This template is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
This template falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
This template falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are known to be subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
Since Scotland is a part of Britain, the actual template makes little sense and should be reworded. Avengah (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear to me what your objection is, but if you have an alternative form of wording, feel free to suggest it. BenMacDui 09:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone your edits as they gummed up the documentation syntax - this is in a standard format and I think you would need to request an amendment to this at Template:English variant notice. BenMacDui 10:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
British and Scottish English
Ben MacDui, Scottish English is different to British English on a whole, however no Wikipedia article is written purely in Scottish English. All articles are written using universal convention (terms that are used universally) and only use non-universal terms when universal terms don't exist. I don't believe there are any Scottish terms that there isn't a British English universal term for, and thus, this template essentially doesn't actually do anything different to British and Irish English templates. It's for Scottish nationalists essentially, which I have no problem with, but comparing it to English English and Irish English is pointless and misleading (we don't want editors adding terms like 'wee' to Scottish articles...). Regards, Rob (talk | contribs) 11:08, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fist of all, your presumption that editors interested in Scotland, Scottish topics or the languages of Scotland are “nationalists” is a common misconception – & perhaps itself occasionally a manifestation of British nationalism. Secondly, I suspect that to some extent you may be confusing Scots with Scottish English. Thirdly, I can’t think of a reason not to use Scottish words, where appropriate, for Scottish articles – that is the whole thrust of WP:ENGVAR. I am quite happy with the second part of your re-wording but I can’t see an obvious reason to use wording here that is different from Template:English variant notice. BenMacDui 19:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will modify Template:English variant notice accordingly. Try adding Scottish English words to articles and see how that goes for you... I'm not making any misconceptions. If you actually read WP:ENGVAR, you would have seen 'Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English.'. Non-Scots may not understand Scottish English terminology, and therefore these terms are highly unlikely to be used since there is a universal British equivalent for most, if not all regional terms in the UK. Hence why the British English and Scottish English templates serve the same purpose. Rob (talk | contribs) 23:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be miscontruing the point of this template. No-one is intending to add Scottish English words or expressions to a wide variety of articles that have nothing to do with Scotland. That would indeed be pointless. It's purpose is to make clear that such words may be and are used in articles that have "strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" (i.e Scotland) and which therefore "should use the English of that nation" per WP:ENGVAR. BenMacDui 09:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I was referring to articles which favour Scottish English because they have something do to with Scotland (I thought this was obvious). I'm well aware 'An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation', however that's a snippet of the policy. It also states 'Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English' and 'Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms'. If Scots understand terms used across Great Britain, or the entire English speaking world, then using Scottish terminology for these terms is completely contradicting the point MOS:ENGVAR. Hence why this template effectively serves the same purpose as British English. Rob (talk | contribs) 12:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole thrust of ENGVAR is an attempt to avoid endless revert wars about what variant of English is appropriate in a given set of circumstances. I would not expect to see an article using the word "attorney" if it was about England and nor would I expect to see "barrister" in an article about Scotland even if most readers of articles would know what those words meant - they would be out of context. Given that most Scots understand all GB English terms and that most Brits understand US English your argument is simply a contradiction of ENGVAR and an attempt to dissuade editors for using perfectly appropriate Scots words and expressions - and by extension, British ones as well. BenMacDui 08:40, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
