This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games 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.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
This article is written in Canadian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, centre, travelled, realize, analyze) 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.
I don't want to do anything rash, but it seems to me that this article consists of a not-entirely-helpful hodgepodge of alignment systems (D&D and D&D-like) alongside treatments of the moral and ethical commitments of characters in other role-playing games. The article I would like to see - which I am willing to write at some point - would reorganize the material as a spectrum so that D&D-style alignment systems are contrasted with GURPS and other point-build "disadvantage" systems and with Unknown Armies or GUMSHOE-style drive systems. Does anyone think this is a bad idea, or not worth trying? I don't want to get into edit warring. Newimpartial (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my recent GOCE copyedit, I found that there was no standard version of English used in the article – there was a mix of spelling variants. The subject does not have a particular leaning to one region or another, so I went back to the very first version of the article which established British English. For consistency in the article, I tried to apply this throughout. Newimpartial has since made several edits reversing this, with summaries like "Restoring the U.S. ENGVAR". I don't believe there ever was consistently applied US English in the article. Arbitrarily changing styles like this is called edit warring. Please revert or discuss. Thank you. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I have not "since made several edits reversing this". I made an edit reversing the language change - which I then reverted due to my flawed initial execution, then I made an edit that reversed the language change a bit better. I would point out that in both of those attempts, I went to the effort of reversing just the language change rather than reverting your copy edits, which represented a pretty clear sign of good faith on my part (though that is why it took me two tries).
Also, I have taken a really close look at the version of the article immediately prior to your imposition of UK ENGVAR. In that version, of the ten sections of the article, five were written with clear US English spelling, three were written in a mix between US and Canadian/UK/Australian spelling (impossible to tell which of the latter), one was written with no discernable spelling variant, and one was mixed but primarily Canadian/UK/Australian. To me, that is not a situation in which it is appropriate to impose UK spelling (and in fact, Canadian spelling would have been closer to the existing article at that point than UK). Also, with a couple of exceptions, the punctuation followed US/Canadian norms even in the primarily Canadian/UK/Australian spelling section.
So while it might be accurate to say that there was a mix of spelling variants, it would also be accurate to say that there was much more US English than UK English in the article at the point where you decided to impose UK ENGVAR. So in fact the "changing of styles" was the imposition of UK English, against all stable versions of the article, which I simply reverted. Not edit warring BTW - I do know what that is. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Newimpartial: Likewise, copy editors are doing work in good faith. The version beforehand only established that there was no established English variant for the article. Since the article's subject has no national ties and there has been no consensus-forming discussion about it here on the talk page (at least none that I noticed), then the relevant guideline is MOS:RETAIN: to go to the first non-stub version and use that style variant. This is the general practise that, barring a good reason, one should follow the style of the original editor. Everyone who since posted in US English was making a mistake. Not that I'm blaming them, not everyone is a copy editor and people are generally most comfortable writing in their own national variety of English. But those were mistakes, and repeating that only compounds the mistake. (And just in case you're going to suggest that more editors of the article wrote in US English so that's a consensus, no, consensus isn't a popularity contest.) I'm going to ask Jonesey95 for another opinion on this. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the initial version of the article (which I only looked at now) is not UK ENGVAR. It is "-our", but "-ize" and double quote marks. It could be best described as Canadian English. So if you want to use RETAIN as your guide, you should have used Canadian, not UK ENGVAR (to which I would not object). Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to make it consistent. I don't care which version of English is used, as long as it is consistent throughout the article. It may be best to come to a consensus here and then apply the appropriate hidden template at the top of the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with what you did, Jonesey95, since at the time you made your edits (which came after mine) the article was mostly US English. My comment was directed at Reidgreg who mistakenly chose UK rather than Canadian English while citing MOS:RETAIN. For the record, I am fine with US English (in which most of the edits to the article have been made, and which has recently been the predominant language of the article) or Canadian English (the original ENGVAR) as the language variety to be consistently used here; I just see no rationale for UK English in this case. Newimpartial (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
