text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2G

 * Gaffar, Ahmed: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Galuinadi, Jonetani: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Ganilau, Adi Ateca: Fijian public figure. (original)
 * Ganilau, Bernadette: Fijian writer, broadcaster, and political activist. (original)
 * Ganilau, Ratu Epeli: Fijian statesman. (original)
 * Ganilau, Ratu Sir Penaia: The first President of Fiji. (original)
 * Garrick, Joseph Hector: Attorney General of Fiji (1876-1882). (original)
 * Gates, Anthony: Fijian judge and Acting Chief Justice (2007). (original)
 * Gounder, Gunasagaran: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Greenwood, Ashley Martin: Attorney General of Fiji (1956-1963) and Attorney General of Gibraltar (1963-1966). (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2G


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2I

 * Iloilo, Ratu Josefa: President of Fiji (2000-present). (rewrite)
 * Iqbal, Imraz: Indo-Fijian businessman and former journalist. (original)

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

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2I


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2K

 * Kaitani, Simione: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Kanailagi, Tomasi: Fijian clergyman and Senator. (original)
 * Kanakana, Ratu Epeli: Fijian chief. (original)
 * Katonivere, Ratu Aisea: Paramount Chief of Macuata, Fiji. (original)
 * Kaukimoce, Jonetani: Fijian parliamentarian. (original)
 * Kean, Francis: Fijian Naval Commander. (original)
 * Kepa, Ro Teimumu: Fijian chief and politician. (original)
 * Kepa, Sailosi: Fijian judge, statesman, and diplomat. (original)
 * Khan, Ballu: Indo-Fijian business tycoon. (original)
 * Khan, Hafiz: Fijian businessman and Senator. (original)
 * Khan, Mohammed Afzal: Senator. (original)
 * Khan, Iqbal: controversial Fijian lawyer. (original)
 * Khan, Jahir: Senior Fiji police officer. (original)
 * Tulsi Ram Khelwan, Fijian Senator. (original)
 * Konrote, George: Rotuman-Fijian diplomat and political candidate. (original)
 * Koroi, Jimi: Fijian Military officer and interim Commissioner of Police (2006 - 2007). (original)
 * Koroi, Jokapeci: Senator and President of the Fiji Labour Party. (original)
 * Korovavala, Lesi: Chief Executive Officer of Fiji's Home Affairs Ministry. (original)
 * Kotobalavu, Joji: Fijian civil servant and Prime ministerial spokesman. (original)
 * Koya, Sidiq: Indo-Fijian statesman. (original)
 * Krishna, James Shri: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Kubuabola, Ratu Inoke: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Kubuabola, Ratu Jone: Fiji's Minister for Finance. (original)
 * Kurulo, Suliasi, head of the Fiji- based Christian Mission Fellowship. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2K


text:
Ken Charlery

Kenneth Leroy Charlery (born 28 November 1964) is a former St Lucian international footballer, who has played club football in England with Birmingham City and for Basildon United, Watford, Peterborough United, Boston United and Barnet, among others.

Playing career
Charlery obtained legendary status in his first spell at Peterborough United by scoring two goals in the 1992 3rd Division Play Off Final including an 89th-minute winner. Ken left Posh in the 1992–93 season to sign for Watford but returned the following year for a second spell at the club but was unable to save them from relegation to the old Second Division. He was named as captain by new Posh manager, John Still for the 1994–95 season; he was voted player of the year, the second time he'd received the accolade. He moved to Birmingham in 1995 but was back for a third spell with Posh in 1996. In the 1996–97 season he endured a run of 24 scoreless games, which saw him depart for the final time. He is still known affectionately as King Kenny at London Road.

Coaching career
He was working as Assistant Manager at Harrow Borough, before joining Peterborough United as an assistant coach to help Andy Legg and Barry Fry with coaching responsibilities until the end of the 2005–06 season.

Charlery returned to Harrow Borough, where as assistant manager, he helped them gain a place in the play-offs of the Isthmian League Premier Division in 2010–11. In the summer of 2011 he moved to St Albans City to be assistant manager under David Howell.

In November 2015, Charlery was appointed manager of Ware. After being dismissed in January 2017 despite the club being in a respectable mid table position he became the owner of London Colney as well as being becoming first team manager. He resigned as manager in March 2021.

As a player
Peterborough United Stockport County Boston United
 * Football League Third Division play-offs: 1992
 * Football League Second Division second-place promotion: 1996–97
 * Football Conference: 2001–02

As an individual

 * Peterborough United Player of the Year (2): 1991–92, 1994–95
 * Peterborough United Hall of Fame

title: Ken Charlery


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2L

 * Lacawai, Ratu Paula, Senator. (original)
 * Lakshman, Prince Gopal: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Lal, Brij: Fiji-born historian. (original)
 * Lal, Surendra: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Lalabalavu, Ratu Naiqama: Fijian high chief and politician, imprisoned for his role in the Fiji coup of 2000. (original)
 * Lesavua, Ponipate: Fijian Senator. (original)
 * Leung, Graeme: President of the Fiji Law Society. (original)
 * Leweni, Neumi: Fijian Army Captain and spokesman. (original)
 * Leweniqila, Isireli: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Lewis, Justin: Solicitor General of Fiji (1956-1963) and Attorney General of Fiji (1963-1970). (original)
 * Low, Kenneth, Chinese in Fiji-Fijian businessman and Senator. (original)
 * Luveni, Jiko, Fijian dentist and AIDS campaigner. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2L


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2M

 * Ma'afu, Enele: Tongan Prince and Fijian Chief (19th Century). (original)
 * MacKenzie, Sir Kenneth: Attorney General of Fiji (1922-1927). (original)
 * Madraiwiwi I, Ratu Joni - Fijian chief (1859-1920). (original)
 * Madraiwiwi, Ratu Joni - Vice-President of Fiji (2004-present). (rewrite)
 * Maharaj, Sanjeet Chand: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Maivalili, Ratu Kinijoji, Senator. (original)
 * Major, Sir Charles Henry: Chief Justice of Fiji (1902-1914) and Acting Governor (1910-1911); Chief Justice of British Guinea (1914-1933). (original)
 * Malani, Ratu Wilisoni Tuiketai: Fijian medical doctor, chief, and politician. (original)
 * Managreve, Injimo: Chairman of the Council of Rotuma. (original)
 * Manufolau, Daniel Urai: Fijian politician.
 * Mara, Ratu Finau: Fijian lawyer, politician, and diplomat. (original)
 * Mara, Ratu Sir Kamisese: Father of the modern Fijian nation. (original)
 * Mara, 'Ro Lady Lala: The former First Lady of Fiji. (original)
 * Mara-Rasova, Adi Elenoa: Fijian chieftainess and daughter of founding father Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara. (original)
 * Mara, Ratu Tevita Uluilakeba: former Fijian Army Chief of Staff. (original)
 * Masilaca, Asaeli: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Mataca, Petero: Roman Catholic Archbishop of Fiji. (original)
 * Matairavula, Irami: Fijian parliamentarian. (original)
 * Matakibau, Samuela: Senor Fiji police officer. (original)
 * Matanitobua, Naomi: Chief Magistrate of Fiji. (original)
 * Matanitobua, Ratu Suliano, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * McElwaine, Percy Alexander — Attorney General of Fiji (1927-1931), Attorney General of Singapore (1933-1936), Chief Justice of Singapore (1936-1946). (rewrite)
 * Momoedonu, Ratu Tevita Momoedonu: Prime Minister of Fiji. (original)
 * Mishra, Ghananand - Fijian judge (1916-2005). (original)
 * Mupnar, Perumal: Fijian politician. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2M


text:
File:TBMMason.jpg

Summary
http://www.nmic.navy.mil/history.htm

title: File:TBMMason.jpg


text:
User talk:MunchlaxLand

Welcome!
- User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]10:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Edit Summary
I saw your edits to Comparison of handheld gaming consoles, and I wanted to let you know about the edit summary box. When you make a change to an article, please summarize that change in the edit summary box so that others can see, at-a-glance, what changes you have made. The edit summary box is at the bottom of the edit box, and looks like this: Thanks and happy editing, User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]11:17, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:MunchlaxLand


text:
User talk:AMessOfTrouble

Welcome!
- User:Mys e kurity|Mysekurity ]] additions | e-mail ]]10:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

title: User talk:AMessOfTrouble


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 20

European spelling
Would it be possible to actually state that subjects related to European countries should ideally be written with British spelling ?

I am not saying that we should force people to write articles with British spelling, but at least that they don't revert back to US when we correct them.

For now, this page already says that "article on European Union institutions and documents: British, Irish and Maltese usage and spelling"; the point would be to explicitely extend this to History, geographical, etc. articles, and also to explain that even countries which do not have English as their official language actually do have rules of spelling, which are British in most (if not all) of the cases. This can be seen with English translations of official documents, English taught in school, etc. (you can see that articles like France are indeed written with British spelling). Rama 12:17, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I think it should be common courtesy to respect the spelling as is (as long as it's consistent within the article), and I don't think you should "correct" them. I see no need for a policy that favors British spelling, especially since it's not clear that editors of articles on European subjects generally prefer it. Rl 13:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * European countries have the rule that they use British spelling. Lots of people from these countries do not know that, since these countries so not use English as everyday language, or could have different habits (for instance, people dealing a lot with computer science might tend to favour the US spelling).
 * While I am fully agreed with you of the "respect as long as it's consistant" principle one articles about, say, algebra, medecine or flowers, it is clearly innapropriate when it comes to subjects touching to the identity of European states, like geographical or historical articles. It is a very logical extension of the "article on European Union institutions and documents: British, Irish and Maltese usage and spelling" principle. I would just like to suggest that this be put explicitly, since obviously some users have difficulties to see the issue here. Rama 13:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I must have missed when WP became an extended arm of European administrations. You said yourself that those European editors may prefer US spelling. But that doesn't matter, because their own "European countries" say so, yes? – Unlike the controversy over the introduction of metric units, spelling changes are not adding any value whatsoever. I see no reason why you or European countries should impose one way of spelling. Rl 13:54, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Why would we have the "article on European Union institutions and documents: British, Irish and Maltese usage and spelling" principle then ? Rama 13:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Quite frankly, I don't believe that's necessary, either, but at least (British) English is an official language of the European Union. If you want to extend a rule that limits editing freedoms, though, it should be up to you to provide a rationale. How does it significantly improve WP for editors? For readers? How does that compare to the cost of "correcting" correct US English, and the cost to editors who have their correct US English "corrected"? Rl 14:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, English is in fact more official in the European Union than it is in the UK or in the USA :p Rama 14:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Also, this idea is not in the perspective of a "conflict" between different dorts of spellings; it is just that it would never occure to anyone to write an article about a US island with Britsh spelling (or to contest the changing of spelling if it happened by mistake), but it does happen that some people mistakenly think that non-English-speaking countries have no preferences about English spelling, and therefore not only chose an improper spelling, but also do not understand why the correction happened at all. A notice about his would be helpful for them. Rama 14:03, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Your assumption is that there is a similar consensus about proper spelling in Europe as there is in the United States. That is not the case. Very few US editors will be more comfortable with British spelling, but many European editors are more comfortable with US spelling. You want to force them to use the spelling of your preference, for no discernable benefit. Rl 14:16, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not want to force anyone to write in any way --- the US citizens and the few European ones who are not aware of this difference, or for whom the effort would be too heavy a burden, are absolutely welcome to write in US English, of course. I simply would like people to understand why the correction is made later on. This probably won't handicap anyone's reading. Rama 14:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The understanding you should be getting from this discussion is that no such "correction" should be made. Like you said, it doesn't hamper your reading— so leave it alone.  Gene Nygaard 07:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It remains a bad idea in my opinion and I still fail to see the merits of the case. But I have said my part, maybe others can contribute something that hasn't been said already. Rl 15:44, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree with Rl. I would also agree with deleting the style concerning European Union institutions and documents, which was not strongly supported when it was added. Further, I think attempts to make spelling or usage conform to one regional version or another are often misguided. Maurreen 17:26, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Rama, it would be best if you were to take up this discussion before you start messing around with articles written using American spellings. Your edsums  (and I see you've done this same thing to possibly dozens of other articles) are insulting and misleading.  I'm changing them back to the original spellings, in keeping with the MOS.  Note that your edsum at  has nothing whatsoever to do with the spelling changes you made. Tomer TALK  20:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * (I don't see how those edit summaries are insulting, but:) That is exactly what I was afraid of, but I thought I'd be accused of using hyperbole if I mentioned it. So there. It's only a matter of time until Europe extends to every bloody island that has at some point been claimed to be under the influence of any European country. Wouldn't this include all of the Commonwealth and maybe the United States, as well? Well, thanks Rama, your edits drove my point home much better than any arguments that I could have come up with. If anyone's ever holding a vote on pushing over "European Union is British spelling territory", make sure to let me know. (That's nothing personal, Rama, by the way; I have absolutely no problem assuming good faith on your part; I am convinced you will find a more productive way to make use of your enthusiasm) Rl 20:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not mean to insult anyone, nor mislead anyone and I am acting in full agreement with the policy. The islands in question are under French juridiction, and therefore "institutions of the European Union"; saying that " has nothing whatsoever to do with the spelling changes you made" is incorrect. I understand Rl's concern; however, this case is quite clearly whithin the scope of the present European Union, and I would think that these edits are one good reason why a formal and explicit policy would be useful. Rama 20:31, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Incidentally, it is interesting to see that one of these articles was started with the US spelling because it was copy-pasted from a US military document, and that the other one was started with British spelling but was changed to US spelling. Rama 20:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Uf. It's even worse than either of us have been imagining...  Please see Talk:Mururoa.  Tomer TALK  22:44, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

re RL's claim that many Europeans prefer American English spelling — I have never found that to be the case anywhere in Europe. On the contrary, many positively loathe it (its joke name in some places is Lazy English because of the tongue-in-cheek view that Americans for example spell color without a u simply because they are too lazy to get it right!!!) and take offense at its use. British English is in fact sometimes known as International English and it is the version of preference in Europe and most of the Commonwealth. Some countries (Ireland, India, etc) have local variants that are far closer to BE than AE. Hiberno-English definitely has nothing in common with American English. (Students who use American English spelling in essays, for example, in many schools and universities in Europe get automatic fails.)

Fear ÉIREANN \(caint) 20:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

 * European non-native speakers of English usually use a mixture of British and American spelling, because they are not aware of the differences or simply don't care. Germans usually write "center" without thinking about it, because "center" has become a German word. On the other hand, most Europeans will probably write "travelling" instead of "traveling". Or mix spellings like color, neighbour, humour... By the way, User:Jtdirl, you write about Europeans taking "offense"...? Shouldn't it be offence? ;-) SpNeo 17:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * All due apologies, I didn't include the insulting edsum, and don't care to find it anymore...it was another edit where Rama changed an article to Commonwealth spelling because it was "correct". That said, the edsums I mentioned previously are still incorrect.  Although French Polynesia is a France-controlled territory, it is not part of France, so what is used in France is irrelevant.  Also, the "Institutions of the EU" thing is irrelevant, since PF is not an institution, and certainly not of the EU--in fact PF has specifically indicated that it is not interested in participating in the EU.  Anyways, the problem has been addressed.  I'm happy to move on.  Thanks, btw, Rama.  Tomer TALK  23:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * My apologies too:
 * # I am sorry for the "correct", I did not mean to say that US spelling was intrinsically incorrect, but that the correct thing to do regarding the article in question was to use British spelling. I should have worded my diff more carefully.
 * # I am now better-educated about French Polynesia, though I still have plenty of room for improvement in the domain.
 * This being said, I am left with the feeling that a more explicit policy might be welcome:
 * I find the case of the article about Mururoa very revelating, in the sense that there is clearly a much stronger link between Mururoa and France that between Mururoa and the USA; that the article was started with British spelling in the first place; yet that the article is now under US spelling, and that its moving back to British spelling proves to be a disturbance.
 * The concerns which Rl points to are of course valid ones, but there is nothing to suggest that there would be any more problems because of this than because of the rules regarding British and US spelling (Both the UK and the USA also have small islands everywhere, etc); in any case, the rule about not disturbing Wikipedia obviously has precedence, and I am confident that common sense is largely enough to decide of these questions (for instance it is obvious to me that an article about the Statue of Liberty should be written with US spelling, even though it is a French work of art, and that one statue of Liberty is located in Paris: commons sense says that the most proeminent statue of Liberty is in the USA, and that its main feature is its associations with the city of New York, rather than its construction of Eiffel).
 * The use for a more explicit rule is mainly to compensate for the fact that some people are not aware that even countries which do not have English as their national language still have preferences regarding spelling. Rama 07:56, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Rama--I don't know when the change happened in Mururoa and wasn't aware that it was originally written in CE. Let's take it up on the article's talk page if necessary.  Again, all apologies.  As far as the discussion here, I'm willing to regard it as "settled" if you are, and we can all go get a beer.  Tomer TALK  22:27, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * When you say that "countries" have preferences, what you actually mean is that their administrations and schools have preferences; they favour British spelling for obvious reasons. People who learned English as a second language are often most comfortable with a mix of both spellings, and they won't even realize or care that it is indeed a mix. Most Europeans would probably agree on "colour", but dialogue, centre, or travelling is a toss-up at best (check articles on big European cities and you will find centre and center happily co-exisiting on the same page). So here's my alternative proposal that suits the actual situation in Europe a lot better: In articles concerning European (non-English speaking) countries, any combination of U.S. and British spelling is fine. Rl 09:28, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I think this debate has become way more heated than it deserves (despite my preference, as a Brit, to use CE spellings, I would have made the same edits that Rama did had I cared to), but I'd just like to make the point that one of your examples, "centre", is a French word, and is similar ("centro") in Italian, Spanish and Portuguese, being derived from the Latin "centrum". Given that English draws heavily on other European languages, the CE spellings of words are likely to be more familiar to a native even if they know no English at all. Then again, the en wikipedia is not written primarily for them, that's what the fr, de, etc. 'pedias are for. Our primary target is native English speakers, the majority of who are U.S. English speakers (although I'd be interested to know what variant of the language China is teaching the kids in school - when they get up to speed, they will outnumber all other English speakers put together). So, basically I'm neutral on this topic.   — PhilHibbs | talk

The main reason for saying that articles concerning U.K.-related topics should use U.K. English, etc., as discussed ad nauseam here and elsewhere, is that many readers find a mismatch between the subject and the style of English jarring. It isn't because of anything that the various governments (or other relevant bodies) have decided. I can't support Rama on this, therefore.

Incidentally, French Polynesia is part of France (as a pays d'outre-mer, though with more autonomy than, say, Martinique (which is treated as just another departement). --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 09:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * As discussed the first time around (or was it the 10th time? see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style--Archive11 and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style--Archive11 for two earlier discussions). I am in favour of CE English for "European Union institutions and documents" and I interpret this clause to mean that if one is writing about the European Parliament when in Strasbourg then it should be in CE English. But an article on Strasbourg Cathedral can be in AE or any other formal English dialect and should stay in the English of the primary author. Otherwise one ends up in the unreasonable position, that because someone writes an article on the bolts in a 1950s Ferrari that CE English should replace whatever the primary author wrote it in, or the Battle of the Bulge should use only CE because it took place in Europe and one of the major protagonists was German. I think this is a step too far. Also if "my memory serves me well" those lander in Germany which were occupied by the US after the war use AE in their schools, so why should Bavarians writing an article on BMWs have to put up with some Brit changing their spellings to CE which may look odd to them? Philip Baird Shearer 17:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what the problem is. Articles should use the spellings common to the subject. Articles about US subjects should use US spellings, articles about UK subjects should use UK spellings, and so on. European English-speakers are likely to have considerably more familiarity with UK English than with US English in the form of newspapers and books, so UK spellings should be used for those as well. Outside of that, the article should retain the spelling of its original author. Why the debate? --Tysto 05:10, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

 * Why the debate? "European English-speakers are likely to have considerably more familiarity with UK English than with US English in the form of newspapers and books, so UK spellings should be used for those as well." (User:Tysto) That's the critical point.
 * I can understand User:Rama's view, but I'm quite unsure about this...
 * As far as neutral articles are concerned - in my opinion, mixed spelling should be acceptable as long as it is "consistently mixed" (the same word shouldn't be spelled in two different ways) SpNeo 13:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If you read the whole discussion you will find that it's worse than that. The proponents of British spelling for all European articles concede that European editors may be more used to US spelling (typically due to US media exposure). They argue that the non-English speaking European countries (read governments) prefer British spelling and so should all European editors, whether they like it or not. — I very much support what SpNeo calls "consistently mixed". Rl 13:34, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I support using CE or British spelling in European topics. We learn them in schools, not US English. It isn't about forcing, it is about familiarity. People may later learn US spelling from Internet. English Wikipedia is for all people that understand English well enough to bother to read it. It is not only for native speakers. -Hapsiainen 18:24, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

I think one European spelling that should be adhered to is that of SI units. I think it is a tad absurd that "metre" is spelled as "meter" in many articles when the vast majority of Americans continue to use the Imperial system, thereby negativing the oft-touted (and specious) argument of sheer numbers.

 * Since SI units are used in science pursuits worldwide, and there are significant numbers of scientists using SI units and US spelling publishing scientific papers read worldwide, I think that the "respect the spelling as it is" convention still applies. Converting articles from one spelling convention to another in any case is highly undesirable and should only be done in the most exceptional of cases.   Un  focused  15:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

 * SI symbols are standardized world-wide. Spelling of units is not.  It is also "meter" in Norwegian, Danish, Swedish, Dutch, and Indonesian, and "Meter" in German, as well as English, and even though chilogrammo doesn't start with a k in Italian, its symbol is still "kg".  Gene Nygaard 07:49, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the use of more than one English variant in an article; the style guide says don't do this because it can be jarring to the reader. What on earth does that mean? While in an article on, say, the colour green, to alternate color with colour throughtout the text might be a little off-putting - and unnecessary - I don't see a problem at all in having a certain degree of mixed spelling in an article (I think Britannica takes this approach at least in some articles). Consider an article where there is a US and a UK perspective on a topic (look at Identity theft for example). In such an article it makes sense to use US spelling in relevant sections and UK, Australian or whatever, in other sections. In the US the word check can mean a device for paying money. In the UK it's cheque, so it wouldn't be right to use the US spelling when dealing with the issue of checks/cheques in connection with identity theft in the UK. Furthermore, where there is no country-specific material in an article it still doesn't matter if there's a mixture of spellings. Perhaps the rule should be that there is no mixture within a section of an article. By far the majority of non-country specific articles use American English (e.g. see Tyre) simply because the Wikipedia project originated in America: American contributors got there first. For a truly international project this is not really satisfactory. Having a limited degree of mixed spelling could go some way towards (or toward if you're in the U.S.) remedying the situation. Apologies if this point has already been made. If it has, what was the consensus? Arcturus 19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the advanced modern spelling and grammar of the British English over the archaic American English. Not to say I'm good at it - I grew up in Southern California - but it is more logical and isn't nearly as whorish. BE is clearly the superiour dialect. However, in the context of Wikipedia, I think consistency should be the deciding factor. If an article is already written in AE, don't convert the whole thing. Same goes for articles in BE. Just because something is related to the UE doesn't mean the US doesn't have any interest in it. I go with KISS and don't necessarily think a new rule needs to be applied as consistency rules already apply. There are already rules in place in the MoS about regional spellings.glocks out 22:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

British vs U.S. Alphabetising
What is the Wikipedia standard for alphabetizing? By word or by letter? Should it be:

can can do candid candy

- or -

can candid can do candy

? -- Ravenswood 15:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Commonly spaces are taking part in sorting. The space character comes before any others. If words are of unequal length, trailing spaces are assumed: "can " comes before "candy". Similarly "can do" comes before "candid". −Woodstone 17:11, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Is that official policy? If it is, it should be in the Manual of Style. Ravenswood 21:27, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

 * Does it need to be part of the Manual of Style? I thought that that ordering (per Woodstone) was just 'understood'.  Back when dictionaries were paper, a space came before alphabetic characters in sorting.  The space character precedes all the alphanumerics in ASCII, so that takes care of the digital era.  Heck, Excel even does it correctly when you ask it to sort a column of text entries. :)  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:17, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If one method was universally "understood" there wouldn't be (at least) five methods of sorting, would there? There have been and are dictionaries (on paper) which sort as if all the spaces were removed. Some people lump all "Mc" and "Mac" names together before other names starting with "M". Some people treat numbers as if they were spelled out, some don't. No, it is a matter of disagreement and controversy, which has occasionally led to edit wars and knife-fights. No murders yet, but a few skirmishes have come close. Ravenswood 23:22, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * There's also whether to sort St. with start and starve or with saint. —Wahoofive (talk) 16:10, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorting should follow the Unicode collation algorithm for English, which can be used to sort any set of Unicode strings, except where the UCA gives unreasonable results. Nohat 18:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

 * UCA is a bit... complex for what we're trying to do, as it covers sorting items in every alphabet of the world mixed together, whereas for the English Wikipedia we just need a sorting standard for English.
 * I would propose:

Ravenswood 05:42, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

 * For most sorting purposes, whatever seems reasonable to the author should suffice. However, in the case of disputes, it makes more sense to defer to the experts rather than attempt to invent our own complicated system to maintain and argue about. Certainly your 7-rule example system misses something that someone else will think of, which result in the Wikipedia sorting system growing ever-more complex. Best to not have a formal policy and just defer to the experts. Nohat 06:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

That seems to be how most things in Wikipedia are handled: Do things however you like, until there's a disagreement strong enough to warrant intervention. OK, I can respect that. What I don't understand is, WHY hasn't there been a disagreement about this? The topics of straight quotes vs curly quotes, US vs U. S., and Latin abbreviations have all raged on for months, with much wailing and gnashing of teeth, and no easy consensus in sight. But sorting?  Ignored.  What gives? It's just as meaningless and arbitrary as the other topics people have been fighting over. Where's the five-way world war over sorting convention??? -- Ravenswood 15:01, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * OK, I changed the title of this section to "British vs US Alphabetizing", which doesn't make a lot of sense, but should get a bigger reaction out of people. Ravenswood 19:49, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * I edited slightly further along the path you started, Ravenswood. Maybe that will draw attention. ;) I think most of your rules above look like a good start. The only one I would differ with is sorting short forms as if they were spelled out. That can be confusing and can get complicated quite easily. (Writing "St." but sorting as if it were Saint or Street or what have you.) Much better, I think, to spell them out them out in full, then sort them, or barring that, to sort by what is actually written. No Account 23:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes! YES!! Controversy at last! — Except, I agree with you. Ravenswood 16:02, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


text:
Adrorhizon

Adrorhizon purpurascens is a species of orchid (family Orchidaceae). It is the only species in the genus Adrorhizon and one of three genera in the subtribe Adrorhizinae.

The genus is native to southern India and Sri Lanka.

title: Adrorhizon


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2N

 * Nabuka, Joeli: Fijian parliamentarian. (original)
 * Nacuva, Pita: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Naevo, Apisai, Senator. (original)
 * Nagagavoka, Ratu Sairusi, Fijian chief and PANU Party leader. (original)
 * Nagindas, Shivlal: Labasa businessman and former member of the Fijian Senate. (original)
 * Nagusuca, Nanise: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Naidu, Dorsami: Leader of the National Federation Party of Fiji. (original)
 * Naidu, Richard: Fijian lawyer. (original)
 * Nailatikau, Adi Koila: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Nailatikau, Ratu Epeli Qaraninamu: Fijian medical doctor and Senator. (original)
 * Nailatikau, Ratu Epeli: Fijian statesman. (original)
 * Nair, Damodran: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Naivalu, Solomone: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Naivaluwaqa, Timoci: Fijian trade unionist. (original)
 * Nand, Gyani: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Nand, Nainendra: Solicitor-General of Fiji. (original)
 * Nand, Ragho: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Nanovo, Ratu Sela: Fijian chief and Senator. (original)
 * Naqase, Serupepeli: Fijian lawyer (d. 2006). (original)
 * Naqiolevu, Sekove: Fijian judge, now on the Solomon Islands bench. (original)
 * Narayan, Irene Jai: Indo-Fijian stateswoman. (original)
 * Narayan, Udit: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Naupoto, Viliame, Fiji's Director of Immigration and former Navy Commander. (original)
 * Navakasuasua, Maciu: Fijian coup convict turned informer. (original)
 * Navoka, Ratu Viliame, Senator. (original)
 * Nawaikula, Niko: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Nawalowalo, Ratu Josateki: Fijian businessman and Chairman of the Kadavu Provincial Council. (original)
 * Niranjan, Sangeeta: Fijian businesswoman. (original)
 * Niudamu, Epeli, Fijian Senator.

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2N


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2P

 * Padarath, Ben: Fijian political candidate (2006), later imprisoned for manslaughter. (original)
 * Padarath, Lavenia: Fijian Cabinet Minister (1999-2000). (original)
 * A. D. Patel: founder of the National Federation Party of Fiji. (original)
 * Pillai, Manikam Vasagam: Attorney General of Fiji (1981-1984). (major edit)
 * Pillay, Sarojini, Indo-Fijian academic. (original)
 * Prasad, Krishna: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Punja, Hari, Fijian business tycoon (born 1937). (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2P


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2Q

 * Qarase, Laisenia: Prime Minister of Fiji (2000-2006). (rewrite)
 * Qetaki, Alipate, former Attorney-General of Fiji and Minister for Justice. (original)
 * Qionibaravi, Adi Litia: CEO of the Fijian Affairs Board; deposed by military administration in December 2006. (original)
 * Qoro, Adi Sivia: Fijian politician, leader of the People's Democratic Party. (major edit)
 * Qovu, Emasi: Fijian parliamentarian. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2Q


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2R

 * Rabuka, Sitiveni: Fijian soldier and politician. (rewrite)
 * Rabukawaqa, Orisi: Fijian Military spokesman. (original)
 * Rae, Pramod: General Secretary of Fiji's National Federation Party. (original)
 * Ragiagia, Mataiasi: Fijian parliamentarian. (original)
 * Raj, George Shiu: Indo-Fijian politician. (original)
 * Ram, Rishi: Chairman of Fiji's Public Service Commission. (original)
 * Rankine, John: Acting Governor of Fiji (1944). (original)
 * Ratakele, Ratu Talemo, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Ravuvu, Asesela: Fijian academic and Senator. (original)
 * Rayawa, Ratu, Senator. (original)
 * Reddy, Jai Ram: Indo-Fijian politician. (original)
 * Ridgeway, Peter: Australian prosecutor, former Deputy Director of Prosecutions in Fiji. (original)
 * Rigamoto, Marieta: Fijian Cabinet Minister of Rotuman descent. (original)
 * Rokocegu, Ratu Maculeku: Fijian chief from Macuata Province.  (original)
 * Rokomatu, Adi Joana, Fijian chief, holder of the Tui Sigatoka title. (original)
 * Rokotuinaceva, Ratu Kolinio, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2R


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2S

 * Salabula, Losena: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Sami, Jagannath: Sacked CEO of Fiji's Sugar Cane Growers Council. (major edit)
 * Samisoni, Adi Mere: Fijian politician. (rewrite)
 * Saubulinayau, Meli: Senior Fijian Army officer. (original)
 * Savua, Isikia: Fijian diplomat and former Police Commissioner. (original)
 * Seeto, Dixon: Fijian business tycoon and politician of Chinese descent. (original)
 * Seniloli, Ratu Jope, Vice-President of Fiji (2000-2004), convicted of treason. (original)
 * Seru, Apaitia: Attorney General of Fiji (1992). (original)
 * Seruvakula, Ratu Semi, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Seruvakula, Viliame, Army officer, who led the counteroffensive against the Queen Elizabeth Barracks mutiny of 2 November 2000. (original)
 * Shameem, Nazhat: Indo-Fijian judge. (major edit)
 * Sharma, Devanesh: President of the Fiji Law Society (2006 - present). (original)
 * Sharma, Gabriel: First Indo-Fijian Anglican Bishop in Fiji. (original)
 * Sauqaqa, Tomasi: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Seruvakula, Ratu Semi, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Sharan, Ram: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Sharma, Vyas Deo: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Silatolu, Peniasi: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Silatolu, Timoci: Fijian politician, serving a life sentence for treason. (original)
 * Sing, Sakiusa: Fijian Catholic priest and educator. (original)
 * Singh, Anand: Fiji Labour Party Senator and former Attorney-General. (original)
 * Singh, Attar: Fiji trade unionist and NFP politician. (original)
 * Singh, Gyan: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Singh, Pravin: Fijian politician; died 2003. (original)
 * Singh, Prem: Indo-Fijian politician. (original)
 * Singh, Rajesh: Fijian Cabinet Minister (2006). (original)
 * Singh, Raman Pratap: President of Fiji's National Federation Party. (original)
 * Singh, Satendra: Fiji Labour Party politician. (original)
 * Singh, Vijay (politician): Fijian politician. (original)
 * Singh, Sir Vijay: Indo-Fijian lawyer and former politician. (original)
 * Siwatibau, Savenaca: Fijian academic leader. (original)
 * Siwatibau, Suliana, human rights and pro-democracy activist. (original)
 * Solomone, Gagaj Maraf, Fijian Senator from Rotuma. (original)
 * Sovasova, Ratu Jovesa: Fijian chief (1942-2005). (original)
 * Speed, Adi Kuini: Fijian politician. (original)
 * Speight, George: Fijian insurrectionist and chief instigator of the Fiji coup of 2000. (rewrite)
 * St Julian, Sir Charles: inaugural Chief Justice of Fiji (1872-1874). (major edit)
 * Sukuna, Ratu Sir Lala: The forerunner of the leaders of modern Fiji (original)
 * Swann, Ofa: Fijian parliamentarian for the New Labour Unity Party. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2S


text:
User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2T

 * Tabakaucoro, Adi Finau, Fijian former Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Takiveikata, Ratu Inoke: Fijian high chief and politician, imprisoned for life for mutiny. (original)
 * Takiveikata, Ratu Inoke: Vice President of Fiji (1990s). (original)
 * Tavai, Ratu Etuate: Attorney General of Fiji (1996-1999). (original)
 * Telawa, Saula: President of the New Nationalist Party of Fiji. (original)
 * Tanaburenisau, Antonio: Fijian parliametarian (1999-2000). (original)
 * Taoka, Aisea: Fiji's Commissioner of Prisons. (original)
 * Taukeinikoro, Ratu Kiniviliame, Senator. (original)
 * Tavaiqia, Ratu Sir Josaia - Vice-President of Fiji (1990-1997). (original)
 * Tavola, Kaliopate: Fiji's Minister for Foreign Affairs (2000 - present). (original)
 * Teleni, Esala, Naval Captain and Deputy Commander of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (2007-present). (original)
 * Thacker, RansleySamuel: Chief Justice of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines (1930s), Attorney General of Fiji (1933-1938), Justice of the Supreme Court of Kenya (1938-1950). (original)
 * Thurston, John Bates: Premier of the Kingdom of Viti (1874 and Governor of Fiji (1888-1897). (original)
 * Tikoinasau, Samisoni: Fijian Cabinet Minister and CAMV parliamentarian. (original)
 * Tikotikoca, Romanu, Commissioner of Police appointed December 2006. (original)
 * Toganivalu, Adi Davila: Fijian businesswoman and newspaper publisher. (original)
 * Tora, Apisai, Fijian Senator. (original)
 * Manasa Tugia: Deputy Speaker of the Fijian House of Representatives. (original)
 * Tuisese, Ilaitia: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)
 * Tuisolia, Ratu Sakiusa, former CEO of Airports Fiji Limited. (original)
 * Tuivaga, Sir Timoci: Chief Justice of Fiji (1974-2002). (original)
 * Tuvuki, Isireli: Fijian Cabinet Minister. (original)

title: User:Davidcannon/Fiji-2T


text:
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 21

U.S. vs. US
In the national varieties section: That is just a stupid plead and should be removed. It is totally inconsequent to use ‘U.S.’, but ‘USA’ and ‘UK’. It really looks awkward when being used in the same sentence, yet some editors take the above plead as a rule and change all instances of ‘US’ to ‘U.S.’ or even ‘U. S.’ (and nothing else). To save my contributions from such morons I, and thus myself from edit wars, I now use the expanded form way too often, which has also to affect similar abbreviations nearby. A good search engine would treat them the same anyway, Google does AFAIK. Christoph Päper 16:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used.

 * This has been brought up before, and there was no consensus to change it. Maurreen 16:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I think you're entirely right, Christoph, and in practice you're unlikely to get into a revert war if you use "US" in an article that otherwise does not use stops afte initials. It seems silly to keep this guidance there (and it leads to some silly presentations about articles going on about the UN, UK, but the "U.S.". Surely if an article uses stops after all initials appearing in it, the you'd use "U.S.", if an article doesn't use stops after all other initials it has, then use "US"?, jguk 17:12, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * He might be right with refard to the argument and the facts, but his manners could do with some revision. Or is calling other editors "morons" now OK? --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No, so I removed it.   — PhilHibbs | talk 15:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I write, but maybe moron was too strong a word—I’m not a native speaker. It’s just really annoying, if people change a harmonic sentence by following this plead without any questioning. Christoph Päper 00:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

You're right, it would have been better for Christoph not to have referred to "morons" - especially as it detracts from his underlying point, which is a good one, jguk 10:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You say exactly what I wanted to say, so I won't say that again :) . But a related question is whether US or USA should be used. The second is more complete and correct, but less common. Eg it would look awkward in USA dollar. By the way, the article on the country is called 'United States', not 'United States of America', which doesn't see to make sense. DirkvdM 10:47, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ugh, you don't want to go there. There be dragons. Rl 10:59, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It is almost always "United States" or "U.S." as an adjective; it is only the noun usage that can be USA or U.S.A. Gene Nygaard 11:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the recommendation's claim that "U.S." is more common form in the US. It has always been my understanding that lowercase abbreviations require dots and uppercase abbreviations require no dots. So: a.k.a., d.o.b., a.m., p.m., abbr., etc. And FBI, IBM, US, UK, AM, PM, GI, ZIP code, and so on, with the modern trend being toward more UC abbreviations. (Acronyms, however, are words: laser, radar, sonar.) No other treatment makes any sense. The only exception is to use dots with uppercase abbreviations when you write a headline like CNN's crawl: BULGARIANS HATE U.S. I'm all for starting a consensus to change the recommendation. --Tysto 05:55, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought I had given the news crawl example myself already, but obviously I did not. Thanks for mentioning it. Christoph Päper 00:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Those capitalization rules vary considerably geographically and by field of activity and many other things. Consider that both Washington, D.C., which is the current title of its article, and Washington, DC are both considered quite correct for use in the United States of America and elsewhere; this is not primarily anything to do with geography. The difference is that D.C. is the traditional abbreviation for the District of Columbia, used in the same way that Mass. is used for Massachusetts.  But DC is the two-letter USPS symbol, used in the same way that MA is used for Massachusetts.  Usually, one style or the other should be followed within any given article, here or anywhere else. Gene Nygaard 11:25, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

GPO Usage
The GPO Style Manual (of which the 29th edition issued in 2000 is the latest) specifies the following rules on abbreviating United States. (With my comments in italics and parenthesis.)

9.7. Abbreviations and initials of a personal name with points are set without spaces. Abbreviations composed of contractions and initials or numbers, will retain space. ''(This means that "U. S." is incorrect, but this rule is silent over the issue of whether to use "U.S." or "US".)

9.9. United States must be spelled out when appearing in a sentence containing the name of another country. The abbreviation U.S. will be used when preceding the word Government or the name of a Government organization, except in formal writing (treaties, Executive orders, proclamations, etc.); congressional bills; legal citations and courtwork; and covers and title pages. (This rule is the source of the preference for "U.S." over "US" except in specific contexts. Note however, that in a list of countries, the United States should not be abbreviated.)

9.10. With the exceptions in the above rule, the abbreviation U.S. is used in the adjective position, but is spelled out when used as a noun.

9.60. The following are some of the abbreviations and symbols used for indicating money:
 * $, dol (dollar)
 * c, ct, ¢ (cent, cents)
 * LT175 (Turkish)
 * US$15,000
 * Mex$2,650
 * P (peso)
 * £ (pound)
 * d (pence)

Use “US$” if omission would result in confusion. (This rule would seem to argue against using “US dollar”, but “U.S. dollar”, “US$”, or ISO 4217's code of “USD” depending upon the context when abbreviating United States dollar.)

Obviously the above rules from the style manual won't cover all cases, but they serve as a good first approximation. Caerwine 15:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Whoever wrote for the GPO that d indicates pence should have been sacked on sight by them for incompetence. d meant pence (short for denarii) in pre-decimal currency, which was phased out in the early 1970s Pence in decimal currency is symbolised by p and has been for well over thirty years! FearÉIREANN[[Image:Ireland coa.png|15px]]\(caint) 17:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * GPO is a US postal service. Not quite a basis for a standard in Wikipedia. ISO, however, is the International Organization for Standardization. So that would be a better source, but still not definitive, I'd say (don't ask me why, it's just a feeling...). But I can't find any relevant standard (iso4217 is about money, not countries). But these sources don't give a definitive answer anyway. What matters more is consistency, and I never see other country abbreviations with dots, like U.S.S.R., U.K. or G.B. . Notice in this listing that that also makes the punctuation awkward (where should one place the comma and should the space between the final dot and the period be there?). And it's more difficult to type - without the dots you just hold Shift with one hand and type the letters with the other (that's just a practical argument, but not irrelevant). Oh, and then there are abbreviations like LASER, TV, CD, LP and NATO (although laser may not be a good example). Strictly speaking, these should have dots, but no-one ever uses them (just try googling them with dots). Also, see the Abbreviation article; "The only rule universally accepted is that one should be consistent". There is no standard between publishers (postal offices or others), but one publisher should be consistent within his publications. And that consistency should also be between abbreviations (though I wonder if the New York Times will spell laser as l.a.s.e.r.). Name me one abbreviation that should be written with dots and I'll be stuck. But I wonder if you can. DirkvdM 19:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not saying that the GPO is "the" reference for WP. But ...
 * The GPO is not "a US postal service" (or U.S.). It is the U.S. Government Printing Office.
 * Can you clarify your concern about punctuation?
 * "Should" is subjective and the point of discussion.
 * "U.S." is more clear than "US".
 * If you don't like "U.S.", you could use "USA", which isn't much more trouble.
 * I believe Google disregards whether periods are used. Maurreen (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

 * As already pointed out GPO stands for the U.S. Government Printing Office which sest the standard for all printed matter published by the U.S. Governmment. Given the sheer quantity of material the Government publishes, simply by example alone it sets the basis of the style prevalent in the U.S.  Your quote about constency is take out of context.  It refers to always using the same abbreviation for a particular word or words, not to always using points or never using points for all words.  The general GPO practice is to be courteous and use points in an abbreviation according to how the entity whose name is being abbreviated wants it done.  Thus the GPO Style Manual specifies both U.S. and NATO as the prefered forms, even when used together as in this example from it: U.S.-NATO assistance.  As for how commas interact with U.S., you add the comma after the point as in this example and as with all other abbreviations using the point. Finally as to your last point, the GPO Style Manual does specify that USA and U.S.A. has two distinct meanings; the former means United States Army while the latter means United States of America, although I'll conceed that the distinction between those two can usually be gleaned from context and that it does not see much use in popular writing. Caerwine 22:24, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Getting back to the point, is the preferred way forward just to delete the guidance or to replace it with something that says that articles should be consistent in either always using dots after each letter of a two-letter abbreviation, or in not using dots after each letter of a two-letter abbreviation? jguk 17:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The question of how to change the style guide about "U.S." is premature. I see no consensus that a change is desired. Maurreen (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Is there anyone arguing that where, for other two-letter abbreviations, an article does not use dots after each letter that we should make an exception for the abbreviation "US"? As it's clearly not a case of people potentially being confused, surely aesthetics should take over and whatever style is adopted for two-letter abbreviations for the rest of the article should prevail? jguk 17:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The current convention is in line with the other rule on retaining the spellings of proper names. (For examples, we still use the spelling "Australian Defence Force" in an article on the "United States Department of Defense.") Wouldn't it look jarring to be using U.K., U.N., G.B., etc.? In the United States itself, "U.S." is the common form and "US" looks similarly jarring for those who are aware of the rules. --Jiang 17:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There are many examples of pages that use "U.K.", "U.N.", etc., and so they should if that is the style adopted throughout those articles. Indeed, there are many British publications that choose that for their style. I'm not sure how your comparison with the rules on spelling fits, as this is a punctuation issue, not a spelling issue. And there are plenty of Americans who don't use dots after "US", although they are in somewhat of a minority. It's really a question of aesthetics - and given WP's laissez-faire approach to style (as long as it is consistent within any one article), which has undoubtedly helped WP grow to what it is today, it seems best to allow either dots throughout or no dots through when it comes to two-letter abbreviations. It would also put a stop to the silly edit wars that appear to have initiated this discussion, jguk 18:14, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Just as there are different regional conventions when it comes to spelling, there are different regional conventions when it comes to punctuation. I don't quite understand why we should keep proper names spelled in their original forms while allowing their punctuation to be changed to another form. if you're going to be bastardizing U.S. Department of Defense to US Department of Defence, why not change it to US Department of Defence as well? The consistency-in-spelling rule applies to non-proper names, as should the punctuation rule. For example, British punctuations (e.g. single quotation marks, lack of serial comma) should be used to British-related articles but this should not apply to American proper names. --Jiang 10:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The following comments have recently appeared on the discussion page for the US. May I put in a plea to those who wish to retain dots, that there is a solid trend all over the English-speaking world to minimise the use of dots in initialisms. Apart from the other good reasons to drop them from 'U.S.', why not lead the trend rather than drag behind?

PASTED IN: I wonder whether contributors support the idea that it would be neater and easier to read if the nation were referred to simply as 'the US', i.e., without the dots; that is, after the opening, and in all instances for which there's no good reason to use one of the longer names. Currently, usage in this respect is inconsistent. Tony 05:23, 29 July 2005 (UTC) If you want to make it consistent, better use U.S.A., because only US is not very descriptive. −Woodstone 08:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

in context of this article, what could anyone confuse US with? Gabrielsimon 08:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC) Agree with Woodstone, we should use U.S.A., instead of "the US." --Gramaic | Talk 08:17, 29 July 2005 (UTC) USA instead of U.S.A.? (SEWilco 15:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)) I'd rather spell it out as 'the United States' than use 'U dot S dot A dot', which, although an accepted abbreviation, is (1) one letter too many in this highly focused—and already too long—text, and (2) looks much neater, in my veiw, without the dots (nowadays, who spells NASA, NATO, PBS, ABC, and most other acronyms with the dots?). I'd still opt for 'the US'. 'The USA' sounds pedantic, as though you're shortening it, but then partially retracting the brevity. 'The United States' is attractive, but the article is far too long as a single text for most readers of Wikipedia, and spelling it out on its numerous occurrences will worsen that problem. In addition, 'US' can also be used as an epithet ('the US peace mission', 'US interest rates') whereas 'USA' sits awkwardly in that respect. 'The US' has a high recognition factor worldwide; no one will mistake it for 'us', as in 'we, us, they, them', even momentarily. Tony 02:58, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony 12:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not up to wikipedia to propel or advocate trends in English punctuation. We already stated that acronyms such NASA, NATO, PBS, ABC should not retain periods. There is no evidence other than by word of mouth that the trend in American English is towards omitting periods, while there is evidence that almost every major American style book still prefers U.S. with periods over US without. It is not a simple matter of confusion - many rules are pointless - but of following the conventions and rules that have been set in place and are being widely followed. --Jiang 15:56, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * A look at the 1967 and 2000 editions of the GPO Style Manual does show a small but documentable shift towards a reduction of point usage in abbreviations. Mainly this is due to the abandonment of points in units of measure.  However there are a few other examples such R. & D. (note the spaces in addition to the points) is  now R&D and  a.w.o.l. is now AWOL.  Furthermore, the GPO Style Manual is definitely conservative in its abandonment of points as it still reccommends the use of forms such as 2005 A.D., c.o.d., and U.N. instead of what I would likely use, 2005 AD, COD, and UN.  However, the question here is not whether there is a trend towards one form or another since it is not a purpose of Wikipedia to make, prescribe, or predict trends in language use. Currently both US and U.S. are in common use with the latter being the form prefered by the United States.  Besides, I fail to see the need to hyperabbreviate things.  Do people in Burkino Faso speak of "le BF" or do Austrians of "der Ost"?  Those abbreviations make as much objective sense as what we are discussing here.  Frankly, if policy were to be changed, it should be towards always using the points with U.S. save where it is being used as a technical abbreviation as in ISO 3166. Caerwine 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with articles that use the convention of using dots in two-letter abbreviations using the abbreviation "U.S.". From what you say, most articles written in American English will already use that convention. The question here is whether, in an article that otherwise doesn't use dots for two-letter abbreviations, which Tony argues is the worldwide trend towards doing things (and this is certainly true outside N America), should an exception be made for the abbreviation "US" (and for this abbreviation alone) - and I can't for the life of me see a good reason why, jguk 19:15, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It all depends on the context. Frankly, I'm at a loss to think of a reason why I would want use to the abbreviation U.S. alongside other abbreviations (outside of an article that is making liberal use of the ISO 3166 codes) in formal writing.  As an encylcopedia, Wikipedia should use a formal writing style and formal writing uses far less abbreviations than informal writing does, just as it avoids the use of contractions. Caerwine 19:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems that although it has some supporters, there isn't exactly a lot of support for the current guidance. Should we just delete it, or is it best to put something else in its place? jguk 18:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I see there’s enough consensus to remove it, but for I was the one asking for it I won’t do the edit. FWIW, I would never advocate changing proper names which use one or the other form of the abbreviation—if I did I would adress the nameholder not WP. Christoph Päper 00:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I know this is somewhat orthogonal to the issue at hand, but I think it merits mention: one of the arguments given against using the full expansion United States for US/U.S./U. S. is that "the article is too long already". I feel that that the implication here, namely that a long article should adopt the use of abbreviations as a technique to avoid being too long, is patently wrong. Wikipedia is not paper—if an article is too long, then what we have is a problem with organization, and no amount of using abbreviations is going to fix it. The use of abbreviations can only make an article more ambiguous and more opaque, and we should always be striving for less ambiguity and less opacity. Nohat 08:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Consensus?
Again, I see no consensus to change the style. If anything, it looks like the split is about even. Maurreen (talk) 02:39, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Nevertheless, if there is no consensus to change, that means that there is also isn't consensus to keep it the same. The page should be changed to clarify that there is no consensus on the topic. To leave it as it is would be to misrepresent the nature of the consensus, or more accurately, the lack thereof. Nohat 03:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. To apply that principle widely could lead to chaos. Do you base this on any WP reference? Maurreen (talk) 03:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It's not chaos, it's The Wiki Way. Nowhere does it say that the MoS is exempt from the normal Wiki process. Nohat 06:51, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I mean really, to not do this would be abhorrent. Any current policy guideline needs to have consensus support to stay a policy or guideline. To do otherwise goes against the very essence of how Wikipedia works. Nohat 07:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Apparently we interpret The Wiki Way differently. Why don't we agree to disagree on the specifics of that and wait a day to see if anyone but the three of us weighs in on this? Maurreen (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm confused... does your interpretation of The Wiki Way allow for minority rule? Aren't guidelines supposed to reflect community consensus? Nohat 07:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

IMO, a guideline should need both consensus to add and consensus to remain - and this one clearly has no consensus to remain, even if there is no 80% in favour of a replacement as yet. It also tends not to be observed in many articles that do not have dots after other two-letter abbreviations anyway. I've offered comments above on a possible formulation that may enjoy consensus, and would welcome positive comments and other ideas in constructing one, jguk 06:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise?

 * Jguk, there was no consensus on "September 11, 2001 attacks", and you chose not to compromise. Are you open to some give-and-take on both? Maurreen (talk) 07:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Maurreen, that discussion was about whether one additional comma was or was not added to the title. Where the discussion boils down as to which of two options we have, compromise isn't possible - come the end of the day we plump for A or B - there is nothing in between A or B that would allow for compromise. Where issues, such as we have here, are not so black and white, there's more room for manoeuvre, jguk 07:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I disagree. Several options were offered. I only voted against one. Another option would be not to repeat the title in the article, but you reverted that. Maurreen (talk) 07:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC) And you have criticized my concern about a comma. I don't see how your concern about a couple of periods is any more weighty. Maurreen (talk) 07:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * WP articles show the title in bold in the first sentence. The only thing to compromise on there would have been the article title, and personally I think the article should be located at 9/11 as that's the most common name for it - but unfortunately I was in somewhat of a minority there. My concern, as ever, is readability. In the 9/11 discussions, my concern was that to add another comma just looks wrong, very wrong (and is therefore very distracting) - at least to a non-American reader. American sources suggested some Americans use and some do not use a second comma - so thinking of the readers, the conclusion is that there should not be a second comma (although a complete name change would have been a possibility if there's an alternative that would be generally acceptable). Here, it is a case of aesthetics - if an article uses a number of two-letter abbreviations, should they not all be dealt with in a similar way? (and note that I do not suggest prescribing which way is used) What would it mean to do otherwise? And isn't it distracting to see a variety of approaches used, which would make an article look slipshod rather than well-written? Of course, as someone else has noted, it may be preferable to avoid using abbreviations in the first place wherever it is sensible to do so, jguk 08:07, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

I would support deleting the current guideline in favor of changing "Proper names should retain their original spellings, for example, United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force." to "Proper names should retain their original spellings and punctuations, for example, U.S. Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force." Otherwise, I oppose removal. I still don't see how punctuation and spellings are different from it comes to proper names. --Jiang 07:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

The proper name of the US Department of Defence is "United States Department of Defense" not "U.S. Department of Defense". On the punctuation front, I think what you propose is neither practical nor desirable. It would mean that every time you have an abbreviation you'd need to research into whether it should or should not have dots - and then you'd have to decide what to do with abbreviations where there is no one firm rule. It would make articles look silly to refer to, say : "XY, K.Z., WUDJ, DH and J.D.L.E. ....", and would clearly give no benefit to the reader. The other problem with the guideline is, whether rightly or wrongly, it gives the appearance of saying America is different from the rest - and it is the edit wars that derived from this that started this discussion (see above). Why, of all possible abbreviations should we single out "US" for a special rule? And how do you really think that goes down with non-Americans? jguk 07:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * There is no need to research - the rule only applies to clear cut cases. Is it not practical to "research" everytime we have an article to decide whether it is more "British" or more "American"? It is not singling out America - the guideline also requires that "UK" appear without periods. The current rules do not provide such a guideline. --Jiang

 * What an absolutely horrible strawman of an argument. What exactly is an XY, a K.Z., a WUDJ, a DH, or a J.D.L.E.?  One of the reasons why U.S. gets special attention is that it is an abbreviation that is widely understood without being spelled out in full the first time. Caerwine 13:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * This is strawman. "US" is as easily understood as "U.S."! jguk 15:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Here's a compromise proposal -- replace the current paragraph with the following:
 * Wikipedia's style for identity is to "use terminology that subjects use for themselves". The majority of U.S. references on the language support: spelling out "United States" and normally using "U.S." when abbreviating it.
 * Also, because this discussion has been going on for a while, I ask that no one be in a hurry to end it. Maurreen (talk) 08:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Moving to what subjects use to identify themselves is really not the way forward. We would not be able to describe Jonathan King as a convicted sex offender or paedophile - indeed, we would have to delete a lot of descriptions throughout WP that the subject doesn't identify themselves. We are not here to write autobiographies or company puff, we're here to write an encyclopaedia. There is a reason why we state explicitly that those identity guidelines are non-binding.

 * Jiang says there's no need to do research under his proposal, yet fails to say when we should or should not decide to adopt a style a subject prefers - not really a good way forward. He also says that under the current guidelines, "UK" must be written without dots - Jiang is mistaken here.

 * I must say that to me it seems obvious that an article should either always use dots after two-letter abbreviations or not. What's the big deal about having dots in "U.S."? Is it something teachers drum into people at American schools? I'm genuinely surprised about why there's so much resistance about removing what to me seems like a complete anomaly, jguk 10:37, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "What's the big deal?" goes both ways. Maurreen (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You're the one arguing that we should have a rule on this, rather than to let users make up their own minds depending on context. The "big deal" is that we should put our readers first and present to them well-written consistent articles. It is also that this guideline has, if you look above, given rise to edit wars in the past, and will do in the future. We're all well aware of how vicious US v British v Commonwealth English disputes can get, this just seems like more fuel for them, jguk 11:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Youre throwing a red herring here. We are limiting the scope of this to proper names. "Jonathan King" is a proper name. "convicted sex offender or paedophile" is not. Your whole argument is irrelvant here. What Maurreen has proposed is much like the status quo.

 * "when we should or should not decide to adopt a style a subject prefers" applies only in the case of proper names. Descriptions and other fluff are still bound by accuracy and npov. I say that under proposed guidelines, "UK" must be written without dots. I say that under current guidelines, UK may or may not be written without dots.

 * The use of dots is not a complete anomaly. go to CNN.com, CBSnews.com, MSNBC.com or any of the other major American news network sites and you'll see dots all over the place: U.S., U.K., U.N., etc. At least you don't have to see U.K. or U.N. in wikipedia. --Jiang 10:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The sites you quote are consistent in having dots for all two-letter abbreviations. I see nothing wrong with that. Similarly, BBC.co.uk has no dots for all two-letter abbreviations. Likewise, I see nothing wrong with that. It is sensible to require that one of these two approaches is taken in any given article (ie to allow either approach in any one WP article). What we shouldn't do is to say use one of these two approaches, but, hang on a second, if you decide not to have dots, but want to refer the the US, you must use dots for that, jguk 11:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I take it that you consider the GPO Style Manual to be insensible then. It favors a third approach which calls for a mixture of pointed and unpointed abbreviations, following the convention of the entity that is named.  (It also avoids the issue of whether to use UK or U.K. by calling for the United Kingdom to never be abbreviated, which is somewhat beside the point.) Caerwine 13:35, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I certainly do consider the GPO Style Manual to be insensible. It's an unwieldy thing, and probably the worst style guide I've ever seen - even the Chicago Manual of Style, which is avoided with a vengeance this side of the Pond, is preferable to it. Let me tell you now, if you want to be thought of as a good writer, do not follow the GPO! jguk 15:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

 * It certainly is stodgy, but I wouldn't call it insensible. Considering that its target is intended to be formal writing only, not journalese, not business prose, but only formal and/or legal writing, its stodginess is appropriate for its subject matter. Journalism oriented style guides are more suited as an inspiation for Wikinews, not Wikipedia which is an example of formal writing, not journalism. Caerwine 15:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Back to the proposal
Here's my compromise proposal, tweaked slightly from above -- replace the current paragraph with the following:
 * Wikipedia's style for identity is to "use terminology that subjects use for themselves". The majority of U.S. references on the language support: spelling out "United States" as a noun and normally using "U.S." when abbreviating it.
 * The proposal contains no "pleas" or imperatives, just a few statements. Can anyone offer any evidence that any of the statements are not true? Maurreen (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem with this is that it implicitly restates the current guideline, for which there is no consensus to keep (or indeed remove), and by trying to summarise a long guideline on identity restates it in an impractical way. Our style is emphatically not to always "use terminology that subjects use for themselves" - as can be seen in many an article about a criminal and/or politician.

As of yet you have not responded to my comments above or answered the questions I raised. I'd be grateful if you would, jguk 07:20, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * So, do you believe WP style on identity should make exceptions for criminals, politicians and the United States? You are normally against singling out a country.
 * About responding to your comments and questions:

 * 1) Several times you have chosen not to answer my questions.
 * 2) The question of aesthetics is subjective.
 * 3) As I've said before, edit wars are determined more by the participants than the style guide.
 * 4) You said above, "a guideline should need both consensus to add and consensus to remain." This is inconsistent with your position about "her majesty" and the like.
 * 5) One of your arguments is that the style is often not observed. Speed limits are often not observed. Should we do away with them?
 * 6) You say, "Why, of all possible abbreviations should we single out "US" for a special rule?"
 * 7) We don't need to single it out. We could add more.
 * 8) I think my proposal addresses "why."
 * 9) You say, "And how do you really think that goes down with non-Americans?" -- No worse than your various campaigns come across to many people.
 * 10) "Moving to what subjects use to identify themselves is really not the way forward." -- I disagree. See above.
 * 11) "We are not here to write autobiographies ..." -- Haven't you worked on many articles about cricket players?
 * 12) "... or company puff" -- I don't see how standard punctuation equates to puffery.
 * 13) "I must say that to me it seems obvious that an article should either always use dots after two-letter abbreviations or not." -- Obviously, it is not so to everyone, or the style wouldn't be there in the first place.
 * 14) "What's the big deal about having dots in 'U.S.'" -- The deal is not bigger than not having the periods.
 * 15) "Is it something teachers drum into people at American schools?" -- That's not the most productive way to phrase things.
 * 16) "I'm genuinely surprised about why there's so much resistance ..." -- I don't see any more resistance to changing the style than resistance to the current style.
 * 17) "You're the one arguing that we should have a rule on this" -- You're the one arguing that we shouldn't. Perhaps arguments could have been avoided if you had handled the issue differently.
 * 18) "We're all well aware of how vicious US v British v Commonwealth English disputes can get." -- Then please don't start them or fan the flames.
 * 19) "What we shouldn't do is to say use one of these two approaches, but, hang on a second, if you decide not to have dots, but want to refer the the US, you must use dots for that." -- You are welcome to you opinion, but at least one style guide disagrees with you (that of The Associated Press).
 * 20) "if you want to be thought of as a good writer, do not follow the GPO!" -- No style guide is going to make anyone a good writer. Maurreen (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen, since you say it is no big deal, why do you argue so strongly for the retention of the guideline. If it's no big deal, shouldn't you be neutral on this? jguk 18:30, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I din't say it is or is not a big deal. I said I don't see that it's bigger to me than it is to you. Maurreen (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Riddles? What about getting rid of the guideline? Though to be honest, as long as no-one actually tries to copy-edit to impose it, it won't make a difference either way. If someone does try to copyedit to impose it, there will be much acrimony (and not just from me), jguk 20:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Given the lack of consensus about the present text, it should go. It's just a question of what, if anything, should replace it? Maybe nothing would be best, jguk 18:22, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

 * "use terminology that subjects use for themselves" won't work because it wrongly presupposes that there is a clearly discoverable fact of the matter. We've already dscovered that different people in the U.S. and the U.K. have different approached to punctuation.  I disapprove of the modern journalist-led move away from punctuation (of all kinds) in this country, and I'm in a large minority at least (I have to read material written by people of all ages, and from many different backgrounds).  To say that I'm right or that they're right,a s a guide to Wikipedia practice, would be arbitrary.  My impression is that things are even more complex in the U.S.  Why not go for clarity rather than trying to determine our usage according to some sort of impossible democratic process?  Full stops signal an abbreviation in which words stop before the end (the limit case being a single letter), their absence signals that this isn't the case.  ZOOM isn't an abbreviation, U.S. is.  Could anything be simpler?
 * This is, of course, leaving aside the genuine difference between U.S. and U.K. use of the full stop in abbreviations (as in "Saint/St" vs "Saint/St."), but let's not get into that. --Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 14:44, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, as I pointed out above, the U.S. Government has specific rules on this and therefore applying the "use terminology that subjects use for themselves" rule in articles or references relating to the U.S. Government means that those rules should be followed there. Outside of those usages, how and when to abbreviate the United States is much more personal taste. Caerwine 14:58, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That "stop before the end" notion is mostly British, resulting in not only the "St" you mention (note that in the U.S., addresses often use "St" without a period as well as with it for street, but "St." for Saint usually has the period), but also "Dr" and "Mr" and "Fr", for example, rather than the American "Dr.", "Mr.", and "Fr." and the like.  Gene Nygaard 15:07, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Jguk -- Lack of consensus did not stop you from making changes you agreed with, in the style guide and elsewhere.
 * Mel Etitis -- This is not clear to me: "Full stops signal an abbreviation in which words stop before the end (the limit case being a single letter), their absence signals that this isn't the case." Can you give a few more examples? Maurreen (talk) 06:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Maurreen - the WP approach is a "be bold" approach - if something is added with which people disagree, it soon gets removed and discussed on the talk page, so you can't blame me for that. All - I have removed the bit which clearly no longer has consensus (and probably hasn't done so for months). There remains the question of whether anything (that does have consensus) should replace it. I'm not convinced that there are any benefits in replacing it. Punctuation rules have some flexibility within each form of standard English as it is. There are also some very noticeable dialectal differences, jguk 07:27, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Compromise proposal 2

 * For easy reference, here's the bit that jguk removed:
 * When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country, is easier to search for automatically, and we want one uniform style on this. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the United States. (e.g. "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S.").
 * While it is clear that as is, that guidance has some flaws, I think that we should provide some guidance. Let me try a hand at it since Maureen's sensible approach met some objections.
 * There are two commonly used ways to abbreviate "United States", "US" and "U.S.", due to differences in abbreviation style. In general, abbreviation style should be harmonized to the rules of one particular style guide.  However, Wikipedia's style for identity is to "use terminology that subjects use for themselves".  Therefore when referring to the government of the United States or its agencies, one should exhibit a preference for its own rules on this topic. Those rules are to never abbreviate the United States when used as a noun, to use the form "U.S." when used as a stand alone adjective, and to not use periods when the United States is included as part of an offical acronym or initialism.  For example, the army of the United States should be referred to either in full as the "United States Army" which can either be abbreviated to "U.S. Army" or be replaced by initialism "USA".
 * So what do people think of this? Caerwine 15:50, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think this would be fine. But most of all, any sane standard is better than no standard. On issues where there is unanimity, a manual of style is redundant, or at best a way of educating the ignorant. It is precisely where there is more than one reasonable way to do things that clueful people need a manual of style. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Removing the guidance about using dots for U.S. was not warranted, in my view. It is the common use. It serves the purpose of clarity for the reader, distinguishing from the pronoun "US". There was no consensus for removing it; most comments here, in fact, are in favor of keeping. It should be restored. Jonathunder 16:41, 2005 August 14 (UTC)

 * It was warranted as it clearly did not have consensus. If there is wording that does enjoy widespread support, that wording should go in its place.

 * I'm a bit puzzled by one point Caerwine mentions - don't all the US government agencies have "United States" spelt out in full in their name. Presumably we either should spell it out in full, or alternatively, if we do want an adjective meaning "of or pertaining to the United States of America" we should just use "American"? jguk 16:55, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Just as there times when it would be inappropriate to replace "UK" with "British" or "Anglo" despite these being commonly used as substitutes, there are occassions when replacing "U.S." with "American" would be inappropriate. As for the "United States" being present in U.S. agency names, that is the case, but as given by GPO rule 9.9 quoted above, except in extremely formal or legalistic contexts the preference is to abbreviate it to "U.S.". Caerwine 18:10, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

We are not adopting the GPO style guide (nor, indeed, any other style guide). The sooner we ignore the GPO the better, jguk 18:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * If we're going to change the style (and I'm not sure there is consensus to do so), Caerwine's proposal is a reasonable compromise. Maurreen (talk) 19:54, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The only place where definitive guidance under this proposal about how and when to abbreviate "United States" is in the case where it is referring to the Federal Government itself. The GPO rule is used as gudance not because of any subjective opinion about the quality of its style manual, but because of the objective fact that it is evidence of how the U.S. Government wishes references to itself to be handled. Caerwine 21:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Follow common U.S. style
This discussion baffles me. You cannot omit the periods from abbreviations that are easily confused with words. This is why publication style guides in the U.S. with which I'm familiar call for periods in abbreviating the United States. . Follow Associated Press, NYT, Washington Post, and most other newspaper style guides. (Most also rule out use of USA -- except USA Today, which loves using that abbreviation because it's part of its name.) In guidelines, clarity is key. FBI and UK and WTO are fine, US is not. DavidH 03:17, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I agree. Tree&Leaf 03:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * You cannot confuse "US" with any word, as evidenced by the large number of books, newspapers and magazines that happily use "US" without dots throughout the world. We allow all standard forms of English to be used (as long as the standard form of English chosen is used consistently throughout an article). We should stick to that principle - there's nothing special about the US that necessitates a unique rule for it, jguk 05:59, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
 * In our language, the letters "u" and "s" do actually spell a word, so I'm not sure how you can say it "cannot" be confusing. But if this is common style in UK publications (or even, as you claim, "throughout the world" though in other languages the letters do not form the objective case of "we") I can understand your preference. To US readers, I bet it looks very weird (pun intended). DavidH 12:20, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * "US" (the country) is always in capital letters, "us" will have no capitals (you can't start a sentence with it) and context will tell you what meaning "US" has, even if you were to write a message entirely in capitals - so you'll never confuse the two, jguk 13:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't youse guys start sentences with us? US GUYS DO.  Gene Nygaard 13:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

 * To put in my two bits: In articles discussing American law — for example, the United States Constitution or the United States Code — the periods need to stay or else we will end up with some weird articles from the perspective of American lawyers, and in turn, there will be some crazy edit wars. For centuries, the vast majority of American lawyers have always written U.S., and continue to write U.S. to this day.  The dominant American law dictionary, Black's Law Dictionary, uses U.S. and not US (I just consulted my personal copy of the 7th edition).  Both the Bluebook and the ALWD guide prescribe U.S.  To the best of my knowledge, only one state, New York, requires its lawyers and judges to write US instead of U.S. in legal citations.

 * Also, the official reporter for the U.S. Supreme Court, the United States Reports, is traditionally cited as U.S. --Coolcaesar 12:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Watch me care what US lawyers think ... Tony 08:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * We're not saying that dots are never used in the abbreviation, only that in articles where other abbreviations do not have dots, we shouldn't use dots for "US" - to do otherwise looks entirely weird, and as noted above, there's nothing special about the US, so there's no need to have a special rule for it, jguk 13:09, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I have one comment to make on this discussion. Let's just pick one way to abbreviate United States. Hell, we can flip a coin. It really doesn't matter, but its just a cop-out to say: "everyone just do it how they want". Firstly, it just leads to edit wars. Seconday, don't we want some consistency in Wikipedia? If not, let's just do away with the MoS altogether. Chuck 16:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

 * And what about UK, GB, NI, EU, etc., etc, ? As with everything else, we should allow any acceptable style, as long as the chosen style is used consistently in an article, jguk 18:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Jguk, isn't that at odds with your comment below in the Aluminum section? Why don't we just come up with guidance on all acronyms. Someone suggested that capital acronyms never need periods (since you wouldn't mistake them for words) while lower-case would need periods (since they otherwise might be confusing). Chuck 16:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm saying that each article should be internally consistent, but that we should not be prescriptive about which style each article uses. I've also noted that there's a consensus-cum-compromise on WP about chemistry-related articles that says WP should use the SI terms. Is my view really inconsistent? jguk 18:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd propose the following, modeled on the "National varieties of English" principles: There are two ways to abbreviate United States, U.S. and US. A majority of American style guides recommend U.S., so this is the suggested usage for articles about the United States and its institutions. There may be circumstances where US is preferable, for example where other two-letter abbreviations such as UK and UN are used. Articles that are consistent in their usage of either U.S. or US should not be edited to use the other form without good reason and advance consultation on the discussion page. --agr 12:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The above proposal seems well balanced and fitting with other rules. Full support. −Woodstone 17:33:10, 2005-08-30 (UTC)
 * I'm totally against this proposal. This is the worst possible outcome: a long, complicated explanation that, basically, provides no guidance. Nohat and I have an ongoing discussion (argument?) about which is more important: consistency of articles or simplest possible MoS. This provides neither! This is a recipe for even more acrimony than (i) the annoyance people feel when someone nitpicks an article to match the MoS or (ii) the annoyance people have in trying to determine a standard within an article where the MoS is silent. Now people on either side of a discussion could have this non-guidance to support their case. Let's either decide "U.S.", "US", or leave it out altogether.  Chuck 18:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

 * The proposal makes sense - but the MoS would say that (with far fewer words) if the guidance were just omitted. Let's do that, jguk 18:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's high time that Americans caught up with the rest of the English-speaking world, and dropped the dots. Dots have been receding from English-language formatting of initialisms and acronyms for decades now, with good reason: they are ugly, harder to read, and in most cases, redundant. Everyone else uses 'US'; why persist with 'U dot S dot'? Please don't take the same attitude to the language as you do with respect to weights and measures. Tony 08:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * In response to Tony's remark above: I have to point out that apart from the validity or invalidity of your argument in a general sense, it is irrelevant to the use of U.S. on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is supposed to be a reference work (that reflects things as they are), not a normative work (that indicates what things should be).  The majority of Americans (particularly educated Americans) use U.S. in their writing, so Wikipedia should follow that usage at least with regard to American-specific articles.  Furthermore, U.S. is likely to remain the majority usage in the United States for at least several decades more.  American lawyers are always trained to cite opinions published in the United States Reports as "U.S." when drafting documents for federal courts, and America has a lot of lawyers (whose writings in turn are quite prominent in the national media).

 * Also, I should point out that only one state, New York, uses a citation system in its courts that avoids periods, so that New York lawyers cite the United States Reports as US when drafting documents for their state courts. The vast majority of American jurisdictions, plus the federal court system, all prefer the frequent use of periods because they act as delineators and make citations easier to read.  Indeed, most Commonwealth jurisdictions also use periods in their citations (see Court citation). --Coolcaesar 02:29, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Whatever we do, we should be consistent. Either US, USA, UK, UN or U.S., U.S.A., U.K., U.N..  The only exception is if some person or company owns the initialism and has decided that it should be written in a certain way.  Claiming "that is the more common style in that country" as an excuse is like deciding that the beginning of the Berlin article should read "Berlin (pronounced:, Deutsch ) is the capital of Deutschland and its largest city". -- Smjg 16:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)