Talk:Driver's license - Knowledge (XXG)

4156:

solves any problems. The proposer of the move says that "Driving licence" is "worldwide, the more common term", but I'm unconvinced - as far as I'm aware, "Driving licence" is used only in the UK and a handful of countries closely influenced by the UK (such as Ireland and Hong Kong). Driving licence is not the term used in the US, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. If we go through the article to change the US English to UK spelling, I don't think there will be any improvement in consistency to justify the work involved. Switching an article from US to UK spelling or vice versa is something we should only be doing with very good reason, and I don't think we have that here. That's particularly so as the title has used the US spelling (license) ever since it was created 13 years ago.

3498:) says that if consensus has settled on a variety then that should be retained. If no consensus was settled on then we follow the first non-stub version. In this case, it was created in Feb 2002 as "Driving license". 3 edits later in April 2002, it became "Driver's license" and has remained that way for the intervening 12 years. I'd say that 12 years without being changed or seriously challenged constitutes an implicit consensus for "Driver's license". If we can get an explicit consensus to change it now then the title will change but if we can't agree then it has to remain as "Driver's license". 4017:(d) applying that same construction logic to our quandary, the plural form of driver, drivers , teamed with license : they join forces, creating drivers licenses: sans the apostrophe . In other words, it (drivers) contributes to or can be said to clarify the secondary noun, licenses. Hence, in its new plural appellation form , it should (again: ought implies that in most instances it is used ineptly and needs correction) read as Drivers Licenses (that plural usage appears typically in formal professional communications, such as this: 4023:(e) pared down, were you to refer to a single driver's official State of New York license, its formal and correct appellation should read driver (singular) license (singular): combined, as compound noun (specifically, in our case its forms an appellation aka compound proper noun), whose first noun behaves attributively; hence, as a header is should read: Driver License (which, that all said and done ... it does tend to "hang on the top of one's tongue, unfinished, forcing a unsatisfying dry utterance"). 3884:. "Driving License" is not correct usage in the UK (which uses "Driving Licence", with UK spelling), and it's also not normal usage in the US (which uses Driver's License), Canada, or anywhere else that I'm aware of. It doesn't really matter whether we use US, UK, or other usage, but it doesn't make sense to use a title that appears to be wrong for everyone! I am from the UK, and changed the title to the normal US usage to be consistent with the article itself, which used US spelling. 2851:

article should say "driver's license" (to match the title) but sections such 'North America' can mention that it is known as "Driver License" while still continuing to use "driver's license" (without capitals) in the rest of the section. This is both accurate and consistent. To chop and change the name used for every section is against all WP policies to do with varieties of English and also makes it look like a disjoint article written by separate amateurs - very unprofessional.

2792:. The US defence minister is called the Secretary of Defense in an article that uses UK spelling. The UK defense secretary is the Defence Minister in an article that uses US spelling. The formal title, i.e. proper noun, is capitalized and spelled as per the local language. The name of the document, when referred to as its formal, proper noun, and capitalized, is in local spelling. My Washington driver's license is called a Driver License (reduced from all caps per 1821: 400: 285: 1800: 264: 495: 474: 295: 2698:

the article and using the variant for a particular country within the discussion of that country. Of course, care should be taken to avoid creating confusing mixes of such things within the same sentence or paragraph (in the absence of quote marks or some other clue about what is happening), but trying to uniformly impose the variant used in one country in a discussion of the practices in a different country is not a good solution in all cases. —

2011: 1926: 1905: 5682:. We could change it to British spelling (my personal preference) but then some American will request for us to change it to American spelling. Neither has a greater right than the other but we have to settle on one of them to avoid flip-flopping back and forth. Arbitrarily, we chose the American spelling. Other articles arbitrarily chose British spelling. This is the fairest way we could find in an imperfect world. See 1936: 595: 2796:). It would be perfectly OK to refer to my Washington Driver License as a driving license, if this article is in UK spelling. But if the convention for this article going to remain US English, since there's no consensus on the move discussion below, then a New Zealand Driving License (proper noun) should be referred to as a driver's license when described as a common noun. All of the same arguments could be made in 3414:, which says use the language of strong national ties (doesn't apply in this case, being an international topic) or continue using whichever English variant the article started with. It also says only one variant should be used in the article, although the lead paragraph could also list the other names it is known by. We should not base our choice on whether US or UK editors will have a hissy fit. 390: 369: 3106: 4236:

change you wanted to make was rejected. Regardless of whether this article keeps US or UK spelling, there is consensus that WP:ARTCON is the last word on consistency. There is consensus that WP:ARTCON is clear and unambiguous. Hence the need to drop it and use consistent spelling throughout the article, with three and only thjree well-defined, widely-understood exceptions. --

233: 5233: 1732: 1711: 1831: 3271:

comprehend what "drivers license" and "driver's licence" mean in spite of the all caps and other differences. We have only one editor who has voiced this objection to WP:ARTCON, and otherwise there seems to be strong consensus in favor of following the MOS. Please note that this move is pointless if the original spelling disagreement isn't resolved. --

4395:

month and advertising it on the village pump to solicit community input on such a high-profile topic. If there is any more hijacking of articles for which there is longstanding consensus in favor of American English (the dominant dialect of English by native speakers), someone needs to get the admins or ArbCom involved. --

3727:. "Driving license" "Driver license" and "Driver's license" are the same thing, completely synonymous everywhere. One dominates over another in particular areas not for any good reason. There is no good reason to be changing it. The original version of this article used "Driving license". Return to that per 2650:

particular reasons. There's no need to use both British English and American English in this case. It's especially bad practice here as it leads to both British and American spelling being used in the same paragraph, which is just bad writing. Stick to one variety of English except for the allowed exceptions.--

5463:

Yes, the first version had the words "driving licence" and the second version added "(American: Driver's license)". It's hard to tell from the history what the original name of the article was. But now the article name is "Driver's license" and the 2014 move discussion above confirmed that. The usage

3843:

WP:Silence is the weakest evidence of consensus, and it prevails only until disputed. I see no evidence of agreement to have changed, and the edit making the change was not substantial. Returning to British English, with "driving license", a descriptive title for the topic, as per Dennis, makes for

3042:

I strongly disagree, driving license / driver's license is not a proper noun. It's the name of a broad class of documents even when referring to a specific country. In the United States alone, there are hundreds of different types of driver's licenses. Also notice how it isn't capitalized? That means

2993:

Firstly, remember that you waded in and changed a long standing consensus, based own your own understanding of one WP policy whilst completely ignoring another. You made no attempt to try to understand the existing consensus and then edit warred when I reverted rather than discussing and waiting for

2978:

is superfluous. What is irrational is to even have to talk about spelling when the issue was settled long ago. That's why an admin was so quick to protect the page as soon as a spelling edit war started. There's better things to be doing than talk about spelling. So follow the MOS and keep the peace.

2837:

It seems to me that if we are talking about the concept of a license required to drive a vehicle, then we are not tied to any one particular country, variety of English or document. Hence, any one of the suggested alternatives (Driver license, Driver's license, Driving licence, etc) would be suitable

2460:

In my opinion, if you are referring to a specific document (even if it is not a proper noun and not capitalised) you must use the actual name of the document. So you should say, '...a UK driving licence', because that is what it is. If you want to be consistent throughout then you would need to say

2090:

I am making an assumption here, but by "State" I assume you mean a state in the USA. The term Driver's License or Drivers licence is used across the English speaking world and not just in the States and it would need a much more comprehensive survey of usage across the world to determine which of the

4832:

Well, you know what Steve Martin said about those French. They have a different word for everything. In English, we don't refer to driver's licenses or hunting permits or business licenses as inventions. If we have a clear consensus of reputable sources who say unmistakably, 'the driver's license is

4394:

Concur with Enchanter and HiLo48. It also looks as if at least some of the editors who pushed this unnecessary move and style change are moving very quickly to create the false illusion of consensus for their position. Acting in good faith would mean holding the move discussion open for at least a

4301:

just above, I too questioned the original premise for this discussion. It was never answered. Many editors just made more unsupported claims of mainly unsupported opinion. When a whole discussion is based on an unexplained and possibly incorrect premise, it's unacceptable to claim consensus from it.

4279:

In summary, if the move is to stand, I think that someone needs to set out the rationale for the move more clearly - looking at the discussion I don't think anyone has set out a clear, compelling argument for why this article should change from US to UK spelling. We shouldn't go moving articles from

2735:

is to replace the blog post citations in the spelling section with better sources. If they couldn't be found to support the assertion that 'the spelling of whisky matters' , I'd delete the section and use consistent spelling. But if we assume here in this discussion of license that this section over

2666:

I am not confusing anything, I know perfectly well the difference between a proper noun and a common noun. You are confusing facts with style. We cannot call a document which is, in fact, called a 'drivers license' a 'driving licence' because that is not what it is, and not what it is described as

2195:

In all other cases, such as 'driving licences in Europe...' we should use more general terms like 'licenses to drive motor vehicles' or in some cases just 'licenses' (the readers will know what kind of licence we are referring to) to avoid endless argument about driver/driver's/drivers'/driving. In

2147:

It does vary from state to state, but the LEAST correct term is "drivers license" - while it is a license for drivers overall, it belongs to an individual driver. Hence, the most correct form is "driver's license" since it is possessed (apostrophe) by a single driver. If one license was held by more

5493:

However, I hope we can all agree that this tedious and nit-picking to-and-froing between the local nomenclatures of a very commonly carried document diverts and wastes a great deal of editor time and energy and is largely irrelevant to the needs of our readers who mostly come here to find out about

5342:

confusing mixes of such things within the same sentence or paragraph (in the absence of quote marks or some other clue about what is happening), but trying to uniformly impose the variant used in one country in a discussion of the practices in a different country is not a good solution in all cases.

5314:

5266:

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Knowledge (XXG) articles

4662:

Licensing professions or workers goes back to licensed harbor pilots of the 1850s, and licensed doctors, alchemists, lawyers, and engineers dating to antiquity. Getting official permission to do a thing is not new, particularly when that thing has effects on the general public or requires adherence

3997:

Your apprehension of the true mechanics (pun | allusion) of Driver License entails your understanding of its component parts, their integrated and literal placement (or position) as well as operative relationships, which ignite their engine power plant aka rationale, steering Driver License and its

2490:

I have explained above. The MOS is a style guide, that is all. More important is the inclusion of verifiable facts and these include the different names and spelling of the documents required in different parts of the world to be permitted to drive a motor vehicle. Are you proposing that all such

2475:

We agree there's no problem if it's a proper name for the document. But you also want to use local spelling for a common noun -- driver's license, lower case -- and that deviates from the MOS. Why is this article so different from all the other articles that fall under the MOS? If you want to IAR,

4417:

which shows that the numbers of people speaking commonwealth derived variants of English (395,356,020 speakers) slightly out number the North American variants(336,684,369 speakers). These numbers are not material to this discussion but should not be left uncorrected to create a false impression.

4235:

allows using variant spelling for anything but proper names, quotations, and passages that describe spelling variation itself. If it's not normally capitalized, then it's not a proper name -- exceptions to that rule are very rare and the term driver's license is not one of the rare exceptions. The

4170:

The whole point of the discussion was to change the spelling of the whole article, not merely the title. Now the spelling throughout the article needs to change to UK English. Except for proper names of specific documents, which would be capitalized. This does not need more discussion. There was a

4001:

All that is optimally explained by way of a pit stop, first, which involves the parsing a comparable example that, too, figuratively often crashes minds, leaving road kill and other unseemly litter on the printed page and monitors alike, and can turn off astute audiences, by many would be, if well

2850:

says that once a variety of English has been chosen then that variety should be used throughout the article. Exceptions would be for mentioning the name of an explicit document (in which case it should have leading capitals) and for listing alternative names it is known by. So, the majority of the

2697:

article. Some people use the spelling 'whisky' and some use 'whiskey', and the regional spelling difference is considered significant by many people. When covering a global subject on which such variations exist, there is nothing wrong with describing the differences in spelling and wording within

4715:

Driver license is not a bureaucratic invention, because it answers a need of the people: the right to be protected and to not be killed by any vehicle requires the need to check the capacity of the drivers and to control its driving. The way this control is implemented is a piece of paper and its

4456:

Actually, Velella, English spelling and grammar are atrocious (even in formal written documents like court opinions and newspapers) in many (if not most) Commonwealth nations because English is not the first language in which the local population is immersed from birth. The result is not so much

3965:

by a Polish editor, using US spelling in the title ("license"), and British spelling in the article "licence", and there's been confusion ever since! In 2002 I renamed the article from "Driving license" (which uses US spelling but not US terminology) to the normal US usage "Driver's License" for

2317:

If you want to propose a move and change the whole article to UK English, that seems fine to me, if it will end the bickering. But trying to have it both ways is a solution that Knowledge (XXG) has long ago rejected. It needs to be one or the other. One spelling throughout the whole article, with

2169:

It's "Driver's License" that makes little sense grammatically. You wouldn't have a dog's license or a marriage's license or a hunter's license or a gun's license. If you have a chauffeur and somebody asks you for HIS license, you'd be showing your driver's license. A driver's license is a license

5341:

When covering a global subject on which such variations exist, there is nothing wrong with describing the differences in spelling and wording within the article and using the variant for a particular country within the discussion of that country. Of course, care should be taken to avoid creating

4269:

The requested move had six in favour and six opposed. Of those in favour, four specifically gave as their reason that they believed that the article had started off with UK spelling "Driving licence" and moved later. This is not the case (although it's an easy mistake to make given the cut and

4155:

I agree this move needs a bit more thought. We now have an article with UK spelling in the title, which then switches to (mostly) US spelling in the article itself. Following the move, do we really want to switch the body of the article from US spelling to British spelling? I don't think that

2743:

And so, by that standard, can we please see reliable sources which tell us that it makes an important difference whether we say license or licence? Or driver license, or driving licence? If it is really a fact that this difference is that important, then surely somebody other than some Knowledge

5157:

I see the name of the article and the terminology used within it has been debated many times (and at absurd length). I do not wish to re-open that discussion! But, I see the article includes the explanation "In this article, the American terminology and spelling is used except where the section

4265:

The original reason given for the move to "Driving licence" was "Dennis suggested that ... worldwide, it is a more common term". However, there is no backing information given for this and it is not at all clear that that is true. "Driving licence" is to my knowledge only used in the UK and a

3781:

when there is no previous consensus. 12 years of being "Driver's license" without contention means that is the consensus, which means your argument is to keep it as "Driver's license". To quote from the policy "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, it is

2053:

Just about every state uses the term "Driver License" on that actual license itself. Do a Google image search for verification. Is "Driver License" grammatically correct? Some states do use "Driver's License," but the majority seem to use "Driver License." Which is right? If "Driver License" is

5562:

Agreed that this is endless time wasted. The use of 'driving permit' (presumably changing the article title to match) is a valiant effort but unfortunately will not solve anything because people will still want to either change individual sections to their local form or to harmonise the entire

3993:

Tersely, attributive nouns ie, nouns that behave as adjectives omit the otherwise imperative grammatical apostrophe (possessive form, whether singular or plural). Hence, the singular appellation (the title in our case forms a compound proper noun) Driver License prevails as grammatically apt,

2346:

I agree that spelling should be the same throughout an article, where this is possible, but when referring to an object than has a name in a particular country, we cannot change its name for the sake of consistency. In the US the document is, I believe, a 'drivers license'. In the UK it is a

4441:

and got a headache halfway through. I don't believe the discussion does Knowledge (XXG) (surely a global project) any favours or favors. Of more concern to me is that people understand what I write. On this particular topic: since there are separate articles on "driver's license" and "driving

3270:

and use consistent spelling except for proper nouns. It's unlikely any US readers will object on the grounds that the document has "Driver's license" written on it. Mine says "DRIVER LICENSE" in all caps, with no S or apostrophe, but this difference is of no consequence. I can still, somehow,

2730:

cites only a blogger named Chuck Cowdery who has a couple blog posts about why the spelling of whisky matters, and why "we" write so much about the spelling of whisky. Cowdery seems to have a (self-published?) book that we could cite instead of his blog. So the first thing I would 'try' with

2649:

is a guideline yes, but that means its a reflection of consensus on the issue. Articles which have words that can be spelt more than one way are in British English or American English (or less often Canadian or some other variety), not a mix of them. The exceptions are very narrow, with very

3139:

that we should keep the first non-stub English variety used to be weakened by the potential new consensus that would justify changing; new local consensus trumps ruling-by-precedent. The only arguments that give me pause are the suggestion that both titles are not completely unambiguous

2347:'driving licence'; that is what it says on it. If we were to be truly consistent the we would call them all 'drivers licenses' but the problem is that in WP we state facts, as given in reliable sources. If the facts are not consistent from country to country the we cannot make them so. 4026:

Now you know that the attributive form is what accounts for the Driver License plague besetting all individual holders of a card that grants driving "privileges in most of the US of A" aka ID; now, you only need to concern yourself with buying auto insurance ... and database entries?

2148:

than one driver then "drivers' license" would be the correct term, but to my knowledge no one uses that. Nonetheless, one should look somewhere other than government entities for correct spelling, punctuation, or logic (though incorrect grammar often gets corrected in a court of law.)

4579: 3027:

The documentation required to drive a motor vehicle in the UK is called a 'driving licence' (Note this is not capitalised and not a proper noun). No policy can change that fact, so every time we refer to a specific national document we have to use the correct name of that document.

5161:

Fine - except the article does not then follow that claim. So, for instance, there is a "driving licence" in Switzerland and a "driving license" in Peru. There are many other examples - and pretty well all the links to country specific articles refer to "driving licences in ...".

2667:

in reliable sources. We are free to choose the style of our own words but to to change the names (not chosen by us)of documents. When referring to a specific document we must call it by its real name, it is not open to us to rename it. The MOS is a default style guide; stating

4925:

The correct word is "introduction". The driver's license was a German introduction. Some sources say it was introduced by Germany, so. that's what it is. Except you've just given us another source that tells us, "France introduced the first driving licences". So it's clearly

2390:. To use UK spelling for the common noun usage of license, propose a move and shift the whole article. I think most entries in the article use UK spelling, so I'd support it. But then the US sections would have to say licence as well, except for proper names of documents. -- 4892:

The fact that you could find some website somewhere on the internet is not very compelling evidence. It depends on the quality of the source, and the quantity. That's great that this Dennis Prager is a guy with a blog and a radio show, but is he the authority on this? Why?

3815:

Well, you have to build a case for whether 12 years of silence means 12 years of nobody noticing versus 12 years of agreement - very subjective and no supporting evidence. Whereas my case depends only on the dry facts of 12 years of "consistent usage", in agreement with

2973:

Nonsense. Please point out any "irrational" edits I have made to the article, or "irrational" discussion here. We should follow the MOS, as I and others have been saying from the beginning. The MOS already says you should use local spelling for proper names, so touting

2170:

that belongs to a driver. A driver license is a license to drive. You'd expect the adjectival form of the word to say what is being licensed, such as a dog, a marriage, hunting, a gun, or a driver (or driving.) Driving License and Driver License make the most sense.

4663:

to conventions, like piloting/driving (anything) or law. It's like the silly idea of calling the teddy bear a German invention. Stuffed animals existed since forever. A German is the first (that we know of) to make one in the design of a bear. It is at best a German

3800:

No, I dispute that there was 12 years of consensus. There was 12 years of nobody noticing. There was no good reason to have moved it, so put it back. To not respect an original version is to create incentive to do things on the quiet, or create artificial drama.

4917:

The two academic papers are at least something. But they don't say "the driver's license is a German invention". If this is an undisputed fact, then where are the sources that simply say it? Why must we piece that statement together from parts of different sources

4670:

So licenses, letters of permission, passports, permits, warrants, etc are not 'inventions', and extending the existing practice of licensing (or merely taxing) certain practitioners to a new kind of thing, whether it's a sea vessel, land vehicle, space craft, or

2570:

You're clearly confusing proper nouns with common nouns. You're claiming every instance of the phrase 'drivers license' is a proper noun, and that is incorrect. The MOS allows use of local spelling for proper nouns, and that should be enough. And even then, we

2881:

I think you and Denis are misunderstanding what I am suggesting. I agree that the title can be an national description. I also agree that when referring in the text to licences in general we should use one spelling but, when referring to a specific document,

3549:. A careful reading of WP:RETAIN says that we keep the variety used in the first non-stub revision of the article. By any standard, that's a version whose first words include "driver's license". I picked (before I looked) 3,000 bytes as my cut-off and found 4274:

had the title "Driving license" (US spelling), and was later moved (by me) to "Driver's license" (still US spelling, with more consistent terminology). The reasoning for most of those in favour of the move was based on a mistaken understanding of the

639: 3824:

was written and the title has now been there for 12 years. Therefore the title is the status quo that we retain if no consensus is found. Of course, if we all agree to change it (ie a consensus) then we change to the new title that we all agree to.

2476:

you need to provide reasons why this is such a special case. Other articles refer to official documents, titles, places, and so on, and they are able to follow the distinction between common nouns and proper names. What makes this the exception? --

5325:* Use the exact national or regional spelling and terminology when referring to a specific country, for example UK "Driving Licence" or US "Driver's License" . (Note that the verb is still spelled with an 's' in Brit spelling, as in 'licensing'.) 3410:- all combinations of Driver's/Driver/Driving and licence/license are valid candidates for the article, depending on which country you living in and which regional variant of English you use. When variations of English are in dispute we rely on 5558:

You have made the assumption that the form used in the body text overrides the form used in the article title. I would have chosen the other way around. Whenever an article is renamed it is normal to re-normalise the body text to match the new

4901:

an invention. It's a device, not merely an expansion of existing bureaucratic rules to cover a new thing. And if you're asserting that the National Motor Museum is reliable, then we must also accept that the first drivers license was issued by

2954:

Possibly that edit was wrong but it would have been easier if you had entered into a rational discussion with me rather than just changing everything. Stepho-wrs says above pretty well what I was saying. When referring to an actual document we

641: 5165:

To repeat, I don't want to change any of the naming used in the article (and driving licence is a better phrase than driver license anyway). I just suggest removing or re-writing the offending sentence quoted above since it isn't true.

4216:

You seem to agree that when referring to a specific document, for example 'a UK driving licence', we should use the correct name and spelling but that does not mean that we 'driving licence' is a proper noun and should be capitalised.

5329:* When referring to the document in general, avoid the terms driver's/drivers'/driving where possible and use terms such as 'license to drive...' or just 'license' as context makes it obvious what kind of licence is being referred to. 2263:

Use the exact national or regional spelling and terminology when referring to a specific country, for example UK "Driving Licence" or US "Driver's License" . (Note that the verb is still spelled with an 's' in Brit spelling, as in

4914:

the driver's license, it says "France introduced the first driving licences". This source reserves the word "invented" for actual devices, the parking meter and traffic dots. It seems to be telling us the license is not like those

2292:

Knowledge (XXG) already has a broad community consensus on spelling: it should be the same throughout an article, with three exceptions that don't apply here, except in the first sentence where the alternate spelling is noted. See

2270:

When referring the the document in general, avoid the terms driver's/drivers'/driving where possible and use terms such as 'license to drive...' or just 'license' as context makes it obvious what kind of licence is being referred

2114:

I think we should continue as before, with the article title remaining the same and the article being written in US English but the licences of individual countries or states spelled as they are in that state or country.

2364:

The above consensus states that we should use the consistent spelling of 'license' when referring to the subject of the article generally, that satisfies WP policy, however, no WP policy can turn one thing into another.

3349:

this is a license for drivers, not a license allowing to drive a particular vehicle, which are also licensed for road use. "driving license" shows no indication it is not a license for a vehicle instead of a person. --

166: 4014:(c) when used as part of a compound proper noun eg, in an appellation (aka title aka name of holiday), such as Veterans Day, the "s", because the noun behaves as attributive noun (yet plural) omits its apostrophe; 4608:("steam boiler supervision association") was charged with conducting these tests. In 1910, the German imperial government mandated the licensing of drivers on a national scale, establishing a system of tests and 3307:

looking at the history and first versions it started off at 'driving licence' and so if there's disagreement and no clear reason to prefer one or the other it should default to that, with the language updated to

615: 5256: 3782:

maintained in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change."

4002:

informed, conscientious and otherwise road-worthy users of the English language, as they unwittingly speed along, creating abysmal communications, for lack of knowing how to improve their writing and speech.

2386:. If you are directly referring to the actual document -- capitalized an all -- then yes, use local spelling. But that doesn't mean each section uses a different spelling of license/license when used as a 1782: 4796:

But in fact I note that you did not define what is an invention from your point of view. I assume that you have some kind of specifically limitation idea on this topic? suach as things which have a

4266:

handful of other English speaking countries with close links to the UK (such as Ireland, Hong Kong and South Africa). It is not the term commonly used in the US, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.

4213:

In what sense did I lose that debate? I accept that I was a little over zealous in pressing for national spellings within the article although that was partly because of your heavy handed editing.

621: 2149: 3970:

and I don't think there is any reason to change now - there is no problem with the title, which is understandable for everyone. (I wonder if this will still be discussed in another 12 years!).

5633: 4622:

Section 3 of the Motor Car Act, 1903 only made it compulsory for drivers of motor cars in the United Kingdom to have a driving licence from "the first day of January, nineteen hundred and

4020:".... State of New York's drivers licenses database is managed and accessed by authorized IT contributors and operations staff ... during SDLC's Phase III reengineering ....."; likewise, 2774:

Dennis, you have still not answered the question of whether you would like to impose on standard term for the subject of this article, for example, call all documents, 'driving licence'.

2192:

When we are referring to a specific licence, such as a 'UK driving licence' we should use the official spelling and form of words used for that specific licence in that specific country.

5311:

When we are referring to a specific licence, such as a 'UK driving licence' we should use the official spelling and form of words used for that specific licence in that specific country.

3928:

as a fork of that article then histories merged. Spelling used in the article should be British (as in the earliest revisions) or mixed (as it remained at least until the end of 2004).

3364:

It's also a licence that allows driving! Both forms are perfectly good English. "Driving licence" probably looks odd to an American; "driver's license" looks odd to me as a Briton. --

2099:

seems a little odd grammatically but there are , no doubt, good reasons for its use. Oh, and I think this has been discussed before - see above and above that and above that etc.

2740:

is well sourced, and that it is verifiable that the spelling of whisky makes that much of a difference, then I'd probably support using different spellings throughout the article.

4910:? Because we can't pick and choose which parts of a source we trust and which parts we don't. Is the National Motor Museum a reliable source? This source does not say the French 3708:" and leaving the "automotive" keyword out is what make it ambiguous. For all I know, based on the title it could be a license for driving a horse and buggy or a golfball... — 1584: 626: 3148:, but I believe that this is a common enough concept in this era that any potential confusion is minimal at best. Obviously, I'll also make sure all possible redirects exist. 5485:. Yes, it seems that the first article was (schizophrenically) entitled "Driving license" but the first body text used the non-US and rather common Commonwealth spelling of 160: 5259:, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the 3990:

Wiki contributors' extant dialog -- which appears below my entry's incisive, apt and correct content -- has been left unmodified, for what their chatter may prove worth.

3460:, that is what it should return to. However, I for one would welcome debate, only so that later on I can indulge in a therapeutic " hissy fit" ! 09:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC) 2802:

Others have already pointed out that this is a Knowledge (XXG) wide guideline and other Wikipedians have already expended vast amounts of time reaching the compromise in

5355:- as in domestic driving permit and international driving permit. This usage can help us avoid awkward combinations and clashes of national nomenclature in this article. 5240:, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Knowledge (XXG) has readers from all over the world, our policy is to 4438: 655: 653: 3820:'s exact words. The change to "Driver's license" was made in the 3rd edit. If it was done today then yes, I would agree with reverting it back but it was done before 545: 2689:

I disagree with the notion that articles on Knowledge (XXG) must always use one spelling/phrasing style exclusively for common nouns within them. I don't think the

456: 5924: 5392:. The exceptions are quotations, proper names, and some chemistry topics. You're changing the spelling in sections that are not quotations, and not proper names. 4836: 1877: 5899: 677: 535: 351: 92: 5889: 5522:

In this article, the (American/Commonwealth) terminology and spelling is used generally but in country specific sections, the local spelling variant is used.

2240:

I made some more changes along the same lines, which I think are OK. There are a few places where I cannot think of a good way of removing driver's/driving.

446: 1657: 5753: 3609:

How long would you suggest is long enough to not be a stub? Wherever you pick, as long as it's more than three sentences long, the argument still stands.

1639: 5904: 5874: 341: 4479:

Any chance of a reference for that outrageous statement? Not sure how my friends in NZ would feel about being described as speakers of pidgin English .

3880:

No, the article should not be moved back to "Driving License". I moved the article from "Driving License" (12 years ago!) with good reasons which were

511: 57: 4840: 3115: 1887: 422: 4657: 5725:

Sorry, this talk page is only for improving the Knowledge (XXG) article, not for general discussion of the topic. You will need to look elsewhere.

5678:

Knowledge (XXG) is an international encyclopaedia. It is edited and read by people from all over the world - including people from America and the

3248:

I think you will find that many US editors will object because their actual licence has 'Drivers license' written on it, and I would support them.

98: 5919: 5914: 5879: 3553:, but then I looked closer and any version from that first page besides the two-sentence original had "driver's license". So we retain the first. 3440:

as described below. You might want to join in the discussion in the section above about using the factually correct names for specific licences.

1772: 1988: 317: 2591:

has no need to change spelling for each national section, except for proper nouns, per the MOS. Do we need to see 50 examples to make the point?

5894: 910: 889: 2693:

really requires that, and in some cases, that is simply not a practical possibility. If you think it is, I invite you to give it a try in the

2075:

Many states use Drivers License. I prefer that for simplification. Otherwise you get into whether it should be driver's or drivers' license.

5626: 4833:

a German invention' then Knowledge (XXG) should say that. We should not categorize it as an invention if we don't have solid sourcing for it.

4231:

You failed to convince anyone that using a variant spelling for a common noun is not "factually correct". You failed to convince anyone that

4553: 502: 479: 5939: 5884: 5141: 4806: 3315: 3295: 2929: 2657: 1978: 1224: 749: 43: 4859:. Problem solved. Knowledge (XXG) should get out of the business of assigning nationalist ownership of achievements to settle bar bets. -- 2173:

However, this is not about opinion but accuracy. In the US, most states issue Driver Licenses, so that's what the article should mention.

1748: 1195: 413: 374: 4760:

One consequence of this error is the invention of the absurd school work which consist in making (learner) to transpose verse into prose.

3092:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2838:

as the title of the article because all are attested names in the real world. There is little reason to choose anyone over any other, so

2491:

documents should be called a 'drivers license', regardless of the name that is, in fact (as confirmed by reliable sources) used for them.

831: 5929: 5869: 5711: 5173: 4123:

As I said on my own talk page, I don't have the strongest conviction about this close either (I was patrolling old, unclosed RMs), so a

4039: 3994:

coherent usage and supportable above all alternatives ... even though it may appear a bit awkward and resonate as an unfinished phrase.

3351: 3245:– Dennis suggested that because, worldwide, it is a more common term, we should move the article to 'Driving licence'. Let us do that. 2806:. I would support deviating from WP:ARTCON if I were to see verifiable facts showing why driver's license is unique. Show evidence, and 2196:

this case we should use US spelling as this is the consensus spelling for this article. I have started this change, does anyone object?

1368: 657: 1853: 649: 645: 2593:

Again, why is this article special? Why can't it follow the same policy as other articles about legal documents? Or on any subject? --

2153: 2061: 1097: 829: 775: 770: 5042: 4644:

A driver's license isn't an invention. It's a legal convention, a kind of grant of permission to do a thing. Are you going to call a

1560: 1503: 308: 269: 112: 5944: 5799: 5395: 117: 33: 3967: 3881: 2024: 203: 5909: 4844: 4717: 2915: 1261: 765: 181: 5306:. In 2016 I saw that you had not managed to achieve a consensus to either contradict or negate the consensus reached in 2011 of: 5014: 4985: 87: 4667:, not an invention. Though most likely the first person to make a toy bear a bazillion years ago didn't think to crow about it. 3746: 2424:

I am not proposing changing the spelling throughout to UK. This is not a US/UK fight it is an argument against changing facts.

1610: 848: 148: 2755:

is different, then we ought to treat it the same as other articles, and follow the same MOS rules that other articles follow.

1739: 1716: 1663: 1651: 1645: 643: 607: 244: 759: 4756:

Une conséquence de cette erreur est l'invention de l'exercice scolaire absurde qui consiste à faire mettre des vers en prose

1844: 1805: 1184: 739: 78: 5839: 4615:

However, the world's first licence to drive a motor vehicle had been issued more than 15 years earlier on 1 August 1888 to

2182: 2084: 2069: 5934: 5105: 3476: 647: 5116: 706: 5949: 5764: 5641: 3187: 3183: 1378: 836: 818: 729: 5268: 5241: 4938: 4005:

Consider the much maligned and often confused use of the noun veterans (the plural form of veteran) in Veterans Day :

3083: 1949: 1910: 4199:

But you lost that debate. Shouldn't you let it go? I don't see what good it is to continue to beat that dead horse. --

996: 5749:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

699:

first national sales manager for American Honda, then Suzuki, and founder of American Eagle Motorcycles (1967-1970).

142: 4930: 4907: 4852: 3203: 3199: 1176:

is a better article, but none of these 3 actually explains how spokes support the wheel pre-stressed w/compression.

696: 198: 1020: 936:

Probably redirect all these to a single-page history of this series. Main articles on each one later, if desired.

122: 5403: 5284: 5272: 4950: 4864: 4680: 4241: 4204: 4176: 3276: 3195: 3191: 2994:

a consensus. You then got an admin to protect the page immediately after your edits to consolidate your position.

2984: 2945: 2819: 2764: 2598: 2481: 2395: 2327: 2302: 1576: 1521: 1439: 1321: 1204: 977: 833: 4856: 4604:, introduced compulsory licensing on September 29, 1903. A test on mechanical aptitude had to be passed and the 4127:

is an absolutely appropriate option to get a second opinion about the consensus (or lack of). Please speak with

3705: 2033: 212: 5145: 4810: 3844:

the most sensible, and simple solution. Mention of specific documents with proper names won't be affected. --

3288:

I made this into a formal RM, just so it's listed as a potentially controversial move, I hope you don't mind.--

2923: 1130: 990: 812: 754: 138: 5497:

My suggestions would be to reduce the demands of copy editing maintenance and scope for edit warring by either

5416:

In the templated message to me that you used (and I've quoted above), Dennis, you used the following phrase: "

4083: 4054:

Knowledge (XXG) should contain information on the world as it is not as our contributors would like it to be.

3093: 636: 622:

Origin and disparities in technological advancements & infrastructure compared to automobile safety sector

250: 5715: 5622:

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

5177: 4261:

To summarise, I suggest that the decision to change the article from US to UK spelling is reviewed, because:

3456:- as JohnBlackburne noted above, this article started as "Driving licence" which strongly suggest that under 2095:

would seem to be more logically correct indicating that it was the driver who owned or deserved the license.

5760: 5637: 4385: 4329: 4222: 4190: 4059: 4043: 3663: 3445: 3355: 3253: 3033: 2964: 2895: 2779: 2676: 2529: 2466: 2429: 2370: 2279: 2245: 2215: 2201: 2120: 2065: 1953:, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the 1404: 1168: 1040: 1016: 895: 868: 663: 5803: 5169: 5137: 4802: 4035: 3464: 2057: 925: 5529: 5442: 5371: 5199: 4695: 4634: 4447: 1358: 939: 668: 651: 188: 5710:

Is they any ways to learn online ? Because I really to start learning online and get driving license .

5276: 966: 929: 858: 68: 5061: 3933: 3863: 3645: 3578: 3573:

spelling variations, and also included 'driving licence' in multiple places. It was somewhat of a mix. —

3529:. Move to the spelling the article was started in, and remained at for 4 years before undiscussed move. 2703: 2230: 1852: