Talk:Camp (style)

The definition of camp in common British English usage (flamboyantly gay) is almost unrelated to the American English usage. Could there be a separate section for this, or even a separate article? 164.11.203.58 (talk) 23:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new, or newly returned, to Wik.ipedia.Pro and camp is a research interest of mine. I agree with virtually all of the comments on this page and the Archive--this entry needs a lot of work. But I do not see any concrete planning going on on this talk page. Is that a naive newbie thing to say? How do we decide how to approach this? Do people simply start editing sections piecemeal? As some have said, this entry could perhaps do with restarting from scratch.Mhbroder (talk) 00:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis seems like a bad summation title for this article's last section I'm not sure what would be better but maybe someone else can think of a better phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittenwhip (talk • contribs) 10:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What this section is would be pretty decent as crticism (in the sense of "critical essay", not "complaint"), but what it is not is an encyclopedic look at camp. If published critics were being quoted as having said these things it would be different, but this is this particular edit/author's viewpoint, not substansiated fact or documented analysis having previously appeared elsewhere, and as such would seem to violate Wik.ipedia.Pro criteria for inclusion in an article. (Not only that, but I don't find Judy Garland herself to be particularly camp; it's her many female impersenator portrayers who are generally such.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.252.79.50 (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that the Analysis section cites a book published in 1989 when making a claim about Macklemore's "Thrift Shop". --Lionparty (talk)

This article is a mockery. I don't believe that the word 'camp' in American English has anything like the level of usage as it does in British English. I have used the word online many times only to receive question marks from Americans. As it is explained in this article it seems to have a meaning that is vague to non-existent. Where are the proper references to Polari? It refers to British usage as "decades" old, which simply flies in the face of Polari's history over several hundred years (i.e. it was most likely being used when the USA didn't even exist). What this article seems to be about is basically a fragment of the meaning of camp that already exists in the UK. It either needs proper development to show the origins or needs to be removed and replaced by another article.Marcvanderloo (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As many have already noted, this article is atrocious. Its authors are clearly confused about what exactly camp is. The "ABC Afterschool Specials" were certainly NOT camp in any sense. Dated and preachy perhaps, but not camp. However amusing or 'cheesy' they may seem today, they were intended to be taken seriously at the time; something which is unintentionally amusing because it hasn't aged well is not camp (if it were, just about every serious drama made in the 50s could be called 'camp'). Also, the 80s night time soaps "Dallas" and "Dynasty" weren't camp in any sense of the term, 80s excess notwithstanding. In other places the article seems to conflate camp with drag and 'cheesiness'. This article is in need of serious revision.CannotFindAName (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire "Contemporary culture" section is in dire need. It's the longest section of the article yet contains no references whatsoever. It seems to be made up entirely of personal opinions and speculation. At various points the author confuses camp with kitsch, cult, low-budget production, irony, and mere datedness.

The Batman series, the Monty Python sketch referred to, the episode of The Simpsons, the movie Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, and at least some John Waters films all have a place in an article about camp, given proper citations. I would argue that nothing else in this section is a clear-cut example of camp, and most of the "examples" are a very long way from being camp.

The few references to British television are, to my knowledge, factually incorrect. The series Eurotrash was not particularly controversial for a late-night Channel 4 programme, and would not have "fallen foul of OFCOM" if handled in a different style. The Protect and Survive films weren't denied broadcast "for reasons of national security"; they were public information films intended to be broadcast only in the event of impending nuclear war -- and covering a much longer period than the 72 hours stated, since they begin with information on buying supplies and reinforcing the home. The comment that Protect and Survive is "chilling to watch" is a purely personal view and has no place in an encyclopedia. Hery-Tep Medu (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The authors are confused because EVERYBODY is confused, since the word has no actual agreed upon definition. There are dictionary definitions, but what people mean by the word is all over the place (as it is with "corny," cheesy," and "kitsch," although "kitsch" HAS a specific definition that was agreed upon by art critics long ago, but has been bastardized by the clueless general public). You seem to be saying something can't be "camp" if it's UNINTENTIONALLY amusing...it has to be intentional, then, according to you. Well, I would venture a guess that about 50% of the people out there think otherwise, regardless of whether or not you're "correct" (whatever that would mean, since this isn't a word with a clear etymology...and it was famously "defined" or redefined by Susan Sontag in the freak'n 1960s...or at least that's what she attempted to do).

And when you start getting into the "intentionally amusing" part, you start to make the word indistinguishable from satire and/or comedy, which is what basically NOBODY means when they use the word. Sorry, but nobody would call South Park, The Simpsons, George Carlin, and The Onion "campy." Seinfeld wasn't campy. Adam Sandler movies aren't campy.

The word is meaningless. I wish people would figure that out and stop using it...but for whatever reason, it is "accepted fact" that the 60s Batman series is "campy." Like, there's apparently no subjectivity to that with the way the media asserts it as factual...so clearly the definition has to be based in fact. It can't contain "amusing" in any way because that's entirely subjective. Nor can it say anything about the quality of anything, which is again subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.250.78 (talk) 23:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Mentos television commercials during the 1990s developed a cult following due to their camp "Eurotrash" humour."

Should be removed because

One, has no source. Two, most of the Mentos commercials were actually made in America, by Americans and with American actors. Three, in Europe the commercials were actually made fun of because of their "cheesy American humour". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.131.62.156 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article shows that it is (almost) impossible to define 'camp' - when you see/hear/read something that is camp, you either know or don't.

Dusty Springfield was never a camp icon because Dusty Springfield was never camp. She may have become a gay icon (actually she was probably always an icon to gay people).

You can have icons, you can have camp, but a 'camp icon' is meaningless. (pace Encyclopedia Brittanica)

I think I agree with the section 'This Article is SH!T' -you cannot define 'camp' in that way.

Camp is not just effeminate behaviour, it is a style. Julian and Sandy - Bona Bookshop is camp, Are You Being Served isn't.Cannonmc (talk) 02:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Camp is all of those things, and yes, Dusty is camp as you like. It's not necessary for it to be in the person producing it. It does also refer to behaviour, conduct, bearing--Americans use the word "campy" in this respect. The shifting and multiple definitions are part of the phenomenon, so it's unsurprising to find that reflected here. And there are, most definitely, many camp icons.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 16:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTF is "high art", and who says that it "necessarily incorporates beauty and value"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The history of western aesthetics says so.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 15:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without having the time to address it myself, I wanted to flag up a problem with the lede. User:Florian Blaschke edited to restore a definition based on the sources, which is good of course, and I hadn't seen that it'd acquired a def in terms of "theatricality", which isn't appropriate. However, the current definition is horribly US-centric. Camp doesn't mean ironic and bad taste more generally. It only means that in the USA, where the link to kitsch is dominant. In Britain, it has a far more earthy, carnivaleque meaning (as well as being far more firmly grounded in working-class experience). Seaside postcards, Carry On movies, etc. I'm going to restore "style" too, since "sensibility" is too exclusive (as well as, within critical discourse, a rather old-fashioned way of framing it). It's not necessarily in the personality of the producer. The essays in Politics and Poetics offer plenty of material for a more worldview redefinition for anyone who cares to tackle it.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 15:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DionysosProteus: I'm not a native speaker of English, which makes it difficult for me to grasp all the nuances and varied meanings of the term. I guess in the UK the concept is more straightforward and lacks the link to gay culture (though not entirely, if it's really associated with Polari in origin), to some extent the inherent disparagement (mainly based on classist, but also, for example, sexist prejudice, considering that US camp and kitsch are all about preferences judged by privileged, highly educated gatekeepers as inferior and shameful – consider the term "guilty pleasure" – and associated with subordinate groups: women and girls, queer people, lower classes, children and teenagers especially) and thus also the level of irony and self-parody necessary to make it "acceptable" again. But don't Brits love to make fun of the ESC? If they don't describe the style as "camp(y)", what do they describe it as?

Unfortunately I'm not deep into this topic, either, but after noticing that sections are missing that were in the article once and were still linked from other articles (the whole "Components" section), I went through the history and saw a number of edits I wasn't entirely comfortable with but which were also too old to undo with a simple click. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, UK sense doesn't lack the link to gay culture, it's more that it extends out from it. There's no inherent disparagement. The humour is different too (carnivalesque). "Campy" is never used--that's an Americanism. The adjective is simply "camp". If you want to re-import material deleted (checking it's appropriate, of course), go to the old version (not the diff), then click edit. It'll warn you that you're editing an old version. Copy out the section you want then add to the current one. Regards,  • DP •  ^{huh?} 17:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking the article over now, it's in a pretty good state -- though you wouldn't know it from all the bitching on the talk page above. You don't like what it says? Go read the sources, research the subject, and improve the article.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 16:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the reference to Adorno and Frankfurt. While it's true that he does indeed regard the pop culture of industrial societies as a bad thing, I am pretty certain he doesn't discuss camp anywhere. There is of course an argument to be made there about that, but it requires a source (ie someone has already made it) in order not to be original research.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 16:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the lede is a bit too definite about what "Camp" is. The term is used in lots of different ways and the lede should probably reflect this. In Britain it tends to be used for exaggerated and deliberate adoption of effeminate gay stereotypes. I think Quentin Crisp defined it as something like "mimicking the symptoms of a disease from which one does not suffer". Tigerboy1966  12:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be cautious of turning it into a dictionary definition of all things labelled camp, as WP:DICT applies and we don't want to turn the article into WP:COATRACK. However, I do think the current draft covers the variable definitions and disagreements about those definitions now. Take a look and let me know what you think (e.g., it's mentioned that it's used to refer to people's mannerisms and behaviour, giving that WP:DUE weight, but the article as a whole mostly focuses on camp as a sensibility/cultural form). Lewisguile (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified one external link on Camp (style). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120625073452/http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/isam/NewsletF05/RandallF05.htm to http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/isam/NewsletF05/RandallF05.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming to this talk page, I realize that maybe my two cents is redundant -- I see the comments about the article being a 'mockery' and worse. I'm sympathetic. I was merely going to say that I think this quote from the article casts a rather large net:

'Female camp actresses such as Mae West, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Bette Davis, Marilyn Monroe, and Joan Crawford..'

All of those are so-called camp actresses? Such a list I really don't know how to insist that all these women had something in common. I mean, besides that they are women. Here is the complete sentence:

'Female camp actresses such as Mae West, Judy Garland, Marlene Dietrich, Greta Garbo, Bette Davis, Marilyn Monroe, and Joan Crawford also had an important influence on the development of feminist consciousness: by exaggerating certain stereotyped features of femininity, such as fragility, open emotionality or moodiness, they attempted to undermine the credibility of those preconceptions.'

Okay, maybe there is some sort of emphasis here on gender incoherence or such, maybe it's interesting, but I think it would be more interesting as a remark about female impersonators. I mean, maybe Bette Davis and Joan Crawford do strike me as having highly mannered performance styles, but how do Greta Garbo and Marlene Dietrich come into this? I suppose that they strike me as having a sort of 'androgynous' stylization, if that's relevant. But I still don't really see the point about Marilyn Monroe. Again, the list is so far-reaching it just seems to me to encompass nearly every facet of Hollywood stardom.

DanLanglois (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wik.ipedia.Prons,

I have just modified one external link on Camp (style). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715000630/http://www.glbtq.com/arts/springfield_d.html to http://www.glbtq.com/arts/springfield_d.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather surprised that there's no mention of Mystery Science Theater 3000, a show which specifically capitalises on the naive camp of older, campy films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.168.228.147 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find an RS for this, I think it would be great to add it to the TV section. Lewisguile (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article could give the impression that Camp as a gay sensibility is a worldwide phenomenon. I stand to be corrected, but in my opinion and experience Camp as a gay sensibility is more likely to be a learned behaviour dependent on cultural context, primarily present in urban areas of Anglo-Saxon countries, and extremely rare in most regions of the world (pretty rare in rural areas of the UK too actually). Very few Wik.ipedia.Pros in other languages deal with Camp at length like the English one, and those that do tend to have a focus on its development in English-speaking countries (use Google Translate to check if you like). Eurovision is given as an example of Camp in Europe, but Eurovision is also very strongly kitch.

To illustrate this further, I quote below an automatically translated portion of the article on Camp from the French Wik.ipedia.Pro. It basically says (without a source) that the French public and French cultural critics do not identify any concept of Camp when describing people, and that the concept is virtually unknown there. (I find this perfectly plausible, since I personally have run into the gay Camp sensibility much less in Germany for example than in the UK). It also says camp French artists are identified by Anglo-Saxon cultural critics, but maybe the Anglo-Saxon cultural critics are not qualified to interpret French culture and are just seeing what they want to see.

"The camp in France

The camp concept is little known and rarely used in France, either inside or outside the gay community. Films or artists that meet the Anglo-Saxon definition of camp have not been identified as such, either by critics or by the public. However, a significant number of French works, artists and cultural practices express a camp sensibility as described by Anglo-Saxon cultural critics."

To further my point:

- The Wik.ipedia.Pro pages on "Stonewall riots", "Pride parade", and "Gay village" are all in more languages than "Camp (style)", and they were/are all geographically restricted. (So maybe we can entertain that Camp is geographically/culturally restricted too.)

- The Japanese Wik.ipedia.Pro says that Camp is one of the terms used in *English-speaking* aesthetics and literary criticism.

- The Danish, Portuguese, Turkish, Welsh, Japanese, Hungarian, Finnish, and Polish Wik.ipedia.Pros do not identify to any examples of camp originating from non-Anglophone countries.

- I could not find any native concepts similar to Camp in non-Anglophone Wik.ipedia.Pros in the See Also section at the bottom of each page

- The examples of Camp I have found on all wikis originate overwhelmingly in Anglophone countries. (A small minority originate in German-speaking countries predominately before 1933, elsewhere in Western Europe, Spanish-speaking countries, and South Korea (Gangnam Style) – however, none from the rest of the world.)

I think it would be good if somebody could find the time to locate a source that says Camp as a gay sensibility is primarily an urban Anglo Saxon phenomenon (and secondarily perhaps in urban Western Europe and Latin America). Otherwise readers from rural/non-Western areas will wonder why they have never really come across camp folk themselves.

I did find a couple of non-Anglophone examples of gay camp (though vastly outnumbered by Anglophone ones), which may be useful to mention in the "around the world" section (although I hope the section name will be changed): Spanish Wik.ipedia.Pro automatic translation: “Das lila Lied (1920) is usually classified as the first gay anthem, related to a historical context in the variety theater and bars frequented by LGBT clientele during the closet culture prior to the Stonewall riots and the period of the first homosexual movement .” Dutch Wik.ipedia.Pro automatic translation: “Camp is clearly present in the clips of the Swedish music formation Army of Lovers from the 1990s.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.199.114 (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, and the {{Globalize}} maint. template does not belong there. I've removed it. Mathglot (talk) 22:10, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is partially correct. As per RSs (see Gay Talk, for example) there is evidence of camp speak or camp talk among people outside the Anglophone world (especially French) that bear striking similarities despite their lack of shared culture. I.e., there may be a camp way of speaking that arises as a result of being queer. Camp also seems to derive from French theatrical usage.

That said, I don't think camp is codified or recognised much outside the Anglophone world, and so that justifies focusing on it in context as a mostly English-language cultural concept.

What I've done is removed the awkward "In the Western World" heading and actually put the examples under the correct cultural form (e.g., film or music) or into the "Origin and development" section (when talking about specific usage of the terminology). I think that neatly addresses the issue without a clunky regional section that may be read as contradictory to WP:CSB and the globalise tag that was previously on there.

Hopefully this works, and the issue is now resolved, but tag me if you want to revisit/discuss this. Lewisguile (talk) 06:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the above posts do not actually comment on the article at all, but constitute an occasionally constructive (but more often otherwise) criticism of people with a differently gendered lifestyle than is apparently considered to be "worthy of mention" in an encyclopedia (especially of what is perceived as "gay", or gay-leaning culture - as if THEY had ever contributed to culture!). It (the talk page) really needs a thorough weeding - with the many irrelevant posts moved to a suitably named archive. In the likely event of my NOT undertaking this probably thankless task myself I hope I may be permitted to suggest that whether a particular editor "likes" the subject matter of an article is not all that relevant - if "you" (dear fellow-Wik.ipedia.Pron) don't "like" the fact that Wik.ipedia.Pro includes articles on artistic or literary or religious or even technical topics then don't read (much less edit) things you don't like. And keep your own pet ideas (especially ones based largely on prejudice) to yourself - back anything likely to be in the least contentious with a named source! In this case, even on the talk page.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Lewisguile (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs to be careful not to present camp (or any aesthetic) in a negative light section it’s biased phrasing. This is an encyclopedia not an essay. The analysis section needs possibly deleted because it’s basically one persons overly long argument. 2603:6010:11F0:3C0:4EE:E21F:8554:DF50 (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I think part of the issue is relying solely on Sontag for a lot of it, who (as per RSs and her own text) has professed a certain revulsion towards camp anyway. There were also areas where it started to drifted into WP:COATRACK territory by talking about UK-specific and loaded descriptions of effeminate gay men as "camp". I have now made some edits to the article which I believe address this issue, so feel free to check them out and, if needed, make some further edits. Lewisguile (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This list of 'elements' of Sontag's essay is repeated twice, once in quotation marks (without and once without. It's misleading as a summary of Sontag. First, the way the quotation is used in the lede makes it look as if it is direct quotation from Sontag's essay, rather than from a book by someone called Harry Eiss making its own argument and briskly summarizing Sontag en passant. Second, Eiss actually talks of "embrace of artifice, frivolity, naïve middle-class pretentiousness, and shocking excess" [emphasis added]: this registers a distance between the sensibility which is doing the embracing here and the naïvity of what it is embracing. Removing these two words makes the summary less exact. Thirdly, 'middle-class pretentiousness' is at some distracting distance from Sontag's own language in the essay. Dsp13 (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have addressed this in the text. Take a look and feel free to edit if you think it needs further refinement. Lewisguile (talk) 06:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last couple of days, I have been working on the article to bring it up to scratch, so we can remove the "encyclopaedic style" template at the top. The lede may need to be moved to an "Overview" with a shorter summary of the subject formed from condensing the article into 2–4 paragraphs at the top.

The major changes of note include:

Addressing WP:CSB: There was a section called "In the Western world" which a) only covered the UK, America and Australia, and b) by its nature excluded non-"Western" cultures. However, as most of the actual examples here fit into topics described under the "In culture" section and the rest broadly fit under the "Origin and development" section, I have moved them to those sections accordingly.

Now we can focus on finding a diverse set of examples across cultures without worrying about fitting them into regional-specific groupings.

Referencing: A lot of text had no references at all. I've gone in and added references where I could, and deleted unsourced or tangential material.

Sources and WP:NPOV: Sontag is used frequently but other, more recent analyses and experts were lacking, so I have added some more of these in. The examples also didn't include, for example, Black, lesbian and other forms of camp. I have addressed this by adding in other things argued as camp by RSs: certain rap personas, Black fashion designers, Josephine Baker (conspicuous in her absence), and the Black and Latinx elements of the Met gala which was otherwise described in detail in relation to white female performers.

The newer forms of camp have been covered briefly at the end of the "Origin and development" section, though we may want to call out distinctions within camp itself in a new section (e.g., "Concepts", which can cover high and low camp, naive and deliberate camp, dyke camp, etc).

Reorganisation: The "In culture" section covered film, TV and music, but not in alphabetical order; for some reason, "Literature" got a section all of its own, not under "In culture". So, I have moved "Literature" under "In culture", renamed this "Camp on culture", and listed the different cultural forms in alphabetical order.

Copy edits: The talk page clearly states British English should be used, with Oxford style. However, the page itself had an "American English" tag without any note indicating consensus. So, I reconciled these contradictions by removing the latter tag and making CEs to convert to BE with Oxford style. I have also attempted to alter the language a little to make it more in-keeping with encyclopedic style.

Scope: As per WP:DICT, we don't need to cover every sense of the word "camp"; it's enough to give WP:DUE to the colloquial sense of "camp" as "effeminate gay man" without the article jumping backwards and forwards in subject matter. I'm using the Queer page as a guide here — this is mostly about camp as a cultural style/sensibility, rather than a nation-specific attribute of people (which may be considered judgemental or derogatory at any rate). So the latter should be given WP:DUE weight where it is necessary to describe the origins and development of the term (which RSs agree emerged within LGBTQ+ communities, and especially gay men).

Hopefully, there isn't anything objectionable above. As I have made multiple edits to the page by this point, it will be easier and cleaner to edit it in its current form if there are any issues rather than reverting the whole thing if you spot an issue with one edit. But feel free to tag me if you want to discuss anything. I feel like the article is quite a bit stronger now. Lewisguile (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, currently the article uses British English with Oxford Style which, in its truest form, requires words with Greek origins to end -ize and not -ise (thus organize), but doesn't require that for words with other origins (e.g., televise). Personally, I think this is needlessly complicated and requires a level of faff for editors that may be off-putting.

I move that we use straight British English spelling, so that -ise suffixes are used consistently. This would be technically consistent with Oxford anyway, since -ise endings are noted as a secondary/variant spelling that is acceptable in that schema, but it avoids people having to check the etymology every time they make an edit.

Since camp is especially prevalent in the UK, where the term appears to have developed its modern nuances, I think that makes the most sense and would be least confusing for the most amount of editors.

Thoughts? Lewisguile (talk) 07:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Carlstak (talk) 13:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll wait for a few more responses and if there are no objections, I will tweak the template later this week.

I only now realise I advocated for "straight British English spelling" on an article about camp... A missed opportunity for campery! Lewisguile (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]