Removing expired RFC template. |
|||
Line 57: | Line 57: | ||
== Founder or founding member == |
== Founder or founding member == |
||
{{rfc|bio|soc|media|rfcid=E61819C}} |
|||
There has been some back and forth on this issue here, and at [[John Lennon]]. As I am not British, I'm unsure who is most correct here. Any thoughts or suggestions from someone who is either British, or well-informed about this particular usage. [[User:GabeMc| — GabeMc]] ([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
There has been some back and forth on this issue here, and at [[John Lennon]]. As I am not British, I'm unsure who is most correct here. Any thoughts or suggestions from someone who is either British, or well-informed about this particular usage. [[User:GabeMc| — GabeMc]] ([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:03, 21 July 2012
Roger Waters is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Founder or founding member
There has been some back and forth on this issue here, and at John Lennon. As I am not British, I'm unsure who is most correct here. Any thoughts or suggestions from someone who is either British, or well-informed about this particular usage. — GabeMc (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
- I think the issue is rather straightforward. WP:ENGVAR and its subsection on strong national ties to a topic covers the issue directly. This is a British topic and so British English should be followed. To the extent that "founder member" is proper British English, then, it is proper for use in the article (certainly there are tons of sources that use the phrase). I don't see that anyone has questioned that underlying issue—that it is proper British English—so I don't see much basis for discussion. For full disclosure, I am an American, and until coming upon this RFC I had never, to my recollection, heard the expression "founder member" before.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
- I also had never heard the phrase, despite living in the U.K. for several years and having a strong background in the comparative linguistics of English. That said, it's not so odd a variation that I'm surprised to learn of it. As Fugh says, WP:TIES clearly applies and provides a roadmap here. On a side note, I try to always avoid chastising on minor points of procedure, but I have to say on this occasion - was an RfC really necessary to resolve this? Snow (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, and in such an obscure place. This should have been a normal discussion at the musicians wikiproject. As an aside, founder member sounds odd, but try breaking the term down. Founding is present tense, founder is past tense. There is the present "He is a member of the band" as well as the past "He was a founder of the band". If the band was being formed right now, then I believe the present tense is "founding", as in "He is founding the band" (but I could be wrong there). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- As an American who reads several British media on a regular basis, I have never seen "founder member". I'm not saying it's incorrect by any means, but it sounds pedantic and certainly less-than-meliliflious. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Here is a recent British newspaper piece; you can find many others like it. The wording is unambiguous.
- Also, this appears in the "British English" version of the Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, with the US equivalent in parentheses. Radiopathy •talk• 00:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
- As an American who reads several British media on a regular basis, I have never seen "founder member". I'm not saying it's incorrect by any means, but it sounds pedantic and certainly less-than-meliliflious. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Indeed, and in such an obscure place. This should have been a normal discussion at the musicians wikiproject. As an aside, founder member sounds odd, but try breaking the term down. Founding is present tense, founder is past tense. There is the present "He is a member of the band" as well as the past "He was a founder of the band". If the band was being formed right now, then I believe the present tense is "founding", as in "He is founding the band" (but I could be wrong there). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 17:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
- I also had never heard the phrase, despite living in the U.K. for several years and having a strong background in the comparative linguistics of English. That said, it's not so odd a variation that I'm surprised to learn of it. As Fugh says, WP:TIES clearly applies and provides a roadmap here. On a side note, I try to always avoid chastising on minor points of procedure, but I have to say on this occasion - was an RfC really necessary to resolve this? Snow (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
As a Brit 'Founding member' sounds more natural to me. A Google search of UK pages shows the terms being used almost equally. I do not see any important principle at stake here; either is fine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Having been "the founder" of several groups and at least one regularly occurring event, the use of the term to me has to do with the source of the effort. I ONLY refer my self a "founder" when it was exclusively (or nearly so) my efforts that launched the group or event. Otherwise I am a "co-founder" or a "founding member" when its a group effort. I don't know how it applies in this situation, but that's my 2 cents worth of opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was going to write something like that but the argument seems to be between 'founding member' and 'founder member'. Perhaps one of the 'belligerents' could tell us exactly what the dispute is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
- RFC comment: Also from The Telegraph:
- A quick search shows the Telegraph uses: "founder member" 835 times, "founding member" 574 times. So no overwhelming support either way. I as an American prefer "founding member" and "founder member" sounds really odd. If the Brits can go either way with it, let's use "founding member" as it has the widest common usage.
Zad68
18:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)- Neither founder member and founding member is incorrect, and as is usual for such matters, proponents of either one or the other are passionate. Beyond issuing the advice "get a life", my suggestions are either (a) to put it to a vote, with the risk of what happened at Sgt. Pepper, or (b) to offer the matter up for discussion as a possible entry in the MoS, or (c) to embark upon a protracted and bitter war of attrition in which the entirety of the disk space upon which Wikipedia resides is filled with backbiting personal comments about grammatical inaccuracies and spelling mistakes by one or other of the protagonists, and who started what edit war and how the arbitration process is totally unfair because it resolved the dispute in the wrong direction. My vote's for (c) because that fits in best with what I have recently come to believe is the purpose of Wikipedia. --Matt Westwood 07:32, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- I was going to write something like that but the argument seems to be between 'founding member' and 'founder member'. Perhaps one of the 'belligerents' could tell us exactly what the dispute is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
you say tomato I say tomato, I'm a brit and I say Founding member, never heard of Founder Member Webwidget (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm also British and Founder Member is slightly more common, as Founding Member is derived from the US Founding Fathers, at least according to the OED. As with all things, there has been a huge amount of erosion and sadly the BBC now uses the American version more commonly the the British. - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)