Talk:American and British English spelling differences/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Obsolete spellings listed as "American" without explanation

I find it problematic that the "Miscellaneous spelling differences" table has a large collection of spellings that my grandmother wouldn't have recognized, placed nonchalantly in the "American" column without noting their essentially complete absence from contemporary writing. At a glance, ake, aker, artizan, quire (in the sense of "choir"), gazel, opake, partizan, rime (OK, recognizable to Coleridge fans, but not in active use), sithe. Others I'm skeptical of: gage (not that it exists, but that it's primary over gauge), sirup, slue, vizor. Taken together, I think these have the potential to confuse non-Americans about what American spelling is like. Can we perhaps put the obsolete spellings in Italics or something, to make them clearly distinct? --Trovatore (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I was surprised by some of these, but I don't have access to authorities on American usage. I would be inclined to delete some of them as imagined differences because they are probably used as much in British English (historically) as in American. I don't think that the 1828 edition of Noah Webster's dictionary can be considered an authority on current usage. Dbfirs 22:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, I gave it a good pruning, and now I don't see any obvious howlers, though I'm still a little skeptical of slue. If these are restored, it should be to a separate table of obsolete American spellings, clearly marked as such. Personally my preference would be not, but that would be considerably less objectionable than the state I found it in. --Trovatore (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the entry. It was misleading to those of us outside the US who were led to think that 1828 spellings were still current. (I wish I'd waited for your cleanup before researching the history of a couple of entries.) Dbfirs 06:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm afraid that's a bit of a Catch-22, because it was when your changes popped up on my watchlist that my attention was drawn to the issue. Or to phrase it more cheerfully, your research wasn't wasted. --Trovatore (talk) 06:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I enjoyed the research anyway, especially when I found that a so-called British spelling was first used by a famous American. I think that some people like to emphasise the differences between the languages. There are some genuine differences, but not as many as some people imagine, and some are just preferences of style. Dbfirs 06:59, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant part in -og/-ogue and boogeyman spelling difference

In the section called "-ogue, -og" it seems unnecessary to leave in the final sentence: "American English retains the -gue on the words tongue, vague and league." None of these words fit the profile of the section, which is clear since they don't have an "og" like the rest of the words in the section...

Also, in the section titled "Different spellings for different pronunciations" why is "boogerman" a US term. I am from the Southern US and have never heard the term boogerman as opposed to boogeyman. This is further shown by the fact that the link for boogerman in the table goes to an empty page, and on the page for Bogeyman there is merely an obscure reference to "boogerman" being a part of the US south, while no citation is provided.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.110.5.89 (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2013‎ (UTC)

-ique, -ic, -y, -ie...

Spellings which are now considered archaic -ique (poetique, musique, logique...) a replaced almost anywhere with -ic (poetic, music, logic...) but retain in some falls (unique, critique, relique, antique, technique...), should also be included. Same fall is with spellings -y (allegory, memory, melancholy...) to -ie or -ia (allegorie, memorie, melacholie...), and silent e (poete, mythe, sexe...) instead of more common spellings (poet, myth, sex...). Slavić (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Are these not just differences between modern spellings and historic spellings? Are there actually any differences here between American and British spellings? I can't see any. Dbfirs 22:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Same thought here. If there were a documented AmE/BrE difference here I would be interested to hear about it; I too think it's more like old/new. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

British; cheque American; check, British; banque American; bank... Slavić (talk) 09:30, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

British; bank, certainly not banque. - SchroCat (talk) 10:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Cheque and check are already dealt with under "miscellaneous spelling differences". I am not convinced that there is anything to discuss here as an AmE/BrE difference. The question of archaic spellings is not the same as this article's topic. I am not planning on using the spelling "relique" in modern BrE any time soon, and I don't think they do in AmE either. :) 82.45.217.156 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Misdirected e-book link?

When I click on the reference

• Clark, Joe (2009). Organizing Our Marvellous Neighbours: How to Feel Good About Canadian English (e-book, version 1.1). ISBN 978-0-9809525-0-6.

I get a site that's in Japanese, and when I ask for it to be translated, it appears to be a site for a shipping agency. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed. (Note that entering the full book title in Google does include the original site near the beginning of the results list. The site I changed it to came from WorldCat.) Fat&Happy (talk) 17:53, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Citations needed?

Editor Lihaas has tagged the article as original research and citations needed. Whilst I agree that in-line citations are beneficial, we have nine excellent references given at the end of the article, against which to check facts. It would help if some indication could be given as to which of the statements might be doubted, rather than asking us to add hundreds of links to the same dictionary. Dbfirs 15:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Mitigation: I agree that page-specific citation for all assertions would be gargantuan (then best a hide/fold-away section). I also think there is a large verification disconnect on this page, compared with most other WP pages visitors are likely to have visited (mostly verified by on-line citation).

"Nine excellent references": Hold the superlatives there! For me, 'excellent' would be those which are on-line, then on a reducing scale of: open, registration, subscription.

The nine authoritative references would be more palatable if their dialect-scope were clearer. I suggest we tabulate these, with four right-side narrow (colour-coded) columns to indicate dialects significantly/authoritatively covered: British English, U.S. English, Canadian English and other English. This would somewhat reduce the verification disconnect.

Cites by whole book/web-reference would be an alternative to a gargantuan references section.

If we choose to go for either everything-cited goal, it would be good to approach/structure the work within a progressive process of improvement, rather than fixating on a big bang adoption.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we have an advantage here in the UK in that we can get access to the full on-line OED through our library cards, and I appreciate that this facility is not open to all. I agree that authoritative is the word that I should have used. Most of the facts stated in the article can be verified in the OED, but there are a few where we would need other references (and possibly one or two that are of dubious veracity, though I think we've removed the worst offenders). I suppose the whole article would fit better as an appendix to Wiktionary, but it would be a pity to lose it from Wikipedia, because people do come here to check the facts. The article is actually titled "American and British ...", but I agree that some notes on other varieties of English would be useful. One problem is that Canada changes its mind sometimes (the modern preference being to adopt all-British spelling with the exception of spellings related to the car industry), and Australia is slowly accepting American spellings as alternatives. It's very difficult to cover all varieties accurately because it depends on whom you ask, but the British/American separation is more clear-cut and better documented. With 192 in-line citations, I think the article is quite well-referenced, but I'd be happy to add some more OED cites for the spellings that it distinguishes clearly. Where the OED fails, Webster's usually fills in the gaps for American and British spellings. Dbfirs 17:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Library card's how I get at OED.com (my OED2 is in storage). However, when I first stumbled upon the facility, I recall that, the territories for library card validity was unspecified – then, since their offices were then in NYC, I was left hoping it would also work for U.S. library cards. Whatever the offering, this seemed somewhat obfuscational and make a rigorous description of availability – on the open / registration / subscription spectrum – relatively exotic, something like:

Requires subscription, except in regions where registration by library card is allowed (including UK<!-- Add newly verified regions to list. -->).

"Most of the facts stated in the article can be verified in the OED" – I bow, and don't have a generalised perspective. So we have ...

1. A WP article British English, American English, their interrelation/subsuming vis WP and else,
2. which is designated to be in American English,
3. which is underpinned by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED),
4. where OED access is costly for almost all readers who are systemingly biased toward American English, over British English.

... quite some border town! Thus, tending to appear/gravitate as a one-way encryption cache/gateway :/ As such, I think special measures to ensure exhaustive clarity are warranted, e.g.s overlinking publication-pages in the 'Reference' section, a prominent OED.com link (with availability explained).

Shifting content to Wiktionary sounds a good idea, though I'm not familiar with Wiktionary appendices (I imagine the content would be deconstructed/split lexicographically).

When I wrote "... indicate dialects significantly/authoritatively covered: ... and other English", I was not suggesting an expansion of the article to scope all dialects (merely acknowledge that a source may be on more than one dialect – in fact desirably so, for this page). I would prefer it if the the page were split to United States and British English spelling differences, Canadian and British English spelling differences and Canadian and United States English spelling differences – since I the the gateway encumbrance, above, is quite a demanding workload enough, for the page. (Such might also preclude much of the citation problem, under discussion.)

It seems were in agreement that, by a long way, this is the most academic WP article most readers see, outside their own specific interests. I'm strongly against 'dumbing down' (it defeats the object), but it should come as no surprise that together multi-perspective clarity and rigour are extra work.   – Ian, DjScrawl (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ngram Viewer

In view of the call for more citations and less original research, in short for verifiable material, perhaps the Google Ngram Viewer is useful here. Using this viewer, we discover, for instance, that kilogram and kilogramme were of comparable frequency in 20th century British publications, not what the article leads us to believe. There is always the difference between what is believed and what happens in practise -- and for this purpose the Ngram viewer is invaluable in separating the two. Modus Vivendi (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I was taught that the correct British spellings were gramme and kilogramme, but conventions have changed over the last sixty years, and the distinction is no longer an American/British one but a dated/modern distinction. The articles at gram and kilogram are clear. I'm not convinced that the words require entries here. (I notice that you adopt American practice!) Dbfirs 11:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

My intention in focussing on this word was to illustrate that citing the Ngram Viewer as a reference could be valuable inasmuch as it tracks actual usage rather than prescriptions. I don't disagree with what was said about "kilogram/kilogramme" in the article, but I used it as a reference point for the value of the Ngram Viewer not to correct what is said about individual words which can fluctuate but how to get definitive information about words not listed. Modus Vivendi (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's certainly a useful tool for comparing usages, but it needs to be used with care (as I'm sure it will be in your hands). Dbfirs 08:06, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Therefore I hope someone adds a reference to the Ngram Viewer in the Articles External References section. I could do it myself of course, but I'd prefer it to come from a primary author. Modus Vivendi (talk) 09:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

American synagog?

American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#-ogue.2C_-og says that synagog would more likely be observed than synagogue in American literature. Granted, I don't frequently see synagogue either, but as an American, I have never seen synagog and it looks like a very weak misspelling that one might see based solely on this "rule" of spelling differences, so to speak. D. F. Schmidt (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

-- It is one of those variants, like cancelation, that seemingly are included just because they are "possible" not because they are used. I was unable to locate synagog in any mainstream use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.73.22.113 (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I drove to the synagog where a swastika had been painted on the wall. ... Press release from the White House. (Sep, 2000) --AnWulf ... Wes þu hal! (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good find, but I can't say it really changes my mind. In my experience, "synagog" is essentially unused in the States, to the point that it looks like a spelling error. And for that matter, I'm not sure it wasn't just a spelling error in the case you found. --Trovatore (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Past tenses etc.

I restored a couple of paragraphs that were recently deleted with the claim that they had nothing to do with spelling. I can see the reasoning, but readers might come here to ask how does one spell the past tense of "spell"?. This is dealt with in the linked article Comparison of American and British English, so I suppose it is not essential that it is also included here, but I'd be inclined to leave it. What does anyone else think? Dbfirs 21:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on spelt / spelled. It seems to me that dove / dived is a closer call, but its inclusion is probably reasonable provided it not be used as an excuse to digress into topics even farther from spelling. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• For the word "diagram"--what's the proper American vs. British spelling of the past & present tenses? (e.g. diagramed / diagrammed; diagraming / diagramming) Miriam-Webster says either is correct, MS-Word 2010 (US-English) likes both, WordPerfect X5 (US-English) likes "diagramed", Firefox 27.0.1 likes "diagrammed"... 1PBFOOT (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

British English tends to avoid the verbing of nouns, but this noun has been occasionally turned into a verb since Thomas Carlyle wrote "They are matters which refuse to be theoremed and diagramed." in 1841. Subsequent (but rare) British spellings seem to have doubled the consonant in accordance with usual spelling rules on this side of the pond, but I think either spelling would be accepted. Personally, I would never use the so-called verb in formal writing, only in jest. Dbfirs 08:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Diagramming is not a general verbing; it's something you do to sentences (see sentence diagram). Do children not learn to diagram sentences in the UK? What do they do to them, then? --Trovatore (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I recall being taught to parse sentences (dependency-style), but not to draw pictures of them. I think that, where the technique is taught in the UK, the diagrams are called sentence trees or parse trees. "Sentence diagramming" does appear on some websites that Google claims to be UK sites, but they are mainly written by Americans, or quote American publications. Dbfirs 11:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

American words ending in -ize with no corresponding term in British English

There has been, for some time, a statement about there being no British English word that corresponds to burglarize. Now it may not have been very well written, but it did, I think, serve a purpose. That statement was recently deleted. So, rather than revert, I re-wrote it, I think, in a slightly better way and more generic, and added a reference. Now that has been reverted.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to have this specific point raised in this specific section of this specific article, i.e. that there are -ize words in US usage that have no correspondence in UK usage, and therefore are not simply spelled -ise. If this article were simply there to inform Americans about British English spelling, or Britons about American spelling, then its value might be less. But assuming there's also an audience who are neither, and who may wish to write appropriately for a specific audience, I think its value is indisputable.

I would have also though that, given the point in the summary of the reversion about burgle being a made-up term, the point I made that burglarize is a regular formation and burgle is back-formed would be welcomed by American English users.

So can we not find some compromise wordings on which we can agree?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I just don't think it's a spelling difference. If we're going to digress that far, then the article should be renamed. --Trovatore (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not strictly a spelling difference, that is true; rather, to the majority of British English speakers/writers, either spelling of burglarize or burglarise is anathema. However, it is in a subsection that specifically relates to exceptions to the –ize and –ise spelling differences. Now burglarize should never be transcribed by replacing the –ize with –ise (except in facetious use). So it is clearly an exception, and should be in there.

There's also a somewhat tortuous logical argument that 'exceptions' implies a subsection scope that is some sort of inversion of the scope of the section, and thus the scope of the article. Hence, this example, even though it is not a spelling difference, does not stop the article itself being about spelling differences. It's the section on punctuation that does that.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops sorry, it was me who caused this by deleting it. I'm having a horribly busy week+weekend so please forgive me for not discussing it properly but, briefly: (1) I've no objection to this content as such: it is a real and documentable difference between the two types of English. (2) It is as noted NOT a spelling difference - it's a word usage difference. The back-formation thing is interesting and worth talking about but the words burgle/burglarize are somewhere along a spectrum with favor/favour at one end and bonnet/hood at the other. I'm not sure how I think we should resolve this but I agree that it would be a pity to lose, completely, this piece of information from the encyclopaedia as a whole. (3) I am very clear, though, that the particular location within the article from which I removed it was absolutely the wrong place for it to be. This at least was right, even if I didn't have the nous to figure out what else to do with it. I hope this helps a bit (and I'm sorry if it doesn't!) In haste, but with best wishes to all, DBaK (talk) 09:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I promise I will try to come back to this interesting topic. Just rushed off feet and our front door now. 10:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I still believe it should be in the #exceptions subsection of the -ize/-ise section, as it is a word spelled -ize in American but not spelled -ise in British English. Having looked elsewhere on the net, there seem to be plenty of people who are confused over this particular difference, and I think this is one of the places it should be mentioned, albeit not at any length.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As the entry was, and should be, in the #Exceptions subsection to the section #Greek-derived spellings#-ise, -ize (-isation, -ization), I must ask what do you consider the words in this subsection to be, and more specifically, what they are exceptions to?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

My opinion is that specific #Exceptions subsection should contain words spelled/spelt with either -ize or -ise (or -isation or -ization) and which are exceptions to the pattern of spelling differences between American (US) and British (UK) English words described in, #Greek-derived spellings#-ise, -ize (-isation, -ization).

Generally: This is the situation for all the other words that are described in this exceptions subsection: they are all spelled/spelt in either -ize or -ise, and none of them are spelled -ize in the US and spelt -ise in the UK. Certainly in most cases, they are not, themselves, spelling differences between the US and UK, because they are spelled/spelt the same in both. However, it is neither that they are not spelling differences nor why they are not that matters, it is simply that they do not follow the pattern for words ending in the Greek-derived -ize (or -ise to some in the UK). Indeed, they could be spelling differences and still be exceptions, but only if they are spelled -ise in the US and -ize in the UK. I haven't looked if there are any such words, but their existence isn't relevant to this discussion anyway.

Specifically: It is certainly the case that when Briticizing American English you should not transcribe burglarize to burglarise, i.e. burglarise is not a British English word. So, on those few occasions where, burglarize is used in the UK, mostly in a facetious sense, i.e. to take the mickey, it should still be spelt burglarize. Hence, burglarize is clearly an exception to the normal pattern for words ending in the Greek-derived -ize, and the absolutely right place for such exceptions is in this specific #Exceptions subsection.

I agree that what was there was not perfect. I did try to improve on this, and I think I did better. I tried to make it clear that there is a class of words ending in -ize in US, but not ending in -ise in UK English, because the words are not used in British English. They are, as a class, therefore exceptions to the pattern given above this subsection and so should be discussed within it. It may be that burglarize is the only example of this class of words. However, I would not claim that without a reliable source. I did mention burgle; however, this is not intended as an exception in itself (it could not be, it is not spelt in either -ize or -ise), only as part of the explanation of why burglarize is an exception to the 'normal' pattern.

What I cannot understand, and therefore cannot possibly agree with until I do, is the assertion that because burglarized is "not a spelling difference", it should not be in that specific exceptions subsection or this page. Few, if any, of the other words in that section are spelling differences between US and UK English. Indeed, if burglarized were spelt burglarised in the UK, i.e. was a spelling difference, that would be the only valid reason for it not being in this #Exceptions subsection. Also, if words that are not spelling differences between US and UK English were explicitly excluded from this #Exclusions subsection (through some rule that I completely fail to see), at least most, and possibly all, of the examples that are currently discussed therein would also have to be removed from it.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:20, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am still unable to devote serious time to discussing this but please note that I did not delete your revamped version. My strong objection earlier was to the word's precise placement in that bulleted list, which was clearly wrong at any price, and I thought your compromise solution was quite good. That is, in keeping the information but removing it from the bulleted section you answered most or all of my concerns. Accordingly, I will put your later version back in as a basis for discussion. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Graphic comparing usage of metre/meter

There are two main usages of metre/meter which would have been captured in the source data.
1 - The unit of measurement of length (UK - metre, US - meter)
2 - a device used to measure (eg, a water meter) which is "meter" in both UK and US English.
I am guessing that the person who created American_and_British_English_spelling_popularity.png did not go through the 200 000 pages of source data to separate out these two usages (and there are other usages, such as poetic metre/meter). As such, the graphic is not a correct representation of the two spellings, and this should be removed from the graphic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamMaestro (talk • contribs) 08:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that its content is meaningless for this page unless the creator made the distinctions you mention. Deos anyone object to its removal? Dbfirs 18:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That image is original research and should be removed. Taketa (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Original research

comparison of the popularity of common differences between American and British English on Wikipedia as of March 2013. The article backup from March 4th was used. Analyzing 200,000 articles achieved significant stability in the results.

I came across this article and have my doubts with the image to the right, as the caption states it uses data from Wikipedia itself. It seems to me that this is original research, and not suitable for Wikipedia, the use of text on this website should not, as only information, be used to show the popularity of certain words. The description on commons: "Analyzing 200,000 articles achieved significant stability in the results." gives another indication of original research problems here. Mvg, Basvb (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

+1 Someone actually researched it themselves to make the image, no secundary sources were used. So this is original research and unfit for Wikipedia. - Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned in a thread above, it probably also contains a misleading error regarding the spelling "meter". No-one has objected to its removal during the past six months. Dbfirs 12:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

" Some British dialects have mam,[111] and this is often used in Northern English, Hiberno-English"

This should probably say "British and Irish dialects" as Hiberno-English is not usually considered a British dialect. For instance the article for British dialects says "The Oxford English Dictionary applies the term to English as "spoken or written in the British Isles; esp[ecially] the forms of English usual in Great Britain", reserving "Hiberno-English" for the "English language as spoken and written in Ireland". If nobody has any problems with the edit Im going to change to make the distinction clearer. Ultan42 (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I would have left it as it was, because the article to which you link specifically includes Northern Ireland dialects in the definition of British English. Are we intending to include English as spoken in the Irish Republic? Dbfirs 19:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I get the check?

There is already an entry on cheque vs check, but I note that in the US it is common to ask at a restaurant for the "check" whereas in the UK, the "bill" would be requested. Would this be considered in scope for the page or not? 141.228.106.147 (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What about Comparison of American and British English instead, as bill vs check is not actually a spelling difference.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 18:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Harken

Google ngrams indicates that hearken is the more common spelling in American English, as in British English. Is it true that some modern American dictionaries prefer the shorter spelling? If so, are they ignored in practice? Dbfirs 10:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Consistent use of em dash, unspaced, or en spaced dash

Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Dashes gives "Use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes consistently in an article." This article is, in this respect, a bit of a dog's dinner, in that there are spaced hyphens, spaced en dashes, and unspaced em dashes. However, there are, still, more spaced en dashes and hyphens than unspaced em dashes. So I propose to change them all to spaced en dashes - probably later today.Graham.Fountain | Talk 10:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Quire is just archaic for choir.

Isn't this just a difference between archaic and modern spelling. Is there really a pondian difference? Dbfirs 22:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that there is no difference of a pondian nature; I've never seen it used in either Britain or the USA as a name for the collection of people who sing together.

As far as I can be sure, apart from the name for a certain number of sheets of paper, quire is only used in Anglican churches (and cathedrals, etc) as the name of that place in the chancel where the choir sits or stands. If the choir is in the nave, the place is called the choir. Confusing, perhaps. (If the quire's got the choir, the choir's got no choir. But if the choir's got the choir, the quire's got no choir). Twistlethrop (talk) 08:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming what I thought. I don't think Webster's 1828 opinion has much modern impact (some of his reforms were adopted and some have been almost totally forgotten). I've removed the entry, but retained it below just in case anyone else has a contrary opinion. Dbfirs 09:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

|- valign="top"

|choir || choir,
quire || Quire (meaning "band of singers"), the earlier spelling, was given as an alternative spelling by Webster (1828, 1844 and 1913) and Century Dictionary. Choir emerged in the 17th century and is influenced by the Latin spelling. Quire is also used in the UK to refer to the area in a cathedral occupied by the choir. Independently quire is a unit of paper quantity.

American Slang

There are spelling listed as American variants that are not words. Non-words like 'thru' and 'donut' are commercial mispelling for copyright purposes, emphatically not correctly spelled American variants in their own right. This article is rife with original research about such words that, quite frankly, should be put into a very different article. Also, is it worth including differences in cases when two forms are acceptible in Britain and the same two forms are acceptible in the United States? Some of these are useful and interesting whereas as many others are just plain wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.136.192.1 (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Whoa there hero. Thru is not slang nor is it a non-word. Thru has been an accepted variant in the US for over 100 years. In both the Army and Sheriff's Academy, we were told to spell it thru … I'v written many papers as an undergrad and graduate with it.

• From Handbook of Microwave Component Measurements, p141: The thru standard should most properly be called a “defined thru” standard, and represents a two-port standard for which all the S-parameters are known. There are two main forms of defined thru standards, sometimes called flush thru and defined thru. … If a non-zero-length thru is used during callibration, the effective measured load match will be phase-shifted by the actual delay of the thru, and this can cause substantial error.

As for donut, that began life in England. It's in Wright's Dict. of Obs. and Prov. English, 1880 as donnut: A dough pancake.

AnWulf ... Wes þu hal! (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

[[1]] It would help your argument if respected American Dictionaries agreed with you - in Websters at least online does not mention 'Thru' as a variant.Andrewgprout (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Try again:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thru

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/thru

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/thru

2600:1006:B11F:9E14:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 20:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It is fairly common for dictionaries to include variant spellings that are "usually considered inferior". Thru is a short spelling that is accepted to some extent in informal discourse, or in special situations such as street signage, where it is more important to have big letters everyone can see than it is to use acrolectal spelling. But it is not a spelling accepted in formal writing. Donut, on the other hand, is a genuine variant spelling. --Trovatore (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes thanks for your examples - but they don't really support anything other than an informal use of 'thru' even in the USA. The Webster link is simply a see reference, dictionary.com is in my opinion of questionable quality and Oxford clearly says 'informal'. Donut on the other hand as Trovatore says is a genuine variant - see how the dictionaries treat the two examples differently. Andrewgprout (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would add further that the microwave-measurement stuff looks like a slightly different situation — not informal or inferior, but rather specialized jargon. Through is not a noun, and actual delay of the through doesn't make sense in ordinary English (and probably not in the English of microwave engineers either; that's why they have the alternative spelling). There is no objection to microwave engineers inventing whatever jargon they like, but it shouldn't be presented as a general "American" spelling. --Trovatore (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Variants are inferior? So which is inferior … Color or colour? Airplane or aeroplane? Aluminum or aluminium? Variant does not automatically mean inferior or of som imagin'd lower status. I think M-W is mostly thought of as an American dictionary and is well respected in the US. It would only be a guess on my part but I think in the US that M-W outsells the OED. It is the dictionary often found from students to corporate offices. M-W only tags it as a variant … not informal, slang, or in any way inferior. Since we are talking about American and British SPELLING differences, that should be enuff to show that it isn't slang or "not a word".

*Religious Liberty and Human Dignity, Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, vol. 27, 1, pp81-92, 2003:

… to respect human rights, then failing to explicitly define thru common understanding.

Is the Harvard Journal of Law formal enuff for ya? There are lots more where that came from. Also, in the US you will find breakthru, click-thru, drive-thru, see-thru, thru-hike, thruout, thruway and likely a few more. As long as we're on the thred … altho, tho, thoro, and thorofare as well. All of these are found in the US and in publications (not slang) and should be on the list as well. AnWulf ... Wes þu hal! (talk) 10:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly not safe enough to suggest that 'thru' is the common an alternative to "through". Its use in microwave and other transmission standards, e.g. "short, open, load and thru", is a technical term used in a very specific application, and is not enough to prove an example of common usage.

Certainly 'thru' might often be seen in the description of a sequence that uses only the end limits of that sequence (e.g. 'Monday thru Friday', '8am thru 6pm", 'March thru July' etc) but it's not the only spelling used

(e.g. "Wind chill advisory. Days two through seven...Tuesday through Sunday."(http://forecast.weather.gov/wwamap/wwatxtget.php?cwa=aly&wwa=hazardous%20weather%20outlook),

"Work around your customers' schedule and choose the best day from Tuesday through Saturday." (http://www.fedex.com/us/fedex/shippingservices/package/home_delivery.html), and

"Apples, August through October. Apricots, mid-August through mid-September." (http://localfoods.about.com/od/searchbyregion/a/coloradoseasons.htm).

Additionally, when describing a transition or movement it seems to me that 'through' is more common, e.g.

"Microwave signals travel through the air about 50% faster than light through optical fiber". (http://www.aviatnetworks.com/solutions/low-latency-microwave/),

"We invite you to take a virtual trip through the history of this... " (http://docsouth.unc.edu/blueridgeparkway/), and

"Walk-through: an activity in which someone walks through an area, building, etc., in order to inspect it" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/walk-through).

All those examples are taken from US sources and go a long way to suggest that, aside from its colloquial use, "thru" is only a sometimes-used alternative spelling of 'through'. Twistlethrop (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Dropping e

The British spellings follow the grammatical rule that G can only be soft when preceding an E, I, or Y. Grammar is about how words are used, not how they're spelt or pronounced. The word grammatical should be changed to spelling or pronunciation but I don't know which. Danielklein (talk) 10:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I've modified the sentence slightly, avoiding the adjective describing "rule". Dbfirs 14:13, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Pharmaceuticals and medical spellings

I believe a section could be written about pharmaceuticals, the names of which tend to be significant. That would also get into patent and trademark issues, but it would be good information. I'm going to go hoover my car boot now and see if I dropped any acetaminophen. I like to saw logs! (talk) 05:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

"Axe" only for "Battle Axe" in the US?

Currently the article states that "axe" "is usually restricted to the weapon (battle axe)" in the US. This doesn't appear to be true, and doesn't line up with my own experience. A simple search of common US hardware stores like Lowes or Home Depot will show that "axe" is used almost exclusively, and they're not in the business of selling weapons. In my experience, "ax" — while considered to be a correct spelling — is not commonly used in the US, and that "axe" is most definitely not restricted to weapons. Since the statement is unsourced, I'll go ahead and delete that sentence if there are no objections. - Bardbom (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. "Ax" is an acceptable spelling in theory, but in practice unusual regardless of meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion re "router"

Proposed revision:

• British prefers ageing, American usually aging (compare raging, ageism).
• For the noun or verb "route" (pronounced 'root'), British English often uses routeing, but in America routing is used. The military term rout (defeat) forms routing everywhere. However, all of these words form "router" when written, whether used in the context of carpentry, data communications, or military. (e.g., "Attacus was the router of the Huns at ...."). Note that in British English the correct pronunciation of router depends on context e.g. 'rooter' (computers) or 'router' (carpentry), whereas in American there is no such differentiation.

Is this correct? Any comments? GilesW (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Hart gives "routeing (from route v.)" and "ageing", but not routing or aging, in "Alternative and difficult spellings". (Hart's Rules, 39th Ed., p64-7)

However, Fowler gives that "route is pronounced, in military phrases such as route-march, column of r., rowt." (ADOMEU, 1st Ed., p508) I assume he meant the British military in that; though I don't think I've actually heard it, and where I work is full of ex military from ex RN 'tiffs to ex RAF fast jet drivers. So while that may have been true when Henry Fowler was in the British Army, in WW1, it may also have changed since - I don't know. Graham.Fountain | Talk 11:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on American and British English spelling differences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050420182905/http://bmj.bmjjournals.com:80/cgi/content/full/315/7102/0/h to http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/315/7102/0/h
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091223132929/http://www.giantbomb.com:80/profile/symphony/things-i-dont-understand-part-3-canada/30-33430/ to http://www.giantbomb.com/profile/symphony/things-i-dont-understand-part-3-canada/30-33430/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Milliard vs Million?

Milliard vs Million? 112.209.65.144 (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

What are you proposing? DBaK (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Map showing nations using either American or British English

Is this map showing nations using either American or British English verified? If not, can it be? If not, should it be deleted?

I ask because I was under the impression that the EU contries were obliged to accept British English as the norm - though that may all change soon anyway.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 19:43, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@Wikidroid 2000: As creator of this image, perhaps you could answer this question. YBG (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've removed it. The map appeared to show that the whole world, except the Commonwealth, uses American English. That goes way beyond worrying about the EU.

(As for "deleting" it, that's a separate matter. I don't know whether inaccuracy is a criterion for deletion of infographic images.) --Trovatore (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

@YBG: I can change the map if you want. Wikidroid 2000 (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I presume you are referring to my request for colo(u)rs with more contrast. Yes, that would be nice, but it might be good to wait until this discussion here plays out. YBG (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant removed from this page when I wrote "deleted".

Maybe it is a good idea to have such a map if it's possible to have verified infomation. But what would be the source of that information?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 20:13, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer not. I don't think it's well-defined, as a general rule, to talk about the English variety used by a non-English-speaking country. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Such a map IMO should only colo(u)r those countries included in the List of territorial entities where English is an official language. But even with such a restriction, one wonders where you would source the information without resorting to original research? Maybe it would be best to add a column (with properly sourced information) to the tables in §§ Sovereign states​ and Non-sovereign entitites, and then build the map accordingly. Additional information (and some pretty maps) are in the articles on Anglosphere and the English-speaking world.

Another thing to think about: The list of dialects of the English language is rather long. WP has 17 different templates to mark articles with a particular national variety of English, and that's not counting {{British English Oxford spelling}} or {{IUPAC spelling}} as different from {{British English}}, nor {{IUPAC spelling US}} as different from {{American English}}. How do you go about dividing even the English-speaking world into an American Camp and an British Camp?

It might be nearly as difficult as the situation during the Pig War when San Juan Island, Washington held both an American Camp and an English Camp. (Those who don't enjoy click-bait can safely ignore this last sentence.) YBG (talk) 23:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I've nominated for deletion at Commons. It's clearly made up and wrong. Since when have the former British colonies in Africa used American Englis?. Why do all the EU countries use AE when the two English-speaking members use BE? Since when has AE been an official language in Russia and China? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

You don't need a map. Britain uses British English and America uses American English. Other English-speaking countries have their own dialects. Relationships between dialects are not that simple. Jimp 06:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Jimp. This discussion can safely be considered closed. The file being discussed was File:American and British spelling differences.png. It was removed from this article on July 9, 2016 and then deleted from commons on July 18 following a brief discussion. YBG (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft or Draught for a ship

I've just provided a reference for the claim that the British spelling of a ship's draught is seldom "draft", but the OED has not yet updated those entries for the Third Edition, and I suspect that usage has changed somewhat during my lifetime. Can anyone find any reliable source for the change in British spelling. Google ngrams show increasing usage of the "draft" spelling for shipping, but when I look at the actual examples, they are usually American or international documents, so perhaps there hasn't been much change in British spelling? Dbfirs 12:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If you look at something like Guide to Port Entry, which is the British-based leading port directory, it uses draft exclusively. The port of Hamburg uses draft and if you look at a UK port Southampton it uses both draft and draught. This Hong Kong based outfit use draft. This one in China uses draft. I don't believe it is a case of US v UK. Both styles are in use, draft is most common, draught still used but on the way out. CalzGuy (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It certainly used to be a US versus UK difference, but I agree that things are changing, and that international publications tend to use the shorter spelling. It would be good to find a reliable source rather than use original research. Dbfirs 15:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I think the point I am "disputing" is whether the current source supports the text as written. TBH, I think that goes for much of the article and examples. But you are correct that RS trumps OR. But can we agree what constitutes OR? ;-) CalzGuy (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

The current source is reliable, but out of date. When they update to the Third Edition they may well look at more recent texts and change their view. What we have in the article is the traditional British spelling as used by Shakespeare (Twelfth Night scene 5 "shallow draught"). It is also supported by Collins on-line dictionary, and by Cambridge on-line. I agree that in modern usage the claim is possibly borderline. Which other claims in the article do you find unconvincing? Dbfirs 16:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

-our or -or in Canada

The article states "Canadian English most commonly uses the -our ending and -our- in derivatives and inflected forms. However, owing to the close historic, economic, and cultural relationship with the United States, -or endings are also sometimes used." I am not an expert, but I think this may need reconsideration. I (an American) recently asked a Canadian colleague whether is it "color" or "colour" and was informed that they are equal and interchangeable. (The same, I was told, is true of "aluminum" and "aluminium.") Joe Avins (talk) 18:53, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

A sample of one doesn't make a convincing survey, but I agree that there is a lot of variation. This has been discussed somewhere before on Wikipedia, but I can't remember where. Official sources these days tend to prefer British spellings for many words in Canadian English, but many Canadians use American spellings. Dbfirs 19:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on American and British English spelling differences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326162948/http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/FRN_Vol_73_No_96_16May2008_SI_Interpretation.pdf to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/FRN_Vol_73_No_96_16May2008_SI_Interpretation.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326162948/http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/FRN_Vol_73_No_96_16May2008_SI_Interpretation.pdf to http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/Metric/upload/FRN_Vol_73_No_96_16May2008_SI_Interpretation.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/styleguide/page/0%2C%2C184844%2C00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

"This article is written in American English"

That's not entirely true. Is it defined somewhere why this article is tagged with this as such? I don't believe that this flag should define this article to be chiefly American. I mean, this should be an exeption as it is broadly talking about the varieties of English and defining why one spells it 'colour' and the other 'color', etc. This is an article that, essentially, anyone from any form of English can come and learn the different dialects. With that said, having this tagged as 'American English' is making it like its only shown to the American point of view, not including British, Canadian, Australian, etc. I don't know the rules of Wikipedia about this, but what I know is that this article is mixed with British and American (which I see as a good thing), not just American — not just in the contents about the differences, but also within the text itself. 86.184.119.165 (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right - you don't knows the rules. See WP:ENGVAR. - BilCat (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

...Okay, but that's not really proving anything to this scenario, nor are you bothered to being specific and only point something negative out from the previous comment... This article is on a multi-national basis - it has no strict ties to only one nation, etc., etc., yet still tagged as American English, even though the article is an exception... Why can't it be just "English"? Please, be more detailed rather than throwing WP:ENGVAR and think "job done". Also, I've read through the archives or this talk page and I can't help but think that some of the comments only support what I'm trying to emphasise. And, I've noticed that the tag was put there without reason in the summary? 86.173.234.130 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that this article has no MOS:TIES (no strong national ties to the topic). But the article itself should be written per MOS:ARTCON (consistently in a single national variety of English) -- although note that MOS:ARTCON explicitly lists an exception for "passages explicitly discussing varieties of English". So the question is, apart from the places where American or British varieties are being quoted, what national variety should be used consistently? Per MOS:RETAIN, this should be the national variety established by the first post-stub version of the article. Once this is established, it is helpful if an editor places the appropriate Varieties of English template on the talk page. It seems to me that because of potential confusion, it is even MORE important for this article to have one of these templates than other articles. Note that all of the manual of style (MOS) items I have referred to appear in the subsections of MOS:ENGVAR. I hope this helps. YBG (talk) 04:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I think it doesn't matter what variety of English this article is tagged as being: I put the whole article to the British English spell checker of MS Word. Admittedly I have beaten that into submission over the correct spelling of all the "ize" words formed on the Greek, etc., in line with Hart and Fowler (go on, argue that they are wrong then). But the only words that were not the subject of discussion – and thus in quotes – that got flagged were "recoining, trisyllabic, and trademarking". If there are spellings in the discussions that are uniquely British English, then I'd not have found those. But I still think it makes the point that it doesn't matter at the moment, because what variety of English it's tagged with is most unlikely to change anything in the discussions or any of the words that are discussed. It's an interesting, but different, argument whether or not that makes this topic moot or not.Graham.Fountain | Talk 18:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

How about we just remove the banner, then? This article seems like a reasonable "occasional exception" to the ARTCON guideline anyway — in general, articles should use a consistent variety, but articles specifically discussing the differences between varieties seem like a different case. --Trovatore (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't change it back if someone did. But then I'm not sure why I've put as much effort into the issue as I already have.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs) 20:54, 2 July 2016‎

I think we should do it. I'm not fond of those banners anyway. I know they're supposed to be just informational and head off useless churning, but they have the potential to come across as a bit aggressive. I recently standardized the ENGVAR at Banach–Tarski paradox to AmEng, based on my reading of the history, and I considered adding a banner, but then I thought, why pick a fight if you don't need to. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, agreeing on a standard ENGVAR is probably more important on this page than on other pages -- that is to say, it is more likely to be contentious. Full disclosure: although I am a native speaker of US English, I would actually prefer that this article be written in British English, mostly because that ENGVAR has historic priority. But the WP policies do not allow me to make such a change without first seeking a broad consensus. And I believe it is reasonable to think that removing the banner should also require a broad consensus, especially since the banner was added almost four years ago. But rather than banner that specifies en-us or en-uk, what would be even better is a banner that specifies that any engvar-specific wording should be eliminated in favor of engvar-non-specific forms.

Incidentally, I started to spell-check the article via MS-Word's US English spell checker. Before getting interrupted IRL, I found one violation of en-us. When I finish the task, I'll post the results here. YBG (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I finished my US spell-check courtesy of MS-Word. Here's what I found:

• UK-only forms: nativised, naturalised, standardised
• US-only forms: romanizations (though not in MS-Word dictionary)
• OK but not found: placenames, recoining, trisyllabic, uniquenesses

I will try to rephrase to eliminate nativised, naturalised, standardised, and romanizations. YBG (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've made five different edits to un-en-US and un-en-UK the WP:ENGVAR:

• "romanization" → "latin script"
• "spelling was not widely standardized" → "spelling standards had not yet developed"
• "not standardized" → "inconsistent"
• "naturalised" → "adopted into English"
• "is nativised" → "conforms to English norms"

YBG (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

What about using something more like this?

(Potential pics include file:English language.svg used above or File:UK-US flag.png or File:US-UK-blend.png) If we decide to go down this path, then we need to decide whether we should (a) reach a 'broad consensus' as required for articles with no strong national ties, or we could alternately argue that it should be changed because of 'strong ties' to both ENGVAR. We would also need to find out how we to implement it -- for example, should we directly invoke {{English variant notice}} as I did here, or should we create a new template, e.g., {{UK and US English}}? YBG (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is good, I like this. Well, it's probably not my first choice, which would be just to exempt this article from ENGVAR-related formalities completely, and remind editors to be reasonable about it. But it's a solid second choice. --Trovatore (talk) 06:43, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Any ideas on selecting the 'flag' or improving the content of the message? YBG (talk) 07:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Still without any real understanding of why I'm getting involved in this (life's too short): Limiting it to British and American English is exclusive. And, as neither (I'm Yorkshire), I think you want a more inclusive solution. Also, on the assumption that the main purpose is to prevent bickering about spelling, identifying two forms won't do that. You would have to at least specify which of, e.g., the OED or Webster's had precedence. Personally, I'd always look to the OED and the original Fowler's Modern English Usage - and maybe Hart's rules where they don't help. But, oddly, that wouldn't agree perfectly with most people's interpretation of British English.Graham.Fountain | Talk 08:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Good catch, I hadn't thought about regional varieties. Basically, I was trying to come up with a stronger form of MOS:COMMONALITY, which says WP prefers to use forms which are common to all ENGVAR. I wanted to say that as far as this article is concerned, this is more than just a preference, it is close to a requirement. I would insist on using forms common to en-uk and en-us. But it shouldn't matter if this article uses a form that is unacceptable in en-ca, en-in, en-pk or some other variety, so long as the form were acceptable in BOTH en-uk and en-us. Another way of looking at this is to say I'd want to completely avoid any forms that are considered unacceptable in either en-uk or en-us. I presume that if a form is acceptable in BOTH standard en-uk AND standard en-us, then it would be unlikely to be considered unacceptable in a regional variety of either. And I was trying to say all of that without writing an overly long paragraph. YBG (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems likely that anything common in both UK and US English will be accepted elsewhere, at the very least in formal conversation. CMD (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your changes which I see as improvements. Dbfirs 08:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I have replaced {{American English}} with the hand-crafted version of {{English variant notice}} proposed earlier in this thread. It is rather ironic that before the my edits mentioned above, this article had several British-only spellings and no American-only spellings. YBG (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I am really confused... I'm half American and Half English so my spellings are all over the place... Half the time they're wrong through and through, though... Izbug13 (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Obsolete...

• The obsolete British forms may come in French deriatives like Gramme, Kilogramme, Olde, Steppe, Shoppe, Personne, Amour, Milliard, Billiard, Trilliard, Quadrilliard, etc., etc. 124.106.142.224 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on American and British English spelling differences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081030013727/http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFselectionspecialtytraining/%24FILE/SelectionSpecialtyTraining.pdf to http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFselectionspecialtytraining/%24FILE/SelectionSpecialtyTraining.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103161156/http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081856.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/english/data/d0081856.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

List of obsolete words?

The list of this are obsolete: Aenigma/Enigma, Oeconomy/Economy, Expence/Expense, Colourphobia/Colorphobia, Defencive/Defensive, Offencive/Offensive, Expencive/Expensive, Kinema/Cinema, Parametre/Parameter, Diametre/Diameter, etc. 124.106.137.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

What list are you reading? I can't find these in the article, other than mention of some of them as obsolete. Dbfirs 08:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I know, some words were here in wiktionary (look at wiktionary.org with English obselete words). Obsolete words (that are kinema, expence, aenigma, oeconomy, expence, colourphobia, defencive, offencive, expencive parametre, diametre, etc.). They can be found in wiktionary, as obsolete words. 124.106.137.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary has many thousands of obsolete words. What relevance do they have to this article here in Wikipedia? Dbfirs 10:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Miscellaneous spelling differences

Under sulphur I believe the insertion of the third sentence in the comment column has altered the meaning of the following sentence to the opposite of that intended. Can someone confirm this and make the correction? Mike Spathaky (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for improvement

You should use "the US" or "the United States" instead of "America" in the following paragraph from section 11, called "Different spellings for different pronunciations":"Whatever the spelling is, the word has different pronunciations: /ˈjɒɡət/ (or /ˈjɒɡərt/) in the UK, /ˈjoʊɡət/ (or /ˈjoʊɡərt/) in New Zealand, America, Ireland, and Australia. Depending on the speaker's accent, the pronunciation may be non-rhotic or rhotic and the /oʊ/ sound may be pronounced /əʊ/. The word comes from the Turkish language word yoğurt. The voiced velar fricative represented by ğ in the modern Turkish (Latinic) alphabet was traditionally written gh in Latin script of the Ottoman Turkish (Arabic) alphabet used before 1928." I say this because "America" (in the sense of "North America") would also include Canada, which is treated as a separate country elsewhere in the article, in the sense that elsewhere it says Canada "tends to follow British usage" or "tends to follow British preference". --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Should not the title of the article be changed to "United States and British English spelling differences?" This is not a facetious question. If someone more knowledgeable than I am can show, with references) that Canadian spelling is significantly different from United Statesian (Sorry, if I may not use American, what is the adjective from United States?) then it becomes a serious proposal. Mike Spathaky (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I think the whole idea is a non-starter. The adjective for United States is American. I am aware that some people don't approve of that, but it's just a fact. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

To be more specific, "American" does not include "Canadian". "American" means United States only. It's true that "North American" includes Canadian (and also Mexican, though that's not really relevant because there is no variety called "Mexican English"). But "North American" is not the same as "American". --Trovatore (talk) 21:30, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Adding pretence/pretense to defence/defense and offence/offense

I changed the wording of that paragraph from:

“American English has kept the Anglo-French spelling for defense and offense, which are defence and offence in British English. Likewise, there are the American pretense and British pretence; but derivatives such as defensive, offensive, and pretension are always thus spelled in both systems.”

to:

“American English has kept the Anglo-French spelling for defense, offense and pretense, which are defence, offence and pretence in British English. However, derivatives such as defensive, offensive and pretension are always thus spelled in both systems.”

But ScrapIronIV keeps reverting it to the older wording, saying that “it is separated into shorter, clearer sentences. Fewer elements to compare in prose, than all in a single sentence.”

It is hardly understandable how adding one element to the comparison (three words) would hamper comprehension or diminish clarity, even for a careless reader. On the contrary, the changed wording is more succint and clearer: the older wording suggests that pretence/pretense is a special case, for example that “pretence” is only more common in Britain than “pretence” (which is not, at least comparing its usage with that of the other words [defence, offence]) - Josebarbosa (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

There is an obvious link in meaning between "offense" and "defense" where there is no such connection to "pretense". It is an intellectually distracting element. Just because the form is similar does not mean it should be grouped together in a single sentence. The prose does not flow smoothly. Scr★pIron^IV 21:26, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is perfectly irrelevant to an article about orthography, which is about the form of written words. The separate sentence about “pretence/pretense” is a verbose, useless addition to what could be a more succint paragraph, and suggests an erroneous understanding, as I have said. Josebarbosa (talk) 21:41, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

It is as much about the reader as it is the subject. Communication of ideas to the our readers should be clear and easily understood. Where you see verbosity, I see clarity. What you see as succinct, I see as awkward. Saving a few characters is not preferable to more elegant prose. Scr★pIron^IV 12:28, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What is awkward is isolating “pretence/pretense”, suggesting it is a special case (it is not). You did not address this issue, which has priority over purely subjective preferences about elegance. Josebarbosa (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I suggest he means the first two add the suffix -ive, while the latter adds -ion. In this respect they are different.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Map is erroneous; needs color revision for USA

The map shows the United States in dark blue, which indicates English is official. In fact, the United States does not have and has no constitutional authority to establish a national official language. When the US Constitution does not give the federal state authority to do something, that power automatically defaults to the unitary states in confederation (see U.S. Const., Amend. X).

Most U.S. states have followed the lead of the federal United States and have established no official language, though all states, the three self-governing territories, the two commonwealths, and the federal district all conduct business in English.

A few U.S. state have established English as their sole official language. The State of Illinois has established "American" as its sole official language.

The State of New York was officially bilingual, English and Dutch, until about 1924. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was officially bilingual, English and German, until 1951.

The State of Hawaii is officially bilingual, English and Hawaiian. The State of New Mexico is quasi-officially bilingual, English and Spanish; "quasi-" because the recognition of Spanish as co-official with English at the grant of statehood was meant to be temporary but ended up being permanent.

The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands is officially trilingual, Chamorro, English and Refaluwasch. But the most commonly spoken languages after English are Tagalog and Mandarin Chinese, because Filipinos and Chinese are the two largest ethnic groups in the commonwealth.

The Territory of Guam is officially bilingual, Chamorro and English.

The Territory of American Samoa is officially bilingual, English and Samoan.

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico is quasi-officially bilingual, English and Spanish; "quasi-" because English is rarely used in Puerto Rico, thought everybody learns the language.

2601:645:C300:3189:F5DE:770:BE66:498E (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter, English is de facto official on the federal level at least, nowhere it is said that that colour means it is official according to a law (Constitution or whatever).--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

"De facto official" makes no sense. It's the de-facto national language. Unofficially. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

According to Steam?

Do we think British English is Traditional British and American English is Simplified English, as the laughing stock of a joke? 124.106.140.191 (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Definition of "Commonwealth"

I think that, according to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, the term "Commonwealth" should be defined when first mentioned (in section 2.1.3, titled "Commonwealth usage") as not all English editors, myself included, know what the Commonwealth is. I also think that it would be a good idea to merge the two sections of the same name (sections 2.1.3 and 2.2.2) into one, to avoid repeating the title "Commonwealth usage" in each one, as it sounds cacophonous. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 21:38, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

"-ise is preferred by Cambridge University Press"?

Scholarly books published by Cambridge University Press that I'm familiar with consistently use Oxford spelling as far as I've looked. Perhaps it depends on author or discipline? In any case I think a clarification and a better source are called for.

Their dictionaries also prefer the -ize forms as headwords (realize, organize, but colour, analyse, licence). Nardog (talk) 17:40, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Those dictionary entries do say that the "ise" spelling is usual in the UK. Dbfirs 19:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

So does OUP. What could possibly be the reason to use less common forms of words as headwords other than because they are the forms the publisher recommends? Nardog (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Tradition, and to assist American readers? Certainly many books published by Cambridge use the "ise" spelling that is now taught in British schools. The rule has changed since I was at school. This one, for example, uses "familiarise". I agree that we should have a source for the claim rather than some examples. Dbfirs 21:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Railway/railroad

Railway (british) and railroad (american) seem to be missing. Şÿℵדαχ₮ɘɼɾ๏ʁ 09:18, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

I suppose, technically, they are different words for the same concept, rather than different spellings. Dbfirs 09:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

How come amour/amor isn't listed?

• Amour means love in French. It's sort of like British spelling
• Amor means love in Spanish. It's sort of like American spelling.

124.106.137.130 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

These are not English words. A Briton can easily use Spanish amor in speech, and vice versa, for some reason. Moreover, the difference between Fr. -our and Sp. -or directly represents the difference in pronunciation, whereas the typical difference -our/-or in English words does not affect pronunciation and is merely orthographic. Note the old-fashioned English (though not fully adopted, hence its French-like pronunciation) word amour is identical in both BE and AE.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

A Briton can easily use speech in Spanish amor? --Trovatore (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

• • There is... Enamor and Enamour 124.106.136.113 (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we ought to include that spelling difference. Dbfirs 09:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Error in World Map

Indonesia should be light blue, not light red — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.86.245.247 (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Whence, Hence, Thence?

British or archaic spelling of where, here and there are whence, hence and thence? Is it? 112.201.14.188 (talk) 01:45, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

No, "whence" means "from where"; "hence" means "from here"; "thence" means "from there". They're not entirely archaic, but modern usages tend to be metaphorical, and refer to a path of reasoning rather than physical motion.

I am not aware of any particular distinction between American and British English in the usage of these words, so I doubt there's any reason to treat them in this article. --Trovatore (talk) 01:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

You don't know the details... 112.201.14.188 (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

BrE: "mostly uses -ise"

The article states that "British spelling mostly uses -ise" but NGram data indicate that -ize has predominated in BrE since about 1925: organize, recognize, apologize, emphasize, characterize, realize, memorize, etc. Can anyone reconcile this, or is the statement in the article wrong? Doremo (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

The statement in the article is correct. The "-ise" spellings are taught in most schools, though the "-ize" versions are still used by some publishers, especially OUP, following the OED tradition. You should note the Ngrams seems to stop at the year 2000, and many of the books claimed to be British are actually by American writers. Try modern British newspapers and recent genuinely British publications. Dbfirs 06:29, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the claim "many of the books claimed to be British are actually by American writers" is accurate because Ngram correctly indicates that BrE prefers the spellings colour and centre. If that claim were true, then the frequency data for these would be wrong. Doremo (talk) 09:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, a domain-specific Google search (site:.uk) also indicates that -ize is dominant in BrE (the numbers are less reliable and less stable than Ngram): organize (43.7 m) vs. organise (23.1 m), recognize (101.0 m) vs. recognise (60.1 m), apologize (15.0 m) vs. apologise (14.2 m), etc. Doremo (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

"Different spellings for different pronunciations"

As a speaker of American English, some of these are not true to my experience. I have never seen the spelling "ampule" (it's always been "ampoule"). "Bogeyman" is spelled the same as in the UK in my experience. Conversely, I have seen the spelling "carburator" but do not see it listed here. 2602:306:CFEA:170:30B6:D42E:2D02:EFE3 (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Timbre/Timber, Chambre/Chamber???

These words.

• Timber (US)
• Timbre (UK)
• Chamber (US)
• Chambre (UK)
• Concenter (US)
• Concentre (UK)

Hope this helps. 112.201.4.18 (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You hope it helps what, exactly? The first four are nonsense as far as I can tell. Timber and timbre are simply different words, the former referring to wood and the second to musical tone, in both US and UK English. Chambre is called an "obsolete" spelling of chamber. The last two may be correct (I don't actually know what the word means) but it looks like just a trivial and obvious consequence of the center/centre difference. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

More obsolete, dated and archaic British forms...

Don't forget to include this.

• Expence
• Intence
• Dence
• Parametre
• Diametre
• Barometre
• Kilogramme/Megagramme/Gigagramme/Teragramme/Petagramme/Exagramme/Zettagramme/Yottagramme
• Aeroport
• Oeconomy
• Aenigma

Hope this would help! 112.201.9.127 (talk) 05:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Suggested article name change to English spelling differences

This article doesn't just discuss American and British spelling differences — it discusses spelling differences between all varieties of English. So isn't it more appropriate to change the article's name to "English spelling differences"? The way the title stands right now it makes it seem like the UK and US are the only two English-speaking nations on Earth and that other countries do not have their own unique variants of English. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 05:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 19:30, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

---

American and British English spelling differences → English spelling differences – Per WP:CONCISE. I have no doubt that they are the roots of most if not all varieties of English. But English is widely spoken around the world, the article doesn't just discuss American and British spelling differences (or atleast it shouldn't), it also discusses spelling varieties and differences between all varieties of English. Will it be fitting to move the page to just "English spelling differences" which is currently a redirect to here? PyroFloe (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. -- Calidum 19:11, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - American English and British English are the primary English variants, with all the other variants being either offshoots of one of these, or in Canada's case, a hybrid of both. Also, the proposed title, "English spelling differences", is somewhat vague, and any clarification is liable to nbe clumsy. BilCat (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose - as above In ictu oculi (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose – the proposed title loses the concept that this is about spelling differences between national varieties of English, rather than just about any kind of spelling differences in English. Perhaps it could be something like "Spelling differences between national varieties of English", but as BilCat says, there seems to be two dominant types. — BarrelProof (talk) 01:34, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
• Mild oppose - Agree that this isn't an appropriate title for an article covering all varieties of English, but since the current title is the appropriate title for an article which should exist, it would seem preferable to split material which isn't focused on the topic stated in the title into another article or other articles. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abbreviation variants

Perhaps there should be a mention of the choices of abbreviation form for like words, such as "ad" vs. "advert", "air con" vs. "A/C", or "TV" vs. "telly". Mapsax (talk) 02:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Change with image

I did this because Australia, New Zealand and South Africa spell exactly the same, with the exception of Labor Party. And that being a branding exception for a political party, it doesn’t really count. In the new image I made New Zealand and South Africa the same colour as Australia. Below is a table of spellings you may include. It’s worth noting Canadians spell 'mum' as 'mom' (like the US does) but say it as 'mum' (like countries with UK spelling do) not 'mahm'.

AUS/NZ/SA	CAN	UK	USA
colour	colour	colour	color
realise	realize	realise	realize
burqa	burqa	burka	burqa
centre	centre	centre	center
mum	mom	mum	mom
fetus	fetus	foetus	fetus

File:English spellings.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:C85D:4B00:1D57:7DC3:F5DF:C76 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Late reply, but no because Australia has other spelling differences too, such as "program" or "analog". SHB2000 (talk) 00:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

References

map: Is Australia yellow just because of Labor?

@Любослов Езыкин: On the map, is Australia marked as yellow all by itself due to one proper noun coiled 120 years ago?

"Australian analyse / defence / labour (but Labor Party) / organise / dominant"

Or am i missing something?

I don't think that counts, we never use that spelling except to refer to The Australian Labor Party (which i just mispelled with a U and had to correct LOL).

We also spell that with capital "L", but i wouldn't say that means "Australians sometimes capitalise the word Labor/Labour". (We would in other proper nouns of course, but you get what mean?)

The file description file description gives a few more examples:

analog / burqa /program / verandah

it doesn't say how the other dialects spell these?

i thought for UK English "programme" was kind of variable, old fashioned, or only used in some contexts?

i'm not sure about analog and verabdah (veranda is how my spell checker likes it, but i've got it set to UK English).

most dialects of English spell Arabic inconsistently... though now i think about it, Burqas are mostly from West Asia, not an Arabic speaking region?

Irtapil (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I am the one that added this colour change. Programme is the standard spelling for program in almost all contexts in the UK, the only exception is when it refers to computer programs. This is also true in New Zealand. Analog is spelt as analogue in the UK, and as analog in the US. Veranda is the standard spelling in other countries, but in Australia the Macquarie Dictionary recommends verandah. Likewise, burka is the standard spelling in the UK and the US, but in Australia we spell it as burqa. We also spell pastie, guerilla, livable, encyclopedia and fetus differently to our British counterparts. See Australian English for further details. As far as I'm concerned, at least, this is enough of a difference for it to be worthy of distinction on that map, but I'm willing to debate it. Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 06:18, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Umm, this may be irrelevant to your point, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of American spelling. Burqa is definitely in use here, though I'm not sure it counts given that it's a non-naturalized loanword. Analog is as in analog-v-digital; analogue in the sense of something that's analogous is often spelled with the "ue". --Trovatore (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

My source on American spelling is Merriam-Webster, here's the burka entry (burqa is listed as a variant though, but burka is favoured) and here's the analog entry (it does seem to support what you're saying about the word). It is fairly irrelevant, given the Brits spell analogue as such in all contexts (source: Cambridge Dictionary). Fuse809 (contribs · email · talk · uploads) 22:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Fuse89, we generally do *not* spell foetus in the US way (fetus) here in Australia. It may occasionally be misspelled that way, but that's our creeping Americanisation for you. (And how do Brits spell Guerilla?) Programme was historically used widely in Australia but for many years program has dominated in all contexts. I agree with Irtapil, in that I also found it strange to see Australia given its own colour simply because of the ALP. We do have our spelling differences with the UK, though they are much less divergent than Canada's differences, let alone the USA's. NZ has followed us on a handful of the differences, and remains with the UK on others. I would think that the map would have more clarity if some actual differences (beyond, as Irtapil points out, a single proper noun from 120 years ago, regardless of how central it may be to our political life) were cited in the legend. Might I suggest adding "program/programme" to the list as an example of how Australia diverges - the Labor Party is a proper noun (spelled that way thanks to the urgings of an American immigrant, at that) and just doesn't cut it. Khardankov (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

It is spelt fetus in Australia/New Zealand/South Africa. At least that’s how I’ve spelt it all my life and I’m Australian. Plus Labor Party is a political party name. New Zealanders spell the same as Australians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:C85D:4B00:1D57:7DC3:F5DF:C76 (talk) 01:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

References

I stand corrected - I've seen foetus more often than fetus here in Australia, and like many others, assumed the latter was an Americanism. However, it seems that the former is actually a hypercorrection by Brits assuming the same as I did. As we say, good on ya. But I still firmly believe the list should be changed to include a word of difference between Australian and UK spelling that doesn't include a proper noun (that, again, was only changed to "Labor" due to an American migrant to Australia with a lot of influence in the early Australian Labo(u)r Party convincing his colleagues to "modernise" (read: Americanise) the spelling in the early years of the party's formation.) The list as it stands could easily confuse readers into believing that is the only point of difference. I'm sure we could come up with a fifth word to add to the selection that would far better represent the minor differences that award Australia its own colour, while New Zealand and South Africa - which share some, but not all, of Australia's spelling differences with the UK - are thrown in with the UK. I'm aware that this page is titled "American and British English spelling differences", but as our friend below notes, this is a poor choice of title for the page, and it makes far less sense to split the page into two separate ones than to simply replace the title of this page with something more relevant to the subject matter. Khardankov (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

There are much more differences with Australian and British spellings as well, not mentioned here (such as "leaned" not "leant"). Also, the person who used the IP below has their main account globally locked. SHB2000 (talk) 09:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, where is your evidence that "foetus" is preferred over "fetus"? What you personally use does not override the Macquarie Dictionary SHB2000 (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Surveille

Surveille is a variant: the letter l doubles in the inflections of the verb surveil, unlike in (as)sail or veil, and AmE has canceled but mostly cancellation. It's a counterintuitive spelling similar to those of control. --Backinstadiums (talk) 10:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

The title "Miscellaneous spelling differences" is represented in a somewhat *darker* blue than all the others - why?

This is in the table of contents.
Steue (talk) 18:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you click on it before? Clicked-on links are slightly darker. It was identical to me before I clicked on it, so there's nothing different about it. BilCat (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I did. Thanks. Steue (talk) 18:49, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I use my own colours, and my clicked-on links have a completely different colour.

Steue (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Finance

I am missing a discussion about finance terms. This is potentially an area with the most troublesome confusions betweens Bristish and American. I am think of Revenue (US) Turn Over (UK) Profit (US) Revenue (Or? Profit) (UK)

(A)esthetic

What about the words "aesthetic" (British) and "esthetic" (English)? 2600:1700:E5E0:1610:1C8C:D688:AB7E:8CCF (talk) 03:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Covered in American_and_British_English_spelling_differences#ae_and_oe. (Noun, but the adjective is the same.) The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The sequence of the columns "UK" and "US" in the table should be swapped

In the table "Miscellaneous spelling differences" there are two columns: "UK" and "US", in this sequence.

• When I compare English spellings, I always have in mind the locations of these two countries on the planet: on the left USA, on the right UK (at least this is on modern maps). This helps me to memorise who spells what/how.

This is one reason why I suggest, that these two columns are swapped.

• The other (or should I say second) reason is the title of this article:
  In the title "American" is on the left, "British" on the right.
• The third reason is according to the political meaning of "left" and "right" or progressive and conservative and according to my personal impression that the Americans are rather, a little bit, more progressive and the Britons, a litttle bit, more conservative.

So, these are one, two or three reasons (depending on opinion) to swapp these two columns.

Steue (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

"*The third reason is according to the political meaning of "left" and "right" or progressive and conservative and according to my personal impression that the Americans are rather, a little bit, more progressive and the Britons, a litttle bit, more conservative." LOL. The UK is far more progressive politically - I'd cite socialised medicine, Labour (even 'New Labour') being well to the left of the Democrats, and lastly, never elected Trump (the closest they got was Liz Truss, who was never elected and was bundled out of office in a matter of weeks.) Not to mention that I'd hardly call intentionally misspelling half of your own language 'Progressive' (IMHO they should've tarred and feathered Daniel Webster and chucked him in gaol ( ;) ) for his crimes against the English language.

• In all seriousness, the amount of work that would go into swapping the columns to fit your personal preference makes this idea a non-starter, I'm sorry to say. Khardankov (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Daemon and Faerie?

Would Brits/Britons have said daemon/daemonic/daemoniac/daemonology and faerie instead of demon/demonic/demoniac/demonology and fairy? 136.158.59.110 (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• "Daemon" has a completely different meaning, while "faerie" doesn't even have a definition. Summer ^talk 12:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)