128:"United States painter" gets a paltry 603 google hits, most of which seem to be Knowledge mirrors (alas, this awkward and obtuse phrase shows up in some article text). There is obviously no such linguistic usage, nor should we invent one. "United States" is not in any way an adjective. Or look at it this way: would anyone, regardless of what part of the world you live in, expect someone to say "Hi, I'm a United States"? or "Hi, I'm a U.S."? when they introduce themselves? Yeah, they could say "Hi, I'm from the U.S.", but if they want to use the simple noun form, or an adjective, no one would say anything but "I'm an American" or "I'm American." Even though "U.S." may have some currency as an adjective, 1) it primarily refers to the government, 2) its usage is definitely minor compared to "American", and 3) it simply doesn't work for people ("No, I'm not Canadian, I'm U.S.")
550:
Olympics. I know the terms "United States foo" sounds odd, I offered an alternative on the philanthropists Cfr "Philanthropists of the United States". Of course no one really liked the wording, but it is far better than a grammatically incorrect version. I have not yet performed any extra external research on the topic, this is just from personal experience, and the guidelines set out of the security personell (sp) during the 1996 Olympics. Athletes from Canada and Mexico made a formal protest about people referring to United States
Olympians as American Olympians, such that both the Olympic committee and the military, made it policy for the rest of the event, to refer to them as United States Olympians. Ever since then, I have tried to refrain from using American, and simply state; "I am from the US". I believe to be both fair and uniform, we should follow the "<thing: -->
1123:. I also think it's a blind alley, since if we start categorising by nation we run into horrible things with countries which change their names, especially the United Kingdom where it is far easier to categorise by nationality, which has been constantly British since the union of the two crowns, rather than by country name, which has changed over the years. How would one then categorise the British monarchy? Would it be categorised in parts, with the monarchy of Great Britain, and then the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and then the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, without then igniting the already bubbling arguments about whether it is also the monarchy of Canada and so on.
1195:
if we are striving for correctness, why are you ignoring all the sources cited above and failing to cite any sources to back up your own argument? If there is any POV, then surely the POV is on the side of those that reject
American because it has numerous meanings. I have yet to see anyone apply the same to British, which not only means a citizen of the UK but also an inhabitant of the British Isles, thus including Irish citizens. We also don't use Britisher, which is used to describe the British in N. America, because we respect the terms that a country uses to describe itself when determining which word to use. Are we really going to be renaming
1224:"American" means "of the U.S." in the English language (and in cognates in many others) the whole world over. What the U.S. and its people use wouldn't matter if no one else followed it. But they do. I can't think of better evidence of non-U.S. English media usage than the BBC, and the widespread term "American football" (used in many, many languages, not just English) really clinches it. Unless someone would like to argue that non-Americans, when they hear "American football", think it just means soccer played in North and South America, or think Brazilians and Cubans are equally likely to be playing the non-"soccer" variant of football.
995:
under this category, rather than wonder if the articles listed under
American is North, South, Central, I just suggest we use the proper name and cut loose commonly used slang, which has come to be the norm. As for actual proof, the problem with media relating to titles, is most friendly govts and media outlets have referred to PC titles, as even used common literal terminology, so there isn't going to be much in finding someone actually using the full proper name, but it's still the proper name reguardless. Mainly for any reference sake, we use the full appropriate name of something, rather than a short or even commonly used one.
1296:
and the United States are similar and equivalent sorts of polical organizations. That historcally speaking the
American states (like New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, etc.) did not last long as independent soverign nations may be true, but they were and the US government still has soverignty that is derived from the states, not the other way around. In this sense I consider Texas to be equal with France or Israel, not an inferior subordinate political organization. And yes Texas has its own military force and would likely be considered a nuclear power if it weren't for the fact that it is just one of several states in the USA.
1102:"U.S." is the second best term to use. However, I'm still because all the arguments I've seen are based on hypothetical confusion and irrelevant offense, which actual widespread international usage of "American" to mean "U.S." belie. While there are undoubtedly occasions in which people have used "American" to mean "of the Americas," this is such a minor usage that the presumption is that it means "of the U.S." If, after substantially more people join in this discussion, the consensus is against "American", I can live with "U.S.," if only to prevent really inane alternatives from being adopted.
463:
the USA passport proclaims an "American
Citizen". This information should be obtainable in all but the most obscure cases such as when a new country is formed. Then there's the question of what to do with the full "United States of America" designation...there are other United Stateses after all (isn't Mexico actually The United Mexican States?). So, I'd suggest going with the exact form, no matter how lengthy, that's in the back of the passport. There's no question of accuracy, usage, NPOV, geographical confusion or anything. -
38:
917:
what
American is. We far too often defer to commonly used slang words as accepted usage globally, what American in true context means is, United States American, to abbreviate it just for our sake of efficiency and comfort would not change the fact of what it really means, so why label it otherwise in any context? To address some of the concerns of "Judges of the United States", we quite simply add "by state", however pointless it
246:
naming conventions, the adjectival categories are going to be continually recreated by those who don't know about the change. Two, your solution is the one that entails the most work at this point because it involves changing over nearly all of the people by nationality categories and subcategories. Quite a lot of work even for a bot, and too much work compared to the insignificance of the problems.
765:
you perceive as
American hegemony. Both admirable motivations (particularly with the current corrupt U.S. government), but totally misguided when it comes to the simple fact of our language. Do you honestly believe that if any English speaker says "The president of the U.S. spoke on TV last night," that there will be great uncertainty as to who they're talking about? ("
1300:
your cause. Also remember that while a large number of people may post on here with this discussion, it doesn't necessarily represent the "majority" opinion, even here on
Knowledge. I wouldn't have even found this page if I hadn't found it on the Village Pump, and I hardly ever even read that. I was trying to find discussion about some other point at the time.
897:(as in spoken word). For a meager example, if you were to look in the Yellow Pages, for say "discount store", "super store", "general store", etc, whatever term you commonly refer to it as, you may not find them as they have been put in pre-defined category chosen by the consensus or publisher, generally "department stores" We all have a common way that we
1284:. If my country is America, I therefore am an American. It is pretty simple in that context, but there are many people, particularly those who live in other countries in both North and South America to resent this use of the term. A similar issue comes up with the term "Colombia", but rarely do people object to the use of the word
1292:
a politcal revolution and a new communist government put in instead, it would be called the "People's
Republic of America" or some other similar term. Or try on "Kingdom of America" or "American Empire". "Kingdom of the United States", I guess, could be somewhat reasonable, but not really correct in usage.
1291:
I will be the first to admit that the use of the name
America is in part a hold-over from the colonization of North America by England, and in part the "Manifest Destiny" attitude that prevailed in the 19th Century within the USA. Still, by what other name would you call this country? If there were
1194:
The problem is, it is just as much systematic bias the other way, in that the large number of wikipedians who do not live in the USA reject the term that the United States government uses about its own citizens. What other country would Knowledge disregard the naming conventions of in this way? And
764:
this discussion has been, because you're either trying to turn a definition into a sign of cultural oppression, or just totally ignoring real world linguistic usage to invent a possibility of ambiguity, in what I can only understand as a politically motivated attempt to be "fair" or to undermine what
530:
Doesn't an American passport give the nationality on the page with the photograph. Mine lists me as a British Citizen, hence the term British should be used to define people and things said to be of the UK. Since the U.S. Department of State refers to American citizens, I would assume that would be
486:
American passports just say the name of the country. They don't give an adjectival or simple noun form (as British passports do, apparently). But this is irrelevant anyway because the issue is what the proper term is in the language, as real people use it, and what gov't bureaucrats happened to use
1092:
means "of the US". So basically, we're not making ANYTHING up by using United States. People use it all the time to refer to, the United States. And nothing else. People use American to refer to "of the United States", but they also use it to refer to other things. Seriously, I'm not seeing how
467:
23:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC) And, if someone has multiple nationality it still works: it even avoids fights over which cat they should go in: they just go in all of them. It also washes away things like the Northern Irish question. Their passports (I think) proclaim them British, so we wouldn't have to
462:
Alright, how about something like this: we just use whatever the nationality in question means you have as your nationality in the back of your passport? I presume USA passports say (guessing) "Citizen of the United States of America", and mine says "British Citizen". I think it deeply unlikely that
314:
to the use of "American" to refer to someone from the U.S. Please, anyone who wants to comment here, do more than just express an unelaborated opinion without support—that isn't accomplishing anything, and you're simply repeating opinions that have already been addressed in greater substance. This
131:
I've never seen anyone who has disagreed that this convention is binding or pervasive actually offer any evidence supporting that "American" does not overwhelmingly and dominantly mean "of the United States", or that there are other comparatively prominent and correct alternatives. Please let's fix
120:
lack uniformity, with it split between "United States", "U.S.", and "American", though most use the latter. I just wanted to make sure that this discussion got wider exposure, because based on past experience on the CfD page, I think the misplaced good intentions of a few have prevented a permanent
1299:
I find that this whole discussion about trying to change the terms of categories from "American painters" to "Painters from the United States" to be more politically charged than trying to accomplish any useful task here on Knowledge. If this is politically charged and motivated, then please state
1295:
There are political reasons for using the term "United States", just as there is for "European Union". Perhaps more so. "United States" is in part a reference to the governments of America, and a political desire to encourage federal governments around the world. In this sense the European Union
1208:
As to systematic bias in the real world, in the real world, the name of the country is technically America, in the same way that the Repiblic of Brazil is the country of Brazil and so on and so forth. So I question the validity of the systematic bias argument used against the term American. If it
841:
I think "President of the United States" is pretty natural. So is "Supreme Court of the United States". Conventions can be changed. As for how much work it will cause, we have bots for that who wouldn't complain one bit. As for American Judges, you can either preface Judges of the United States
245:
That's one solution that is certainly preferable to ignoring a real convention in favor of a make-believe one, but it has a few drawbacks. One, the natural tendency in English is to label people by the adjectival form, and so absent those few obscure countries that don't have well known or obvious
124:
The simple fact is that in all forms of English (not to mention through cognates in many other languages), "American" is the only term for referring to someone or something that is of the United States. This is regardless of the fact that this linguistic appropriation of an adjective that may have
916:
being in the United States of America, understand it as just that. However, if I were to take a printed book to, say Canada, and reference anything other than them as American, although to me it may be understood, they are Americans as well, and are now being decluded just from my point of view of
818:
I was actually responding to Splash, up above. Sorry, the order gets a little confusing. As to why we can't just use thing of country, perhaps most importantly, it's not natural to do that with people in the English language—the convention is to use the adjectival form. And it's the option with
780:
that "American" has the same widespread usage as "European" does as a continental reference (which seems to be what people are implying, though without showing evidence of this), or that absent "North", "South", "Central", or "Latin", that people will not presume it means of the U.S. (and I don't
259:
There is a guideline against abbreviations in titles, so "U.S." would fall short of that (however, it seems many people disagree with said guideline so maybe it needs further discussion). Since we're an encyclopedia, we should not use the word 'American' to refer to the country known as the United
948:
So you're stating that Canadians commonly use and understand "American" to mean "of the continents of North and South America," and will not use it or understand it to mean "of the United States." Some quick googling suggests that's not the case; though "U.S." is also used, "American" is clearly
864:
I think the most acceptable substitute is to use "U.S." It's actually an adjective, and though it has some governmental connotation, it's not as strong as "of the United States." I'm still opposed to this, however, because there is a more proper term to use that has dominant usage worldwide and
851:
Once again, your examples are titles of governmental offices/agencies. "Jerry Lewis is an American celebrity" is natural. "Jerry Lewis is a celebrity of the United States" is not, and seems to imply something other than just his nationality; is he a government spokesperson? Or only a celebrity
1126:
I find this seems to boil down to the fact that people do not want to use American to describe the nationality of those people and objects of the USA. However, surely common usage and the manual of style trump that. If The US government uses the term American to describe the nationality of its
994:
Actually no I wasn't statiing it unequivically, just as a reference to another continental American group. Although we can cite resources on word usage, my main point is the actual country name is United States of America, so without any doubt, I could find listings for peoples, objects, etc...
921:
seem, it solves the problem of defining the category as Federal judges. I am not sure if we have moved on or began to address American ethnicities yet (African American, Chinese American, Italian Americans, etc.), so I will only put in the phrase "PC (politically correct)" to be used in further
1024:
And one final point...it's not merely your POV that they're not Americans if they don't call themselves American either (which they don't, just North Americans), and they call you American in a reference to your U.S. citizenship (which they do). That's not POV. That's the fact of the English
823:
for all countries just to avoid using "American" for one. That's not a good reason. And perhaps least important, but nonetheless an issue, it could result in ambiguous connotations because normally "U.S." or "United States" are used instead of "American" to associate people with the federal
549:
In my personal experience, dealing with peoples from North and South Americas, most of them were quite offended by United States citizens referring to them selves as Americans and decluding the rest of the peoples from the same continents. Mainly during large international events such as the
217:
I seem to recall seeing a lot of discussion a few months back that proposed changing adjectival forms (e.g. Fooish Thingies) of category names to use genitive prepositional phrases (e.g. Thingies of Fooland). My recollection is that that this had general support for two reasons: the correct
1318:
as it stands currently, and it is the correct useage of the term, both from an official policy statement from the Government of the United States of America, and from common usage of its citizens. This isn't the first time I've had to fight this idea, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
590:
Even if "American" is decided against, I see no need to be wordy. I think abbreviations would be acceptable here. I believe "U.S." and "USA" are very widely known, "U.S." or "US" are often used in articles, and they are probably more widely known than many other abbreviations used in
980:
by a prominent Canadian politician speaking to Canadian press. Do you have proof to the contrary? Everyone keeps on claiming confusion in other countries, yet no one has explained how this confusion can really exist when so many non-American media outlets use "American."
861:"Conventions can be changed." It's not our place to change them, any more than it is our place to change accepted fact based on original research or POV advocacy. We take the language as we find it. It would be POV of us to ignore conventions and create our own.
671:
1. Just for clarification, when I said the most-closely related article, I didn't mean the article for the country in general. I meant the article that was closest to the specific topic of the category, which would often be a list. I mean items such as those in
534:
I also think that the common usage is the best and clearest policy here. It's also worth noting that if citizens of the US refer to themselves as American, then Knowledge should use the term when describing things or people of the US as per usage of English.
365:
If no one of the opposite opinion presents any evidence beyond unelaborated conclusory statements, we should just consider this matter resolved. Or perhaps we should take a vote on whether "African Americans" are really called "United States black people."
1142:
was created precisely to prevent that. Just because the majority of Wikipedians live in the USA doesn't mean that the meaning of any term as used in the USA should trump that term's meaning worldwide. We strive for correctness, after all, not for POV.
1219:
The big problem here is that the Wikipedians who are rejecting the term that the U.S. uses for its own citizens do not reflect actual rejection of that term outside of Knowledge. "American" almost always means "of the U.S." and (more importantly?)
1038:
I agree that we coined the phrase, and I can not prove that I have personally witnessed the dislike of the usage from some peoples. Btw, I actually have Candadian friends that refer to them selves as American, and others that despise the title.
175:, which mostly use that form. Even were that not the case, the "prevailing phrasing" should be changed if it is incorrect (that's what bots are for, after all). The actual (and proper) convention in category naming of people is to apply the
586:
I believe it is WP convention to use the most common name. Is there any evidence that "American" is not most common, or that "United States" as an adjective is anywhere close to common, or that "foo of Country" is more common that "adjective
842:
with an intro, or make two categories, Federal judges and State judges. This isn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. Seriously, I respect your point of view on this matter, but this in my mind is a pretty good compromise. --
582:
I expect that any uses of "United States" as an adjective are relatively few. Does anyone know of any non-WP style guide or writing guide that supports this? That is, mainly something used by people who write for a living or the general
288:"In fact"? I'm getting rather frustrated and continually surprised by these absolute and incorrect statements from people otherwise reasonable. First, this isn't about referring to the country, it's about referring to things/people
1538:", "pop", which none are the actual real name, and "Coke" would definately not be accepted as a title, as it is proper to an actual brand. So using any common/slang words, no matter how well known, are not good reasons for a title.
1241:
means "of the U.S." But "almost always" isn't "always". You asked before if someone would be confused at the phrase, "President of the U.S.". No, the answer is no. So I ask again, what is the problem with (thing) of (country)?
1385:
True, but "most common name" shouldn't be mistaken for using what is just a convenience in speech/writing. The country's name is the United States of America (even if the WP article doesn't think so). I mean, we couldn't call the
650:
4. U.S. is America-centric, there are other United Stateses, one of them called the United Mexican States for example. Again, geo-political accuracy is not an irrelevance. So if we go against "American" I'd prefer to see USA (or
1307:. However, I find it slightly offensive to be called a "Norte Americano" (North American) as though Canada and Mexico don't count as countries either. I am not here to change the world, however, but the usage of the term
1495:'s request for evidence, but I doubt it will come to much. It appears that the strongest feelings are against "United States" and "American", and I am unsure that anyone who already has an opinion will be persuaded.
579:
Another option is to follow the format of the title of the most-closely related article. Why should categories have different standards than article (other than those that are inherently dependent on form)?
901:
things, but they are often referenced by a very specific category. I may refer to it as a "super market" and would probably find it referenced under "grocery stores". The point is, although in every day
218:
adjectival form of a place is not always obvious; and adjectival forms for places tend to be vaguer and more ambiguous. I can't find any proof of overarching consensus, and I certainly can't find it in
502:
That a word may have some alternate meanings does not justify use of an alternative when there is an overwhelmingly dominant usage that is the presumption absent contextual clues to the contrary.
231:
1209:
is common usage, is officially sanctioned and internationally recognised amongst English speaking countries, where is the problem in utilising the term in the english language Knowledge?
154:
Whilst we're at it, then, could we standardise British and UK into British, since British is the term used to describe the nationality of citizens of the UK, as per the British passport.
300:
usage as an adjective (outside of the obtuse usages found on this site—google doesn't lie on this point). Second, "American" does not "in fact" refer to the entire continent except in
654:
5. I agree. This particular one though, does need settling as there seems to a CfD at least every other day related to the broader principle (i.e. countries other than than the USA). -
1516:
where I live. Also, I expect that the convention of using the most common name is to avoid disagreements about other issues. Often, using the most common name would settle the issue.
491:
of English language usage to back up your position? I've presented plenty. Most of the arguments I've seen are irrelevant too, because these are the underlying points as I see them:
1343:
We're not there yet. Wait until those advocating against "American" present evidence on their side. Until then, the discussion isn't complete enough to move on to an alternative.
277:
However, what is the term used to define a citizen of the US? Isn't it American? Therefore, isn't it correct usage when describing somebody's nationality if they are of the USA?
1127:
citizens, and the people themselves do, then we should reflect that term. Any confusion can quickly be ameliorated by the paragraph which describes the contents of the category.
852:
within the U.S.? "Robert Rauschenberg is an American artist." Natural. "Robert Rauschenberg is an artist of the United States." Is he getting government pay and has a title?
953:
1461:
162:
I think the intention of the prevailing phrasing is to give possession of the person to the country. We'd have to rename a vast quantity of categories if this were changed... -
235:
227:
1356:
we go with U.S., I see no reason not to go with U.S.A. — it's the proper name. Clamours for evidence aren't needed here, I can point you to any encyclopedia you like.
304:
usage, when not qualified by a modifier such as "North", "South", or "Latin". Note the qualification Britannica makes of what "Latin American literature" consists of,
1534:
Not necessarily i know plenty of people who refer to vacuum's as Hoovers, but you point being that just about every one I know also uses variations of "Coke", "
1088:
Ok, so you've giving evidence that some media outlets use American. You've also given evidence that they use "United States". You've also said that American
1440:
511:
Who may be offended by the convention is irrelevant, and "equitable" alternatives are irrelevant until they actually manage to change common usage (think of "
238:. This policy, if followed more widely, would bring us to "Painters of the United States" or "Painters of the United States of America" to avoid ambiguity.
769:? Really?") Mexico is not known by "U.S." in the English language. Mexico is not known by "United States" in the English language. Only one country is
785:
accuracy. I've given you evidence for that, both of usage and academic definition. Gimme some evidence to the contrary other than unfounded concerns.
707:
1303:
Having lived for substantial amounts of time in a country outside of the USA (it was Brazil), I do appreciate the complaints to the use of the term
950:
673:
394:. Category redirects don't work because I think creating blue links means that people are likely to think they exist and populate them in error.
86:
78:
73:
720:
That's a good point. As it's been pointed out, "United States" is not an adjective. Don't let congress know about that, though. I'm sure the
962:
727:
223:
172:
1576:
of the United States" (or "... of the U.S.") - using this phrasing avoids the entire issue of whether or not it may be used as an adjective.
689:
508:
It would be POV to disregard clear linguistic custom to placate socio-political interests. It is not POV to simply follow linguistic custom.
125:
otherwise belong to two continents may be politically incorrect. The fact is that it's simply the way that it is. That's the convention.
184:
1119:
I believe this is a false argument, since categorising by nationality is categorising by nation, the term nationality literally meaning
1288:. A term that is sometimes applied to citizens of the USA is USAian, which is a term I find particularly offensive and inappropriate.
832:
strongly implies that all of its contents are federal judges, which is not the case, and something that "American" does not connote.
739:
1138:
I disagree with that argument. Just because systemic bias is present in the real world, doesn't mean we should have it in Knowledge.
499:
What we want a linguistic convention to be is irrelevant, no matter if we think our way is better, more clear, more descriptive, etc.
760:" is "William Jefferson Clinton-centric" because there are other "Bill Clintons" in the world. That's really a good example of how
383:
113:
1412:
1068:
781:
mean Mexico). And only "American" is the term by which the people of the United States (and I don't mean Mexico) are known by.
1416:
1404:
820:
733:
196:
142:
1420:
594:
Tangentially, I think that sometimes standardization is carried too far. And I'm going to break up this discussion by date.
387:
956:
829:
54:
17:
445:
219:
643:
necessarily refer to all the Americas unless qualified. I'm not arguing against it on this grounds, but it is true, as
624:
article is more important than yours" at times, but I guess that's pretty easy to squash. EDIT: For some crazy reason,
1594:
Yes, this does seem like a good compromise way to go. Should we use "of" or "from"? Residence, or birth/citizenship? -
971:
695:
132:
this, or at least discuss it with relevance to our policies and actual terminology, not socio-political motivations.
744:
would need to change also. Because common usage is "American". So, why can't we use (thing) of (country) again? --
180:
105:
1436:
1403:
Remember we're talking about category names here. They need to be as concise as possible while still being clear.
1196:
379:
109:
45:
496:
We take the language as we find it. Whatever things are most commonly called is what they should be called by us.
1650:
1539:
1040:
996:
923:
701:
553:
1465:
825:
625:
609:
449:
363:
117:
1407:
not only sounds dumb, but it's unduly cumbersome. If we really want to be obsessed with "proper names," then
677:
1428:
1424:
391:
974:
505:
Alternatives that have no comparatively prevalent actual usage in the language are not viable alternatives.
1408:
192:
635:
2. and 3. You are probably right on these points. But there is a question of geographic accuracy (which,
1432:
188:
23:
865:
despite unfounded assertions to the contrary, clear meaning absent contextual signs to the contrary.
315:
isn't a poll—we're trying to clarify and substantiate what the actual real world outside of Knowledge
1074:
721:
399:
1311:
in the English language certainly can and should refer to citizens of The United States of America.
456:
282:
1320:
1669:
1631:
1598:
1558:
1529:
1520:
1499:
1480:
1451:
1398:
1373:
1364:
1347:
1337:
1323:
1259:
1246:
1228:
1166:
1106:
1097:
1082:
1059:
1029:
1015:
985:
942:
869:
856:
846:
836:
813:
800:
776:
And only the people of one country are known as "Americans" in the English language. Once again,
748:
713:
658:
598:
572:
522:
472:
436:
402:
370:
355:
326:
250:
203:
166:
149:
136:
1646:
1611:
1580:
1177:
1147:
1077:
264:
1472:. I presume the "most common name" things applies, and shows that it doesn't really work for an
959:
411:
Should we move this discussion to a separate page? (If so, I'll save my reasoning for there.)
308:
1369:
And, declaring this to be "sides" is most confrontational. Can't we just discuss it a bit? -
1213:
1131:
1025:
language, however unjust it may be that the U.S. successfully appropriated that adjective.
539:
352:
893:
I think we have to look at this more of an encyclopedic reference point of view and not a
793:
395:
968:
890:
Confused by the seperation of discussion so starting a reply in 20 July for uniformity.
1509:
1444:
1387:
613:
532:
1360:, I can think of no sensible reason for omitting the 'A' other common, slang, usage. -
965:
1658:
1643:
1628:
1608:
1577:
1547:
1517:
1496:
1469:
1382:
If we do abbreviate, "U.S. foo" follows WP convention of using the most common name.
1334:
1333:
Maybe we can get a consensus with compromise by abbreviating, such as in "U.S. foo"?
1256:
1243:
1174:
1163:
1144:
1139:
1094:
1093:
your argument is holding much weight. Why are you so opposed to the compromises? --
1048:
1004:
931:
843:
810:
745:
710:
629:
595:
561:
433:
305:
261:
1492:
1448:
1344:
1225:
1103:
1079:
1026:
982:
866:
853:
833:
797:
757:
736:
636:
519:
367:
323:
310:
I guess their editors are just ignorant about proper terminology? Third, there is
247:
200:
146:
133:
1071:
179:
of the nationality, because that's what the English language uses. We don't have
977:
819:
the greatest amount of work; we'd be changing over the entire category scheme of
732:
would be miffed to hear they need to change their letterhead. And I suppose the
1595:
1526:
1477:
1456:
You've seen the comments below, but on your final point. Personally, I think it
1395:
1370:
1361:
1210:
1128:
766:
655:
536:
469:
464:
453:
278:
163:
155:
53:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
773:
by those terms in the English language. That's all that matters on this issue.
1419:, because the translated name is by no means the proper name. We'd also have
789:
239:
444:
I'd agree to a seperate page. I can't find any mention of abbreviations at
1614:
1583:
1180:
1150:
1067:
The same is also apparently true of English-language Israeli media outlets,
267:
620:
without a shadow of a doubt. It would, I suspect lead to fights over "no,
145:, which is about how substitutes for "American" have failed to catch on.
1655:
1544:
1045:
1001:
928:
644:
558:
378:
Agreed that we need a clear consensus on this. I recently tried ot have
1603:
I'd go with "of" because it allows for consistency with e.g. ] (economy
1441:
Category:The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland people
171:
The prevailing phrasing is actually "American ____": see the entries in
1173:
And is there any indication of actual confusion about "United States"?
792:" as to whether people mean the American state or the Mexican state of
922:
discussions, please ask me to comment when we move on to that topic.
487:
in a particular context doesn't determine that. Do you actually have
1513:
1391:
617:
335:. It is not the short US or United States. As someone pointed out,
321:
Not what we want to use or think better than what is actually used.
1649:
points out, it can be used easier with non biographical articles.
1162:
And is there any indication of actual confusion about "American"?
512:
742:
1535:
121:
and proper solution to the lack of category naming consistency.
362:
I suppose the CIA World Factbook got its terminology wrong too.
1255:
Sorry, I just saw your response to thing of country above. --
32:
949:
used by Canadian media outlets to refer to the United States.
339:
is already widely used to describe people from the USA. Try
232:
Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Category:Political parties
1443:. Why on earth the article for that country is instead at
390:" "agreed", etc. We need a clear consensus to name them
260:
States, since in fact it refers to the entire continent.
1575:
Maybe we can reach a compromise by using "<thing: -->
1276:
As an American, I consider the name of my country to be
724:
1314:
In short, if I have to vote, I would say keep the term
730:
408:
Where is the guideline against abbreviations in titles?
1199:? And if not, where, then, lies the counter argument?
386:, to which the response was "Oh no let's rename it to
1462:
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
1447:, I simply don't know. It's not the proper name.
452:here, in which case the common usage should apply?
185:
Category:Union of Soviet Socialist Republics people
756:"U.S. is America-centric"??? That's like saying "
236:Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 June 12
307:in contrast to unqualified "American literature."
228:Knowledge:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 14
199:are in the minority and should also be changed.
1272:The use of the terms "America" and "American"
222:, but I did find some relevant discussion in
8:
807:why can't we use (thing) of (country) again?
1413:Category:Federal Republic of Germany people
468:have that debate or similar ones, either. -
1417:Category:Bundesrepublik Deutschland people
292:the country, for which "United States" is
1525:Ok, so that was a UK-centric example... -
1352:Doesn't mean we can't discuss it though.
708:List of former members of the U.S. Senate
1405:Category:United States of America people
24:Knowledge talk:Category titles/Archive 1
674:Category:Lists of people by nationality
515:"...not a spelling we're going to use).
1421:Category:Росси́йская Федера́ция people
728:United States House of Representatives
388:category:United States philanthropists
224:Knowledge talk:Categories for deletion
173:Category:American people by occupation
51:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1607:country doesn't sound good does it).
809:Or were you not responding to me? --
690:List of Australian Opposition Leaders
100:<begin copy from Village Pump: -->
7:
830:Category:Judges of the United States
476:</end copy from Village Pump: -->
414:My preference, in descending order:
680:. A few more specific examples are:
639:, is not an irrelevancy): American
116:. Currently, the subcategories of
740:Supreme Court of the United States
31:
1512:-- that name is more common than
384:category:American philanthropists
114:Knowledge:Categories for deletion
828:, for example, when turned into
319:in actual real world language.
36:
181:Category:The Netherlands people
106:Category:United States painters
1437:Category:United Kingdom people
1237:I'd be with you if "American"
821:Category:People by nationality
734:President of the United States
448:. However, are we covered by
197:Category:People by nationality
143:Alternative words for American
1:
380:category:U.S. philanthropists
18:Knowledge talk:Category names
1427:. Oh, and we wouldn't have
1329:Compromise with abbreviation
1282:The United States of America
446:Knowledge:Naming conventions
220:Knowledge:Naming conventions
1627:I see no need to be wordy.
1590:07:44, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
1134:13:57, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
696:List of U.S. televangelists
459:18:19, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
274:11:23, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
242:05:36:17, 2005-07-18 (UTC)
158:21:07, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
1686:
1621:14:17, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
1571:Compromise with word order
1216:15:02, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
1197:Category:American football
1187:17:17, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
1157:14:34, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
805:Ok, but you didn't answer
542:10:35, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
285:13:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
110:Category:American painters
1670:20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1637:Agree with <thing: -->
1632:15:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1599:14:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1559:20:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1530:16:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1521:16:22, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1500:15:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1481:16:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
1452:10:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
1399:16:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1374:14:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1365:14:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1348:03:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1338:03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1324:12:42, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
1260:18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
1247:18:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
1229:18:12, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
1167:14:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
1107:10:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
1098:14:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1083:05:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1060:05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1030:04:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
1016:05:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
986:04:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
943:04:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
870:18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
857:18:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
847:18:31, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
837:18:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
814:18:08, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
801:18:00, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
749:16:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
714:14:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
702:List of African Americans
659:14:19, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
599:13:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
573:08:30, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
523:04:23, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
473:23:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
437:15:57, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
432:Foo of the United States
403:15:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
371:18:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
356:19:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
327:17:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
251:05:58, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
204:21:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
195:. The nonconformists in
167:21:43, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
150:16:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
137:16:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
1466:United States of America
826:Category:American judges
678:Category:Geography lists
626:United States of America
610:United States of America
450:Knowledge:Naming dispute
333:United States of America
331:The correct name is the
118:Category:American people
108:for merging/renaming to
1468:should not redirect to
1429:Category:British people
1425:Category:Russian people
1411:should be replaced by
1409:Category:German people
1115:Country vs nationality
978:this significant usage
647:'s example points out.
392:category:American foos
193:Category:Soviet people
788:Are you confused by "
312:no viable alternative
189:Category:Dutch people
49:of past discussions.
722:United States Senate
605:Just some comments:
778:gimme some evidence
608:1. That would give
551:of <country: -->
1433:Category:UK people
1415:, or even better,
628:is a redirect to
95:From Village Pump
92:
91:
61:
60:
55:current talk page
22:(Redirected from
1677:
1667:
1664:
1661:
1653:
1619:
1588:
1556:
1553:
1550:
1542:
1185:
1155:
1057:
1054:
1051:
1043:
1013:
1010:
1007:
999:
940:
937:
934:
926:
570:
567:
564:
556:
552:" as proposed.
349:American Indians
347:to describe the
272:
70:
63:
62:
40:
39:
33:
27:
1685:
1684:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1665:
1662:
1659:
1651:
1616:
1585:
1573:
1554:
1551:
1548:
1540:
1510:vacuum cleaners
1388:vacuum cleaners
1331:
1274:
1182:
1152:
1117:
1055:
1052:
1049:
1041:
1011:
1008:
1005:
997:
938:
935:
932:
924:
888:
794:Baja California
568:
565:
562:
554:
483:
345:Native American
269:
214:
97:
66:
37:
29:
28:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1683:
1681:
1673:
1672:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1572:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1503:
1502:
1491:And I respect
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1445:United Kingdom
1379:
1378:
1377:
1376:
1367:
1330:
1327:
1321:Robert Horning
1273:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1250:
1249:
1232:
1231:
1217:
1203:
1202:
1201:
1200:
1189:
1188:
1170:
1169:
1159:
1158:
1116:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1076:, and Chinese.
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1033:
1032:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
989:
988:
887:
884:
883:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
862:
859:
786:
774:
719:
717:
716:
705:
699:
693:
686:
685:
684:
683:
682:
681:
664:
663:
662:
661:
652:
648:
633:
614:United Kingdom
602:
601:
592:
588:
584:
580:
576:
575:
546:
545:
544:
543:
531:the term used.
517:
516:
509:
506:
503:
500:
497:
493:
492:
482:
479:
442:
441:
440:
439:
430:
429:Foo of the USA
427:
424:
421:
418:
412:
409:
376:
375:
374:
373:
360:
359:
358:
286:
256:
255:
254:
253:
213:
210:
209:
208:
207:
206:
177:adjective form
104:I just listed
96:
93:
90:
89:
84:
81:
76:
71:
59:
58:
41:
30:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1682:
1671:
1668:
1657:
1654:
1648:
1645:
1640:
1636:
1635:
1634:
1633:
1630:
1620:
1613:
1610:
1606:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1597:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1589:
1582:
1579:
1570:
1560:
1557:
1546:
1543:
1537:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1528:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1519:
1515:
1511:
1507:
1506:
1505:
1504:
1501:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1482:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1470:United States
1467:
1463:
1459:
1455:
1454:
1453:
1450:
1446:
1442:
1439:. We'd have
1438:
1434:
1430:
1426:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1397:
1394:, could we? -
1393:
1389:
1384:
1383:
1381:
1380:
1375:
1372:
1368:
1366:
1363:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1346:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1336:
1328:
1326:
1325:
1322:
1317:
1312:
1310:
1306:
1301:
1297:
1293:
1289:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1271:
1261:
1258:
1254:
1253:
1252:
1251:
1248:
1245:
1240:
1236:
1235:
1234:
1233:
1230:
1227:
1223:
1218:
1215:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1198:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1186:
1179:
1176:
1172:
1171:
1168:
1165:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1149:
1146:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1130:
1124:
1122:
1114:
1108:
1105:
1101:
1100:
1099:
1096:
1091:
1090:almost always
1087:
1086:
1085:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1061:
1058:
1047:
1044:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1023:
1022:
1017:
1014:
1003:
1000:
993:
992:
991:
990:
987:
984:
979:
975:
972:
969:
966:
963:
960:
957:
954:
951:
947:
946:
945:
944:
941:
930:
927:
920:
915:
914:
909:
906:sense we say
905:
900:
896:
891:
885:
871:
868:
863:
860:
858:
855:
850:
849:
848:
845:
840:
839:
838:
835:
831:
827:
824:government.
822:
817:
816:
815:
812:
808:
804:
803:
802:
799:
795:
791:
787:
784:
779:
775:
772:
768:
763:
759:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
747:
743:
741:
737:
735:
731:
729:
725:
723:
715:
712:
709:
706:
703:
700:
697:
694:
691:
688:
687:
679:
675:
670:
669:
668:
667:
666:
665:
660:
657:
653:
649:
646:
642:
638:
634:
631:
630:United States
627:
623:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:
604:
603:
600:
597:
593:
589:
585:
581:
578:
577:
574:
571:
560:
557:
548:
547:
541:
538:
533:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
514:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
494:
490:
485:
484:
480:
478:
477:
474:
471:
466:
460:
458:
455:
451:
447:
438:
435:
431:
428:
425:
422:
419:
416:
415:
413:
410:
407:
406:
405:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
372:
369:
364:
361:
357:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:Ugly American
338:
334:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
318:
313:
309:
306:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
284:
280:
276:
275:
273:
266:
263:
258:
257:
252:
249:
244:
243:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
216:
215:
211:
205:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
169:
168:
165:
161:
160:
159:
157:
152:
151:
148:
144:
139:
138:
135:
129:
126:
122:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
101:
94:
88:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
69:
65:
64:
56:
52:
48:
47:
42:
35:
34:
25:
19:
1641:<foo: -->
1638:
1626:
1604:
1574:
1474:encyclopedia
1473:
1457:
1357:
1353:
1332:
1315:
1313:
1308:
1304:
1302:
1298:
1294:
1290:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1275:
1238:
1221:
1125:
1120:
1118:
1089:
1066:
918:
912:
911:
907:
903:
898:
894:
892:
889:
806:
782:
777:
770:
761:
758:Bill Clinton
718:
640:
621:
518:
488:
475:
461:
443:
417:American foo
377:
348:
344:
340:
336:
332:
320:
316:
311:
301:
297:
293:
289:
176:
153:
140:
130:
127:
123:
103:
99:
98:
67:
50:
44:
1423:instead of
1280:, not just
1073:, Lebanese,
895:literal one
767:Vicente Fox
382:renamed to
353:Vegaswikian
43:This is an
1464:. Much as
790:California
187:, we have
1286:Colombian
1121:of nation
141:See also
87:Archive 5
79:Archive 3
74:Archive 2
68:Archive 1
1629:Maurreen
1518:Maurreen
1497:Maurreen
1435:or even
1390:article
1335:Maurreen
1316:American
1309:American
1305:American
1257:Kbdank71
1244:Kbdank71
1164:Maurreen
1095:Kbdank71
908:American
844:Kbdank71
811:Kbdank71
746:Kbdank71
738:and the
711:Maurreen
651:U.S.A.).
596:Maurreen
489:evidence
434:Maurreen
420:U.S. foo
337:American
302:minority
296:and has
294:improper
1514:Hoovers
1493:Postdlf
1449:Postdlf
1392:Hoovers
1345:Postdlf
1278:America
1226:Postdlf
1104:Postdlf
1080:Postdlf
1027:Postdlf
983:Postdlf
904:literal
886:20 July
867:Postdlf
854:Postdlf
834:Postdlf
798:Postdlf
637:Postdlf
632:. Why??
583:public?
520:Postdlf
481:19 July
423:USA foo
368:Postdlf
324:Postdlf
248:Postdlf
212:18 July
201:Postdlf
147:Postdlf
134:Postdlf
46:archive
1647:adiant
1642:. As
1612:adiant
1596:Splash
1581:adiant
1527:Splash
1508:About
1478:Splash
1460:be at
1458:should
1396:Splash
1371:Splash
1362:Splash
1239:always
1211:Hiding
1178:adiant
1148:adiant
1140:WP:CSB
1129:Hiding
910:, but
783:That's
762:absurd
656:Splash
618:Monaco
537:Hiding
470:Splash
465:Splash
454:Hiding
343:. Or
279:Hiding
265:adiant
234:, and
164:Splash
156:Hiding
1618:|<
1617:: -->
1587:|<
1586:: -->
1184:|<
1183:: -->
1154:|<
1153:: -->
771:known
704:, and
587:foo"?
513:womyn
271:|<
270:: -->
240:Bovlb
16:<
1605:from
1536:soda
1222:only
1214:talk
1132:talk
976:and
726:and
676:and
641:does
540:talk
457:talk
426:etc.
396:Dunc
317:uses
283:Talk
191:and
1656:Who
1545:Who
1476:. -
1358:And
1046:Who
1002:Who
929:Who
919:may
899:say
796:?
645:Who
591:WP.
559:Who
183:or
112:on
1639:of
1431:,
1354:If
1319:--
1242:--
913:we
622:my
616:,
612:,
351:.
298:no
290:of
281:|
230:,
226:,
83:→
1666:?
1663:¿
1660:?
1652:∞
1644:R
1615:_
1609:R
1584:_
1578:R
1555:?
1552:¿
1549:?
1541:∞
1181:_
1175:R
1151:_
1145:R
1070:,
1056:?
1053:¿
1050:?
1042:∞
1012:?
1009:¿
1006:?
998:∞
973:,
970:,
967:,
964:,
961:,
958:,
955:,
952:,
939:?
936:¿
933:?
925:∞
698:,
692:,
569:?
566:¿
563:?
555:∞
400:☺
398:|
268:_
262:R
57:.
26:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.