Talk:Gray
Move[change source]
I feel that Grey would be a better name for this article: en does it, "grey" is used internationally, and not just in the US. —MC8 (b · t) 23:18, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)
- I was thinking the same thing, but MOS says we should do what the original author did. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- MOS is a guideline, and that is a very bad thing if that's what we are going to say. (we need an admin to move it, some weird quirk isn't letting me move over redir) —MC8 (b · t) 23:20, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)
- Just move it, doesn't need that much discussion, and the MOS is sketchy in areas like this. Goblin 23:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!
- MOS is a guideline, and that is a very bad thing if that's what we are going to say. (we need an admin to move it, some weird quirk isn't letting me move over redir) —MC8 (b · t) 23:20, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)
<-
- Stay with established spelling. If an article has been in a dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone. Editors should not change the spelling used in an article from one dialect to another unless there is a very good reason to do so (this is rarely the case). Other editors can revert such changes. Fixing any inconsistencies in the spelling is always appreciated.
- If an article is mostly written in one type of English, try to use that type instead of changing to another. (Sometimes, this can happen quite innocently, so please do not assume too quickly that the editor is trying to cause problems!)
- Many editors agree with the ideas on this page. It is a good idea to follow it, but it is not policy. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- Second point is irrelevant, this is the whole article, not one word. The third is my counter-argument. —MC8 (b · t) 23:27, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)
- Why is the second irrelevant? The third one says that we should follow it, but we do not have to. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The second is irelevant for the reasons outlined above. The third, I can read. It argues against what you are trying to get. —MC8 (b · t) 23:31, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)
- It says that we should not switch forms of english. MOS is a guideline that should be followed, and there should be a very good reason to not follow it (this is not an example of such a case). Griffinofwales (talk) 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
- The second is irelevant for the reasons outlined above. The third, I can read. It argues against what you are trying to get. —MC8 (b · t) 23:31, Saturday August 29 2009 (UTC)
- Why is the second irrelevant? The third one says that we should follow it, but we do not have to. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:29, 29 August 2009 (UTC)