Talk:British English

British English has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence, artefact), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoe1117. Peer reviewers: Rorschaq.

This article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): George David Douglas.

British English is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 19, 2004	Refreshing brilliant prose	Not kept

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team

(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)

This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.

C

This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked Accessibility: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1 <!--Referencing & citations--> = <yes/no> \| b2 <!--Coverage & accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3 <!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4 <!--Grammar & style --> = <yes/no> \| b5 <!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> \| b6 <!--Accessibility --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is Uncategorized.

WikiProject Languages

(Rated C-class, Top-importance)

Language portal v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages 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.
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject British Overseas Territories

(Rated C-class, High-importance)

v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Overseas Territories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Overseas Territories 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.
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject English Language

(Rated C-class, Top-importance)

v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Language, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the English language 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.
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject United Kingdom

(Rated C-class, Top-importance)

United Kingdom portal v t e This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.
C	This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

vague pronunciation chart

The dialect section contains a chart that shows the distribution of different pronunciations of the bath, grass, and dance vowels. Someone just changed the IPA values for it without a source. The problem is that the chart itself doesn't have IPA, nor is there even a source to be found. Can anyone come up with a proper source that lists the actual pronunciation in IPA and not just a spelling representation that everyone interprets differently? If not, I'll go ahead and delete it.--Megaman en m (talk) 09:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

As nobody responded, I have removed it for now.--Megaman en m (talk) 10:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

-ise/-ize spellings

In the absence of a consensus on which version to use per MOS:RETAIN, we should use the "first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety" of English. By my reckoning it is this: [1]. The -ise spelling is used in the word "standardised" so we can identify standard British English (as opposed to Oxford spelling) as the variety of English used in the article. Tammbeck (talk) 09:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this to the talk page. I am a little confused as I thought you reverted my edit to retain the 'ize' spelling and not 'ise'. The link you give above is evidence that 'ise' should be used. Also the manual of style states a number of things that would support using the 'ise' spelling, namely: MOS:SPELL states 'ise' is the more common variation in British English. WP:ISE states that 'ise' is more commonly used by European, Commonwealth and British organisations as well as major British publications. I realise both variations are used and there is no definitive answer to the usage but the more common one seems to be 'ise' so this would seem to be the one we should use here. Thanks. Robynthehode (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I reverted your edit in an attempt to follow policy, not in an attempt to use any particular spelling. On closer examination the rules set out in MOS:RETAIN favour "-ise" in this case. Had the "first post-stub revision" used "-ize" then Oxford spelling should have been used throughout. Tammbeck (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Although 'ize' would need to have been used I would have argued against this for the reasons above in an attempt to reach a reasoned consensus based on common usage and not a slavish adherence to policy. But this is moot now. Thanks Robynthehode (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The empty section

Should that empty section be removed? It seems rather pointless. AriTheHorse 01:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

"British variant" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect British variant. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 2#British variant until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 11:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)