Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Language and linguistics
The following discussions are requested to have community-wide attention:
|User:Pyrope wants to have the article start with Simon’s Sircus [sic] and do the same sort of thing in De Havilland Sea Vixen#Operational history [ "Simon's Sircus" (sic) ]. I maintain this is a misuse of sic. These are neither quotes, nor are they a cause of confusion, especially when you consider that Simon's Sircus is linked in the latter case. This is no different than what is done with Krispy Kreme and every other attention-seeking offbeat spelling (nothing), though Pyrope insists otherwise. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)|
|Should the phrase "Polish death camp" be described as a "misnomer" in the lede? See #Not a misnomer for the earlier discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)|
We have arrived at a bewildering profusion of ENGVAR-related templates, the only purpose of which seems to be advancing nationalistic viewpoints. For those not reading the discussion above this one, the short version is that in an encyclopedic, formal register, there is no meaningful difference between English, Scottish, Irish, Australian, New Zealand, African, Hong Kong, etc., varieties of English, only between Commonwealth English as a dialect continuum and the North American varieties (American English, and Canadian English which is a hybrid of American and British/Commonwealth). Commonwealth English is based on UK-published style guides; there are virtually no reliably published style manuals for Commonwealth dialects that are not produced in England in particular (by contrast, US and Canadian English are the subject of multiple mainstream style guides published in those countries).