text:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography/Cipher vs Cypher

Storm in a teacup: the cypher vs cipher debate
Two alternative spellings "cypher" and "cipher" (hereafter "c*pher") appear commonly in articles on topics in cryptography, along with various derivatives (c*phertext, enc*pher, dec*pher...). Should we prefer one spelling over the other? Should both be used freely? What about in certain contexts? This issue has come up several times before. See Talk:Cryptography at cypher v cipher and the links contained therein to some (but surely not all) of the prior discussions.

 * To the extent there is a status quo at this time, it is let it be, more or less along the line WP has adopted for differences between American English and British English, to wit, both are acceptable. Assorted spelling bots, and other spelling review folks, have mostly stopped assuming that cy in various forms is WRONG and must be extirpated root and branch. Humans continue to do so sporadically, with varying degrees of vehemence, and even vitriol now and again. And, the WP list of common misspellings now lists both as acceptable. There have been suggestions that an article predominately one way or another be made entirely that way to avoid the frisson of conflicting spellings within an article.

 * In the interest of settling the issue, this discussion page proposes to discuss it before finding a policy.

User:Matt Crypto advocates the following:

Proposition: use "cipher" instead of "cypher" in articles on modern cryptography
We should use "cipher" in preference to "cypher" in articles on modern cryptography. "Modern cryptography" refers to the ideas, algorithms and theory developed in the open academic community since the 1970s, originating with the DES algorithm and public key cryptography. Rationale: in modern cryptographic literature, "cipher" is used, and "cypher" is almost never seen. Wikipedia should reflect this trend.

Does it matter? Probably not a great deal, but it seems quite jarring to use a spelling that is different to the one preferred in practice. Other than this aesthetic point, using "cypher" might also suggest to a reader that the article's writers are unfamiliar with the scholarly literature.

 * Lists of papers and links to abstracts of the major two academic conferences in cryptography can be browsed at the following links:
 * http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/crypto/
 * http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/eurocrypt/

 * Modern books use "cipher" (see list below).

 * "cypher" would appear to have originally been a British spelling variant. However, British usage now favours "cipher". Therefore, "cypher" is not the British spelling variant of "cipher" in the same way as "colour" vs "color" etc. Thus the usual stipulations of treating national variations do not apply (Manual_of_Style)

 * However, other recommendations of the Manual of Style seem appropriate: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect. Thus "alternative meaning" should be used rather than "alternate meaning" since dictionaries often discourage or do not even recognize the latter. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary "Usage Note" at alternative simply says: "Alternative should not be confused with alternate." From time to time, the "cypher" spelling is "corrected" by editors to "cipher". Also, variants such as "encypher" and "decypher" do not appear in dictionaries, so are often presumed to be incorrectly spelled.

 * Google test: although "cipher" and "cypher" are reported as comparably frequent in usage on Google, in the context of cryptography things are different:

 * Q: Why just "modern cryptography"? A: I would probably advocate "cipher" over "cypher" in other articles as well, such as those on the history of cryptography (e.g. the Enigma machine), but as I have read less about these, I don't know whether "cypher" appears as a variant spelling in this context more frequently than it does in the modern context.

Books that use "cypher"

 * User:JD Forrester, in a posting at Talk:Cryptography at cypher v cipher noted the existence of some he had used in his (current) University courses, but did not give titles. Forrester also cited instructors at his university (Warwick), both British and Russian, who used cypher; he did not give names. Most of the books I personally recall using cypher (and its variants) are from older eras, which, it could be argued, do not apply to current times. ww 14:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Actually, User:Jdforrester said the following, when asked whether any lectures or books used "cypher": "Lectures at the University of Warwick, both by a Russian and a Briton. The books recommended, however, nearly all used the 'i' spelling variant." — Matt 15:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * JDF's observation to which I had reference above was made earlier on the talk page. It was: All of my cryptography books use 'cypher'. Perhaps this is a difference in spelling between you former colonials and the rest of the world? :-) ww 16:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Apropos the inclusion of dictionaries and such in the next section, it should be noted that all I've personally looked at cite cypher as at least a variant, thus adding authority (of a kind) to the cypher side of question. ww 19:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Please add books.

 * CompTIA A+ Certification Guide (220-901 and 220-902): Matthew Bennett - 2017
 * Reliability, Safety, and Security of Railway Systems. Thierry Lecomte, Ralf Pinger, Alexander Romanovsky - 2016
 * Protecting Information on Local Area Networks. James A Schweitzer - 2014
 * Compute-IT: Student's Book 3 - Computing for KS3. Mark Dorling, George Rouse - 2015
 * H.I.V.E. 2: Overlord Protocol: Mark Walden - 2011
 * Coding for Data and Computer Communications. David Salomon - 2005
 * Sixth International Conference on Digital Satellite Communications: Communications Satellite Corporation - 1983
 * Kirkus Reviews - Volume 53, Issues 19-24 -1985
 * AS/400 Security in a Client/Server Environment - Joseph S. Park - 1995
 * Orthopaedic Surgical Approaches. Mark D. Miller, A. Bobby Chhabra, Joseph S Park - 2014
 * Fuzzy Expert Systems. Abraham Kandel - 1991
 * The Boy Who Set Fire to the Bible. Carl Daoust - 2015
 * The New Hacker's Dictionary. Eric S. Raymond, Guy L. Steele - 1996
 * An Introduction to Neural Networks. James A. Anderson - 1995
 * The Python Library Reference: Release 3.6.4 - Book 1 of 2 Guido van Rossum, Python Development Team - 2018
 * Antennas and Wave Propagation. A. R. Harish, M. Sachidananda - 2007
 * The Unseen War in Europe: Espionage and Conspiracy in the Second. John H. Waller - 1996
 * Between Silk and Cyanide: A Codemaker's War, 1941-1945. Leo Marks - 2001
 * IoT Automation: Arrowhead Framework. Jerker Delsing - 2017
 * Computer Network Security: Theory and Practice. Jie Wang - 2010
 * The World's Most Bizarre Murders. James Marrison - 2010
 * ICSA Guide to Cryptography. Randall K. Nichols, - 1999
 * The Hacker's Dictionary: A Guide to the World of Computer Wizards. Guy L. Steele - 1983
 * Baal Robert R. McCammon - 2012
 * Vimy: The Battle and the Legend. Tim Cook - 2017
 * Classical Cryptography Course - Volume 1; Volume 6. Randall K. Nichols - 1996

Books that use "cipher"
Please add books.
 * Newton - Encyclopedia of Cryptology
 * Various - Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security
 * Encyclopædia Britannica
 * Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
 * Ross Anderson - Security Engineering (UK author)
 * Bauer, F L - Decrypted Secrets
 * Beutelspacher, Albrecht- Cryptography
 * Biham and Shamir, Cryptanalysis of the Data Encryption Standard
 * Chey Cobb - Cryptography for Dummies
 * Robert Churchhouse - Codes and Ciphers
 * S. C. Coutinho, S.C. Coutinho -The Mathematics of Ciphers: Number Theory and RSA Cryptography
 * Joan Daemen, Vincent Rijmen - The Design of Rijndael
 * H. Delfs, H. Knebl - Introduction to Cryptography
 * C. A. Deavors and L. Kruh, Machine Cryptography and Modern Cryptanalysis
 * Dorothy Denning, Cryptography and Data Security
 * Niels Ferguson & Bruce Schneier - Practical Cryptography
 * Helen Fouche Gaines - Elementary Cryptanalysis (not modern)
 * David Kahn - The Codebreakers (not modern)
 * Knudsen - Java Cryptography
 * A.G. Konheim - Cryptography: a Primer
 * Stephen Levy - Crypto
 * Robert E. Lewand - Cryptological Mathematics
 * Wenbo Mao - Modern Cryptography: Theory and Practice
 * H.X. Mel, Doris Burnett, Doris M. Baker - Cryptography Decrypted
 * Menezes, van Oorschot, and Vanstone - Handbook of Applied Cryptography
 * Fred Piper and Sean Murphy - Cryptography : A Very Short Introduction (UK author)
 * Fred Piper and Henry Beker - Cipher systems (UK author)
 * Fletcher Pratt - Secret & Urgent: The Story of Codes & Ciphers (not modern)
 * Hugh Sebag-Montefiore - Enigma: The Battle for the Code (not about modern cryptography)
 * Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography
 * Schneier et al. - The Twofish Encryption Algorithm
 * J. Seberry, J. Pieprzyk- Cryptography: an introduction to computer security
 * Simon Singh - The Code Book (UK author)
 * A. Sinkov - Elementary Cryptanalysis: A Mathematical Approach (not modern)
 * William Stallings - Cryptography and Network Security
 * Samuel S. Wagstaff - Cryptanalysis of Number Theoretic Ciphers
 * Fred B. Wrixon - Codes, Ciphers & Other Cryptic & Clandestine Communication

Dictionary entries

 * Oxford English Dictionary
 * Merriam-Webster Dictionary
 * The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Further discussion
I welcome discussion and debate on this question. — Matt 11:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I should like to note, that as a British student of mathematics, 'cipher' looks very awkward and I should be very surprised to see British professors using 'cipher' over 'cypher'. In the interest of international harmony, I would not bother to change the spelling, but it does irritate me to see 'cypher' corrected, when it is indeed already correct.
 * Well, I'd assert once again that it's not an international British vs American thing; most British professors in cryptography do, in fact, spell it "cipher" in their publications; e.g., , , etc...— Matt 02:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that British professors favour 'cipher' over 'cypher' when publishing to an international audience, especially given the strength of feeling that is apparently displayed on this matter. Nonetheless, 'cipher' does look awkward to a British reader compared with 'cypher'.
 * Well, even internally UK cryptographers use "cipher", in my experience -- (I would note that I'm British grad student in crypto). The problem with "cypher" is not that it's a "wrong spelling", more that published cryptographic writing, whether published in the UK or elsewhere, uses "cipher" — universally, as far as I can tell. Simply put, we shouldn't use a different spelling to the one used in the field of cryptography. — Matt 02:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

 * As a British reader myself, I can't say I have a preference for "cypher" which just looks wrong to my eyes, in the same was as "cyder" for the alcoholic beverage (i.e., I'd guess it was an archaic spelling). And the OED, the definitive dictionary for British usage issues, also seems to prefer "cipher".

ww suggests ...
As Matt notes above, this is a teapot tempest, but fascinating to those interested in this language and its thoroughly odd orthography. There is a mini history of the language, with some speculation on how things written got so peculiar, at user talk:Fredrik at cypher vs cipher. In addition the prior discussion contains some historical material (see Talk:Cryptography at cypher vs cipher and the links from there).

But the problem is, at base, not historical in a significant sense. It is hard to distinguish clearly for discussion purposes, but I'll try. Ferdinand de Saussure (Swiss linguist, November 26, 1857 - February 22, 1913) first distinguished clearly between language use and language theory/description. His distinction has become universal among linguists and is relevant to this discussion. In dictionaries, the related terms are descriptive (Saussurian) and prescriptive (non-Saussurian).

Languages, for reasons no one, to my knowledge, has been able to explain satisfactorily, differ in the degree of standardization on which they insist among their users. (NB: I am reifying shamelessly here, for wording economy, in using language in this manner, and readers should take care as a consequence.) For instance, some languages are resistant to import of vocabulary from others (eg, historical French, apparently; the modern situation is so overlaid with political and cultural baggage as to obscure much) while English has, seemingly, always been willing to accept new words with little difficulty. Why this should be so is, as I note, obscure.

Writing, being more formal, less spontaneous, and so on is not quite the same circumstance. The Saussurian position is less clearly applicable to written expression; but not, apparently, inapplicable either. In the particular case of English, its spelling has been, since before Hastings (ie, 1066CE) extremely variable. Whether a vice or a virtue (a vice in my view), it has not merely been a function of ignorance. The most learned writers of whom we retain record have been as wild and woolley as we can imagine the near illiterate to have always been, and insofar as we have samples, as they were (and are). Shakespeare is an example. Whoever the writer actually was, his spelling (in quartos, handwriting, and folios) was highly variable. To this day, entire communities, speaking and writing the same English language, differ on the spelling_of_English question. Matt gives the example of colour v color. Part of this is political/cultural (perhaps mostly American, and perhaps primarily Noah Webster who included virtuous republican spelling reform among his briefs in his American dictionaries). But the persistence of such differences cannot be entirely Noah's fault. He's been dead for 150+ years. Actual vocabulary also differs between BE and AE. In GB, cars have boots and bonnets and one goes to the 1st floor in a lift. In AE, cars have trunks and hoods (even British ones) and one is already on the 1st floor when one enters a building -- elevators are needed only for 2nd and higher floors.

There being more Americans than British, a majority vote of English speakers/writers would dispense with all BE differences (spelling, unique vocabulary, etc). That English doesn't (quite) operate on majority vote in such cases is, it would seem, an aspect of Saussurian use rather than theory as English' modus operandi.

Accordingly, I would respect the way that English does it, and leave the spelling alone in this case. I have suggested that articles be internally consistent on cy v ci, but that wholesale changes not be made to conform to 'conventional' use. English doesn't work that way. German and others might, but might is still spelled very oddly in English, though it rhymes with knight and both were spelled as pronounced once upon a time (Chaucer's time or before!).

I think this spelling difference is a grace note, an opportunity for bemusement (at English, the speller's nightmare), and should be made visible to our Reader, not concealed behind a veil of (in English) artificial convention.

Comments? Observations?

ww 14:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * ww -- you say the difference "should be made visible to the Reader, not concealed behind a veil of artificial convention". There is a very real convention to use "cipher" in the context of modern cryptography, and I've tried to provide evidence for this. If Wikipedia also subscribed to this convention, it would not be "an artificial veil"; it would simply be reflecting (overwhelming) usage.

 * Matt, The 'convention' meant was not in re spelling of any particular thing, but that there is a convention of 'correct spelling' at all in English. There's too much variation, and too much tolerance for it, to act otherwise. ww 20:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I disagree -- there clearly is a notion of standard spelling in English, and it's determined by the fact that the vast majority agree on it. This is why, in Wikipedia, we prefer the spelling "consciousness" to "conshussnuss". Surely you don't dispute this? — Matt 15:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Matt, Actually, in principle, I do. Any language in which an actual case can be made for ghoti being pronounced as 'fish' has not the slightest credible rational right to any claim of a 'standard' spelling. Its greatest (by most lights) writer couldn't even spell his own name the same way twice. We now have (what is it? 12?) samples of his signature on this or that, and ... Well, if the most incandescent genius of English can't manage (nor did most anybody, including the other geniuses, of his time), it's probably hopeless for we grain of wheat bulbs to insist. It's why the spelling / pronounciation rules we are dragged kicking and shreiking through in elementary school are so perversely, annoyingly, infuriatingly, arcane. Don't you remember thinking this stuff was insane at the time? I certainly do; and I still do, eons later. Probably accounts for most of the serial killers and polluters in the English speaking world, too; it's the Devil's work, I say! Anyway..., string theory (pick your version poison there) makes more sense, and is probably easier to understand.

 * An actual example is Mark Twain (or indeed any author making a point about characters' use of language -- some of Dickens, I remember dimly, might qualify here) in many of whose works English spelling, usage, and pronounciation are rather thoroughly stretched by 'conventional' standards. There are frequent (and recurrent) attempts here by Miss Fidditches of assorted stripes to ban Twain (or this or that work) as so bad an example of writing (or as racist or as impious or ...) as to be impermissably non-standard, unconventional, unacceptable, and outa here!
 * In practice, in this case, I think the problem is nonexistent. Hence my bemusement at it all. The degree of confusion caused by use of both spelling forms (ie, actual confusion, not presumed disapproving judgement by onlooking Miss Fidditches) is nil. Even in the mind of a not so crypto Reader. ww 16:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * If I've understood you correctly, you argue that, because English is somewhat accepting of variation in vocabulary and spelling, we should accept this particular variation in spelling in the Wikipedia. I would respond by pointing out that, in the context of modern cryptography, it's so rare as to almost fail to be a variation at all. It's almost entirely absent from the published literature.

 * Matt, And the majority vote conveys little in English. It certainly doesn't convey illiteracy or inability to understand this or that about crypto.

 * If an average reader came across an article about "consciousness" where the author spelled it "conshussnuss", how wary would they be of the content? They would be suspicious about the content, of course, because the spelling was unusual. Rightly or wrongly, it is expected, in any field, to use the terminology, jargon and conventions of that field. If we increase the confidence of (even a few of) our readers by using "cipher" over "cypher", then I think we should prefer "cipher". — Matt 15:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Matt, A bit of a strawman arguement that, isn't it? In any case, It is expected... -- by whom? And by what right? Is this the way the language works? Where is our (ie, English speakers') collection of Immortals deciding on correctness and acceptability? In some sense, I think myself representative of English speakers now and past; an Academy might be OK for French, they do a number of unusual things in France, not for this English speaker! It's my language and I'll persist in behaving thus. If nominated as an Immortal I shall not run, and if selected I shall not serve! <-- a merely personal position, of course.
 * I think it ill advised (in a situation as this in which the danger of actual confusion is nil, and so any controversy is essentially over an arbitrary stylistic point) to be driven by imagined (albeit we have all encountered such folks) disapproval by one sort of Miss Fidditch or another. It just encourages 'em. ww 16:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * "It is expected" by most people. I'm not suggesting by any means that there is some central body or authority who decides, just describing the fact that the majority of readers expect conventions to be followed, and are suspicious of authors who buck the trend and appear "outlandish". My argument is pragmatic. I'm not asking that we declare "cypher" to be an incorrect spelling, I'm asking that we agree to use "cipher" in Wikipedia articles. — Matt 08:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Matt, I think I would disagree that the non cryptiac reader has any expectation as to this spelling. Whether that's a majority amongst crypto corner readers is more questionable, I suppose, but the relevance of majority expectation to the behavior of English in re spelling or just about anything else is quite dubious.

 * Many readers of our articles will have encountered other cryptographic material before. Experts, as well as novices, consult encyclopedias, even in their own fields. Remember the "Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security"? It's targeted at those with a fair degree of knowledge already. Many of our more technical articles will be read predominantly by non-newbies, and some of them might find "cypher" a little worrying. — Matt 10:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I would agree that there is a 'notion' of correct spelling in English, just as there is a 'notion' of fair play in international relations. In neither case does the notion describe reality 'as she actually is'. ww 14:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * ww — I agree there is no axiomatic way to point to something and deduce that it is the correct spelling destined for the English language and that everyone must use it. However, there is, emphatically, a notion of correct spelling that describes reality pretty well: most people agree about how most words should be spelled. In my view, correct spelling is a de facto rule of thumb. Exceptions - yes; British variants - yes, but the notion does describe reality. — Matt 10:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I trust this is approximately the correct nr of ':'. Blasted things! You are correct that there is agreement on many words amongst writers and readers, there is not 'at the margin'. That margin includes the AE/BE differences (which incorporate a great many common words, usages, and concepts), so all readers who are exposed to both are front line observers of some of this anarchy, as are writers who write for both audiences, and editors who police those writers. There are also (within GB and NA) regional differences in usage, vocabulary, phrasing, idiom, and certainly accent of pronounciation -- all 'at the margin' in the sense above. Axiomatic is a concept which is hard to apply to languages and especially so to English. ww 17:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * As an illustration of how spelling can adapt in different contexts, one (UK) school I attended in 1991 demanded the spelling "computer programme". Now, the accepted rendering in British English is "computer program", the same as the US, even though the spelling "programme" is still used in other contexts. The use of "computer programme" nowadays, even in the UK, would be strong evidence that the user had little experience with programming. — Matt 16:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Matt, To be sure such things change, as do styles in fashion. Do you still use boot or colour? If so that style has survived a movement toward uniformitism. But I would strongly disagree that use of the 'programme' spelling indicates anything about one's experience with the discipline. It need not, in fact, indicate anything except a fondness for unstylish spelling or a love of mm in one's words. ww 20:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying that using "cypher" logically implies that the author knows nothing about crypto (ww, you are a clear counterexample). But the spelling is so unusual in modern cryptography, that it is bound to make some people — including myself initially — wonder. We should reflect the usage and conventions of the field; it can only improve the cryptography articles. — Matt 15:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Matt, And so is User:Jdcc (ie, Jon) who has a similar (also bemused, I take it) affection for cypher. Although I suspect he's a better counterexample than I, being a professional cryptographer and paid for it and all. I wonder what Philip Zimmermann thinks about this -- noting of course, as with Jon, that one's actually published work does not necessarily reflect one's preferences? Down with tyrannical editors!
 * You recovered from your (tch, tch, tch!) suspicions, did you not? I've been persistently concerned, at times in opposition to you and your sense of it, with Our Reader and possible problems we might create for him/her {English DOES need a gender neutral pronoun, but hasn't found one -- why is that? I surely don't know, it's one of the mysteries of how languages (and perhaps cultures (in conjunction?)) work!} in his/her understanding of this odd little corner of human endeavour [sic]. In this case, I don't think there can seriously be much problem for even the most non crypto Reader, especially if we note for Him/Her that there is a divergence of use and opinion which has no significance beyond a TT. Such a note was once in Cryptography, but was progressively removed by the, ahemmm, collectively non-bemused.
 * 'Usage and convention' can be dangerous in several ways, and helpful in others. The danger comes mostly it seems to me from insistence that, in such cases of more import than this, it's other than mostly harmless and needs to be 'fixed'. Where the boundary is is, of course, of considerable moment, even in re such trivial cases as this. As a US citizen, I am painfully aware of the risks of such things taken to extreme. We here have had more than a few examples in my lifetime. In recent times, students have been sent down from University (expelled from courses, from activities, ...) here for using language in ways that (except formally by some standard of imposed convention) carried no insult or derision; an opposition to Political Correctness taken to extreme is one of the few positions I share with some of our more dexter folk, though I'm confident the grounding and intent of my opposition is quite different.

 * Not, of course, that (imagined future) enforcement of some WP policy on the spelling of 'sifer' (don't know how to do IPA here!) is any such thing! ww 16:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Securiger comments
''(I made some interlineated comments here, and in so doing confused the software. Please be assured that Securiger's original posting was very neatly formatted and sequentially numbered. My reactions have deranged the software so that it can no longer count by whole numbers. ww)

My thoughts:
 * 1) I will chime, not chyme, which is icky stuff and quite different.
 * Oddly enough, no one else has noticed that! ww

 * 1) "There being more Americans than British, a majority vote of English speakers/writers would dispense with all BE differences...". Actually, I think you will find that the majority of English speakers worldwide are Commonwealth of Nations members who mainly use British spelling (e.g. although only a minority of Indians speak English, enough do so to give the Yanks a run for their money). I am an Australian, and we generally use British spelling (but sometimes not). Having said that, I do not believe it is correct to claim that 'cypher' is a current British variant.
 * Head count correction noted! Thank you. ww

 * 1) By and large I do not feel strongly about it, but it looks very strange to my eyes in articles about modern cryptography - having been reading crypto journals and such for more than a decade, where the variation simply does not occur, regardless of the author's nationality. Also once came across the phrase "(cypher in modern parlance)" (by Ww, I think) which set me on an unreasoning fury because it certainly is not modern 8^)
 * Sorry about that. I trust BP is better now? ww

 * 1) 'Cipher' was also the original spelling. In my experience and reading, 'cypher' is a variant spelling which appeared at a time when British writers were generally fairly free and easy about changing 'i' to 'y'. Some of these variants (e.g. 'wyvern') became accepted or even preferred orthography; some died utterly (e.g. 'kyng'); while others, like 'cypher', lingered for a long time. 'Cypher' was apparently never common in the US but was a common variant in British usage until about 60 years ago, and is now approaching obsolescence in British usage too.
 * 2) Investigating Google hits for 'cypher', I note that when the 'y' spelling does appear today, it is mainly (but certainly not exclusively) in one of about 10 contexts. I list these contexts here, along with how many times they occurred in Google's first 100 hits on 'cypher':
 * 3) * Deliberately archaic or unusual usage for poetic, artistic or advertising effect, e.g. the recent movie Cypher and the character 'Cypher' in The Matrix (88);
 * 4) * References to cryptography, but by those with little knowledge of the subject or generally poor spelling (4);
 * 5) * References to DNS names whose owners may well have taken the 'y' spelling because the 'i' spelling was already registered, or for commercial reasons (2);
 * 6) * Non-native speakers of English (2);
 * I think they're already so far underwater nothing we here on WP can ever do will help them. English structure is simpler than most (fewer cases, no genders, simple basic verb constructions) but the spelling is hellacious. Spelling reform is sadly needed, but the history of the language suggests it will fail. And no one seems to have an idea why. Puzzling. ww

 * 1) * References to cryptography, by those who can spell and seem to know what they're talking about but simply prefer the unusual spelling (this includes one link to Ww's articles here on WP) (2);
 * Y marches on!! Hye the kyng to the wyvern! (Anyone know what a wyvern (or wivern) is?) ww

 * 1) * Historical references (1);
 * 2) * Dictionary and other references noting the alternative spelling, but using only 'cipher' in the text (1);
 * 3) * Heraldry, where 'cypher' means a monogram more or less (but most heraldic terms are otherwise archaic) (0); and
 * 4) * The word 'cypherpunk' and its derivatives, in which the 'y' was used because Jude Milhon coined the word by analogy with 'cyberpunk' (0),
 * 5) That is what concerns me most, then:
 * 6) * The variant spelling is mainly associated with non-cryptographic meanings, and could confuse searchers or researchers;
 * 7) * In a cryptographic context, the variant spelling is mainly, but certainly not exclusively, associated with novices and gives an impression of lack of professionalism.
 * 8) Yes it is a minor point but it is not completely trivial; to the extent that an encyclopaedia is educational, we should not be teaching beginners that it is a common and widely accepted variant when it is not. Having said that, I am sure we have already expended more energy on the matter than is reasonable.
 * 9) Thus I vote against 'y' spelling except where the context specifically calls for it (e.g. historical references, noting the variant exists, etc). Securiger 04:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Current Standings
At the moment, and off the top of my head, things stand as follows in re: WP crypto editors' positions. Please feel free to correct any misinterpretations or misconstruals here. In no order whatsoever as this was written.

ww -- use yt exclusively in writings on the subject, use yt preferentially in WP where possible. Regard the whole TT with bemusement, mostly at the oddities of English. A grace note, mostly harmless. Unwilling to alter anything whatsoever in forestalling anticipation of irrelevant (ie, disapproving) judgements by others about his (or anyone's) familiarity with the scholarly literature or the content of the subject -- including spelling. For other reasons perhaps, but not that one.

user:Jdcc -- prefers cypher, regularly loses battles with editors of his writing who insist on cipher

user:Heron -- prefers cipher, but does not want to be prescriptive against cypher [ Agreed. However, having read more about this subject, I am now even more biased against cypher. From what I can see by using Google - and I mean from reading the words, not just counting the instances - cypher seems to be used mainly by non-mathematicians, including mystics and historians. I'm not saying that any of these groups is absolutely right or wrong, but we should prefer cipher in the context of modern cryptography, and allow either form in other contexts. -- Heron 16:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)]

user:jdforrester -- does not want to be prescriptive against either [edit: I'll live with cipher, though I normally use cypher (will have to remember to behave on Wiki ;-)); as Pete says (below), it's "no big loss". James F. (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)]

user:imran -- prefers cipher, has suggested standardization, has ended up at non prescriptive either way.

user:wmahan -- has no strong feelings either way, wants things spelled correctly, but recognizes this constellation of alternatives

user:Spellbott -- similar to wmahan

User:Matt Crypto -- prefers cipher, but does not want to be prescriptive except as WP style prescribes. Is concerned for standardization on one or the other to avoid incorrect conclusions about WP article crypto authority/sophistication.

ciphergoth -- I prefer cipher (unsurprisingly given my nick!). I have a couple of publications in the field. Pretty much all the papers I've read use "cipher"; using "cypher" would just make Wikipedia look unprofessional and ill-informed. Let the lit-crit people have "cypher".

[Only familiar with cryptography through one undergrad course, so not expecting this opinion to carry as much weight as experts... but you did ask at the pump :)] It seems like that the proposal to allow mixed spelling is perhaps inspired partly by the decision to allow mixed spellings in general to cope with Brit/American (and others) differences. I think you shouldn't follow that lead too much... standards are prefered where possible... they just aren't possible when you are talking about all articles. In this smaller we are talking about a smaller subset of articles, overseen by a single project, and so it would be possible to enforce an "i" only policy, if an overwhelming (80%? 90%?) proportion of interested parties wanted to. Because in actual fact this is a tiny issue, I imagine those in the minority would acquiesce to that on the grounds of "no big loss". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

NealMcB 18:50, 2004 May 26 (UTC) I think cipher is the clearly favored choice in educated usage. I think usage of computers to scan and process text (including search engines, word processors, etc) causes consistency to be increasingly helpful and important. So I think wikipedians would be producing a better product if they would stick to just cipher. I don't know enough about wp etiquette and politics on such topics to know the best way to achieve this result.

 * Regarding etiquette and politics, I think the (ideal) Wikipedia way is to work to achieve consensus. One of the recommended steps when parties disagree about something is to request community comment (Requests for comment), hence this page. — Matt 08:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I vote no 'y' variant except where context specifically calls for it. See discussion above. Securiger 04:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Denni I prefer "cipher" but see so much pathetic spelling that I don't care either way, as long as it's not "sihper" (though I have a secret longing to spell cryptography with an 'i').

Birkett Not heavily involved in the wikipedia, but I went on a bit of a rampage changing cypher -> cipher without much regard to other people's views on the issue, then discovered that people really didn't like me doing that and reverted all my changes. Fair enough I guess, should have read this first :-) Sorry to whoever it was that I offended. Really do prefer cipher though, cypher looks kinda archaic to me.

Elonka - I prefer "cipher" in my own writings. As far as wikipedia goes, I won't specifically edit a page *just* to change "cypher" to "cipher", because I do agree that it is an acceptable variant. However, if I am doing other copy-editing on a page, I may change the variants that I run across. The reason for this is that when I am proofreading, I tend to read things both in detail (stream?) and large chunks at a time (block, heh). And the "cypher" spelling tends to jump out at me in blocks, perhaps distracting me from other typos that may be in close proximity. So if I change the attention-drawing words to "cipher", I am more likely to catch other errors that might otherwise escape my notice.

Can we agree on facts?
''(Yet again there is software derangement caused by interlineated comments. Matt, like Securiger above, had produced a perfectly formatted and numbered, series of points. Should we be sending this software (the editing module?) back to grammar school? ww)

ww — I get the impression that we don't so much disagree on facts but on what we should do about them. I think we should first clarify what we agree on, since we should be working towards consensus. Do you agree with the following? ...

 * 1) In the published literature of modern cryptography, both in books and academic papers, the spelling "cipher" is used overwhelmingly more frequently than the spelling "cypher".
 * Agreed. But with the observation that this language anyway is and has been actually rather tolerant of divergent spelling and resistant to spelling mandates. ww 14:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) Some readers may make judgements about the quality or trustworthiness of an article based on whether the spelling conforms to that used by a very large majority. (Whether or not they should do this is a separate issue).
 * Agreed some readers might do so. And some readers might do many other things as well; some quite odd. It's a strawman. I think there is little danger of an actual problem, most especially if we just announce the variational difference. All (apparently) the dictionaries do. Securiger notes above, in his magesterial coverage, some possibilities of confusion rather than disdain by Readers. I agree they are possible. So are many unlikely things; we can't (and I think shouldn't) zig to accomodate an (unlikely) inability to see that this is an example of this language's spelling insanity. There are more important problems Our Reader is likely to have in re crypto and its (non stylistic) oddities, as Securiger also notes. These deserve more of our time I think.
 * On the question of "should or shouldn't", of course they shouldn't! Only article content should matter, and that's the bit we WP cryptiacs should, in my view, keep foremost in mind, for, as I've said (here?) before, this crypto stuff is twisty twisty twisty and Readers, especially the non crypto ones, should receive some helpful untwisting from the stuff they read. There's too much snake oil (and snake_oil_thought) out there. That's the actually dangerous bit. ww 14:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * 1) On Wikipedia, "cypher" is, from time to time, changed to "cipher" in articles about cryptography, but not the other way round (apart from edits by yourself). (Recent example in the last couple of days: "cypher" -> "cipher"
 * I may indeed be a culprit (I certainly was in a fit of 'automatic editing' at substitution cipher; the séance has now concluded and except for flashbacks, it shouldn't happen again), but I'm shocked, just Shocked!, to be alleged to be the only one. (Hounds, and villagers with torches and pitchforks, at my heels appear in my mind's eye....). This is a point which was, as I noted (above?), made in cryptography but has been removed by others who deemed it superfluous. Which removal was protested at the time by at least two readers, myself and JDF. And now apparently by Securiger (see above). ww 14:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

(Please add your own suggestions as to what we might agree on) — Matt 09:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Matt, My suggestion, most seriously meant, is that we laugh about it, observe that English spelling is incomprehensible, and move on. Bemusement is the only position I have ever personally found on this that does not drive me barking mad (something only the English talk about, is it?), or that I can really advise for anyone else. Neither majority vote (nor use counting, nor persistent pedagological pestering) has seemed to do the trick in any other context and I am certain no action we take will either. I think WP should (and that we also in the crypto corner should) follow the language, not try like Cnut to command it. Like the tide it will probably ignore us. Indeed this is now formal WP policy on spelling questions as I understand it; explicitly so in regard to AE/BE/(AustE?) differences. So, note the variant and proceed. It's a TT, after all.

 * I think (and I mention this in the next section) that, while bemusement might be sufficient for yourself, there is a real (although modest) opportunity to improve our articles, and, moreover, that it is practical to enact the changes in the relevant articles. You say (paraphrasing) "I am certain no action we take will do the trick". Do you mean that it is difficult to change the relevant Wikipedia articles from "cypher" to "cipher", and maintain it that way? This is evidently not true (if you need more convincing, a practical demonstration could be arranged...). If you meant something more, then you are mistaken about what I'm aiming for. I don't want to magically convert every English speaker and make them use only "cipher"; I want Wikipedia's articles on modern cryptography to only use "cipher". There's a big difference.
 * To take your points up, in order. 'Sufficient' is off the mark; 'despairing coexistence' or 'sanity preservation' is closer. On 'improve' see below. On 'difficulty of change', no I didn't mean that, I expect that some careful scripting could do most of it without too much trouble. On 'magical conversion', not what I thought you had in mind, nor what I had in mind. I agree it's a big difference. ww 16:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * Also, I dispute your assertion that "this is now formal WP policy on spelling questions". For sure, there are recommendations in the Manual of Style for dealing with differences in American and British English. This is not one of those cases, however, as in both British and American English writing on modern cryptography, "cipher" is used. — Matt 10:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I've had this policy quoted to me, and heard it quoted to others in connection with AE/BE differences. It would appear then to be the recommendations you note that was meant. In any case, it was that I had in mind, not an edict from on High (eg, from Wales). As for both American and English writing using exclusively cipher, I don't / Jon wouldn't / JDF doesn't. As the dictionaries (all of them?) point out, it's a variant. When it is that a variant is impermissable in the face of uncommon use (or editorial stodiginess) is not clear to me, though it may be (I think incorrectly given that this is English) to others. ww 16:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * This language has resisted all efforts to make its spelling behave, and so has its actual spoken and written usage aside from spelling; Securiger can surely suggest any number of DownUnderisms that would sound exotic to the AE or BE ear. But then being asked by a Briton if you'd like to be knocked up in the morning has a truly exotic sound to the AE ear, and I'm certain AE has more than a few as well, I just can't myself hear them. A Burkean respect for custom and tradition (and our grandfathers and their fathers) suggests that we just live with our absurd orthography rather than trying to fix it. But Burke never managed to gain a Cabinet post (this is correct, is it not?) and so perhaps that militates against adopting his position.

 * See the above comments: I'm not trying to "fix" English spelling in any other sense than changing a hundred or so Wikipedia articles. I think it is flawed to compare attempts at standardising a language spoken by millions with a few tweaks to some cryptography articles. Also, we do not need to have "respect for custom and tradition" if the rest of the field of cryptography has moved on. — Matt 10:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you're not setting yourself (or the crypto corner) up for the heartbreak of correcting English spelling. It would likely cause more distress than Securiger's BP problems (see above) if so. As for respect for custom and tradition, it's precisely the past which is where the custom and tradition (in that Burkean sense) are to be found, not the present. Well sort of anyway. As for 'the rest of the field moving on', see reply just above. ww 16:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

 * There is much (as always, illegitimate) reification in these comments and I apologize, but it's difficult to discuss such things without doing so. The argument is, I trust the same after de reification which I commend to readers. ww 14:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Can we agree on what to do?
"If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect." — Wikipedia Manual of Style.

ww — OK, it's good that we agree on some of the above facts. We disagree on whether it matters. Regarding using "cypher", you say, "it's a grace note", "mostly harmless", "an opportunity for bemusement". However, I, and a couple of other editors, think that using "cipher" would improve the articles; for example, User:Securiger says, "In a cryptographic context, the variant spelling is mainly, but certainly not exclusively, associated with novices and gives an impression of lack of professionalism." This is not some great debate about whether "cypher" is "incorrect" in some absolute sense, but a discussion about how we can improve Wikipedia articles. The question is whether "cipher" is a better spelling for Wikipedia articles.

Because of this, would you be willing to go along with using "cipher" in modern cryptography articles? Deducing from your own statements, this change would be "mostly harmless" from your point of view, but would be an improvement in some other editors' opinions.

By the way, I appreciate (and share) your objection to attempts to prescribe what is correct and what is incorrect usage (believe it or not!). You say "I think [we] should follow the language, not try like Cnut to command it."; I agree. My argument is simply that in this case and in this particular context people use "cipher" — overwhelmingly. Therefore, we should follow the way the language is used, and use "cipher".

— Matt 15:35, 27 May 2004 (UTC)


text:
Avoca River

The Avoca River, an inland intermittent river of the northcentral catchment, part of the Murray-Darling basin, is located in the lower Riverina bioregion and Central Highlands and Wimmera regions of the Australian state of Victoria. The headwaters of the Avoca River rise on the northern slopes of the Pyrenees Range and descend to flow into the ephemeral Kerang Lakes.

Features and location
The Avoca River drains a substantial part of central Victoria. It rises at the foot of Mount Lonarch, near the small town of Amphitheatre, and flows north for 270 km joined by thirteen minor tributaries, and through the towns of, and. Two major distributaries leave the Avoca River between Charlton and Quambatook: Tyrrell Creek, flowing to Lake Tyrrell, and Lalbert Creek flowing to Lake Lalbert.

Although the Avoca River basin is part of the Murray-Darling basin, the Avoca River does not empty into the Murray. Nowhere a large stream, it dwindles as it flows north, eventually terminating in the Kerang Lakes, a network of ephemeral swamps west of Kerang and about 20 km south of the Murray River.

Although the Avoca River has a substantial 12000 km2 catchment area, the fifth-largest in Victoria, most of that area is on the northern plains where rainfall averages only about 350 mm per year, and where there is little runoff because the terrain is very flat. The mean annual runoff of 137 GL per annum accounts for only 0.67% of Victoria's runoff. Most of the water flowing in the Avoca River originates in the small upper portion of the catchment area, where rainfall averages about 600 mm per year, most of it falling in the winter and spring.

Of all the Victorian rivers in the Murray-Darling basin, the Avoca River is the most variable. The average annual flow is 85 GL, but recorded actual flows have varied from almost five times the average figure in very wet years, when the river can flood, to 0.5% of the average in drought years, when the flow is less than 50 ML per day. In dry years, the flow can stop for many months.

Although it is the only river of significance in the area, no major water storages have been constructed on it, but there are six weirs of only local significance. Little use of the river is made for irrigation because, during the peak demand periods of summer and autumn, it is often not flowing. During low-flow periods, the water is usually too saline to use on crops, but can still provide drinking water for sheep and cattle.

The river is crossed by the Pyrenees Highway at Avoca, and the Borung Highway and the Calder Highway at Charlton.

Etymology
As the river is relatively long, Aboriginal peoples from various cultural groups lived near the river course. In the Djadjawurrung, Wathawurrung, Wergaia, and Wembawemba languages, the river has several names, including Natte yaluk and Boca, both with no clearly defined meaning; Bangyeno Banip, meaning bunyip waterholes; Djub-djub-galg, meaning a place where melaleuca was abundant; Witchelliba, with witji meaning basket grass and bar meaning river; and Yangeba, with no clearly defined meaning.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Avoca River


text:
Nationwide Arena

Nationwide Arena is a multi-purpose arena in the Arena District of Columbus, Ohio. Since completion in 2000, the arena has served as the home of the Columbus Blue Jackets of the National Hockey League (NHL). It is one of two facilities in Columbus, along with Greater Columbus Convention Center, that hosts events during the annual Arnold Classic, a sports and fitness event hosted by actor, bodybuilder, and former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger.

History
Nationwide Arena was built near the site of the former Ohio Penitentiary, which had an eastern border of West Street. The arena itself is built over the prison's former parking lot. The arena's parking lot and an apartment complex are built where the prison formerly stood. The arena was constructed in 2000.

On March 16, 2002, 13-year-old Brittanie Cecil was struck in the head by a deflected puck during the Blue Jackets' game against the Calgary Flames at Nationwide Arena. She died two days later, becoming the only NHL fan to be killed in a game-related accident. As a result of her death, the NHL mandated safety netting in all its arenas.

In May 2012, Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman made a pitch to the National Basketball Association (NBA) requesting an expansion or relocated team be moved to Nationwide Arena.

Ownership
The venue is named for the arena's original majority owner, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, whose world headquarters are located across the street. On March 30, 2012, arena owners Nationwide Insurance and the Dispatch Publishing Group sold the facility to the Franklin County Convention Facilities Authority (FCCFA). As part of the sale, Nationwide agreed to lend the FCCFA $43.3 million to finance the arena's purchase which will be paid back by 2039 with casino tax revenue collected by both the City of Columbus and Franklin County. In addition, the Ohio Department of Development agreed to a 10-year, $10 million loan to the FCCFA to assist with the facilities purchase. If the Blue Jackets meet annual roster payroll requirement, $500,000 of this loan per year will be forgiven. Nationwide Insurance will also pay the Blue Jackets $28 million to retain the arena's naming rights until 2022 as well as $58 million to purchase 30% ownership stake in the franchise. The Blue Jackets, in turn, agreed to remain in the city until 2039 or pay $36 million in damages.

Management
While the Blue Jackets held sole operational control of the arena from 2000 to 2012, the team contracted day-to-day operations and event booking to venue management corporation SMG from the arena's opening until June 30, 2010. On May 12, 2010, the Blue Jackets announced that SMG would not be retained as arena managers and further announced that a one-year, annually renewable, management contract had been signed with Ohio State University. The contract called for the university to take over both day to day arena operations as well as booking non-athletic events, with the Blue Jackets booking athletic events and maintaining overall control of the arena. This arrangement made Nationwide Arena a sister venue to OSU's on-campus arena, Value City Arena. The university started booking acts in May 2010 and assumed day to day control of the arena on July 1, 2010. As part of the 2012 sale of Nationwide Arena, the Blue Jackets and OSU joined with Nationwide Insurance and the FCCFA to form Columbus Arena Management (CAM). Columbus Arena Management currently operates both Nationwide Arena and Value City Arena and oversees budgeting and event booking at both arenas.

Design
The arena is of a brick design and serves as the center of an entertainment district located about one-half of a mile north of the Ohio Statehouse. Seating capacity is approximately 18,500 for hockey, 17,171 for arena football, 19,500 for basketball, and up to 21,000 for concerts. The death of Brittanie Cecil from injuries sustained from a hockey puck flying into the stands at a Blue Jackets game on March 16, 2002, led to the installation of nylon netting to catch pucks that fly over the acrylic glass at all professional ice hockey arenas in the NHL, AHL, IIHF, and ECHL.

Location
The area surrounding Nationwide Arena, called the Arena District, is a mixed-use neighborhood developed by Nationwide Realty Investors featuring restaurants, bars, offices and residential buildings. The Columbus Clippers, a Triple-A baseball team of the International League, play in Huntington Park, also located in the Arena District and developed by Nationwide Realty Investors. Columbus uses the arena as a drawing point for the city with the other establishments feeding off of the foot traffic. The KEMBA Live! concert venue adjacent to the Nationwide Arena property, completes the entertainment complex.

Facilities
Nationwide Arena includes a smaller ice rink called the OhioHealth IceHaus, which serves as the practice rink for the Blue Jackets and is also used for youth hockey games and open skating times for the public. This facility made Nationwide Arena the first NHL arena with an on-site practice facility and, as of 2019, one of only four such facilities in the NHL, along with KeyBank Center in Buffalo, New York, Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey, and Little Caesars Arena in Detroit, Michigan.

Sports

 * On October 7, 2000, the arena hosted the Columbus Blue Jackets' first game against the Chicago Blackhawks. Bruce Gardiner scored the franchise's first goal in the first period (which was also the first goal scored in the arena's history), but the Blackhawks won the game 5–3. Twenty days later, on October 27, 2000, the Blue Jackets picked up their first home win at the arena by defeating the Washington Capitals 3–1.
 * The PBR's Built Ford Tough Series bull riding tour has held an event every year at Nationwide Arena from 2000 to 2012 (events prior to 2000 the event were held at the Ohio Expo Center Coliseum; there were no BFTS events in Columbus from 2013 to 2017 and in BFTS events since 2018 have been held at Value City Arena). It was the last event of the BFTS regular season (not counting the PBR World Finals) between 2000 and 2007.
 * The arena hosted first and second-round games of the 2004, 2007, 2012, 2015 and 2019 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournaments.
 * The arena hosted the 2007 NHL Entry Draft.
 * On Tuesday, April 21, 2009, a record hockey crowd of 19,219 watched the Blue Jackets play their first postseason game at home, where they lost to the defending Stanley Cup Champion Detroit Red Wings by a final score of 4–1 in a Western Conference Quarterfinal game. They would eventually get their first postseason win at Nationwide Arena on April 23, 2014, against the Pittsburgh Penguins, by a final score of 4–3 in overtime.
 * The arena hosted the 2015 National Hockey League All-Star Game, having previously been set for the 2013 edition that was cancelled due to the lockout.
 * The arena hosted the second and third-round games of the 2012 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament.
 * The arena hosted the Kellogg's Tour of Gymnastics Champions in 2016.
 * The arena hosted the semi-finals and National Championship games of the 2018 NCAA Division I women's basketball tournament.
 * The arena has hosted multiple pre-season Ohio State University Buckeyes men's basketball and pre- and post-season Buckeyes men's ice hockey games when Value City Arena has been unavailable for use.
 * The arena also hosts the Ohio High School Athletic Association state championships for high school hockey.
 * The Blue Jackets set an attendance record for a home game on April 19, 2018, when 19,395 attended Game 4 of the Eastern Conference First Round during the 2018 Stanley Cup playoffs.
 * On March 11, 2020, the Blue Jackets announced that they would play all of their remaining home games in the 2019–20 season behind closed doors due to an executive order by governor Mike DeWine that banned public gatherings of 1,000 people or more inside the state, which was enacted in order to combat the COVID-19 outbreak.
 * The arena hosted all games of The Basketball Tournament 2020, a 24-team winner-take-all tournament with a $1 million prize, in July 2020.
 * Monster Jam made a grand return to the arena on July 31 and August 1, 2021, for a one-off weekend.
 * The arena hosted the 2021 NCAA Division I women's volleyball tournament in December 2021.
 * The arena broke the attendance record again at 19,434 against the Boston Bruins on March 5, 2022.
 * The arena is hosting First and Second round games of the 2023 NCAA Division I men's basketball tournament. One notable game was when No. 16 seeded Fairleigh Dickinson defeated No. 1 seeded Purdue 63–58, to become only the second 16 seed to make it out of the Round of 64.

Mixed martial arts

 * The arena has hosted many noteworthy MMA events including, Gracie Fighting Championships, International Fighting Championships, Caged Combat, UFC 68: The Uprising, UFC 82: Pride of a Champion, UFC 96: Jackson vs. Jardine, ''UFC on ESPN: Blaydes vs. Daukaus, WEC 47, Strikeforce: Feijao vs. Henderson, and Strikeforce: Tate vs. Rousey.
 * UFC 68 produced a number of attendance records for a mixed martial arts event. It was the first MMA event outside Japan to have at least 15,000 people in attendance. This record has since been outdone on a number of occasions, with the current holder being UFC 193 which had 56,214 people in attendance.

Professional wrestling

 * On June 23, 2002, the arena hosted the WWE pay-per-view King of the Ring.
 * On June 13, 2004, the arena hosted the WWE pay-per-view Bad Blood.
 * On June 14, 2015, the arena hosted the WWE pay-per-view Money in the Bank.
 * On March 11, 2018, the arena hosted the WWE pay-per-view Fastlane.
 * On September 26, 2021, the arena hosted the WWE pay-per-view Extreme Rules.

Other events

 * The 2007 National Catholic Youth Conference
 * The 2011 North American Youth Congress
 * Jeff Dunham on Controlled Chaos Tour, December 24, 2011
 * Barack Obama held a campaign rally on November 5, 2012, with Bruce Springsteen and Jay-Z.
 * From March 29, 2016, to April 3, 2016, the arena hosted a $1,000,000 international Counter-Strike: Global Offensive tournament, MLG Major Championship: Columbus.
 * Impractical Jokers Santiago Sent Us Tour February 3, 2018

Reception
ESPN The Magazine declared it "the No. 2 stadium experience in professional sports." The Ultimate Sports Road Trip rated it the best arena in the NHL saying "This newer arena in downtown Columbus is the anchor for the emerging Arena District, already burgeoning with shops, restaurants and hotels. The venue is spectacular, from its nostalgic brick and stone veneer to its sweeping concourses with blue mood lighting and modern amenities. The arena bowl has state of the art scoreboards and surround LED graphics boards which look 21st century high tech. With a separate practice rink built right in the facility, theme restaurants and great food selection, not to mention a raucous hockey atmosphere, this NHL venue is a must see!"

title: Nationwide Arena


text:
Comtat Venaissin

The Comtat Venaissin (lo Comtat Venaicin; 'County of Venaissin'), often called the Comtat for short, was a part of the Papal States from 1274 to 1791, in what is now the Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur region of Southern France.

The region was an enclave within the Kingdom of France, comprising the area around the city of Avignon (itself always a separate comtat) roughly between the Rhône, the Durance and Mont Ventoux, and a small exclave located to the north around the town of Valréas purchased by Pope John XXII. The Comtat also bordered (and mostly surrounded) the Principality of Orange. The region is still known informally as the Comtat Venaissin, although this no longer has any political meaning.

History
In 1096, the Comtat was part of the Margraviate of Provence that was inherited by Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse from William Bertrand of Provence. These lands in the Holy Roman Empire belonged to Joan, Countess of Toulouse, and her husband, Alphonse, Count of Poitiers. Alphonse bequeathed it to the Holy See on his death in 1271. Since this happened during an interregnum, there was no Holy Roman Emperor to protect Joan's rights.

The Comtat became a Papal territory in 1274. The region was named after its former capital, Venasque, which was replaced as capital by Carpentras in 1320.

Avignon was sold to the papacy by Joanna I, Queen of Naples and Countess of Provence, in 1348, whereupon the two comtats were joined together to form a unified papal enclave geographically, though retaining their separate political identities.

The enclave's inhabitants did not pay taxes and were not subject to military service, making life in the Comtat considerably more attractive than under the French Crown. It became a haven for French Jews, who received better treatment under papal rule than in the rest of France. The Carpentras synagogue, built in the 14th century, is the oldest in France, and until the French Revolution preserved a distinctive Provençal Jewish tradition.

Successive French rulers sought to annex the region to France. It was invaded by French troops in 1663, 1668 and 1768–1774 during disputes between the Crown and the Church. It was also subjected to trade and customs restrictions during the reigns of Louis XIV and Louis XV.

Papal control continued until 1791, when an unauthorized plebiscite, under pressure from French revolutionaries, was held and the inhabitants voted for annexation by France. The process was facilitated by Pierre-Antoine Antonelle, then mayor of Arles. A few years later, Vaucluse département was created based on Comtat Venaissin including the exclave of Valréas and a part of the Luberon for the southern half. The papacy did not recognise this formally until 1814.

Administration
Under the Counts of Toulouse, the chief officer of the Comtat Venaissin was the Seneschal.

From 1294 to 1791 the chief administrator of the Comtat Venaissin was the Rector, who was appointed directly by the Pope. Most of the incumbents were in fact prelates, either Archbishops or Bishops, and the Rector therefore had the right to wear a purple garb, similar to that of an Apostolic Chamberlain. His official residence was in Carpentras. He had no authority over Avignon, however, which was administered by a Cardinal Legate or a Vice-Legate, also appointed directly by the Pope. Gradually, however, the power of the Vice-Legate encroached on that of the Rector, until the Cardinal virtually held the position of a governor, and the Rector had the functions of a judge. In both cases their tenure was for a period of three years, renewable.

The Rector had the right to receive the feudal oaths of homage of all the papal vassals. He also had the right to receive the oaths of bishops who held property by virtue of their office which was in feudal tenure from the pope. The Rector named the Notaries of the Comtat. He presided at the negotiation and payment of revenues of the Apostolic Chamber. His court was the Supreme Court of the Comtat Venaissin, and he had both criminal and civil jurisdiction of the first instance, and appellate jurisdiction from the courts of the regular judges of the three judicial circuits.

The Rector was seconded by a Vice-Rector, named the Lieutenant of the Rector, also a papal appointee. He had judicial powers similar to those of the Rector.

The administration of the Comtat was in the hands of the Estates of the Comtat, which consisted of the Élu (a nobleman), the Bishop of Carpentras, the Bishop of Cavaillon, the Bishop of Vaison, and eighteen representatives of the three judicial districts into which the Comtat was divided. The Estates held their meetings at Carpentras.

The Apostolic Camera (Treasury of the Holy Roman Church) had a permanent office in Carpentras, with full jurisdiction in all financial matters concerning the rights of the Holy See in the Comtat. This included the obligations of bishops and other ecclesiastical persons to the papacy.

title: Comtat Venaissin


text:
John McDouall Stuart

John McDouall Stuart (7 September 1815 – 5 June 1866), often referred to as simply "McDouall Stuart", was a Scottish explorer and one of the most accomplished of all Australia's inland explorers.

Stuart led the first successful expedition to traverse the Australian mainland from south to north and return, through the centre of the continent. His experience and the care he showed for his team ensured he never lost a man, despite the harshness of the country he encountered.

The explorations of Stuart eventually resulted in the 1863 annexation of a huge area of country to the Government of South Australia. This area became known as the Northern Territory. In 1911 the Commonwealth of Australia assumed responsibility for that area. In 1871–72 the Australian Overland Telegraph Line was constructed along Stuart's route. The principal road from Port Augusta to Darwin was also established essentially on his route and was in 1942 named the Stuart Highway in his honour, following a recommendation by Governor-General Gowrie.

Early life

Born in Dysart, Fife, Scotland, Stuart was the youngest of nine children. His father William Stuart was a retired army captain serving as a customs officer. Stuart's parents died in his early teens and so he came under the care of relatives. He graduated from the Scottish Naval and Military Academy as a civil engineer before emigrating to Australia at the age of 23. Stuart was a slight, delicately built young man, standing about 5' 6" tall (168 cm) and weighing less than 9 stone (about 54 kg).

In January 1839 he arrived aboard the barque Indus at the barely two-year-old frontier colony of South Australia, at that time little more than a single crowded outpost of tents and dirt-floored wooden huts. Stuart soon found employment with the colony's Surveyor-General, working in the semi-arid scrub of the newly settled districts marking out blocks for settlers and miners.

Charles Sturt's protégé
The Surveyor General of South Australia, Stuart's superior officer, was the famous explorer Captain Charles Sturt, who had already solved the mystery of the inland-flowing rivers of New South Wales, in the process reaching and naming the Darling River, travelling the full length of the Murrumbidgee, and tracing the Murray to the sea. Stuart remained with the Survey Department until 1842 and then worked in the Mount Lofty Ranges as a private surveyor.

In 1844 Captain Sturt embarked on an expedition into the arid interior, and engaged Stuart as a draughtsman. Sturt's expedition penetrated further north than any previous attempt, at the cost of great hardship. Instead of the hoped-for inland sea, the explorers found two of the most fearsome arid areas anywhere in Australia: Sturt Stony Desert and the Simpson Desert. After his second-in-command James Poole died of scurvy, Sturt appointed Stuart in his place. Both men survived to return to Adelaide, but suffered greatly from scurvy. Sturt never really recovered and soon returned to England; the younger Stuart was unable to work or travel for a year.

Stuart returned to his trade as a private surveyor, spending more and more time in remote areas, and moving to Port Lincoln for several years before moving again to the northern Flinders Ranges where he worked for the wealthy pastoralists William Finke, James Chambers, and John Chambers, exploring, prospecting for minerals, and surveying pastoral leases.

It is claimed that he was a member of Stephen Hack's expedition of May and June 1857 looking for grazing country north and west of Streaky Bay and a private expedition to Lake Gairdner with Anthony Forster (later to become editor of The Register) in 1858.

First expedition
On 14 May 1858, with financial backing from William Finke, Stuart set off on the first of his six major expeditions. His aim was to find minerals, a land which the local Aboriginal people called Wingillpinin, and new grazing land in the north-west of South Australia. Stuart set out from John Chambers' station Oratunga, taking as companions two of Chambers' employees (a white man named Forster and a young Aboriginal man), half a dozen horses, and rations for six weeks, all provided by Chambers, a pocket compass and a watch. From the Flinders Ranges, Stuart travelled west, passing to the south of Lake Torrens, then north along the western edge of Lake Torrens. He found an isolated chain of semi-permanent waterholes which he named Chambers' Creek (now called Stuart Creek). It later became crucially important as a staging post for expeditions to the arid centre of the continent.

Continuing to the north-west, Stuart reached the vicinity of Coober Pedy (not realising that there was a fantastically rich opal field underfoot) before shortage of provisions and lack of feed for the horses forced him to turn towards the sea 500 kilometres to the south. A difficult journey along the edge of the Great Victorian Desert brought Stuart to Miller's Water (near present-day Ceduna) and from there back to civilisation after four months and 2,400 kilometres. This expedition made Stuart's reputation and brought him the award of a gold watch from the Royal Geographical Society.

Second expedition
Soon after his return from his first expedition, Stuart applied for a pastoral lease at Chambers Creek. Considered the discoverer, he was already entitled to a lease, but wanted rights to a larger area. As a bargaining chip in the negotiation process, Stuart offered to do the surveying himself and in April 1859 he set off with a party of three men and 15 horses. This gained for him the firm support and confidence of the Governor of South Australia, Richard Graves MacDonnell, himself a keen explorer. The Chambers Creek survey complete, Stuart explored to the north again, aiming to reach the border between South Australia and what is now the Northern Territory (at that time still a part of New South Wales). Although still well supplied with rations and not short of water, the expedition turned back about 100 kilometres short of the border because they had no more horse shoes (an essential item in that arid, stony region). Importantly, however, Stuart had found another reliable water supply for future attempts: a "beautiful spring" fed by the then-unknown Great Artesian Basin. He wrote:
 * I have named this "The Spring of Hope". It is a little brackish, not from salt, but soda, and runs a good stream of water. I have lived upon far worse water than this: to me it is of the utmost importance, and keeps my retreat open. I can go from here to Adelaide any time of the year and in any sort of season.

He returned in July with reports of "wonderful country"—an extraordinary description of territory that is now barely able to support a few cattle.

Third expedition
At around this time in Australia, exploration fever was reaching a peak. Several factors contributed. At "home" (as Australians still called Britain), public attention was focussed on the search for the source of the Nile, with the competing expeditions of Speke, Burton and Baker all contending for the honour of discovery. Like the interior of Africa, inland Australia remained an embarrassing blank area on the map and although the long-held dreams of a fertile inland sea had faded, there was an intense desire to see the continent crossed. This was the apex of the age of heroic exploration.

Additionally, there was the factor of the telegraph. Invented only a few decades earlier, the technology had matured rapidly and a global network of undersea and overland cables was taking shape. The line from England had already reached India and plans were being made to extend it to the major population centres of Australia in Victoria and New South Wales. Several of the mainland colonies were competing to host the Australian terminus of the telegraph: Western Australia and New South Wales proposed long undersea cables; South Australia proposed employing the shortest possible undersea cable and bringing the telegraph ashore in Australia's Top End. From there it would run overland for 3,000 kilometres south to Adelaide. The difficulty was obvious: the proposed route was not only remote and (so far as European settlers were concerned) uninhabited, it was simply a vast blank space on the map.

At much the same time, the wealthy rival colony Victoria was preparing the biggest and most lavishly equipped expedition in Australia's history; the Victorian Exploring Expedition, to be led by Robert O'Hara Burke. The South Australian government offered a reward of £2,000 to any person able to cross the continent through the centre and discover a suitable route for the telegraph from Adelaide to the north coast. Stuart's friends and sponsors, James & John Chambers and Finke, asked the government to put up £1,000 to equip an expedition to be led by Stuart. The South Australian government, however, ignored Stuart and instead sponsored an expedition led by Alexander Tolmer, which failed miserably, failing to travel beyond the settled districts.

Meanwhile, Stuart was entangled with other problems. Some of the land he had claimed and surveyed in the Chambers Creek district on his second trip had in fact already been explored and claimed by people attracted to the area by reports of Stuart's first trip. Stuart needed to return to Chambers Creek to re-survey his claims. He left Adelaide with a small party in August 1859. Having surveyed his own claim and several new claims on behalf of his sponsors, Stuart spent the spring and summer exploring the area west of Lake Eyre, finding several more artesian springs. Working through the severe heat of summer, Stuart experienced trouble with his eyes because of the glare, and after some time enduring half rations, all but one of his men refused to leave camp. Contemptuously, Stuart sent them home.

William Kekwick, his remaining companion, was reputed for his steadfastness and would stay with Stuart for the remainder of his career, usually organising the supply bases while Stuart scouted ahead. Kekwick went south for provisions and more men, returning with 13 horses, rations for three months, however only a single man; Benjamin Head.

Fourth expedition
On 2 March 1860 the three men left Chambers Creek, aiming to find the centre of Australia. As always, Stuart travelled light, taking only as much as could be carried on a few pack horses. The secret to successful exploration, in Stuart's view, was to travel fast and avoid the delays and complications that always attend a large supply train.

By the time they reached Neales River (near present-day Oodnadatta) unexpected rain had ruined most of their stores and they continued on half-rations – something that Head, who had started the trip as a big man and weighed twice as much as Stuart, found difficult to adjust to. Water became more and more difficult to find and scurvy began to set in. Stuart's right eye was failing. Nevertheless, they found a major watercourse in early April which Stuart named the Finke River, and followed it north-west over the South Australian border to the MacDonnell Ranges, which he named after Sir Richard Graves MacDonnell, Governor of South Australia, on 12 April 1860.

On 22 April 1860, according to Stuart's calculations, the party reached the centre of the continent. Stuart wrote:
 * There is a high mount about two miles to the NNE which I hoped would be in the centre but on it tomorrow I will raise a cone of stones and plant the Flag there and will name it Mount Sturt after my excellent and esteemed commander of the expedition in 1844 and 45, Captain Sturt, as a mark of gratitude for the great kindness I received from him during that journey.

In fact the mountain became known as Central Mount Stuart after Stuart himself, not his mentor Sturt, and geographers no longer regard it as the true centre of Australia. Nevertheless, it retains its symbolic value.

The explorers were unable to progress much further north. Lack of water forced them back again and again. Stuart's scurvy was growing worse, Head was now half his original weight, and only Kekwick remained capable of heavy work. Then, on 22 May, it rained. With water now available nearly every day, they made good mileage and by mid June were able to reach a riverbed which Stuart named Tennant's Creek (now the site of the township Tennant Creek). The worst of the country was now behind them and they were only about 800 km from the coast.

From here, however, progress seemed impossible. A four-day excursion to the north-west found no water at all and they had to retreat. After giving the horses a week to recover, they tried heading due north. They found another creek (later named Attack Creek) but were blocked by heavy scrub. Unlike those further south, the Warramunga Aboriginal people defended their country from trespassers. On 26 June they raided the explorers' camp. One stole the shoeing rasp (which Stuart was able to recover); others threw boomerangs at the horses and set fire to the grass around the camp. Like Sturt (and unlike some of the other Australian explorers) Stuart generally got on well with the Aboriginal people he encountered but he was unable to negotiate with this group and considered it unsafe to continue. That night, with even the indefatigable Kekwick complaining of weakness, the explorers abandoned their attempt to reach the north coast and reluctantly turned south.

It was 2,400 kilometres to Adelaide, all three men had scurvy, supplies were very short, the horses were in poor condition, and the country was drying out. Nevertheless, the party pressed on at Stuart's customary rapid pace. They reached the safety of Chambers Creek in August. A few days earlier, on 20 August 1860, the larger Burke and Wills expedition had finally left Melbourne.

Stuart reached Adelaide in October 1860. Although he had narrowly failed to cross the continent, his achievement in determining the centre was immense, ranked with John Hanning Speke's discovery of the source of the Nile. Stuart had solved that which he attempted with Capt. Sturt 15 years earlier – the riddle of the nature of the centre of the great Australian continent. He was awarded the Royal Geographical Society's Patron's Medal – becoming only the second person to receive both the Patron's Medal and a gold watch (the other was Dr Livingstone). Belatedly, even the South Australian government started to recognise Stuart's abilities, and was honoured with a public breakfast at White's Rooms in Adelaide.

Fifth expedition
James Chambers put forward a plan for Stuart and Kekwick to return north with a government-provided armed guard to see them past the difficulties at Attack Creek. The government prevaricated and quibbled about cost, personnel, and ultimate control of the expedition, but eventually agreed to contribute ten armed men and £2,500; and put Stuart in operational command. (In contrast, the Burke and Wills expedition had cost £9,000 to establish. That expedition had already reached the Darling River in northern New South Wales.)

Stuart left Chambers Creek with a dozen men, 49 horses and rations for 30 weeks on 1 January 1861. It was high summer in South Australia and the worst possible time for travelling. Stuart was soon forced to send two men and the five weakest horses back. The heat was extreme and the party often delayed while Stuart searched for fodder and water. They were still in northern South Australia on 11 February, the day that Burke and Wills reached the Gulf of Carpentaria. With difficulty, Stuart's party had reached the MacDonnell Ranges when heavy rains came, allowing them to press on northwards at a much better pace. They reached Attack Creek on 24 April 1861, this time finding no sign of the hostile tribesmen that had blocked the last attempt. At about the same time – and unknown to Stuart's party, of course – Burke, Wills and King reached their base camp at Cooper Creek only to find it deserted. The fourth member of their party, Charles Gray, was already dead; Wills and then Burke perished within a few more days, leaving only King to be sustained by the kindness of the local Aboriginal people.

Stuart still planned to march north-west towards the known region of Victoria River, which had been mapped by Augustus Charles Gregory in 1858. Leaving the main expedition to rest, he led a series of small parties in that direction, but was blocked by thick scrub and a complete lack of water. After a great deal of effort, the scouting parties managed to find another watering point 80 km further north and Stuart moved the main body up. Over the next two weeks Stuart made three more attempts to find a practicable route over the plains to the north-west, but without success. Finally, he decided to try heading due north. He was rewarded with the discovery of "a splendid sheet of water" 150 m wide and 7 km long which he named "Newcastle Water, after his Grace the Duke of Newcastle, Secretary for the Colonies".

For five more weeks the party camped at Newcastle Waters while Stuart tried to find a north-westward route to take them to Victoria River and thus the sea. The local Aboriginal people were wary of trespassers on their land, lighting fires around the camp and spooking the horses, and Kekwick had to mount an armed sentry with instructions to fire warning shots whenever they came near. Provisions were running short and both men and horses were in poor condition. Finally, on 1 July 1861, exactly six months after they had left Chambers Creek, Stuart ordered a return. In the relative cool of the southern winter, they travelled fast, reaching the settled regions of South Australia in September.

When Stuart learned that Burke and Wills were missing he immediately offered to join the search for them. The first rescue teams had left some time earlier, however, and soon returned with the news that no less than 7 members of the largest and best-equipped expedition in Australia's history had died.

Public exploration mania had cooled considerably. Although Stuart had now led five expeditions into the arid centre of Australia and crossed all but the last few hundred miles of the continent without losing a man, the South Australian government was initially reluctant to back a sixth effort. However, the prospect of establishing a route for an overland telegraph line became a significant factor. The government finally provided £2,000 at the last minute on condition that Stuart took a scientist with him. James & John Chambers along with William Finke remained the principal private backers.

Sixth expedition (Crossing of Australia)
Stuart's sixth expedition was officially launched at James Chambers' home at North Adelaide on 23 October 1861. Their first stop, before they had reached the town of Gawler, was forced by trouble with their horses. One reared, striking Stuart's temple with its hoof, rendering him unconscious then trampling his right hand, dislocating two joints and tearing flesh and nail from the first finger. At first it was feared amputation would be necessary, but Stuart and Waterhouse (the naturalist, appointed by the Government) were able to catch up with the rest of the party at Moolooloo (one of the Chambers brothers' stations) five weeks later. However they did not leave Chambers Creek until 8 January 1862. One of the party, John W. Woodforde, son of the City Coroner, was dismissed by Stuart for insubordination, having refused to be parted with his greatcoat, and, contrary to Stuart's instructions, for keeping a personal diary. The party comprised 10 men and 71 horses. Benjamin Head, veteran of the fourth expedition, was still too ill to accompany them. The party made good time to Newcastle Waters, reaching that point on 5 April, and experiencing conflict with the local Aboriginal people once again. Here they rested for a week before Stuart led a scouting party north, finding good water for the main body to move up to. The next stage, however, proved more difficult. Five times Stuart and his scouts tried to find a route towards Victoria River without success. Finally he headed north rather than north-west and was rewarded with a series of small waterholes leading to Daly Waters, about 150 kilometres north of Newcastle Waters.

Stuart made one last attempt to reach Victoria River before continuing north into the Top End. On 9 June he reached territory that had already been mapped and on 1 July the Mary River, which hadn't, presuming it to be the Adelaide River (without a chronometer, determination of longitude was impossible). On 24 July 1862 the expedition reached a muddy beach on Van Diemen Gulf, 100 km east of today's Darwin, and there marked a tree "JMDS" and named a nearby watercourse "Thrings Creek". He and his companions had crossed the continent from south to north. The following day Stuart found a sizable tree which he marked with an "S" and there raised the Union Jack presented to him by Elizabeth Chambers, and named the long stretch of beach which lay to the west, Chambers Bay in her honour.

The ten successful members of the party are listed here with their age on the day of the expedition's departure from North Adelaide.
 * Members of Stuart's 1861–1862 expedition party

Character and last days
By current standards Stuart was physically a small, wiry man, but in fact he was of average build of western European men at that time. He had a full dark beard and sometimes wore moleskin trousers and an unfashionable long-tailed blue coat with brass buttons and cabbage-tree hat. He was able to endure privations and possessed a fierce determination which overrode any thought of personal comfort. He was not particularly gregarious; he had some good friends but seemed happiest away from crowds. He was a Freemason, being initiated in the Lodge of Truth, Adelaide, No. 649 on 1 August 1859, and retained membership until shortly before he returned to England. Another reference has him being inducted into the Lodge of Truth, North Adelaide, No. 933, on 5 April 1860.

Many years of hard conditions combined with malnutrition, scurvy, trachoma and other illnesses had rendered him practically blind, in pain and in such poor health that he spent some (900 km) of the return journey of his last expedition (1861–1862) being carried on a litter between two horses. He never recovered his health. He prepared his diaries for publication and on 23 April 1864 left aboard Indus for Britain, initially to visit his sister in Scotland. He died in London two years later, and was buried at Kensal Green Cemetery.

Recognition
While Stuart was responsible for naming a large number of topographical features for friends, backers and fellow explorers, he was sparing in the use of his own name. Central Mount Stuart, which he reckoned to be the geographical centre of Australia, he had designated "Central Mount Sturt" to honour his friend Charles Sturt. Places named after Stuart include:
 * McDouall Peak, a hill in South Australia
 * Stuart Street, an arterial road in the Canberra suburb of Griffith
 * the Stuart Highway,
 * Stuart Park, an inner Darwin suburb,
 * Central Mount Stuart,
 * Stuart Creek in the far north of South Australia,
 * McDouall Stuart Avenue, Whyalla Norrie, South Australia
 * Stuart High School, Whyalla Stuart, South Australia
 * the Electoral division of Stuart in the Northern Territory,
 * Electoral district of Stuart, an electoral division in South Australia,
 * Stuart Range upland, close to the town of Stuart Range which was changed to Coober Pedy, and
 * the town of Stuart, which was changed to Alice Springs in 1933.

A statue by James White honouring Stuart can be found in Victoria Square, Adelaide, while in Darwin, both a statue and a monument celebrate his achievements.

In March 2010, the McDouall Stuart Lodge of Freemasons in Alice Springs commissioned a 4-metre high ferro-concrete statue of Stuart for donation to the Alice Springs Town Council to commemorate the 150th anniversary of Stuart's fourth expedition, during which he had reached the centre of the continent. The statue is located in a heritage precinct near the old hospital.

In England, Stuart is commemorated by a blue plaque on the house where he lived and died in Kensington, London, No. 9 Campden Hill Square. In 2011 his grave in Kensal Green cemetery, London, was refurbished to its former glory. In Dysart, Scotland there is also a blue plaque on the house where he was born. The property, John McDouall Stuart View, is available as a holiday let, restored and owned by Fife Historic Buildings Trust.

Stuart is commemorated in the scientific name of a species of Australian lizard, Ctenotus stuarti.

Associates
Among those who shared Stuart's travails were:
 * William Darton Kekwick (c. 1830 – 16 October 1872) arrived in South Australia with his widowed father and seven siblings in April 1840 aboard Warrior. He was second-in-command to Stuart on each of his expeditions from the third (1859). On 19 June 1860 Stuart named Kekwick Ponds in the Northern Territory for his trusted deputy.
 * Kekwick married Marian Caroline Owen in 1864 and had four children. He was appointed mineral and botanical collector for William Gosse's expedition to Central Australia, but fell ill before they set out, and died at Nuccaleena on the way back to Adelaide. His remains were buried at Blinman and a monument erected over the grave by the Royal Geographical Society of South Australia.

 * Francis William Thring (1 May 1837 – 17 July 1908), born in Netherhampton, England, the son of a lawyer, he arrived in South Australia with his parents and three siblings in November 1849 aboard Duke of Wellington. He was a member of Stuart's last two exploration parties, in 1860–61 and 1861–62.
 * He was a member of one more brief but noteworthy exploration party, that of John McKinlay to the Top End in 1865–66. Government had grown impatient at Finniss's lack of progress at Escape Cliffs and sent McKinlay to report, and to investigate alternative sites for the new settlement. The expedition proved a near-disaster but recommended Port Darwin as a better location. Thring served as manager of stations at Angaston and Two Wells. He opened a business in Adelaide as a stock and station agent.
 * He married Clara Davey (28 January 1843 – 10 March 1934) in 1868 and had thirteen children. They had a home in Regent Street, Parkside, where he died. His remains were interred at the West Terrace Cemetery and a monument erected over the grave by the Royal Geographical Society of South Australia.
 * Family
 * Francis William Thring (1 May 1837 – 17 July 1908) married Clara (c. 1842 – 10 March 1934) in 1868. Among their children were:
 * Ellen Maud Mary Thring (1868 – 2 March 1945) married Walter James Blackmore
 * William Francis Thring (1873– ) lived Mount Magnet, married Sarah Jane "Sis" Mowforth in 1902.
 * Charlotte (1881– ) married William Garrett Ryan in 1913
 * Adelaide Frances (1883– ) married (Samuel) Hamilton Boyd of Stanley Street, Woodville Park in 1915
 * Beatrice Margaret "Trixie" (1885–) married Charles Edwin Ashford Lucy in 1911
 * Mabel Alice (1887– ) married Arthur Edwin Box in 1912

title: John McDouall Stuart