"Roundabout, as a noun, refers exclusively in US English to a circular intersection in which entering traffic must yield to vehicles already in the circle."

Where in the US is this? The first time I came across the word "roundabout" as a noun was when I was in Malaysia, which uses "Commonwealth" English. The only word I've heard for this thing in the US is "circle," but perhaps there's some American dialect usage I'm unfamiliar with. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

As you know it can be very difficult to establish etymologies, but at least those Scandinavians in the Mid West know the word in this usage, Ikan: http://www.dot.state.mn.us/roundabouts/ -- Alice^✉ 13:05, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Very well. I will still edit the article to ascribe the noun to "parts of the US," though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:04, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

One of the wonderful things about Wikimedia software is that you can achieve a really big splash without a lot of effort by using templates.

With this edit one of our most prolific and experienced editors has recently suggested

1) "This topic may not meet the Wikivoyage criteria for a separate article..."

This standard template he placed is rather misleading since the standard pipe leads to the beginning of the article Project:What is an article? and the first four sub-sections there only deal with destination-style articles. This article is not, of course, a destination-style article. Instead it is a travel topic and, at the time of composing this riposte, the standard for non destination-style articles was considerably more straightforward: "Travel topics should have their own articles."

2) "...and should should be merged into American and British English. If you have an opinion, please discuss on this article's talk page. Please do not add new content to this article, but instead add it to American and British English. You can help by copying any relevant information from this page to the new page. Once all content has been copied, this article should be made into a redirect."

I don't think that is a good idea for at least these reasons:

a) This article deals with the differences between different varieties of English - not just those between the British and (sadly misnamed) "American" varieties.

b) This article is already longer and more comprehensive. The American and British English article is just a stub and, if any article is to be merged, the very little new information that is contained in American and British English should be merged into this article and not the other way round. Personally though, I don't see why the different articles with different areas of emphasis can not co-exist.

3) "Please do not remove this merge notice without first gaining consensus for the removal on the article's talk page".

Personally I think this is the wrong order of things. For the reasons stated above and others, I think that consensus should have been reached on this article's talk page before placing this (inappropriate) template.

However, I am not going to remove the (inappropriate) template entirely, but I will amend it now to make it more specific and relevant to this travel topic (as opposed to a destination-style article). -- Alice^✉ 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, you copy/pasted all information from American and British English to this page. This should never be done, because attribution information is lost and thus copyright is breached.

Secondly, this article covers exactly the same topic as the other article. Of course it is longer and more comprehensive now, because you added your own information to this article, which should have been added to American and British English in the first place. I applied the merge tag, so you can copy your information from here to that article. Then this page should be turned into a redirect. --Globe-trotter (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I barely see a reason for having one article on English variation. Two articles makes no sense. Please merge your changes into the original, then propose a name change for the original. Also, the list should be restricted to those words likely to trip up a traveller. -- Cjensen (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

GT: Firstly, you are wrong in writing that I "copy/pasted all information from American and British English" Please take care and time to do your homework and stop behaving in such a sloppy, brutal and un-collegiate manner. Why can you not discuss first and win by force of reason rather than brutality

Secondly, it does not cover the same topic in the same way. Do your research and argue a case! Please stop behaving like yours is the only opinion that counts. -- Alice^✉ 01:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please merge your changes into the other page and propose a name change for the other page if needed. -- Cjensen (talk) 01:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

Why?

Did you not actually read my rationale above? -- Alice^✉ 01:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Did you read my suggestion for how to resolve this by working on the existing page and later renaming that if need be? -- Cjensen (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I support this. Why start a whole new page? Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

I also support having only one article about American and British English. Wikivoyage is about travel, not linguistics. So our language articles are intentionally kept brief and are aimed squarely at facilitating travel. Here's an idea, Wikipedia or Wikiversity would be excellent wikis for further articles about varieties of English. Perhaps Alice might enjoy writing in further depth about this topic at either of those wikis and a link to such an article might be given at end of American and British English. --Rogerhc (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)Reply

This article was merged from "English language varieties" to "American and British English", which I think was an error. After discussion at Talk:American_and_British_English#Merge_was_a_mistake!, I have just moved it here.

Note that Talk:American_and_British_English was not changed by the move and is fairly long. Pashley (talk) 23:38, 19 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This likely needs to go into the article.

“The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.” James D Nichols

Just dropping it here for now. Pashley (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't this article be titled Differences between British and American English ?

As far as I can tell, the scope is very much limited to a discussion between the two. The number of actual 'English language varieties' is very high, even inside the United Kingdom itself. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

See #Moves above and Talk:American_and_British_English#Merge_was_a_mistake.21 for previous discussion. Pashley (talk) 02:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wow, I am in agreement with User:Alice :) . Seems like this has been well debated already. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Is the following accurate for Asians?

• • US — Government usage of the term excludes West Asians (i.e., west of Pakistan), but includes both South and East Asians. In the popular vernacular, "Asian" very often refers to East (and Southeast) Asians exclusively; in most parts of the country, East Asian communities are more established than South Asian communities.

I was under the impression that the US usage applied to people from South East Asia and East Asia exclusively, with people from South Asia not included in this definition. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

According to Wikipedia w:American_Asian the definition is actually sort of correct. I would still tidy it up though (i.e. "East Asian communities are more established than South Asian communities" is not really relevant) Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

updated as per Wikipedia definitions. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'm against including the following text in the paragraph about the pronunciations of "route":

(The pronunciation that rhymes with "shouter" is standard in North America for the networking device known as a "router".)

This page has already accumulated an interesting variety of extra words to compare, and so far they all are things that a traveller might reasonably encounter, or which might cause confusion or offense. But I don't see how network routers fits into that. Most travellers aren't likely to talk about network routers, unless maybe they're on a business trip. And anyone who's on a business trip to discuss network routers probably already knows about the pronunciation difference, or will learn it quickly. --Bigpeteb (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

What's the harm? Anyone reading this probably has some knowledge of computers. Routers are not so esoteric. I'm far from a computer expert and know what they are. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would just ask whether the traveler is truly well served by this long list generally? It is almost as if some people want to make a comprehensive American-British English dictionary to show how much they know rather than a useful guide as to what one might reasonably expect in important differences.

When I saw 'router' added then I really thought the limits of relevant information had been breached. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Obviously, I disagree, but I'm more interested to know what other words you think should be excluded. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't actually have any attachment to this article, I just would like to see it targeted in a manner that makes it a useful guide rather than an 'absolutely everything' encyclopaedia of terms.

Obvious candidates that could be removed are a lot of terms which are basically interchangeable. A few for example: carry-on bag/hand luggage, Main Street/high street, last name/surname

Also since 'router' is derived from the word 'route' and is a specialised piece of equipment I would say its inclusion is a bit beyond useful. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

"Network router", as a technical term, is pronounced the same as in North America by the educated in Argentina, Australia, Britain, Chile, Cyprus, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Malta, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore and West Africa (South Africa is variable) to rhyme with shouter. Of more interest is that all these varieties of English invariably rhyme "route" with shoot (as do francophones when speaking English for obvious reasons). The on-line (normal?) version of this article does not need to be brief or truncated but there may be a case for having an abridged printed version for those that feel the need. --180.191.104.64 03:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think so far most of the terms on the page are useful. Imagine a foreigner who learned American English and decides to go to Britain, or vice versa. If their grasp of English isn't very good to begin with, it might be really useful to have a glossary of travel-related terms as big as what we have now. And since we're not a print guide, we're not limited in the amount of content we can provide, which is why I don't object to anything else we have on the page now. But the difference is, everything we have is somehow related to travel, or something that travellers might likely do or encounter. I just don't see how "network routers" fits under the very broad umbrella of "travel". --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

From the article:

In the U.S., a "shopping center" usually refers to an open-air venue.

Really? Not in New York, at any rate. A shopping center in New York is essentially an urban mall - a building with a bunch of different shops in it, but no parking lot.

Is there a difference in usage in the rest of the country? What does "shopping center" mean in the part of the U.S. where you live? And what about in Canada? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about the US, but in German usage Shopping Center (also Shoppingcenter, but never "centre") is basically the thing you described above. Quite possibly drawing inspiration from the US. In many cases, individual examples are named xy-center or (confusingly enough) xy Arcaden (as in Erlangen, Munich or Lübeck) Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm from Eastern Canada. For me, "shopping center" can be used either for the urban places Ikan mentions or for suburban malls. There is a difference of emphasis — "shopping center" makes me think of doing the groceries or back-to-school shopping while "mall" suggests more exotic or luxurious stuff — but the terms are close to synonymous. Pashley (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Kingston (Ontario) had a "Frontenac Mall" (1970s, formerly anchored by Woolco) and a "Kingston Shopping Centre" (built 1950s, enclosed 1970s, demolished 2000s, formerly anchored by Sears). Both were enclosed malls with a bus stop and a large parking lot, with most of the stores facing onto wide inside corridors. One would have a better chance of detecting which was the low-end stuff by the selection of anchor department store than by the name; a Sears or an Eatons trumped Woolco, and just about anything was better than a Zellers or a K-Mart... because those were discount brands, while Sears was comfortably middle class and midrange. (This was before K-Mart went broke and left Canada, Zellers locations were sold to Target and failed spectacularly, all the Woolco locations became Walmart or closed, Eatons went bust and Sears became an investor's nightmare as they were being undercut by low-end stores like Walmart. Maybe I'm showing my age here?) Perhaps the words "shopping centre" are on older malls, as by the 1980s one assumed that the "XYZ Centre" was an retail indoor mall without having to spell "shopping" out explicitly.

There's also the complication that landlords have been known to have a contractor enclose what was an outdoor mall, or (conversely) convert an indoor mall back to stores facing directly onto the car park. A "power centre" seems to be a collection of big-box chain stores facing onto the car park, but it's not uncommon to see indoor malls marketed as a local place name plus one of "galleries", "place", "centre" or "town centre" selected as an arbitrary marketing decision. If the existing facility is named "shopping centre", its newer rival will be "mall" and the later upstart will be "town centre" as either the terms fall in/out of favour with marketers or the landlord tries to find a name different from the existing rival. A "plaza" was a strip mall; one long building with multiple stores facing onto the car park on one side, no indoor corridor. All of these had parking; the lack of anywhere to park was an old town or downtown "main street" pattern where small independent stores in individual (sometimes historic) buildings faced directly onto a busy main street with sidewalks. Usually that was the original commercial district before the malls (under whatever names) came to town. K7L (talk) 16:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm an American from the South, and I don't see a problem with the current description. To me, an enclosed building with many stores is a "mall", a building where the store fronts are on the outside of the building is probably a "strip mall", and a "shopping center" is either a single strip mall or an area with multiple independent buildings (some of which could be enclosed malls, but most would probably be strip malls), but definitely not a single enclosed mall. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a minor gripe, but it really irks me. I dislike how the slashes used to separate multiple word choices don't allow line breaks. So you end up with awkwardly broken and long text, along with a lot of empty space, like this:

(line breaks forced so you can see what I see)

At first I was thinking of putting a zero-width space after the slashes so that line breaks would be allowed there, but that litters the source with HTML entities, so it's not a great solution.

But then I noticed there's one entry that uses commas instead of slashes. Well, what's wrong with that? Commas aren't used anywhere else. Why don't we just change them all to commas? Or maybe semicolons, for a bit more visual clarity?

Also, I really want to stick {{nowrap}} on a few entries that have awkward line breaks, like "to go". --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Apparently the issue of how Californians give directions is at least somewhat culturally noteworthy (a California resident once told me, Comedians make fun of conversations by people from LA being basically 90% about traffic). I think we should link the interested parties to the Californians by Saturday Night Live Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for pointing that out. I've only been to California a few times for trips. Anyway, since the added description makes the text rather long, I'd rather remove it. Whether or not to use "the" with a road's name is a very minor issue, and it doesn't affect comprehension at all, so it probably doesn't belong here. --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's true. I'm OK with removing that. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

To be honest, this article is already becoming over-long. We have to take care to only include information which is necessary for a handy (and hopefully brief) travel guide, rather than an anorak's‡ personal list. With a few exceptions, the actual vocab is about right, IMO, but a lot of the notes go into more detail than strictly needed. Also, do we really need five paragraphs on weights and measures?

How is this:

"In measures for liquids, the U.S. uses its own variant of Imperial measures (simply called "U.S. customary measures"). An Imperial gallon is 4.5 litres (160 Imperial fluid ounces) but a U.S. gallon is 3.78 liters (128 US fluid ounces). Both sizes of gallon are subdivided into four quarts or eight pints. A handy but very rough approximate conversion is to treat a liter as a quart; actually 1 litre is about 34 US fluid ounces, more than a U.S. quart (32 ounces) but less than an imperial quart (1.4 litres, or 40 Imperial fluid ounces). The difference between the ounce is a little less obvious, with the US fluid ounce 5% larger than its Imperial counterpart. (To add to the confusion, there are also units of weight named "ounce" or "Troy ounce"; 16 ounces weight equal 454 grammes or one pound. The "Troy ounce", only used for precious metals, divides the pound into 12 instead of 16.)"

helpful for travellers? Okay, so maybe a particularly obsessive fuel-conscious driver may want to keep tabs on how she's doing in comparison to home, but do the majority of us really care about stuff like that? Similar to all the exceptions to metrication in the U.S. It just doesn't matter!

Furthermore, some of the information listed does matter, but is in the wrong place on WV. The Toll and Trunk Calls section, for example. Great bit of information, which could save our readers' money and confusion. But what does that have to do with English language varieties? And shouldn't the information be in the 'Connect' section of country articles?

What do you guys think, is this worth considering in a separate conversation? Sorry if this comes across as a rant, but I've been observing this article with increasing concern for a while and believe now may be time to talk about it.

‡We can all agree that this is one word that really doesn't need to be here!

Always best wishes, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd say, go ahead and put in the edits you think best. If you delete anything people really strongly feel is important, it can always be reinstated, with a good reason given. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Makes sense. I'm always cautious to just go ahead with larger changes (especially deletion), so always like to ask first. Thanks, Ikan. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I think it's great that you explained your thinking before acting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The paring-down is looking good! So far I only have one question... I had read that UK "napkin" was a faux pas because it means (or meant) diaper, so using that word instead of "serviette" is kind of embarrassing. Is that true, or was that advice outdated or exaggerated? If it's still accurate, then I think the comment on that word pair should be re-added. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I couldn't comment on the accuracy of the information, but if it was ever true, then it was several generations ago. My grandparents certainly say / said "napkin" with no blushing :-) I haven't finished on the cut down yet, still lots to slash! As ever, revert anything you think ought to be in there --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, everyone. I'd like to get rid of the "Comment" column for the table that begins with dreamed and dreamt, since there are no comments, but I don't know how to do that without having the table span the entire width of the page. If any of you know how to get it to look like the previous 2-column tables, please take care of this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think a lot of Americans understand "surname", but are there really any Americans who don't understand "given name"? If we all agree that that term is pretty much universally understood in the U.S., we can remove that line in "Other". Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I was just watching Parks and Recreation and one of the characters (Ron Swanson, who is admittedly a bit of an oddball) used the term "given Christian name" and it made me think of this page. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Some Americans would be confused by "Christian name" (hey, I'm Jewish and don't have one! :-P), but if the term is no longer used, it doesn't matter. This isn't a guide to reading old British novels, after all. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Is 'given name' particularly applicable to any variety of English? We should be careful not to mistake terms that an individual may perhaps not hear so often and present them as part of common usage in another culture. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I would say not. And would argue the same for "Christian name". Even here, it seems to be used exclusively by elderly people and those with an agenda (the latter group thankfully few and far between, the former unfortunately not). Jokes! --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Speaking as someone who mostly knows American usage though as a second language, "Christian name" sounds rather odd or "people with an agenda" to me Hobbitschuster (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this edit... I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning. I think it's important to distinguish between vocabulary that isn't mutually understood (such as "zucchini"/"courgette") from vocabulary where there's a different preference, but other terms would still be understood.

If you'd prefer, we could simply list the common term as an alternative rather than explaining it in a note. But I do think it's important to know when you can use the "wrong" word and still be understood, versus when you really must use the correct word. --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Example: Everyone in the U.S. knows what a pharmacy is: For us, that's just a more fancy alternate word for "drugstore". However, if you ask for a "chemist", some Americans could well be confused, thinking you're looking for a scientist, not a drugstore. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can look at it another way. Our guide teaches people to use the right word that everyone will definitely understand. So there will never be an occasion when , e.g. a Brit in New York who has read this guide asks someone to direct him to the nearest Tube station.

"Pharmacy" isn't an equivalent because it's a word used in both countries. Correct me if I'm wrong, but "main course", "Autumn" and "surname" are not used by Americans, they are merely understood.

The trouble with listing the terms as an alternative is that it implies people in those countries actually use them, rather than merely understanding them. (If Americans do actually use those terms, then obviously you can disregard this point and just list them as alternatives). Cheerio, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Think about how this guide would be used. If you're listening to someone speak (let's say a Brit visiting the U.S.), you'll understand most words, but a few will be odd. You can look them up in a dictionary, or you can come to this page, look for that word in the "U.S." column, and see what it equates to in your native UK English. But an American could say "autumn" or "surname"; it's not the most common term, but some people might use it, and if the American does use it then it's already the term the Brit would have picked anyway.

If you're speaking to someone (again, a Brit talking to an American), you want to use a word they'll understand. So you look in the "UK" column for a word, and see what your options are in the "U.S." column for an equivalent word. But if we're asserting that an American would understand "surname" or "autumn", then why shouldn't it be listed as an alternative? If the Brit uses that term, it will be understood by the American even if it's not the word the American would have picked. Therefore why shouldn't it be listed or mentioned? It's completely different from the Brit saying "courgette", which isn't understood at all in the U.S. --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, you've won me over. If you add them as alternative bits of vocabulary, I'll be as happy as Larry. But I think it would be a mistake to reinstate the "also understood in..." sentences. Good thinking adding in the 'Learn' section. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 19:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, "autumn" is less used in the U.S. but completely understood and accepted, and I think most Americans would understand "surname", but it wouldn't surprise me if some wouldn't and unlike "autumn", I doubt you'll hear it used by Americans. One thing about "autumn" is that the word is used quite a lot in classic songs: For example, there's a jazz standard called "Early Autumn". Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I forgot "main course": Yes, it is both used and understood in the U.S. Appetizers and mains are common terms, especially in the food industry, but I think nearly everyone understands them. Then again, do keep in mind that I am based in New York City, so I don't know for sure what will be understood in, say, rural West Virginia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 24 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

I object quite strongly to this edit reverting one of mine.

As I see it, when there are three terms like appetizer/entree/starter or drugstore/chemist/pharmacy and the third one is recognised in any dialect, it is quite clear that we should put that one in the comments column & mention that it is usable in both. It is just completely silly to list it in both the US & UK columns; we need to emphasize that it is OK anywhere and make US/UK distinctions only where they actually exist.

Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

This is the latest addition to the table:

In the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada, "silverware" refers exclusively to utensils made of silver.

In my own experience in the U.S., this is false: It is perfectly OK to refer to stainless steel cutlery as "silverware". Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

As an Australian with UK background - for instance cutlery relates to all types - steel and silver, and there is also looseness of the term 'silverware' in Australia, so I agree with Ikan JarrahTree (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd be inclined to remove this entry as false, given that we seem to have established that both terms are understood pretty well in at least the US, the UK and Australia and that "silverware" can refer without strong objection to any type of metal cutlery. User:The dog2, would you like to make an argument for retaining the (mis)impression that there is a divide between Americans and British on these terms? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's mainly based on the English I originally learnt in Singapore (which is for the most part closer to British English), and from time spent living in Australia and the US. At the very least, I can say that "cutlery" is the more common term used when we are talking about ordinary forks, spoons and knives. And I did meet a Canadian who mentioned that they use "cutlery" in Canada as well. But from my time spent in the US, "silverware" is way more common here, and some people will not understand you if you use "cutlery". At least based on my own experiences, I understand "silverware" to generally mean eating utensils (including plates and cups) made of silver. But, if the general consensus is otherwise, go ahead and revert it. My impressions could be wrong. The dog2 (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Probably not wrong, just your experience vs. other people's experience, so less a question of differences in nationwide uses and more just the circles within which we've traveled. Let's see if anyone else has any views on this. No reason to rush to judgment and act right away. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

sheesh things vary so much - no rush. just one experience against the slips and slides between generations even, having had british parentage (sic) the company kept etc - usages have strange lives of their own. JarrahTree (talk) 08:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes indeed. I could see where some Americans might not know the word "cutlery". I certainly know the word and don't think of it as inherently British at all, but rather, a generic word for utensils that could be used to describe plastic or wooden ones as well as ones made out of metal (whereas it would be strange to use "silverware" to describe non-metal utensils). However, I do think of the word as a bit fancier than "silverware", so I definitely wouldn't be surprised if some Americans with less education than me and my parents don't know the word. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

As a young British person, I would definitely say "silverware" carries connotations of expensive or old-fashioned models (more like family heirlooms than something you'd buy at Ikea), though perhaps not necessarily literal silver. Then again, I am perhaps not the best example; my family is so un-posh that we don't even use the word "cutlery" most of the time, but rather the slang word "diggers" :D One word related to this I would definitely consider chiefly American (or at least un-British) is "flatware". That might be worth adding. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I dont know what its like in the uk or usa, but the word ikea has almost become simultaneously an adjective and adverb here in oz, things shift,.... JarrahTree (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

So looks like things are a little more complicated than it seems. I'll give it to JarrahTree on this one since he's Australian, but I must say that in my 5+ years living in Australia, I've always heard people use "cutlery" to refer to regular forks, spoons and table knives. At the very least, I've never heard people in Australia using "silverware" to refer to plastic or stainless steel cutlery. But then again, given that American pop culture is quite popular in Australia, it wouldn't surprise me if more American terms have seeped into Australian English since I left. And at least in the English I learnt, "silverware" does not only include silver cutlery, but includes plates, cups, bowls, candlesticks and pretty much any tableware made of silver. The dog2 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have lived in both UK and Australia for a good while. Silverware is only used for very formal occasions or by someone who has overdosed on too many 'Downton Abbey' episodes. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I get that technically, anything made out of silver is literally "silver ware", but I think if you used the compound, "silverware", in the US to indicate bowls or plates made from silver, people would have to think about it for a second. But then again, just how many Americans have ever been presented with such large items made from silver? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... here's my take as an American. The most common/generic word is probably "utensils"; everyone understands it, and it covers silver and steel and plastic. "Cutlery" is a synonym, which I think most people would understand (maybe not all; I never really thought about it). I have to agree that "silverware" is a generic term as well; I've used it at home, and I definitely don't own any silver. "Flatware" is understood, and used in stores, but I think it's pretty rare in speech.

All that said... I'm not sure these words are worth including. This page has a tendency to grow uncontrollably, and got a very good pruning about a year ago. I don't think these words are much of an issue, and I think they'd just clutter up the page. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Considering we all understand one another's preferred terms (and are a fairly good representation of different English dialects around the world), I have a tendency to agree with you. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Of course we can't possibly list every word. But I do think that this dichotomy might be a source for confusion at times, especially since there are bound to be many people like me who learnt that "silverware" should refer to items made of silver. As far as I know, people don't use "silverware" to refer to plastic cutlery outside the US. I'm certainly not rich enough to use tableware made of silver to have my meals, put I have been to several museum exhibits which use "silverware" to refer to fine tableware made of silver. Where I could see a possible misunderstanding is if an American were to travel abroad and ask his host where the "silverware" is, since "silverware" is not often used in that generic sense elsewhere. The dog2 (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm of the personal opinion that the potential disastrous consequences of an American using this term in say, Singapore, is somewhat on the far fetched side. I feel this list should be limited to genuinely important differences. Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

People don't use "silverware" to refer to plastic cutlery in the US, either (except for an ironic or humorous effect), only metal cutlery. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm with Andrewssi2, limit the list to important things. In this case, we have a bunch of native speakers who do not completely agree on the usage anyway, so explaining it for non-natives would be tricky even if it were worth doing. It isn't, so delete it.

See also earlier discussion at Talk:American_and_British_English#Too_much_detail?. Pashley (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I don't want an edit war over this, but why has the spelling "liter" (which is in line with our "US-English is the default" policy) been replaced by the British "litre"? The edit summary claims it to be some kind of international preferred variety or something, but frankly, I ain't buyin' that... What do you say? Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I hadn't thought about the "prefer U.S. English" policy. I was just thinking that in a section explaining how the U.S. is the only country not to use liters, it would be weird to use the U.S. spelling of liter rather than spelling it "litre" the way it is in every country that actually uses liters.

If we'd rather be consistent with the "prefer U.S. English" policy, that's fine too, it just needs to be changed to match that. No matter what, it was inconsistent before... 2 uses of "liter" and 2 of "litre" in one section. --Bigpeteb (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well "every country that actually uses liters" does include quite some countries not speaking English (e.g. Germany where it is indeed "Liter") and as for consistency throughout the article: That I can get on board with, except of course for those places that talk about spelling differences explicitly... Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Liters are used in the US. You can get 3-liter bottles of Coke in supermarkets. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

On wp en we have english usage varieties acknowledged - and personally, as a British ancestry Australian, who uses litre, I would be against US centric policy over-ruling variant usages. The constant issue for almost 10 years on wp en has been to remove US centrism in usages or content, what makes Wikivoyage a child of something that other projects try to studiously avoid ? Or maybe i have misread the question and responses JarrahTree (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

We have a - imho rather weakly based in fact - policy as to which countries (allegedly or really) prefer British/American spellings that I would rather not see changed without good reason. In all cases that are not clearly one of the countries that "prefers" a certain variety of English (which ever way we get to that point of saying so) we kind of have to set a default standard to avoid this issue cropping up again and again and sapping our resources. We have chosen American English a long time ago and generally speaking there have never been major problems with that besides a few minor gripes here and there. If we were to chose any other default spelling, we would have to defend it against the attack of it being (country/culture/spelling) x centric... Hobbitschuster (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that reply. Yes such issues drain amazing amount of energy time and space and can even destroy some aspects of smaller projects or wikis. JarrahTree (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, so it sounds like as per WV:SP this article should use American "liter" except when specifically pointing out that it's spelled differently in British English. Changed. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

That gets us into weirdness like "There are 4.5 litres in an Imperial gallon", which you changed back to "there are 4.5 liters in an Imperial gallon". The countries which used the Imperial gallon would indeed explicitly be using L-I-T-R-E so I disagree with this change in this specific context. K7L (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you in such specific cases. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do Canadians use this term, "return", or both? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ikan Kekek: When I had to fly home to Canada from Europe with a broken leg, I told my insurance company that a one-way ticket would cost $x, and a return ticket would cost $y where you was considerably less than x. They told me I could buy the cheaper ticket as long as it was not round-trip. I don't think that was a matter of a linguistic misunderstanding but of the insurance company flunky being an effing moron. Ground Zero (talk) 11:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I took this description from W:Long and short scales

Canada uses the short scale in English-speaking regions, and the long scale in French-speaking regions.

but it's not clear to me what that means. Does it mean that Canadian English always uses the short scale? Or does it mean that in French-speaking regions like Quebec, the long scale is used even in English? --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

From 'billion' is a thousand million in English anywhere in Canada, including Québec. There is or was a French word « le billion » which is *not* the same as a thousand million in French is a « milliard ». See also w:fr:Échelles longue et courte#Pays utilisant l.27.C3.A9chelle longue. K7L (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is this info likely to be useful, let alone important, to travellers? I'm an English Canadian, did not know this until I read it here, & do not care now that I do. I see no reason to tell visitors about it. Pashley (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

It might be relevant insofar as French Canadians are similarly prone to confuse the long and the short scale as e.g. Germans, who also use the long scale (and would mistake "Billion" to mean "Billion" instead of "Milliarde") Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Pashley. The only practical application I can see is with billion-dollar business deals, but then you'd hope the people involved wouldn't be relying on Wikivoyage to know how much money they were spending! This is not supposed to be a comprehensive list of every single dialectical difference in English, so let's keep it focussed on the traveller. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

News in TV and print uses "billion" and "trillion" a lot, as they discuss government spending, business/financial news, damage from natural disasters, etc. So I think it is something that an average traveler might hear.

Does the point about French and Afrikaans belong in this article? Perhaps not, since this is a page about English, and presumably anyone who speaks the other language (whether the traveler or a native) would already be aware of the difference. But I'm inclined to agree with Hobbitschuster, that ESL speakers might confuse the words because of their native language, and so mentioning it is a useful caution. --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

You're right, the traveller might hear it, but would any slight misunderstanding (if any) that arose from their not having been made aware of the difference on Wikivoyage adversely affect their travel experience in any significant way? Would their correct understanding of the difference (if we do talk about it in this article) result in any improvement to their travel experience? In case it isn't obvious, I would argue "no" for both of those criteria, and these are surely the criteria we should be using to decide if a piece of information is 'worthy' of inclusion on this page of our travel guide.

The big issue for me is not this relatively minor billion / milliard quibble, but rather that, if left unchecked, this already fat and bafflingly long article will continue to grow, one useless bit of information at a time, until it is stuffed full of trivia with little or no importance to the traveller, that the really vital stuff will be lost. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

What do you all think of this edit? I oppose it. Education is a reason for travel; if we can have a Studying abroad topic, we can include terms relating to education that cause confusion, though which ones are sufficiently important to include are fair game for discussion. But moreover, education is a common topic of conversation, and being confused about some basic differences (like the meanings of "private" and "public" schools), while hardly fatal, might be good to avoid if clarity is desired. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the whole article, including this section, needs a fairly severe trimming; there is far too much trivia. On the other hand, I agree that removing the whole section was an error. Pashley (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You may well be right. Differences involving some of the more technical education terms could be explained in Studying abroad as necessary, but I think at least really common differences, like the disparate meanings of "public school" and "college" in different English-speaking places, should be explained here. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also oppose, for exactly the reasons cited. (I already undid the deletion, before I noticed this discussion.) And yes, this article has gotten a bit bloated again; it seems to be a magnet for it. --Bigpeteb (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

As I've wrote on several occasions in the past, this article is too long and not focussed on what is important to the traveller. There are many parts of the 'learn' section that are frankly irrelevant (discussing the school systems in various countries for one, since most study abroad is done by university students or adult learners), but the section itself should definitely remain, albeit in a much slimmer form. Best, --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

What about children of expats or people doing an exchange student program, though? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Neither of those groups are likely to be using or relying on Wikivoyage to understand the school system of their host country. And if they were, they wouldn't be looking for it in this article, because it's supposed to be about the English language, not the education system. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is some stuff about expat children in retiring abroad. I have not checked working abroad but it might have some too. I think this might make a good travel topic of its own at some point.

Teaching_English#University_programs mentions some types of exchange student. Pashley (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'll agree that "kindergarten", "pre-K", and "Year R" are not hugely relevant. If you're planning to enroll children in elementary/primary/grade school abroad, you should know more than just these couple of words. And when I looked up w:Comparison of American and British English#School, I found it enormously complicated. So I agree that it's out of scope, except maybe as a note outside the table that different countries (even within the UK) label school years differently.

What else would anyone nominate for trimming? Personally, I think the rest of the vocabulary in the Learn table is fine, as they're genuinely likely to come up or cause confusion (moreso than some other vocabulary items in this page).

What about the terms under "Same words, different meaning"? I think we certainly need to have something to explain "college" and "university", but maybe the detail can be pruned to just a sentence or fragment per country. (The entries for "football" do a much better job of being succinct, for comparison.) Maybe the vocab for "college" could be presented in a simple table of country vs level (secondary, community college, post-secondary). "Public school" almost certainly needs to stay, since it has so many meanings, some of which are exact opposites. I hadn't noticed "school" before, but I think we can remove that safely. Before seeing it on this page I wasn't aware of the differences in meaning for "student", so maybe that deserves to stay, but could be shortened. "Student union" could stay or go; since it has multiple meanings I think it should stay, but it can be shortened.

Perhaps moving some of this to Studying abroad is a good idea, to help de-clutter this page, although some general terms could still stay. I think people are much more likely to read Studying abroad than they are, say, Shopping, so moving vocabulary out of this page's Learn section is a lot more agreeable than moving it out of the Buy section would be. --Bigpeteb (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hmm... the "Same words, different meaning" section has picked up quite a few entries. It started out as a catch-all for terms that would be confusing, but don't obviously fit into any one section, like "fag", "gentleman's club", "pissed", and "rubber". But it's picked up a lot of other entries, many of which are quite lengthy.

Is there any reason not to move some of them to a more appropriate section above? There's no reason "football" has to be all the way at the bottom of the page when it could very easily be directly in "See and do". Likewise, a lot of the "Learn"-related items could move directly to that section, and "coriander" and "corn" could move to "Eat". --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

That seems most useful to me. Other opinions? Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's a sensible suggestion, you've got my backing. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

While the image of Space Shuttle "Endeavour" makes sense for this page once I read the caption, I don't think it will make sense for the average reader. I don't really have any other suggestions, though. --Bigpeteb (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Any example of English writing would do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

It was me who added the banner and it was really hard to come up with something suitable for this article i.e. something illustrating different varieties of English. If anyone has any better suggestions, feel free to change the banner. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I for one think the idea is very clever. Just a shame the space shuttle has been consigned to the history books. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

This article is classed as a Guide. What improvements are needed for a feature? Probably a condensation of the section on education, but what else? Are there other important terms for automobile parts that differ in different dialects of English and should be added? I added hood/bonnet, which is of obvious importance. Are there others? Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I actually removed hood/bonnet, on the basis that travellers are unlikely to need to know that difference, and it's just an extra entry cluttering up an already-long section. I mean, it should only come up if the car breaks down, right? (Unlike the trunk/boot, which could certainly be mentioned in an average traveller's day, like when they're picking a car to rent.) The person they're most likely to say "hood/bonnet" to is a mechanic, who will probably understand both words anyway, or figure it out from context. If you think this entry is important, then I don't object to leaving it in, but we just had another round of complaining about how long and bloated this article is, so I'm trying to show some restraint. --Bigpeteb (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

To me, it's natural that if we're mentioning trunk/boot, we should mention hood/bonnet. I understand the point you're making but don't really agree with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

No argument from me. I'm just playing devil's advocate; personally I don't see as much of a problem with clutter in this article. Isn't one of WV's policies that the articles don't have to be as constrained as in a print guide book, since it's an online format where there's little harm in being longer and more exhaustive? --Bigpeteb (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

More photos. ϒpsilon (talk) 16:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

These guides are actually supposed to be printable. Completely exhaustive coverage isn't desired, inasmuch as some of that coverage could be considered encyclopedic. But I don't think including hood/bonnet comes close to that. Imagine if your car broke down and you needed to call for repairs. It would help for you to know what word to use where.

And yes, more photos would be a good idea, but of what? I can think of something: If there were a photo of the Indian brinjal pickles I used to buy, showing the words aubergine and eggplant on the jar, too, that would be good, though I wouldn't figure on anyone having taken such a photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just read through this article again. To me, the following sections feel long enough to be worth a discussion:

(1) The football explanations. But I should say that I think they're totally fine, and whoever isn't interested can easily skip the section.

(2) The "Learn" section. This was deleted in toto once before and restored. I don't think all of it is essential, but again, it's easy to skip if the reader isn't interested.

(3) "Numbers"/"Date Formats"/"Weights and measures". I would strongly oppose deleting any of this, because it's so useful for the time when you might need it.

I think where we go with this article depends somewhat on how we view it. If we view it as a reference article, I think it's quite inessential to remove any of its current content. If we instead view it as a breezy, fun article that touches on just the most common and essential differences, it's too long. And my feeling is that good work has gone into making this article what it is now, so I would not like to see any large-scale deletions, though I would have no problem if a decision were made (or, for you Brits, taken ;-) to leave only the most important discrepancies in "Learn" terms here and move the rest to the Studying abroad article. As for football, the details could be moved to the Football disambiguation article to whatever extent they aren't already there, but since the coverage here is really about usage in different parts of the English-speaking world, I think it's better placed here, not there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

AndreCarrotflower deleted the entry on terms for "soda" for the understandable reason that there's a lot of variation within countries, so this isn't so much a straight difference between the US and the UK. However, the title of this article is "English language varieties", so I think it's relevant to the article that in the US South, you shouldn't be shocked to be asked what kind of Coke you want, meaning what kind of soda/pop, not just Coke Classic or Diet Coke, etc. I would suggest restoring the entry in question. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

If it's retained, it should be in the form of one of the more detailed notes at the bottom of each section, rather than an entry in the table. This is not a case of a simple UK/US dichotomy, as its presence on the table would imply. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's OK with me and sounds sensible. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Seconded. But (and I'll edit the article to reflect this) the whole thing about ordering "a coke" and getting asked "what kind?" is nonsense. I live in Atlanta, so I ought to know. If you order "a Coke" in a restaurant, you're getting a Coca-Cola. However, if you go to the grocery store to buy some "cokes", you're buying a variety of sodas. --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Maybe it would be better to display the common terms for soft drinks with a map? There are several of those floating around on the internet and either one of them is under an appropriate license already or we can create a similar one. As for ordering "coke" in my experience (which for the US is quite limited) it is by no means guaranteed that you'll get a Coca Cola. Often they will bring you a Pepsi or other cola beverage. Having - apart from airport layovers - never been to the South (and Atlanta as Coca Cola headquarters may well be different) I lack the expertise to judge whether a waiter or waitress would assume coke to mean another type of soft drink there. Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

Bigpeteb, my first experience of being asked "what kind of Coke" I wanted was in a diner in Greensboro, NC. It turned out they had Pepsi and no Coca Cola. So while I obviously take your word for it that this kind of usage is not universal in the South, it certainly happens. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Huh, so it does happen sometimes. Good to know! --Bigpeteb (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

In the article: "British chips are typically thicker than American fries."

Not my experience. Sure, there are some really small fries you can sometimes get in the U.S., but I didn't really notice a clear difference at all. Is this difference really clear to everybody, or should we delete the sentence above? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is a whole fried potato ecosystem. I'd say 'British chips' are always much thicker than 'fries'. That said I feel the usefulness to the traveler of making these distinctions is getting rather tenuous. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have found out much to my surprise that Spanish does not distinguish between potatoes fried in a pan and french fries. Both are "papas fritas" - at least in Mexico and Nicaragua. Whether or not we should go into too much detail on the fried potatoes and their terms in the Anglosphere... I think if anything we could mention it with specific restaurant listings or if it is a region or city wide trend in their respective articles rather than in this overview article. Fast food in North America is another page that could go into more detail on the specifics of fries at certain chains. Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Delete the sentence; it is probably true in general, but it does not matter much & there are exceptions. Pashley (talk) 10:58, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Regarding the edit I made, I wanted to highlight some quirks about this. Of course, it's already stated that what Americans call chips, the British call crisps, and what the British call chips, Americans call fries. However, Australians call both of them "chips", so yes, it can be a little confusing for some though based on my time spent there, you can usually tell from context what they mean. But anyway, I just thought this is something interesting to highlight. What do you think is the best way to do it? The dog2 (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

The way I left it was intended to show exactly the point you wanted to make, but with fewer words. To my mind, "In Australia, "chips" can refer to either the British or American sense of the word." says what you wanted to highlight, but without the confusing and false statement "Australia follows U.S. usage". Please let me know if I've misunderstood, and we'll put it back to how it was --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

For the most part it gets the point across, but one thing extra I'd point out is that "crisps" is rarely used in Australia. Sure, Australians will understand if a Brit says it, but it is in general not used by Australians. Australians will typically use "chips" to refer to either type of food. The dog2 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe that last sentence of yours ("Australians will typically use "chips" to refer to either type of food.") is the one to use in the notes then :) --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

AndreCarrotflower, the point I've been trying to make with the word "Indian" is that in the U.S., it can be used to refer to people from the country of India, or from the Indian subcontinent. That's normal and accepted, but very confusing for South Asians. I worked with a lot of them in grad school, and quickly learned not to use "Indian" in the sense of the Indian subcontinent. Calling someone from Pakistan "Indian" is okay in the U.S. usage, but confusing or even offensive in the South Asian usage.

Am I hung up on this too much? If not, is there some way we can incorporate this into the text? That's why I don't like combining the bullet points about the country of India and the Indian subcontinent, because it obscures the fact that those are two distinct uses of the word. --Bigpeteb (talk) 13:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think it would be great to include that information, but I disagree that it should be two different bullet points. The whole point of what you're saying is a lot of U.S. English speakers don't draw a verbal distinction between people from India and people from South Asian countries other than India. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I think the key passage from the article is "People from the country of India, or South Asia in a general sense." I was trying to strike a balance between what I talked about above and the fact that there is a small but growing number of U.S. English speakers who are indeed conscientious in differentiating between Indians and, say, Pakistanis or Sri Lankans in the language they use. In other words, if someone says the word "Indian" (and it's clear they're not talking about indigenous Americans), it's slightly more likely but far from certain that they're talking about someone from India rather than someone from a different South Asian country. I think maybe it could be worded a bit better, and I'm perfectly open to the idea of editing it, but let's also try to keep what is already a fairly longwinded discourse on the use of the word "Indian" from getting significantly longer. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've edited the article in a way that hopefully addresses some of your concerns, Bigpeteb. What do you think? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm satisfied. :-) -- Bigpeteb (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I added this expression, since it is indeed different between British and American usage. Of course, a native English speaker would be able to figure out what either expression means based on context, and such words are rarely used without a context. At least in Singapore, "yield" is almost never used in the context of "give way", though we would be able to understand what it means in an American text based on context. Maybe some Brits or Australians can chip in on this, but would understanding either word be commonsense in the absence of a context? The dog2 (talk) 02:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Re this edit:

First, state colleges receive an increasingly smaller percentage of their funding from state governments. Second, private universities do receive funding from governments, too; for example, Federal grants can go through universities and they can take a portion for tuition and an administrative fee. Third, I seriously doubt there's a wide perception that private universities as a whole are clearly better than public universities as a whole. It's not just some universities in the University of California system; it's also other PAC-10 schools such as University of Oregon and University of Washington, the Big 10 schools, several of the SUNY schools, University of Texas at Austin, the big CUNY schools, University of North Carolina - it's really quite an extensive list. Meanwhile, very few private colleges are on the level of the Ivy League.

I really would suggest we stick to a quick, clear definition here, even though state colleges are mostly funded by sources other than government. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

True that. And not all private universities are prestigious either. In fact, there are some private colleges that have a reputation for being diploma mills, so it is by no means a rule that private universities are better than public universities. The two that I mentioned, as well as the University of Washington, Seattle and several others are world class universities that are public, while say, the University of Phoenix has a reputation (which may or may not be true) for being a diploma mill. The dog2 (talk) 04:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's true and documented. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This edit is unhelpful:

At best, it over simplistic to split the world into 'American' and 'British'. Such a split is inaccurate, and is offensive to some. This false division has previously been used on Wikipedia, where is was not infrequently used by editors to push personal agendas. More accurate is to use 'Commonwealth' —The preceding comment was added by 1.22.207.31 (talk • contribs)

Correct. A linguist might make a lot more distinctions — for example Australian & Indian English each have their own quite distinctive characteristics — but if we want to keep it simple here (as we should) with a basic two-way division, then American/Commonwealth is correct. If finer distinctions are needed at all in a travel guide (mostly not), they can be dealt with ih destination articles. Pashley (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you that this is a simplistic view. However, I don't think just changing all the instances of 'British' to 'Commonwealth' will solve this problem for the two following reasons:

First 'British' English is the accepted term for the variation of English that most people will be familiar with as it is used by most dictionaries and also textbooks that teach English as a second language. So I think for a lot of people just changing it to Commonwealth will be rather confusing. (And I speak here especially as a person whose a non-native speaker). Also parallel to this, what we call 'American' English is not only spoken in America, but also in places such as the Philippines or Israel, so should we change that name as well? I think this kind of categories are always going to be overly simplistic, but they are so in the interest of not making it unnecessarily confusing to the (especially non-native) traveller.

Second, even calling it 'Commonwealth' English is not accurate, as there are (and the article also mentions that) some countries which use British/Commonwealth English but are not actually in the Commonwealth, such as Ireland or Hong Kong, so by changing it to Commonwealth English, it is still going to be offensive to some.

So I suggest that we leave the name 'British' English as it is in the article to avoid more confusion. The article already goes into a lot of detail about in which countries which variant is spoken to what degree and also calls it American/Commonwealth English in the lede. I agree that more details on the variations of English outside the simplistic American/British divide could (and probably) should be given, but I don't think this is the way of doing it. Drat70 (talk) 00:55, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Drat70. I used to live in Malaysia and have visited India, and in neither of those countries was the English spoken by people who knew the language the least bit identical to the Queen's English, often even if you were dealing with Oxford-educated elite folks; instead, many local words were used, and the accent was different. However, the standard English taught in schools in countries like Malaysia, at least theoretically (depending on how good your teacher is), is basically the Queen's English. I don't see how "Commonwealth" covers that. It's British, even English English per se, and then how it's actually spoken is something else, as you have Singlish, Manglish, and whatever the Indian version of that is called, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

As someone from Singapore, I will say that we always refer to the English we are taught in school as "British" English. While of course we use many non-standard words or even code switch between languages in daily conversation, what we use in formal writing is the English that the Queen would use, though of course, without her accent. Smilarly, in my time in Australia, most people would not disagree, much less be offended, if you said that "British" English is spoken in Australia. Sure Australian English has its own unique local slangs but formal written English in Australia is essentially identical to that in the U.K. It's mostly in the US that you will notice that formal written English is different from the U.K., but it's still similar enough for me or any competent speaker of "British" English to understand an American newspaper and vice versa. The dog2 (talk) 07:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

We seem to have a bit of an edit war going on. The text in this edit has been removed at least once & just reinserted. For now, I am resisting the strong urge to revert & just posting here instead. Pashley (talk) 08:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Do you disagree that American English, or some attempted simulacrum of same, is most prevalent in English as a Foreign Language instruction? If you do, simply revert that edit, with an assertion here that American English does not predominate in English as a Foreign Language instruction. But if you think it doesn't, what does? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I have a feeling that there are still many areas where British English is still the most common form taught. (For instance I know that this is the case in most of Europe, as opposed to American English which is the form preferred among teenagers etc.) I have been trying to come up with some sources for this, but haven't been able to find any evidence for or against it. I would have taught there should be some studies or statistics on this. Drat70 (talk) 09:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well, Europe plus the Indian Subcontinent plus much of Africa, etc., would end up with a majority of the world's population pretty quickly, so maybe these kinds of remarks should be removed from the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well in my experience (which is limited to a single state in a country that divides education up by state) teachers would fall into the accent they picked up in their time abroad (almost all my English teachers were in the US or the UK abrolmost some point in their lives) but they would invariably teach the differences between British and American English and accept grammar and spelling found in both varieties lest they deemed it "slang" (y'all or tally - ho would probably not have flown). In Nicaragua on the other hand the teachers I met had too strong a Spanish accent to make out any English variety, but spelling and vocabulary were influenced heavily by all the Friends reruns on TV. And speaking as a (somewhat) young person, there is a trend away from British English among younger people in Europe. And media certainly influence this trend. Netflix and CNN have probably done more to spread (aa certain variety of) English than the Commonwealth and the Royal Navy ever could. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

At least based on my understanding, British English is taught in the Commonwealth and the EU, but otherwise, the variety of English taught is usually American English. I know for sure that American English is the variety taught in Latin America, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and most of the Middle East like Saudi Arabia and Israel. I'm not entirely sure about China but some Chinese have told me that they learn American English in school. I know there are exceptions, but I guess it's safe to say that unless you live in the EU or a former British colony, chances are you will be taught American rather than British English. The dog2 (talk) 15:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I do (quoting Ikan above) "disagree that American English, or some attempted simulacrum of same, is most prevalent in English as a Foreign Language instruction".

In the 70s & 80s I taught for an American-run project in Iran, the British Council (UK government agency) in Singapore, and a project run by the Council at a Saudi Arabian university. In China 2002-2010 I taught at several different schools with Chinese, British & Aussie managers. No-one at any of these worried much about varieties of English & in most places teachers were from all over. The Americans in Iran did have almost all American staff, but they used some British textbooks and there were other schools in town with mostly British staff. Pashley (talk) 20:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well especially when teaching the basics there are things more important than whether it is "theater" or "theatre". And once pupils have acquired a certain amount of knowledge, trying to get them to ditch the variety they have chosen is a fool's errand. So all English-teachers I have ever met were at least paying lip-service to accepting all standard varieties of English. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

While all that is true, as this article mentions, there are often vocabulary differences as well. A good example is say if you are on holiday in Japan or South Korea. If you ask your hotel's reception desk where the "lift" is, nobody will have any idea what you are talking about, but if you use the American "elevator", they probably will be able to point you in the right direction. Similarly, in a shopping centre in India or Malaysia, if you ask where the "bathroom" is, people will probably be scratching their heads wondering why you want to have a bath or shower in a shopping centre, but if you use the British "toilet", people will understand what you mean. So even if you are speaking to a foreign language learner of English, the variety of English they are taught does matter as well. The dog2 (talk) 21:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well in that regard words like "lorry" and "chips" (meaning long-ish potato things that are not crispy all the way through) are almost unheard of in Germany. Maybe because "Truck" has become a somewhat common word in some contexts in German and the thing Brits call crisps are invariably sold as "chips" in Germany. Another thing that is very dependent on where you are is sports metaphors. In the US (and to some degree Latin America) you will hear a lot of metaphors based on American Football and Baseball while I don't know many sports metaphors being used at all in the British sphere of cultural influence. Certainly soccer metaphors seem contrived in German and are (very close to) never standing idioms by themselves. Americans very much do talk about something "out of left field" or an issue being a "political football" and the opposition is "running with it" to "score points". Heck, thanks to the way the NFL is presented on German TV American Football metaphors start creeping into some subsets of the German population... Anybody giving their significant other a two minute warning to get ready soon? Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are other sports-based metaphors like "knocked for six" (cricket), a "low blow" (boxing) and one I like (hockey). I do not think we can deal with those here. Pashley (talk) 03:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not certain this is entirely accurate, but it is at least plausible & I found it interesting. Hear What Scholars Think English Will Sound Like In 100 Years Pashley (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Prognosticating language that far into the future is next to impossible. Take German for instance, which just 100 years ago was full of Latinisms and Gallicisms and did stuff like saying "Neu York" (this is even attested into the 1950s) while a whole bunch of words were considered perfectly normal that make people today shudder at their political associations. Of course, the last 100 years were rather turbulent, but with the Cubs about to break at the very least their seven decade pennant drought and Trump running for President (not to mention the end of Great Britain as we know it), who knows what will happen to the English language? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are trolleys always understood to be rubber tire vehicles drawing electricity from a pantograph or are there instances or dialects of English when this refers to a rail vehicle? Also, does "tram" always mean steel wheels on steel rails or are there other uses of the term? Hobbitschuster (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, the term doesn't change based on what sort of wheels the vehicle has. Tram is the only word used on this side of the Atlantic, in common with most other European nations, so if there is any distinction, it is to be found in North America, where streetcar and trolley are both used, seemingly interchangeably for what Brits would refer to as a tram (runs on rails). There is also the word "trolleybus" which is a bus dependent on overhead electricity drawn through a pantograph but doesn't run on rails, but these are so rare in the 21st century, I wouldn't advocate listing them just for completeness' sake. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Update: In fact, there seems to be some kind of dual (more specifically quadruple) usage for the word "trolley" (see: Trolley) Either way, Wikipedia seems to consider it a secondary word to "tram" and "trolleybus". --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would not call trolleybuses rare. They have certainly decreased in prominence and are less widespread than they once were, but they still exist in several cities in the Anglosphere, besides their still more prominent role in Switzerland and parts of the former Eastern Bloc. Hobbitschuster (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

There are precisely six remaining systems in North America. As for the rest of the Anglosphere, trolleybuses are found only in Wellington, and those are apparently due to be removed next year in favour of diesel buses (how very 1950s...) But the fact is that as a transport system in English-speaking countries, trolleybuses are exceedingly rare and beyond the scope of this article.

What we do need to do is clarify what the distinction between trolleys and streetcars is, if indeed there is one. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

There is none. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

So, basically, we should reinstate your edit? I support that. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

Done -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

I would delete this paragraph:

US streetcar is always in mixed traffic (and often a rather short line) whereas many trams have dedicated rights of way and would likely be labeled "light rail" in the US.

Does a traveller care? Also, it is wrong, at least if Canada is considered. The Queen Street streetcars in Toronto run a long way, right across the city & the (now demolished) Ottawa system had miles of dedicated line. Pashley (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well since the US did not manage to conquer Canada (despite at least two serious attempts) what Toronto or Ottawa do or did has no bearing on US English. Also, a traveler might care insofar as a US traveler might be surprised to hear of a tram/streetcar going well into the suburbs (and thus underestimate their utility) and the other way a round a person from Toronto might think they can get to all relevant parts of Kansas City via streetcar, which clearly is not the case, nor is that streetcar as fast as systems US-citizens would refer to as "light rail". Hobbitschuster (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've already removed this once, only to see it reinserted without explanation: a claim that "pavement" in the US can be anything from the drivable asphalt road lanes to the Portland cement sidewalk. I disagree. The pavement is the asphalt road. A concrete, stone or some-random-non-asphalt-material sidewalk is not pavement. K7L (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I absolutely agree. The sidewalk in the U.S. is not the pavement. Roads are usually paved; sidewalks (except maybe in rare cases) are not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Pavement - "(US) Any paved exterior surface, as of a road or sidewalk." It doesn't get more clear-cut than that.

Colloquially, when referring to "the pavement", what's implied is usually a driveable surface. But the listing in this article is for "pavement", unqualified by the definite article, which refers to the actual building material (asphalt, concrete, stone, etc.) that the surface is made of.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 04:58, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Edited. I think I have solved the problem. Other opinions? Pashley (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes, thank you. It's best to concentrate on usage, in my opinion, not on what Wiktionary claims is the definition. Their definition may be clear-cut, but that doesn't mean they've captured the way the word is usually used in the U.S. Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Also, if we take Andre's point on the difference between "pavement" (which seems like a technical definition) and "the pavement", all that would need to be added to that picture is the word "the": "In American, this is not the pavement." Etc. I'd also use "roadway" as one word. But I think it's a good and useful picture and caption. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Look, I have to admit I remain aghast at the idea of U.S. meaning of "pavement" being circumscribed in this way - the "driveable surface only" use always struck me as an obvious Britishism; I'd never heard of anyone in the U.S. using it that way until this discussion. Maybe it's down to differences between the respective subdialects of North American English we all speak, but I think the fact that most dictionaries tend to endorse the broader definition for U.S. usage (Wiktionary, Cambridge, Oxford) reinforces the idea that the broader definition is more accurate vis-à-vis U.S. English in a global sense than the narrower one.

Furthermore, I'm reconsidering my above caveat about "the pavement" vs. "pavement". There are some instances where adding the definite article makes it clear that it's specifically a driveable surface at issue, mainly in the case of idiomatic expressions (e.g. "She was late for her appointment, so she hopped in her car and put the rubber to the pavement"), but then again we might have a case like "He slipped on the ice and hit his head on the pavement" where we're back to the more ambiguous usage for any hard artificial surface. Obviously that's more fine-grained than we need to get in an article like this, though.

Pashley's edits seem like an acceptable compromise, but I still think the better course of action would have been to retain the original text.

-- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Pavement" for "driveable surface" is surely not a Britishism, when they use "pavement" to mean "sidewalk", right? I take your point, though, that perhaps what I thought was pan-U.S. usage in this case is really New York City-area usage. I believe that at least here, pavement is only what's on the street, never the sidewalk (unless perhaps if there's a blacktopped sidewalk somewhere). Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Blacktop? That's the main thing that I wanted to clarify: that U.S. "pavement" does not imply asphalt. A road made of concrete and left in its natural light-gray color would still be called "pavement". See w:Road surface and search for the word "pavement". --Bigpeteb (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I do agree with it, when it comes to roads. There are various things roads can be paved with. I would concede that we could talk of paved and unpaved sidewalks, too, if there are some sidewalks that are just dirt, gravel or sand (but would those really be called sidewalks?). But I simply don't know of cases in the U.S. of the word "pavement" being used generically to mean "sidewalk". Maybe it is somewhere, but then I don't know about it. "Pound the pavement" is an idiom, not a default term for the sidewalk. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is quite accurate:

• • U.S./Canada - Refers to the completion of either high school (secondary school) or university-level courses.

Strictly speaking, a student completes courses every semester. It's probably more precise to describe this as completing a curriculum, but then "curriculum" might have to be defined. What should we do?

Also, subsidiary point: In the U.S., you can graduate from kindergarten, from elementary school, from junior high school, probably even from pre-K in some schools, but we don't really need to mention these things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough. We could also just eliminate the word "courses", but then there might be some ambiguity regarding what "completing university" means (undergraduate? graduate? doctorate?) -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:35, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Graduation" makes me think of either finishing high school or completing a bachelor's degree. Just my two cents. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

[edit conflict, and great minds think alike ;-)] One way to clarify it is that when graduating from high school, the student receives a diploma and when graduating from college, the student (at least usually, but I don't think we need to deal with diploma programs at music conservatories like Juilliard) receives a Bachelor's degree. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

As far as I know, it is universally accepted that you "graduate" with your PhD or Master's degree, not just your Bachelor's. But I'm wondering if the U.S. definition mentioned here is not broad enough. After all, as far as I know, Americans "graduate" from community college, which are tertiary, but not university-level institutions. At least in Singapore, and as far as I know, Australia, in popular usage, graduation only applies to attaining Bachelor's degrees or higher, but not to completing a study programme at a vocational institute. The dog2 (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

As I said in my edit summary, I think this introduces a needless extra layer of complexity. Doesn't it stand to reason that if the word "graduate" is used for completing a course of study in high school as well as in full-fledged university, that it would apply to community college (widely seen as a middle ground between those two levels of education) as well? And how necessary is this information, really, for the traveller? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

[Edit conflict] Please read my thread-starting post above, in which I remember that in some institutions, it is possible to "graduate" from pre-K. But we really do not need to make any exhaustive definitions on this page. Stating that in the U.S., graduation can apply either to high school or even earlier periods of schooling at the end of which a student can get a diploma or from college is more than ample. I don't really agree that it's common usage in the U.S. (at least in my experience) for people getting post-Bachelor's degrees to be said to have thereby "graduated". I graduated from high school and then from college, but after that I got my Master's and Doctorate. I didn't graduate twice more. I guess some Americans do claim they graduated 4 times or more. I never knew anyone to say so, but whatever. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, the notion of "completing" community college in any sense, rather than either dropping out or transferring one's credits to a full-fledged university, is in itself fairly rare in the U.S. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 22:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

You complete community college by getting an Associate's degree, and there could be a graduation ceremony, but you aren't thereby a college graduate, of course. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I still object to the phrasing "Refers to the completion of either high school (secondary school) or university-level courses." As I pointed out above, graduation is not about completing courses; it's about earning a diploma or degree. Any graduate will have completed many courses, of course; that's not the issue. Would anyone object to this phrasing?

• graduation/to graduate:
  • U.S./Canada - Refers to having earned a high school diploma or an undergraduate (Bachelor's) degree.
  • UK/Ireland/Australia/New Zealand - Only refers to completion of courses of study at the university level (i.e. Bachelor's, Master's or Doctorate degrees).

By the way, I always see degrees capitalized, and I think that's right and they are proper names. Oddly, we don't usually treat high school diplomas that way. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

In Ontario, community college is emphatically not a stepping stone to university. After secondary school (grade 12), one goes to university directly for three or four years for a degree, or one goes to college for some lesser piece of paper, usually a diploma. The college credits are worth nothing at university. By contrast, New York (state) community colleges churn out mostly two-year "associate degrees", about half of which may be continued at university to obtain a four-year bachelor degree. And then there's Québec, where secondary schools end at grade 11 (secondaire 5) and the 12th year is community college for everyone, including university-bound students.

In general, yes, one can graduate community college and enter industry in various trades. The piece of paper awarded is often a "college diploma", although US community colleges seem to like "associates degrees". A few specific lesser community college programmes award a "certificate" at the bottom of the heap. Yes, these people graduate, and there is a big ceremony - same as any other graduation from any other school at any other level.

I figure I've graduated four times by now... from grades 8 (elementary school), 12 (high school), 13 (high school, Ontario's old system had a grade 13 which was phased out in the 1980's) and "seventeen" (a B.Sc.). No idea whether all this paper makes me any smarter. K7L (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

As I see it, that's all the more reason to keep the information as simple as possible. Why mention community college in the definition at all if 1) the situation is so frustratingly complex, even within different provinces of the same country, as in Canada, and 2) a traveller would very rarely need to be aware of these fine distinctions in any case? -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

What's there now specifically excludes graduation from both elementary schools and community colleges.

graduation/to graduate:

• U.S./Canada - Refers to the completion of either high school (secondary school) or university-level courses.
• UK/Ireland/Australia/New Zealand - Only refers to completion of courses of study at the university level (i.e. bachelor's, master's or doctorate degrees).

That's factually incorrect as one can graduate from just about any school by completing their entire programme - however grand, however humble. K7L (talk) 15:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

So what? If you nitpick enough, you can find an exception to pretty much every piece of information on Wikivoyage. An article like this one in particular can very easily get bogged down in pointless pedantry if we let it. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 15:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Do we need this item at all? I don't see how it affects travel per se. K7L (talk) 15:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I thought it's just something relevant to education, which comes up as a common topic when you meet people. But anyway, the gist of what I was trying to get at is that "graduation" has a much broader definition in the US and Canada than elsewhere. For most of the rest of us, graduation only applies when an academic degree is conferred by a university, but not in other circumstances. We merely say that we "completed" high school. And as a side note, I am enrolled in grad school in the US, and when talking to my fellow grad students, we often talk about when we are going to "graduate", so I'm not sure if there are regional differences, but it is not entirely unheard of for Americans to say they "graduate" with a Master's or Doctorate degree. The dog2 (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm not asking whether it's "relevant to education". I'm asking whether it's relevant to travel. It appears to me that elementary and high schools (or their graduation procedures) are not relevant to short-term travel. K7L (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

If I remember my own high school graduation correctly, folks coming from out of town to attend relatives' graduations is not at all an uncommon phenomenon. Elementary and middle school is a different story. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I would back that up. It's common for relatives to travel long distances for high school and college graduations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:56, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

[unindent] As I mentioned above, I don't think it's clear in a U.S. context to describe gradua