h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

'a piece written by a Canadian about a Canadia subject should be in Canadian English'

I disagree *in the context of this site*. And I've written a load of Canadian Entries about Canadian subjects.

But I've said all this already.

That's the nub of it isn't it? The context of the site?

It made sense while it was owned by the *British* Broadcasting Company.

But now.....?

'But now.....? '


But now we've got a butt load of Edited Entries which conform to a consistent standard, which is a very good thing.

If others think throwing away that consistency is a worthwhile activity, have at 'er. To me it makes a hash of everything that's gone before and I expect it will be damaging to the image of h2g2 going forward.

But it's not up to me. I've had my run here and it was fun while it lasted.

"Till" is the correct spelling of that word which means the same as "until". It's a mistake to write 'til because that suggests it is just an abbreviation of until. It's not. It's a separate word with a separate etymology which happens to mean almost exactly the same thing.

Etymology of 'till':

http://etymonline.com/?term=till

"It made sense while it was owned by the *British* Broadcasting Company. "

But the guidelines re British English pre-date the BBC!

"That's the nub of it isn't it? The context of the site?

It made sense while it was owned by the *British* Broadcasting Company."

Or was it because the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a very British production?



Ps I was one of a number of Researchers proofreading, wasn't I?

Should we have a regional signifier on each Entry to indicate the sort of language being used?


Geggs

I would think it a good idea when putting something into Peer review for the author to say something like
This Article written using British spelling and grammar.

We have to have some standards ~ by chance(?) we were invented and initialised in England so by default our standards are...

There is over a decade's worth of work - an enormous reservoir - expressed in (mainly) British English.

There are more people in the world who recognise - and can use - English than any other language. It is (still) the lingua franca.

Above, I said (mainly) British English up till now. But now, we're considering change.

My own is:

Be careful with other languages. Allow them, encourage them in their own sections, yes by all means - but don't change the h2g2 standard.
A step change will mean a huge amount of preparatory work and a huger(?) amount of implementation. Don't try it.

For the Edited/Approved guide, continue as is but relax a little where it is apparent that the source is not British.

For the rest of it, relax a shade more.

It's all a matter of taste, isn't it? Allow it to evolve and...
Cosmopolese will emerge triumphant.

Thanks Rod!

'sOK


And another thing. In these uncertain days, There are enough people reading here to be reasonably confident that transgressions of a serious kind will be reported and quietly dealt with.

Can we be sure that the same can be said for ungodly plottings in any other language?French, German - even Spanish?

>>
oh I have to say that I think it could have been handled a bit better - the "who let the cat out of the bag?" comment (was that you, Ben?) was a bit close to "we'll do what we like and just tell you when it's done and dusted.

Which conflicts with my understanding about how the really major "how we change h2g2" decisions were going to be made.
<< Sho

Yes. FWIW, there was a discussion about spelling and the House Style on noesis that included the EG Eds and others interested in the EG. I argued at the time for such discussions to be brought back to the community. By that stage the structure for the teams was already established and the protocol was to discuss much off site. I still think this is a mistake, and not just on this issue.

I also argued for retaining British English spellings and was resoundingly ignored so am pleased to see some discussion now.

In addition to the spelling issue, I would find inconsistency around dates confusing and can't see how that can be adequately resolved. If a guide uses American English then it should use US date formats too, which will confuse the rest of the English speaking world who use Commonwealth formats.

I don't know what the solution is. The millions of US readers argument doesn't work for me, but the writer's voice one does. Having these things discussed here makes alot of sense given this is the community that will be writing, reviewing, editing and publishing the entries that are affected by this decision.

>>
*Realises she ought to butt the bleep out before one of the Guide Eds bops her over the head and buries her in a wood*
<<

In NZ that would read "... buries her in the bush". When I read it my first thought was Ben being buried in a piece of wood?


>>It made sense while it was owned by the *British* Broadcasting Company.

But isn't it still owned by a British company?

*

I like the EG being written in British English*. One of the things I like about h2g2 as a community is that it's British based with an international flavour. I've argued before for retaining British English as the standard because that's the culture of the site, partly as result of HHGG, and partly because of the website itself.

The consistency issue makes sense too.


*however I can see how annoying that would be for a US writer writing about the US. I can't tell how much of my own feelings are my annoyance at so much of the internet being in US English and not wanting to cede this small part of it.

"In addition to the spelling issue, I would find inconsistency around dates confusing and can't see how that can be adequately resolved. If a guide uses American English then it should use US date formats too, which will confuse the rest of the English speaking world who use Commonwealth formats."

I think you'll find that dates mentioned in the Edited Guide are always either in the form '1 January, 2012' or '1 January', so there should be no confusion over that.

>>1 January, 2012

Is that the standard usage in the US?

No, but the date is clear, isn't it?

i very much like that this started out as an English site
a writing site started and inspired by a wonderful and unique writer
Douglas Adams

i love the English "voice"

but

i would also like to see the Scottish "voice" (oh would i love that)
and the Irish "voice"

and (especially after seeing 'Four Weddings and a Funeral') the American "voice"
not to mention some of its dialects like N'Orleans'

its sensible and realistic to do this
and wouldnt be that hard to proofread

As to what is standard in the US
it is Month then date then year.
The Washington Post uses three letters for month and two digit year with no punctuation for example DEC 02
the Spreadsheet program for Open office has about a dozen variations
that are acceptable. As long as we are using alphabetic abbreviations
for the month and kept the same one throughout an article I think it shouldn't be a problem whether we say Fri Tevet 22 5760 or Friday the 22nd of Tevet in 5760 or Feb 29, 2012 or 29 February 2012

Good point, Shagbark. There are so many ways to write a date.

I find the current way perfectly fine - and it matches usage in the greater part of the world that uses the Western calendar.

Except for one point: who the heck decided to put that *comma* in there?

I find writing 3 November 2011 perfectly reasonable - day, month, year. But 3 November, 2011? A waste of photons, say I.

(It's never been owned by the British Broadcasting *Company*, that finished in 1926, to become the British Broadcasting *Corporation* or sometimes sneeringly referred to as the Broken Biscuit Company here.)