Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 U.S. vs. US 1.1 GPO Usage 1.2 Consensus? 1.3 Compromise? 1.4 Back to the proposal 1.5 Compromise proposal 2 1.6 Follow common U.S. style

U.S. vs. US

In the national varieties section:

• 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.

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)

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! FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\^{(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 standardisation organisation. 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 ...

1. The GPO is not "a US postal service" (or U.S.). It is the U.S. Government Printing Office.
2. Can you clarify your concern about punctuation?
3. "Should" is subjective and the point of discussion.
4. "U.S." is more clear than "US".
5. If you don't like "U.S.", you could use "USA", which isn't much more trouble.
6. 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?"
   1. We don't need to single it out. We could add more.
   2. I think my proposal addresses "why."
7. 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.
8. "Moving to what subjects use to identify themselves is really not the way forward." -- I disagree. See above.

#"We are not here to write autobiographies ..." -- Haven't you worked on many articles about cricket players?

1. "... or company puff" -- I don't see how standard punctuation equates to puffery.
2. "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.
3. "What's the big deal about having dots in 'U.S.'" -- The deal is not bigger than not having the periods.
4. "Is it something teachers drum into people at American schools?" -- That's not the most productive way to phrase things.
5. "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.
6. "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.
7. "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.
8. "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).
9. "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. [1] 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: [bɜ(r)ˈlɪn], Deutsch [bɛɐˈliːn]) is the capital of Deutschland and its largest city". -- Smjg 16:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)