WikiProject iconLanguages Template‑class
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
TemplateThis template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I know[edit]

I know this isn't meant to be a complete list of dialects, but it seems to me African American Vernacular English should be on the list. I assume it's considered a type of "American English", which is already linked, but I think it's distinct enough and widely-spoken enough to warrant its own entry. I'll let someone more linguistically-inclined than me make any changes though. Tuf-Kat 04:22, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure whether AAVE (or maybe Hawaiian English for that matter) is a major dialect. After all, it is spoken by a minority in North America, and is generally American English. Pædia 07:49, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
Linguists agree that AAVE is a dialect of English. It's spoken by millions in the United States. How many people speak Manx English again? --Bfraga 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
However, AAVE != Ebonics. Ebonics is what AAVE is commonly called, but Ebonics refers more properly to the politics of AAVE in education and the classification of AAVE as a foreign language to secure funding for programs to teach Standard American English to AAVE speakers. I'm spelling out AAVE and removing Ebonics. Dave 03:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UK ==>> British Isles[edit]

I'm changing UK to British Isles & including Irish English there. Jimp 6Nov05

Missing distinct English dialects[edit]

I am going to add these to the list of English Dialects

Not added but should be condsidered

Each one of these dialects are a distinct part of English and should be listed and acknowledged. I have left Cockney English here sicne I'm not sure if it can be considered a part of Estuary English or a seperate dialect. And I'm not sure if I should add the others or not. Thanks UKPhoenix79 03:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to what I've learned, Received Pronunciation is no dialect, merely a pronunciation of Standard English English, i.e. an accent. Since English English is already listed, I vote for removal of RP in the list of British dialects. NisseSthlm 16:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I found this and I though that it would be interusting UKPhoenix79 04:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(The following is a duplicate of comments Mais oui! made here: Talk:Scottish_English#Inaccurate_map.)

The following map has been applied to the English English page, and to Scottish English:

Diagram showing the geographical locations of selected languages and dialects of the British Isles.

It appears to have one major flaw, and several quibbles:

  • Where on earth is the Scots language? Its ommission seems particularly inappropriate considering the debt owed to Scots by Scottish English. Somewhat bizarrely, only one dialect of Scots is included, and that is the tiny number of Ulster Scots speakers, only about 2% of all Scots-speakers! I know that the map is titled "Selected languages", but it is baffling why the only language the auther has "selected" not to include is Scots!
  • Why on earth have two distinct languages, Scottish Gaelic language and Irish language, been shown as a homogenous blob?
  • Highland English is missing: another rather stark absence on this Scottish English page.
  • Why are several subdivisions of English English shown, but only two of Scottish English? The differences between the Fife dialect and Aberdonian are just as big, if not bigger, than the differences between Brummie and Yorkshire dialect.
  • Where on earth did Shetland go? A stunning ommission, considering that it is one of the most distictive linguistic groups in the entire British Isles?

I find it very depressing to hear that a German textbook publisher wants to use it in textbooks for 600 schools. No wonder many people grow up with a very strange perception of the language situation in the United Kingdom.--Mais oui! 10:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


This needs to be collapsible like ((Languages of Australia)). On pages with more then one template this prevents them all from automatically collapsing (eg. Australian English) . +Hexagon1 (t) 04:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"British Isles"[edit]

I have twice removed this term from this box and will be doing so for a third time after posting this notice.

Ireland is not a "British Isle." It is an Irish Isle. The term "British" refers to "Britain," the larger island just east of Ireland. Just because the term "British Isles" is more concise than "The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man" does not make the term acceptable.

Perhaps I can explain why applying the term "British Isles" to Irealnd is so offensive. In past years, Asians were called "Orientals." Oriental means Eastern, and implies that Asian people are defined, not by their own culture, but by their relationship to Europe(ie. they are east of Europe.) The term is Euro-centric and entirely unacceptable. I could point out a litany of such terms to define a people that were once acceptable in polite society but are no longer. (African American wikipedians will instantly recognize the specific term that I am implying.)

Frederick Douglass told us that slaves and dogs are named by others, but that free men name themselves. The Irish, and Ireland, are not defined as a variation on Britain, or by their relationship to Britain.

Please stop reverting to "British Isles." It is offensive.

To debate this issue further, visit Talk:British Isles Windyjarhead 16:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistakenly assuming that the term "British Isles" is somehow connected the UK, whereas it predates the UK by 2000 years at least. "British" originally referred to the Celtic inhabitants of the isles. The name Britain was applied to the island so named simply because it was the largest island in the British Isles. And nor is the term offensive to most Irish - it is used in a purely neutral, geographical sense by Irish government ministers and members of parliament, for example. TharkunColl 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You say "And nor is the term offensive to most Irish - it is used in a purely neutral, geographical sense by Irish government ministers and members of parliament, for example." I wonder, what do you base that statement on?
It is my experience that the term is officially used neither by the Irish government, nor by the British government.
By the way, if I were removing anti-Semitic language from articles, would I be "pushing a political agenda?" Windyjarhead 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I base that statement on the fact that they do indeed use it - Sile de Valera for example, the culture minister. You appear to have no grasp of the concept that British Isles has got nothing to do with the British state, and the term predates the latter by 2000 years. British meant Celtic. Whether or not the term is used by the two governments is irrelevant - it is part of the language. And I am perfectly capable, by the way, of reading your comments here - there is no need to repeat them on my talk page. TharkunColl 17:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I take issue with your assertion that "You appear to have no grasp of the concept..." see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Policy clearly states that comments should be on the content, not the contributor.
Secondly, Sile de Valera is not the Head of the Irish State, nor does she have the authority to unilaterally set state policy. My point is that no laws, treaties or formal diplomatic statements that speak authoritatively refer to the "British Isles." See the Good Friday Agreement, signed by both governments, for the best example.
There are many offensive terms that are "part of the language." See nigger, kike, faggot etc. None of these is acceptable either.
And yes, "British Isles" has to do with the British State. The association between the two is immediate, especially for people who are not from these Islands. It is that association, no matter the etymology of the term, that is troublesome. The point is to reinforce the public notion that Ireland is seperate nation, a seperate culture, a seperate island and a seperate identity. Why could this be worrying? Windyjarhead 17:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point of an encyclopedia is to educate people. If some mistakenly assume that the term British Isles is connected with the British state, then our job as editors to to explain that it isn't, and why. No one is denying that Ireland is a separate nation, as are England, Scotland, and Wales - the other three nations that inhabit the British Isles. And no one in their right mind is denying that Ireland is a separate island - there are thousands of islands in the British Isles, of which Ireland is by far the second largest. A separate culture and identity - yes, obviously, in the same way that England, Scotland, and Wales have separate cultures and identities. But all four nations have far more in common with each other than they do with anyone else. British Isles has a perfectly clear meaning and is only imbued with a political aspect by those, a tiny minority, who don't like it. The fact that de Valera, amongst others, have used it in public speeches proves that it is most definitely not equivalent to words like "nigger". TharkunColl 18:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(pasted from User:Windyjarheads talk page) I know the reasoning used by those who choose to find the term offensive but this reasoning is rooted in subjective political POV. British Isles is a politically and ethnically (unless you consider the ancient Britons/Welsh for whom they were nameD) neutral term which is far, far older than any of the political entities located within these isles. The fact that some people choose to find the term offensive has no bearing on its validity anymore than the fact that a sizable portion of the northern Irish population find being classed as British ( despite the fact that they are undeniably so ) offensive has any bearing on the reality. Ireland is,always has been and always will be an island of the British isles. This is not a political issue. siarach 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the term is so universally accepted, why was it necessary in 2001 for the British Lions to change their name to the British and Irish Lions?
Times have changed and so has the language. Hawai'i used to be called the Sandwich Islands. Sri Lanka used to be called Ceylon. Zimbabwe used to be Rhodesia. The list goes on and on.
The fact remains, the term is divisive and unneccesary. Windyjarhead 21:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You will notice that the former name of the rugby team, British Lions, did not include the phrase British Isles, so this example is completely irrelevant. The adjective "British" (of the UK, etc.) should not be confused with other usages of the word, such as when it is found in the ancient collective noun "British Isles". It is very common in language for this to happen. You speak English, correct? Does that make you English? No one seems to have a problem with accepting that the term "English" has these two distinct meanings. Is a citizen of Brazil, or Mexico, an American? They come from the continents called America, so why don't we call them American? In other words, they live in a place called America, but are not American. It is just the way that language has evolved.
I agree that places do indeed change their names, but this has not happened with the term British Isles - a Google search will show you that it is considerably more than twice as popular as its next nearest rival, the geographically incorrect "Great Britain and Ireland". As an encyclopedia we need to reflect the truth as it, not how we would wish it to be. TharkunColl 00:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"British" always means the same thing. The collective noun "British Isles" describes "isles" that are "British." It really is that simple.
Actually, yes, Brazilians and Mexicans are Americans. They are Latin Americans. In Spanish, the primary language of the Americas (and before you ask, yes I know that Brazilians speak Portugese), people from the United States are called estadounidense or norteamericano. People from other parts of the Americas can be centroamericanos, sudamericanos et cetera. Oh, and no one confuses them with the Spaniards, by the way.
Google is the infallible source of names for countries now? Seriously? Windyjarhead 00:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, British has many meanings - and being British myself, I think I might be in a better position to know this. It existed as a word long before the UK was created. Why don't you complain that the UK stole it? That would make a lot more sense. British Isles is a translation of a Latin term, itself a translation of a Celtic term. There was a time, you know, that the English hated being called British, because it was too Celtic. But it was imposed on them by the Scottish Stuarts.
I know that those people are Latin Americans, but the term Latin American is distinct from American, not a subset of it. What words are used in Spanish are absolutely irrelevant to an English encyclopedia.
Google simply gives you an idea of frequency of usage. Are you disputing this? TharkunColl 00:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice now that you've decided that what I had to say was "irrelevant." You say the world view of the Irish government is irrelevant, the world view of Latin Americans is irrelevant, in fact, the only relevant world view is the British one - the one that says that Ireland is a British Isle. It is certainly easy to convince yourself that you're right when you can choose which facts to ignore.

Whether you're British or Canadian or Chinese or Martian is of no consequence to me. What you've cited is an appeal to authority. It is a fallacy - a logically invalid form of argument. Show me facts, not passports. Windyjarhead 02:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are a much more powerful and bigger nation than Ireland is. We own part of Ireland and that part is definatily British. I know that the Irish people in the South aren't happy with the word British, but in this part of the world, we rule. Johnox 02:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

" . . . in this part of the world, we rule." - Johnox

And British jingoism has made its first appearance of the conversation. Thank you for further proving my point. Windyjarhead 02:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

". . . but the term Latin American is distinct from American, not a subset of it" - TharkunColl

Take a look at es:América. Your assertion is unequivocally false.

Almost all Latin Americans would disagree with your statement. In fact look here and here [1]. Windyjarhead 04:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you are using a foreign language as an example (Spanish) - how is this relevant? As for my "appeal to authority", it was in response to your simple assertion that British only has one meaning - an assertion supported by no evidence whatsoever. I can prove right here that the term British is used in more than one way: it is (1) used to mean "of the UK", and (2) it forms part of the phrase British Isles, which is a geographical term with no political meaning.
Incidentally, to use the term "British Isle" as you have done more than once is incorrect, because the term British Isles is a collective noun. To call Ireland a "British Isle" is therefore wrong, and is quite obviously open to misinterpretation.
And if I were you I'd ignore the troll above. I'm not at all sure that he's not actually working for the other side... TharkunColl 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with some is that they are apologists for the word British. The word British is synonymous with the rise of Britain as a power from Elizabeth and the sinking of the Armada to the building of the great British Empire, thus spreading civilization throughout the world. Don't apologize, be proud. Johnox 12:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One can be proud of one's national achievements without distorting history. The term British orginally referred to the Celtic inhabitants of the islands, as opposed to the English. Just look at the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle if you don't believe me. The word was appropriated by the English state around AD 1600. TharkunColl 14:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word British didn't exist until about 1600. It's a distinct word, the difference between chalk and cheese. The word British applies to the Great British Empire, and also to the isles off Europe. It was her majesty Elizabeth I who put the British into Britain. You are embarrassing the way you are turning over backwards to appease political correctness. Enough!! Johnox 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to ignore the troll.

As for your assertion that Latin American perspectives are irrelevant, simply because they are rendered in a language other than English, I cannot agree. (See Sapir–Whorf hypothesis.) But our debate is not about what "America" refers to, it is about what "British Isles" refers to. So, despite my desire to push the "America" issue further, I'll leave it for another debate.

I think that we have both shown ourselves to be of reasonable intelligence and education, yet we disagree. Such is the nature of human discourse. It has become clear that neither of us will convince the other.

Of course, be advised that this is not a "dead issue" and that I (and others) will continue to debate the use of this term. If the Irish are anything, we are persistent.

This will be my last entry in this debate. (Well, for the time being, anyways.) Good luck and happy Christmas. Oh, and by the way, I'm changing the box one more time for good measure.) Windyjarhead 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ive just noticed the change from "British Isles" to "Europe" - a fine solution to the problem debated above imo. siarach 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Llanito removal[edit]

I think this warrants a bit of discussion. Certainly llanito is a pidgin/creole but it may very qualify as an English dialect, the differences in linguistics are ambiguous enough to allow for some leeway. Windyjarhead 08:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed simply because in the Llanito article is also listed under pseudo-dialect of English, which I think is more appropriate. Not sure up to what point you could speak of pidgin instead mere code-switching, spiced up with some local words. As you said, the whole subject is quite ambiguous and open to interpretations. Feel free to restore it if you think so. Regards, Asteriontalk 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection[edit]

In response to complaints about edit warring, which the history page justifies, I have fully protected this page for two weeks. Use this time to get to consensus, please. Should you come to consensus before that, you may contact me or use the ((editprotected)) template to request an update to the page. I am fully aware that at least half of you are going to be convinced (!!) that I have protected "the wrong version". OK. I protected the version that was here when I got here, and no administrator is likely to revert to a previous version before protecting (and thus compromising their neutrality on the issue) for anything less than blatant vandalism, which I'm sure we all agree is not happening here.

Good luck working towards compromise. - Philippe | Talk 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, here's my stance in a nutshell:

Convert to Navbox from Navbox generic, as Navbox generic was deprecated[edit]

((editprotected)) The ((Navbox generic)) form was deprecated, so I would like this page converted to the ((Navbox)) form. Simply delete the word "generic" in the first line, and also delete the "|style = text-align:left", as this is the default behavior in Navbox. Thanks, --CapitalR 18:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mancunian seems to have been added to the box recently. I think that this is very inappropriate when there is not actually an article for Mancunian. I shall remove it from the box for now. Lancashire can go in its place.

If an article is ever done, we might think about it going on, but I do not think that Mancunian should be called a "dialect". What is usually meant by the term is a trendy Liam Gallagher way of talking. That is not a "dialect" in the sense of a grammar and vocabulary that has long-term historical roots. Also, modern Mancunian is not very "broad"; a speaker of Standard English would not have any difficulty understanding it whilst they would do with an actual dialect from, say, further north in Lancashire or over into Yorkshire. There are one or two features of speech particular to Manchester, but that could be said of most towns in Britain. I would therefore vote against Mancunian being on the list. Lancashire is a much better article to have on there. Epa101 (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


The article on Llanito states that it is a creole based on Andalusian Spanish. As such, does it really belong in this template on English dialects? Theelf29 (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch English[edit]

The way the Dutch (or even British people in The Netherlands) speak English could certainly be considered a seperate dialect. (talk) 08:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There would have to be an article created before it could be added to the template. Kman543210 (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It depends, there is an article on Dunglish but this refers to some of the mistakes Dutch people make when speaking/writing English and not to the accent of spoken English in The Netherlands. I think making an article on the latter is very difficult since the accent of Dutch people speaking English can depend on factors like 1) Which accent of Dutch they speak and/or 2) Their exposure to x-accent of the English language (people who continuously watch e.g. American TV-shows generally have a more American accent and so on). LightPhoenix (talk) 17:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I find it plausible that there could be a variety of American English spoken by Dutch Americans called Dutch American English. Gringo300 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in this post we're referring to English spoken by people in The Netherlands (the majority of Dutch people speak a varying degrees of English as a 2nd language). However, an accent in the USA by Dutch Americans is probably more geared towards 1st generation immigrants in the past (since then people emigration to the US probably didn't know/speak a lot of English), than to any current situation. However, I don't have any knowledge about ethnic accents in the USA so I'm not sure at all. LightPhoenix (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Firstly, if this is a template for English dialects, why is Maltenglish in here? It is a code-switching phenomenon - not a dialect. Secondly, if Maltenglish is to be included, why is not Spanglish? Mingeyqla (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that Maltenglish would qualify as an English-based language, but not as a dialect of English proper. Gringo300 (talk) 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each speech pattern should be considered individually - but there is no widely accepted litmus test for determining what is a "language" or "dialect" or "code switching" or what have you. Cockney rhyming slang? Ulster Scots? Jamaican patois? Spanglish? There isn't any good single answer for all of these. If you think something should or should not be included, add it or remove it or seek consensus here on the talk page. BE BOLD. Windyjarhead (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Helen(i)a(n), Tristan da Cunha & Falkland Islander English?[edit]

Just wondering if there's any info on the accents of English spoken in Saint Helena and Tristan da Cunha? And Falkland Islander? LightPhoenix (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bermudian English in Caribbean English category?[edit]

I just noticed that Bermudian English is classified here in the category of Caribbean English whilst the article itself states that it is generally classified as a form of American (rather than Caribbean) English. Furthermore, as far as I know and can tell from the articles about Bermuda and the Caribbean the island is not considered a part of the Caribbean either but simply as a part of North America. I could be wrong, but is this categorisation then correct? LightPhoenix (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and Belize is not in South America, I think those were a case of "best fit" but imperfect sorting. i made a change - better? Windyjarhead (talk) 09:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks great! LightPhoenix (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New template for code-switching[edit]

I think that a different template should be created for English interlanguages or code-switching. It could have at least the following articles: Chinglish, Czenglish, Denglisch, Dunglish, Engrish, Finglish, Franglais, Greeklish, Hinglish, Konglish, Maltenglish, Manglish, Ponglish, Porglish, Runglish, Spanglish, Swenglish and Tinglish. Note that some of these articles include Template:English dialects by continent but are not referred in it, such as Hinglish, Konglish, Runglish or Spanglish. HaŋaRoa (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Below is my proposition. It may include all code-switching, not only what is English related. HaŋaRoa (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Position of Ulster English[edit]

Currently the template wrongly claims that Ulster English is solely a type of British English and wrongly claims that it is only spoken within the United Kingdom. In truth, Ulster English is a sub-dialect of Hiberno-English (usually classed as a type of British English) and is spoken on both sides of the Irish border. I corrected the mistake but was reverted by User:Deacon of Pndapetzim without an explanation. ~Asarlaí 19:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only issue is that Mid Ulster English is spoken in two states, then put it in both.
Incidentally, British English is just the form going with the United Kingdom, and Mid Ulster English is not more distinct from RP than Scottish forms. BE isn't a term that makes much sense, except as a written form used in both Britain and Ireland, and understandably this would be an offensive term to Irish people. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having Ulster English in both is a fair compromise. However, there's still the problem of Ireland linking to Hiberno-English (a spoken form) and United Kingdom linking to British English (a written form). British English is the standard written form used in both states. Perhaps we should move the British English link to "related" or even start a new article at "English language in the United Kingdom"? ~Asarlaí 19:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An article with a list of dialects spoken in the United Kingdom would be perfect to link from the United Kingdom, rather than British English. The problem is that people politicize language and, although this produces moronic results most of the time, what can you do? That's what people are like. We just pretend Hiberno-Irish is the written form and spoken in Ireland in contrast to "British" English in the United Kingdom, the same way former Yugoslavs pretend Croatian Serbian and so on are different languages. If Singapore joins Ireland, it will be speaking Hiberno-English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple solution would be to re-label the "United Kingdom" subset as "Britain". Windyjarhead (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of the template[edit]

Most of the varieties included on this template are regional varieties of English. That seems to be right, given that the template is "by continent". There are, however, a few socially based varieties with no strong regional association (e.g. Yeshivish) as well as some with regional-plus-social association (e.g. Yat, Black British). I think that the template should be limited to regional dialects. Cnilep (talk) 06:51, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but it might be good to collect the items that are removed from here, into their own template (both to provide their own navigation, and to prevent re-addition here).
For reference, here are the edits that removed content: [2], [3]. Here's today's removal: [4]. Plus there's a section above on .....
Ahh! Now I see, they were already duplicated/shifted over to Template:Code-switching back in 2010. I'll add info to this template's docs, and try to check that nothing has been missed. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This template has moved to Template:Interlanguage varieties. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dialects in England[edit]

I suggest the template to be changed according to Sarcelles (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think that I agree with this. Just my two cents on this matter. Bencarterj (talk) 08:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic accent[edit]

The Mid-Atlantic accent article should be added. XSAMPA (talk) 23:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XSAMPA: The more I think about this, I think that the Transatlantic accent should not have been instated. For one, the Transatlantic accent has a weird history. Most broadcast standards usually have a foundation. Received Pronunciation developed from the 14th-century dialect of the East Midlands. However, for the Transatlantic accent, Edith Skinner wrote down the rules of "proper speech" as she saw fit. Therefore, I could argue that, as the accent was thought of, it is a pseudo-accent.
Furthermore, nobody speaks this as their native accent. Therefore, I doubt the absence of the accent in the template could offend anybody personally.LakeKayak (talk) 02:32, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done.LakeKayak (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@XSAMPA: I just realized that the name of the template is "English dialects by continent". Therefore, as the Transatlantic accent is not a dialect, it shouldn't be on the template, anyway.LakeKayak (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@LakeKayak:I disagree. It is a variety of English that is spoken in the United States. In that way it is like the Cultivated Australian accent in Australia. Like the Cultivated Australian accent, it shares many features with Received Pronunciation. In fact it was the prestige accent of English, and the standard media accent until it was displaced by General American. It's not a pseudo-accent, and it wasn't just invented by Edith Skinner. I think that it should stay on the template. I don't see why it isn't as legitimate as any other dialect of English. XSAMPA (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@XSAMPA: Nobody spoke it as their native accent, and it's rarely used anymore. And technically it isn't a dialect. By definition, a dialect have distinct grammatical features. Therefore, it shouldn't be on the template solely because the name of templates in "English dialects by continent.LakeKayak (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@LakeKayak: The word "dialect" is often used to refer to accents. For instance William Labov's Linguistic Atlas of North American English uses it like that. If you don't agree, then we should also removed "Received Pronunciation" from the template, since it is also an accent not a dialect or rename the template "varieties of English", which is a term more commonly used by linguists. XSAMPA (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the name "varieties of English" will go over too well. Someone already got annoyed over the use of "variety" on the page Mid-Atlantic American English. (Here's the link: [5].) Anyway, how about I notify WP:NPOVN. There, we can get an arbitrator to discuss their take on the issue.LakeKayak (talk) 22:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@XSAMPA: As a side note, do you have a source to suggest that Skinner did not found the accent? From the information that I could obtain, [6] it seems that she did. (This is the best source that I found. Any others were either of little relevance to my question or blogs.)LakeKayak (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

accents and dialects of English[edit]

Hey everyone (including Nardog and Wolfdog):

I have a few questions for everyone:

  1. Should I add the accents within the English dialects, and the article "regional differences and dialects in Indian English", and if not, why?
  2. Should fake accents like Mockney, Mummerset and the Mid-Atlantic accent be added, and if not, why?
  3. How come the sub-varieties of White South African English, like "broad", "cultivated", and "general" were removed from the 'South African' sub-section of the template, even though they linked to the White South African English section of the South African English article, and yet the sub-varieties of Australian English, like "broad", "cultivated", and "general" get to stay under the 'Australian' section of the template even though they're linked to the Broad, general and cultivated Australian section of the variation in Australian English article?

-- PK2 (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a kind of axiom in linguistics that linguistic description of a language describes it as spoken by its native speakers, who are the only sources data can be reliably acquired from. A common response to a claim that a stigmatized variety of English is "sloppy" or "defective" is that it is a legitimate dialect so long as it has native speakers who all make the same "mistakes" consistently, which means they are not mistakes but features of a distinct grammar, unlike non-native speakers, who vary in competency and make disparate mistakes. So acquired accents like Mockney and Mid-Atlantic accent, which don't have native speakers who can tell you what is well-formed and what is not, are not really legitimate varieties from a linguistic point of view and don't belong in a list like this, as much as that doesn't mean they are not noteworthy.
I agree if a topic has not received its own article, it shouldn't receive a separate link here either. Nardog (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So what does that mean about adding certain English accents, even if they link to their main dialects' article, and how does one find about them then, and how do you explain more clearly the "broad", "cultivated", and "general" sub-varieties being removed from White South African English, while remaining in place for Australian English, even though none of them supposedly have their own articles or sections? -- PK2 (talk) 23:57, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the Australian subvarieties as well. That was simply an oversight on my part. I'm mixed on whether to include the acquired accents. I definitely think the Indian accents should be included. Wolfdog (talk) 13:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico[edit]

The template makes the tacit and unfounded claim that there's a known dialect of English spoken in Puerto Rico. However, I know of no linguistic authors that support this claim. As such, the listing of Puerto Rico there is incoherent with reality and per WP:RS I have removed it. Mercy11 (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by your instinct here. The template already includes such poorly-defined or hodgepodge varieties as Euro English and Aboriginal (Canadian English) and Bangladeshi English (including many, many varieties whose vast majority of speakers are second-language speakers). Furthermore, a quick search on Google Scholar indicates that English as spoken in Puerto Rico is indeed a studied phenomenon. Are we intending to keep only native English dialects on this template? If so, many further revisions are needed. Wolfdog (talk) 02:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfdog: I don't know much about the entries in this specific template; I haven't studied them. In fact, I only bumped into it while going over the English language in Puerto Rico, which contained it. As such, I am not ready to justify additions or deletions to this template one way or the other for other locales, but I can tell you that, TTBOMK, there is no such thing as a dialect of English in Puerto Rico.
I applaud any research that is done, as you have, based authoritative sources, such as those that Google Scholar would yield. However, if there are languages that are studied as a "phenomenon" in a certain locales, however, and not as an actual dialect as defined by linguists, then the template would be best identifying them in a separate subsection so that it incorporates no innuendos and makes no tacit claims. For example, in a template about states of the USA, such as "Political divisions of the United States", and seen used here, we don't just list all the political divisions of the USA regardless of status, but instead group them by, for instance, incorporated and unincorporated territories, the federal district, etc. But for the template in question here, other than the "Related" section at the end, the only grouping is geographical. I would 110% support the inclusion of Puerto Rico in the template in question here if it was listed under "locales where English language is studied as a phenomena" (or something similar, you get the point, right?), but listing it as a place where there exists a unique variety of English (aka, a dialect) is, IMO, totally off the charts. Mercy11 (talk) 03:04, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I've already addressed your main premise here: loosely-defined broad types of English versus established native "dialects" of English (which I assure you can also be a fuzzy concept). To reiterate, terms like Euro English and various Aboriginal umbrellas of dialects exist here unopposed. Should we remove them too? (I'm honestly asking. Perhaps we should indeed have stricter parameters for this template.) Your logic would seem to apply also to other pages named on this template. Wolfdog (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come to this template to start WWIII, and you already probably know how fiercely some folks like to try to prove the unprovable in some WP discussions, and --then-- followed by the long, tiring process to remove the unprovable content via WP:CONSENSUS, etc. I came to this template to refute something which, TTBOMK, was entirely incorrect, namely, that English spoken in Puerto Rico rises to the level of a "dialect". For one thing I have never personally experienced that, despite plenty of exposure there but, most importantly, I haven't come across a single WP:RS that squarely states there is such thing as a dialect of English spoken only (or even mostly) in Puerto Rico. So I was moved to deleting it until someone proves the opposite because when we allow this sort of claims to run loose unchecked, we diminish the value of the encyclopedia, which, by definition should be a source of accurate information, not speculation and not opinionated editorial content.
Going back to the example on Puerto Rico, an editor had recently changed the name of the article from "English language in Puerto Rico" (which covered use by government, training in schools, percentage of household who only spoke English, etc.) to "Puerto Rican English" (with most of the prior content but now making the claim, one line #1 of the lead, that it was a dialect of English). I reverted the move and his edits because (1) the article had stood with that name for over 10 years and, thus, had received the tacit approval of scores of editors who worked on it, but (2), and most important, the editor did not provide one single source (RS or not) calling the English spoken in Puerto Rico a "dialect". IMO, we cannot name an article "Puerto Rican English" only on the basis that some people in Puerto Rico (actually an ~4% minority) use English as their only language at home, any more than we can name an article "Dominican French" based on the fact that a handful (even if thousands) of people in the Dominican Republic speak French: to be a dialect demands more than just having people speak a language in some territorial jurisdiction; it demands that it be unique and distinct from the same base language spoken in other jurisdictions. In short, I think you would agree why I considered that claim WP:OR.
That said, on the "terms like Euro English and various Aboriginal umbrellas of dialects exist here unopposed", to me that's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; nothing personal, and I am passing no judgement, but merely making a statement. However, IMO, the problem with template-creation and editing in an encyclopedia like WP is that, unlike information in the articles in the articles space (which require WP:RS to stand) there is a lot more (in fact, almost unlimited) creativity (read: WP:OR) allowed in template format and, most impacting, template content.
Also, on, "Should we remove them too?", again my response would be that I am nowhere an expert of the dialects of the English language that exist in various jurisdictions, myself being familiar only with the various regions of the US, Canada and a little on the UK. I feel that doesn't qualify me as an expert and would rather stay out of it, but would happily help in terms of what can be legitimately called a dialect of English. However, perhaps, removal is unnecessary a moot point if subsections were created separating documented English dialects from non-English dialects (which would, then, group jurisdictions and regions with simply strong English language use and/or study and/or "phenomena").
That process should be quite simple: if an RS can be found stating that people in country or region X speak an English dialect then it can incorporated into the template under the "dialects" section, otherwise it doesn't belong there, but in some other section named, for example, "Jurisdictions with strong English language composition". Or perhaps, you don't need the second section at all, and the entire template should consist only of those jurisdictions and regions with a documented (via RS) English dialect. So, the fundamental question then becomes, "Exactly, what is a dialect?" Its definition says it is "a variety of a language distinguished by pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary..." So, while we can have a variety of, say, beans, fruits, cars, and a "variety" of a million other things, yet they have no word coined to define them (in other cases we do, for example, a variety of a plant is called a "cultivar"), a variety of a language is termed a "dialect". My point is that this fact alone shows there is a very precise definition as to what constitutes a dialect and that by applying its (very precise) definition you could do away with any nonsense that may have been added to the template but that doesn't belong there. Nonsense added on some other basis than on the definition of "dialect" (and RSs that support it), nonsense added, for example, on the basis of the personal reflections of its WP editor.
Hope this helped. Mercy11 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bahahaha! I hope you don't think my tone was anywhere in the vicinity of WWIII-ish! What I think is the most useful test you'd agree with from the above is to allow here only pages that are regarded, by RS, as "dialects" (and perhaps a scattering of subset pages of those dialects, like White South African English phonology or New York accent, whose continued persistence here I think would largely go unopposed and directly constitute the larger dialect). I appreciate your idea that the process should be quite simple of course, but I doubt that it is in certain (maybe even in many) cases. Two examples might clarify the muddiness. Is Yeshivish an English dialect? A 1995 dictonary of Yeshivish has a whole chapter pondering this philosophically (and the stabs it takes include "it's English—sort of", "a culturally based linguistic phenomenon worthy of examination," "a melange of languages", etc.). I assume then, according to your test (which is again a good start and which I like just as much as you!), Yeshivish should not be regarded as a dialect of English. How about American Indian English (AIE), a page that I myself created and am disappointed to see has not received any further attention beyond the one RS I used to start it. AIE is a rough umbrella collection of varieties (mostly native) of English grouped together by some consistent patterns, but by that very definition (an umbrella) does not pass the test, I suppose, of itself being a "dialect." Correct?
So these are parameters to be delineated here. (Not saying it's all on you, btw, but at least you and I can start somewhere.) The OTHERSTUFFEXISTS question, in fact, IS the larger question I was trying to ask you. English in Puerto Rico was just the most recent instigator of that question. And I'm also passing no judgement and honestly just trying to understand the scope of this template that has been established and/or is desired by WP users. Again, the editing aim that I think I'm realizing, moving forward here, is to narrow the scope a bit and thus remove some more links from the template. Wolfdog (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, not at all on the WWIII comment - was referring to other editors on this template page, and I was referring to the entirety of the template and not to the Puerto Rico entry, as my taking issue with the PR entry is an easy straightforward case of an entry that didn't below there. I am nowhere that knowledgeable on languages and dialects but I am fairly knowledgeable on the history and culture of Puerto Rico and this explains why 99% of my editing centers around Puerto Rico-related articles. Thanks for listening -and discussing- my side of these concerns. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bequia English[edit]

Dear user:Wolfdog,

How does Bequia English not exist when I created the page based on real books?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennedyBroseguini (talkcontribs) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]