be worked out later, once someone (likely me, because I don't see anyone else volunteering) gets access to the dictionary, or other definitive sources are identified; as long as the article doesn't contain any inaccurate information, and the template isn't transcluded on any other articles, there is no deadline for a definitive and comprehensive Wikipedia-friendly CamE spelling guide to be produced telling users and bots how to edit articles that use CamE.
    Rest assured also that there is no nationalistic pride ... invested in this issue, at least from my side. As a linguist, I'm a big fan of linguistic diversity, and very much not a fan of any kind of linguistic elitism or reinforcement of colonial-type attitudes to language, such as mandating the use of BrE or AmE in the name of convenience (ie. for inner circle English speakers), when a perfectly intelligible local alternative exists. Pineapple Storage (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For any future editors and Pineapple Storage: Ohconfucius's fundamental four varieties of English spellings that needed editors' particular attention when writing articles are just WP:EngvarB's supported dialects/orthographies (BrE, AmE, Canadian Eng, Oxford spelling), if I'm not mistaken. Afaik, this is just Ohconfucius's personal opinion, with no normative weight nor backing (if anything, this opinion is contrary to current norms in Wikipedia and linguistic scholarship). - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 18:51, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus that existed may have been a soft one or hard one, but I didn't invent any of this. You are aware of the history of its evolution, so you will know it took place years ago, and I suggest that you search in talk archives from round about 2010 or maybe before. There may have been a formal and structured discussion with an admin closing etc., maybe not. It's in the organic nature of WP. I'm fully aware of the culture baggage associated with/resentment of the British Empire.
    I have made efforts to harmonise spelling in any given article so that they don't mix "colour" with "color", and "realise" with "realize", but I'm not a guardian of the "inner circle" as has been implied here. I work principally with spelling of words and not expressions or vernacular. it's also like kind of triage. I can try changing minds about how that works around these parts with what I do, but I know my powers are limited. It'll be up to you if you like to write "sceptic traveler", (and why not?) but you should be able to demonstrate that such a combination is from a recognised English language variant and used in an appropriate article. Whether this template is deleted or not – and I sincerely hope that you drop your opposition to its delation, an {{Editnotice}} template such as {{Cameroonian English}} can be put in place to focus on what matters most to editors – what they see on screen. Hell, I might even adapt my tools to reflect this if given a formal dictionary. WP embodies the multicultural world, but there is more than a little truth in the saying that WP editors are divided by a common language. For that matter, the creolisation of English is for discussion another day.
    While the discussion here so far has been intellectually stimulating and largely civil, it's been degrading of late, so this will be my last comment here.
    Best  Ohc revolution of our times 07:57, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ohconfucius Thank you for engaging with this discussion to such an extent, it's been interesting to hear your points of view; this is clearly something we both have strong opinions about! I will continue searching the archives for early discussions about ENGVAR. If you do happen to know roughly what area of WP these discussions tended to happen on, just to narrow down my search radius a bit, that would be very much appreciated! But if you would rather not engage any further then I completely understand. I will also continue searching for sources and expanding Cameroonian English, whatever the outcome of this discussion; if keep or no consensus then I'll be sure to update the documentation etc to give editors a proper guide. I apologise if I've contributed to the conversation becoming degrading; this definitely wasn't my intention, so I'm really sorry! All the best. Pineapple Storage (talk) 11:38, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Being inclusive might be nice but templates and other advice for editors needs to be helpful. There is no practical way that certain articles can be written using terms that contradict EN or US usage. Also, there would be no practical benefit from such a system. Johnuniq (talk) 04:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but template documentation could really use some elaboration (maybe as per the vars recommendations from the table in this UBE talk discussion. But re this nom and the vars Delete votes above:
  1. some are reading MOS:COMMONALITY in a veeery particular and peculiar way. MOS:COMMONALITY advises on the use of uncommon terms or phrases (avoid or gloss them [note the or here]), and nothing else, so it does not follow from MOS:COMMONALITY that this or that English dialect "is not suitable for Wikipedia".
  2. some seem to be considering this dialect's informal terms or phrases, rather than restricting their attention to formal, written language. No dialect's informal register is suitable in an encyclopaedia, so discussion of these is basically moot as they're irrelevant here. We do not delete {{Use X English}} templates just because this or that dialect "has a lot of informal terms." If we did, {{UBE}} and all such templates would be looong gone.
  3. some seem to be considering this dialect's spelling and vocabulary as described in Wikipedia, rather than as described in scholarship, or as used [and observable] in reliable Cameroonian English sources. There's no reason to believe the formal, written register of this dialect is fully described and elucidated on Wikipedia as of now. How, then, are all of these sweeping claims about this dialect being made with so little acquaintance with its formal, written use?
And lastly, I'd like to remind everyone that {{EngvarB}} no longer exists as a fallback (the consensus at the time being that we would have these dialect-specific templates to use instead of {{EngvarB}} [!]), and that its replacement ({{UBE}}) is suitable only for a dialect whose formal, written language is quite literally indistinguishable from British English. So unless nom or any deletionist above can prove that there is quite literally not a single difference between formal, written Cameroonian English and formal, written British English, then my keep vote remains. - Asdfjrjjj (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with all of this. Thank you for expressing it so well! Pineapple Storage (talk) 05:50, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Without disparagement on my part of the numerous varieties of English that exist in the world, I don't see it as practical to designate an article to be written in one of the few varieties that, together make up the bulk of English used internationally, and that typically are even the varieties used formally in places with their own variety. Should an article restrict itself to Cameroonian English or Philippine English or Roatan Island English, it would effectively place a sharp limit on who can contribute to it or copyedit it, excluding anyone who has no idea what that variety entails. At least many Americans like me know from internationally widespread media to write "labour" and "defence" and "aluminium" and to refer to lorries and prams and trainers as in British English, and similarly vice versa. But how can I venture into an article expressly written in Cameroonian English? Largoplazo (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ↑ Wolf, Hans-Georg (2013-06-10). English in Cameroon (eBook reprint ed.). Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter (published 2001-05-11). doi:10.1515/9783110849059. ISBN 9783110849059. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
  2. ↑ Simo Bobda, Augustin (2000). "Research on New Englishes: A critical review of some findings so far with a focus on Cameroon English". AAA: Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik [Works from English and American Studies]. 25 (1). Narr Francke Attempto Verlag: 53–70. JSTOR 43023766. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
  3. ↑ Kouega, Jean-Paul (2007). A Dictionary of Cameroon English Usage. Peter Lang. ISBN 9783039110278.
  4. ↑ Anchimbe, Eric A. (2012-11-05). "Varieties of English in Cameroon". In Chapelle, Carol A. (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Blackwell Publishing. p. 1. doi:10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal1256. ISBN 9781405198431. Full access available to users of The Wikipedia Library.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Culture of Liechtenstein

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Liechtenstein topics. (non-admin closure) – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Culture of Liechtenstein with Template:Liechtenstein topics.
WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. Template:Culture of Liechtenstein links to 14 articles (4 of which are redirects), but is transcluded by only 2:

Most of the 14 articles are already transcluded by Template:Liechtenstein topics, however. The rest is better merged into Template:Liechtenstein topics per WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. NLeeuw (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I wasn't even aware that this template existed. It is an inferior version of the topics template and anything not on it can easily be moved over. TheBritinator (talk) 03:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBritinator Glad you agree! Might I ask what you think of the very similar templates on Andorra, Transnistria, and Montenegro/Montenegrins below? NLeeuw (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Culture of Andorra

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Andorra topics. (non-admin closure) – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 13:58, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Culture of Andorra with Template:Andorra topics.
WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. Template:Culture of Andorra links to 16 articles (7 of which are redirects), but is transcluded by only 4:

… each of which is already transcluded by Template:Andorra topics as well.

The rest is better merged into Template:Andorra topics per WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2: Literature of Andorra, Television in Andorra, Coat of arms of Andorra, El gran Carlemany. NLeeuw (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Culture of Transnistria

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was merge to Template:Transnistria topics. (non-admin closure) – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:00, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Template:Culture of Transnistria with Template:Transnistria topics.
Navboxify per WP:LEADSIDEBAR and WP:TFD#REASONS #2. Template:Culture of Transnistria violates many policies, guidelines and conventions, most importantly linking to 15 articles but being transcluded by only 1 of them, and apart from the Religion in Transnistria link entirely redundant to Template:Transnistria topics, which is properly transcluded. It links to 15 articles,

I'm planning to make this a precedent for other bad Culture of Fooland sidebars that are completely redundant and in violation of countless rules (usually in ways that are either unfixable, or not worth fixing), and generally follow the same pattern of this Transnistria sidebar. NLeeuw (talk) 14:43, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Montenegrins

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 August 7. (non-admin closure) element 14:58, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:HouseVacantTally

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more templates or modules. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review).

The result of the discussion was relisted on 2025 August 11. Izno (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the template or module's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2025_July_29&oldid=1305414541"