Talk:Knowledge Management
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 11/2/2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject. |
| Start | rated as start-Class on the assessment scale |
| Mid | rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale |
 Archives |
| 1, 2 |
Contents |
[edit] Capitalization
For some reason, the term "knowledge management" was capitalized in this article. That presumes that the term is a proper noun, which it is not. I changed that and edited the article so that the term would appear as "knowledge management" in accordance with the MoS and other style guides. Kuru reverted my changes asking for discussion here. I'm not sure why he wouldn't discuss my changed version. Nevertheless, here are some examples of usage: [1] (note capitalization in title, but not in body text. Our MoS uses newspaper headings with only the first word capitalized), [2], [3], [4], [5] But perhaps I'm missing something. Sunray (talk) 23:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've reverted for two reasons. One, we need to use the move function to preserve the history of an article when changing the name; if you need help with that, please let me know. Two, there appears to be a pre-existing discussion of the topic in the section above titled "Capitalization of the title" which had a clear consensus to keep the capitalization of the title. I have no position, but I am aware of several editors who watch this article who will be delighted to debate the change, I'm sure. My revert message was intended to nudge you into researching the history before fixing the mechanical error; otherwise I'd have simply fixed the move. Thanks! Kuru talk 00:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- You are quite right that I should have used the move function. On your other point about the earlier discussion: One person referred to the MoS as justification for changing it. Two people responded saying that the term is capitalized in "common usage" (but presented no evidence of this). One of these thought that it was a proper name. Another editor just stated an objection to changing it. On a usage question, it would be a good idea to cite examples to support arguments. I have given some above. Sunray (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Given the prior discussion you should raise it on the talk page before making a change. As previously discussed the common usage is to capitalise it. If you want sources for this look at any of the major books referenced in the article, or the titles of most of the journals (I am on the editorial boards of three of them). To anyone in the field the capitalisation is uncontroversial - it is the name of a Management movement, like Business Process Re-engineering, Six Sigma etc. etc. --Snowded (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Would you be able to give some reliable online sources for capitalizing this term? Sunray (talk) 15:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, the Wikipeida article on business process reengineering does not capitalize the term. Six Sigma is capitalized, as it is a trademark, and thus a proper name. Sunray (talk) 15:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
- Given the prior discussion you should raise it on the talk page before making a change. As previously discussed the common usage is to capitalise it. If you want sources for this look at any of the major books referenced in the article, or the titles of most of the journals (I am on the editorial boards of three of them). To anyone in the field the capitalisation is uncontroversial - it is the name of a Management movement, like Business Process Re-engineering, Six Sigma etc. etc. --Snowded (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- BPR may not, TQM does, so doe Spiral Dynamics (not that I can stand it). Wikipedia practice on this is mixed. The four main journals in the field capitalise it, so do the books. To my mind that is authoritative and the capitalisation would not be disputed by the majority of those engaged in the field as academics or practitioners. ON a google search the vast majority of entries on the first three screens capitalise. As to an authoritative on-line source I really don't feel inclined to search one out given the authority already quoted namely books and journals. --Snowded (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I really don't know why we have to go through this every six months or so with people not familiar with the subject. I suggest that you check out the authorities I gave (journals, major books) all of which are referenced in the article, a google search (as I said) gives a majority but URLs are not a requirement, nor objective. --Snowded (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- You are the one proposing a change in established practice on this page and all you have provided as evidence is a few Google Hits, and as far as I can see you are attracting no support. I have pointed you towards the various journals in the fields and the main text books (all referenced here on the page). I can't think of a single conference in the last decade which has not capitalised the word if you want some additional data. Look Sunray I think you are taking a generic position here rather than a position informed by the subject in question. Capitalisation and non-capitalisation are used in the WIkipedia for management movements so there is no firm precedent. The issue has been discussed here before and the status quo is capitalisation. If you really want then, when I get home in a weeks time, I will pick up the journals and the book references but it really is not needed for people with knowledge of the subject. --Snowded (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
My concern is that the capitalization of this article does not conform to Wikipedia style, which is stated in the MoS as follows:
- Wikipedia follows a conservative usage style for capitalization (unnecessary capitalization is avoided). The main use of capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult MOS: Proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.
Regarding the question, of whether Wikipedia's style guide is inconsistent with business practice: Quite simply it is not. Some publications do capitalize "knowledge management" in titles (for examples refer to the Google hits I gave above). However, few capitalize the term in body text.
As to whether business journals capitalize the term, most do not. Here are some examples:
The term is not a proper name. It is similar to the term scientific management. No doubt there are many examples of capitalization of the term in company publications, and even in some journals. However, style guides I've looked at are consistent with the MoS. Sunray (talk) 16:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- You have not cited the main KM Journals. I know the special edition of the IBM Systems Journal (and was involved in making suggests as to content and some refereeing), but it was just a once off issue. Information Research is not a KM journal, Knowledge Praxis is not even a journal. As I say, when I get home I will look up the main refereed journals and do a check there and also sort through the 50 plus text books on the subject on my book shelves most of which (from memory but I will check) capitalise. Wikipedia currently allows both styles in practice. No one else is joining in here probably it was discussed and agreed before. Lets see if some of the other editors engage. --Snowded (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- "Wikipedia currently allows both styles." I'm not sure where you get this. I've quoted the style guide on capitalization and it is pretty clear. As to the capitalization of headings, please see WP:MOS#Article titles, headings and sections:
-
-
- "The first letter of the first word, letters in acronyms, and the first letter of each word of a proper noun are capitalized; all other letters are in lower case."
-
Here are some further examples:
[edit] Peer-reviewed journals
- Harvard Business Review [11], [12]' [13]
- Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management [14]
- Knowledge Management Research & Practice [[15]
[edit] Practitioner-oriented publications
I hope that the above is clear. BTW, I note some discussion above about Featured Article status. This article is highly unlikely to make it to GA or FA status if it continues to ignore basics such as the MoS guidelines on capitalization. Sunray (talk) 22:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
- Perfectly clear. However no one is disputing that you will see Knowledge Management and Knowledge management in play in a variety of source, not to mention knowledge management. When I write an article I use all three, the capitalisation in the title and the other forms in the text. From memory the journals do the same (capitalising the name, using other forms in the body of the articles. The issue is the title of the article and if that should go with the convention within the field which is to capitalise it. You are asserting that it ignores guidelines, but that requires you to assert, that in context, it is not a proper noun. Other sites relating to management methods mix the approaches. As I said its been debated before and a consensus was reached. I suggest seeing if other people engage on what is hardly an important issue. --Snowded (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
-
- I'm not sure if this helps, but when I'm writing (especially given that I'm theory-based rather than applications) I tend to distinguish between Knowledge Management the field, and a knowledge management system. The first I see as a proper noun, as I'm referring to the name for a filed of study, which is correctly referred to as "KM", and in the second I'm referring to a a description. I haven't noticed a universally agreed approach in the literature, but that distinction always made the most sense to me, given the variations. - Bilby (talk) 22:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Summary and proposal
To summarize the above:
- While journals and other publications have various practices for capitalization of article headings, our article does not conform to the Wikipedia MoS on Article titles, which is to capitalize only the first word of a title or heading.
- Regarding body text, most journals and other sources listed above use lower case for the term "knowledge management."
- The Wikipedia MoS guideline on capitalization is to capitalize proper names, acronyms, and initialisms, only, in body text.
I propose that we now align this article with the MoS and drop the capitalization of "knowledge management," except in titles (e.g., of journals or forums). Would anyone who disagrees with this proposal please indicate their reasons (with appropriate references) here by May 1, 2008? Sunray (talk) 16:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)\
- I disagree on the grounds that the name for the field is a capitalised in practice and it is, in this context a proper name. I can't get worked up about it however but I do think you should allow others to contribute before jumping to a conclusion. --Snowded (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)--Snowded (talk) 02:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also disagree. It has been a fairly standard practice to capitalize Knowledge Management. It is, of course, the practitioners and promoters who capitalize it - so I may easily be biased. Jackvinson (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Count me in for disagreement. Depending on the context it's being used in, KM is often used as a proper noun, and therefore it's capitalized. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've shown that it is used in non-capitalized form in a wide variety (and I suspect the majority) of business publications. I've also quoted the style guidelines. No one has presented any references or other information that justify maintaining the article in its present form. Would someone please do so now? Sunray (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- You are getting some expert opinion from practitioners and academics here Sunray, people who know the field. If its a Proper Noun (or used in context as such) it does not break the style guidelines. The convention for the field is capitalised - look at journal titles, conferences (academic and practitioner), God I speak at most of them. You are not getting support and we have been here before. I'll have a look at some books and journals when I get home (as previously advised) but this is really not a big issue. --Snowded (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Right. Well, we are all experts at something around here. It may not have occurred to Snowded to wonder what particular expertise I contribute: I am an editor. I make articles better. And I've edited many business publications. So if we could agree on square one (which you have admitted is really not a big issue), I would be willing to work on improving this "start class" article. If not, that's fine too. ;-) Sunray (talk) 07:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've shown that it is used in non-capitalized form in a wide variety (and I suspect the majority) of business publications. I've also quoted the style guidelines. No one has presented any references or other information that justify maintaining the article in its present form. Would someone please do so now? Sunray (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- Count me in for disagreement. Depending on the context it's being used in, KM is often used as a proper noun, and therefore it's capitalized. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
- I also disagree. It has been a fairly standard practice to capitalize Knowledge Management. It is, of course, the practitioners and promoters who capitalize it - so I may easily be biased. Jackvinson (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- I have been working on improving this argument for over a year Sunray and I judge it by its ability to represent the field - which includes the fact that Knowledge Management is considered a proper noun. I think the clear agreement is leave as is. More editors would obviously be appreciated. --Snowded (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Argument? Did you mean to say "article?" The invariant use of the term as a proper noun is problematic, IMO. Check what Bilby is saying, and my response to him, above. The closest example I can think of would be expressions like "scientific management." There aren't many business articles that have reached FA status, but take a look at Mercantilism. Sunray (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have been working on improving this argument for over a year Sunray and I judge it by its ability to represent the field - which includes the fact that Knowledge Management is considered a proper noun. I think the clear agreement is leave as is. More editors would obviously be appreciated. --Snowded (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes I meant to say article - thanks for the correction. I like what Bilby says, it supports keeping things as they are and today you are the only dissenting voice --Snowded (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Not at all. To characterize this as a "poll" with one person as a dissenting voice is not what I see happening. I pointed out an error in the article and a contravention of WP:MoS. This has been documented in considerable detail. Through it all, I asked you for sources to support your view. Various times you have said "I will consult my journals and provide examples" (or words to that effect). This you have not done, and neither has anyone else. Bilby, suggested a way in which "Knowledge Management" could be used as a proper noun. I agreed with him, but pointed out that such a use would be relatively infrequent.
- Yes I meant to say article - thanks for the correction. I like what Bilby says, it supports keeping things as they are and today you are the only dissenting voice --Snowded (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- On the other hand, I have given examples of reputable journals (including HBR) which show that "knowledge management" is invariably written in lower case. Thus, no evidence has been brought forward that suggests any deviation from the MoS, except in the limited case Bilby has suggested (i.e. "the field of Knowledge Management"). Sunray (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- No one has argued that lower case is used frequently in journals, the point several of us have made is that when we are talking about the field the clear convention is to capitalise. Looking at KMRP, the JKM and a shelf full of books, three EU reports and other material that convention is present. This article is about the field. Now you could argue that the words in the body of the text should be lower case, while the title remains capitalised. That way the whole thing would conform. How about that as a compromise? To be honest on all the pages I edit I am concerned about the content. I know that there are a whole group of editors who have strong views on conventions being applied and their focus is thus on form. Within limits this is very useful, part of the rich diversity that is the WIkipedia. However it can at times be carried to excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly did not mean to imply that content was not important. It is, of course, crucial. I very much appreciate your willingness to compromise. However, I just don't think that capitalizing the title would get us very far. Unlike journals, WP does not capitalize titles, other than the first word. So are we stuck again? Sunray (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia capitalises proper nouns and that is what is being debated. In this field KM is a proper noun when describing the field. I've offered a compromise, not sure what else I can do. --Snowded (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- How does knowledge management differ from [[Project management}}? Sunray (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- For one thing it is used as a proper noun for a specific field of study and application that really started in the 1900s, rather than being a generic capability. There is no consistent practice here. Spiral Dynamics capitalises (and has been redirected from Spiral dynamics) as does TQM, Six Sigma and others. Learning organisation does not. I think you should stop seeking out a universal and accept the opinion of content focused editors as to what is appropriate based on common practice in the field. --Snowded (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- How does knowledge management differ from [[Project management}}? Sunray (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia capitalises proper nouns and that is what is being debated. In this field KM is a proper noun when describing the field. I've offered a compromise, not sure what else I can do. --Snowded (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- I certainly did not mean to imply that content was not important. It is, of course, crucial. I very much appreciate your willingness to compromise. However, I just don't think that capitalizing the title would get us very far. Unlike journals, WP does not capitalize titles, other than the first word. So are we stuck again? Sunray (talk) 06:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- No one has argued that lower case is used frequently in journals, the point several of us have made is that when we are talking about the field the clear convention is to capitalise. Looking at KMRP, the JKM and a shelf full of books, three EU reports and other material that convention is present. This article is about the field. Now you could argue that the words in the body of the text should be lower case, while the title remains capitalised. That way the whole thing would conform. How about that as a compromise? To be honest on all the pages I edit I am concerned about the content. I know that there are a whole group of editors who have strong views on conventions being applied and their focus is thus on form. Within limits this is very useful, part of the rich diversity that is the WIkipedia. However it can at times be carried to excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The universal here is an encyclopedia. There are policies and guidelines as to how we organize information. I'm not saying that we shouldn't ignore rules if there is good reason to. So let's look at your examples. Would you be able to provide links to illustrate the points you wish to make? Sunray (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- and the policy and guidelines allow capitalisation for proper nouns. You have got evidence here you just don't want to accept it and you are in minority of one against people with knowledge of the field and normal usage. The convention is clearly to describe the field with capitals, but to use lower case in the main within the body of articles. It may not make sense, but then a lot of things which have evolved over time don't. I suggested a perfectly sensible compromise earlier. Can I suggest you accept it? --Snowded (talk) 19:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you take a look at the Project management article, you will note that it does exactly what you are suggesting. It starts out "Project Management is the discipline..." I'm fine with that. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you are happy with it, the name of the page is management not Management. Its one example there are others. The proposed compromise is to leave the name as it is (you have to accept that the majority of editors here think it is a proper noun) but in the text use lower case. I think you are arguing style over content here and we are going round in circles. No new arguments, not new players, majority votes status quo. Its over. --Snowded (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- "It's one example there are others." Would you please cite examples of good articles or featured articles that we could use as a reference for capitalization of both words for a similar term in a article title? Sunray (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Of course you are happy with it, the name of the page is management not Management. Its one example there are others. The proposed compromise is to leave the name as it is (you have to accept that the majority of editors here think it is a proper noun) but in the text use lower case. I think you are arguing style over content here and we are going round in circles. No new arguments, not new players, majority votes status quo. Its over. --Snowded (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
- If you take a look at the Project management article, you will note that it does exactly what you are suggesting. It starts out "Project Management is the discipline..." I'm fine with that. Sunray (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I have read cited other examples read back through the history 18:43, 10 May 2008 is the latest. You are adding a qualification to say that you want the authority to be good or featured, well that is your hang up. There are two arguments here (i) normal use in the field and (ii) other examples. The former is the stronger argument and there I think we have established proper noun status. As I said this is over, you are gaining no support and just repeating the same arguments. --Snowded (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I haven't been clear. When I say "cite" I mean provide an internal link, such as Project management, or an external link in this format [19]. Merely saying something is so doesn't cut it. Cite your evidence, please. BTW I asked for examples from GAs or FAs to make a point. There are many substandard WP articles (alas). However, any good examples will do. Sunray (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- You persistently and perversely miss the point. Lower case is common in the next of articles, Upper Case for the field (I cited two of the main journals here where I am on the editorial board). I also check the major text books (Prusak and Davenport, Leonard etc) and they capitalise the field. You can go to a Library if you want - I am lucky enough to have the journals and the books at home. ou are defining a good article not by its content, but its conformance to YOUR interpretation of a Wiki standard. Sorry, unless you gain more support this is over. The subject matter experts who edit this page appear to be in agreement. --Snowded (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- We are in agreement that lower case is common in the text of articles and I also agree that capitals can be used to refer to the field. Where we are not yet in alignment is on the capitalization of the title of the article. I've pointed out several examples of articles and have asked you for Wikipedia examples to support your point of view. To date you have provided none. Sunray (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read my earlier comments for examples of articles which capitalise --Snowded (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good grief! I cannot continue this. You have provided no citations that anyone can check online. But, that is not the point, we do not need external references as to how Wikipedia does titles. I asked you for Wikipedia examples that support the use of capitals (for comparable terms) in the title. That is a very specific request. Would you be able to do that, now, please? Sunray (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good grief! I have provided citations that people can check. In addition the content specialists are all agreed. You are in a minority of one, you have no background in the subject, but you are engaged in a crusade on a minor matter of form. I have previously given examples from Wikipedia entries on approach to management which use capitalisation (although I dare say you will leap into move them as you did KM). If you cannot be bothered to read material I am not going to repeat it. If you want to help improve the article please do so, but please stop this petty pursuit of a trivial issue. I have two major papers overdue on this subject and three to referee. My time would be better spent working on them. --Snowded (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good grief! I cannot continue this. You have provided no citations that anyone can check online. But, that is not the point, we do not need external references as to how Wikipedia does titles. I asked you for Wikipedia examples that support the use of capitals (for comparable terms) in the title. That is a very specific request. Would you be able to do that, now, please? Sunray (talk) 23:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please read my earlier comments for examples of articles which capitalise --Snowded (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- We are in agreement that lower case is common in the text of articles and I also agree that capitals can be used to refer to the field. Where we are not yet in alignment is on the capitalization of the title of the article. I've pointed out several examples of articles and have asked you for Wikipedia examples to support your point of view. To date you have provided none. Sunray (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- You persistently and perversely miss the point. Lower case is common in the next of articles, Upper Case for the field (I cited two of the main journals here where I am on the editorial board). I also check the major text books (Prusak and Davenport, Leonard etc) and they capitalise the field. You can go to a Library if you want - I am lucky enough to have the journals and the books at home. ou are defining a good article not by its content, but its conformance to YOUR interpretation of a Wiki standard. Sorry, unless you gain more support this is over. The subject matter experts who edit this page appear to be in agreement. --Snowded (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps I haven't been clear. When I say "cite" I mean provide an internal link, such as Project management, or an external link in this format [19]. Merely saying something is so doesn't cut it. Cite your evidence, please. BTW I asked for examples from GAs or FAs to make a point. There are many substandard WP articles (alas). However, any good examples will do. Sunray (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have read cited other examples read back through the history 18:43, 10 May 2008 is the latest. You are adding a qualification to say that you want the authority to be good or featured, well that is your hang up. There are two arguments here (i) normal use in the field and (ii) other examples. The former is the stronger argument and there I think we have established proper noun status. As I said this is over, you are gaining no support and just repeating the same arguments. --Snowded (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] An opinion
The KM article is a pathetic, socialist diatribe. So much for expert analysis. KM a proper noun? Bwhahahahaah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.252.181 (talk • contribs) 09:40, 5 May 2008
- pleased to see this highly intelligent and thoughtful contribution to the debate --Snowded (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
KM is obviously too difficult a subject matter to be left to just anyone to document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.66.252.181 (talk) 13:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] spelling
Please dont change the spelling back and forth. Since the subject is international, if the article was started with UK spelling then it should continue that way. DGG (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
- The article was created in August of 2002[20] with the American spellings and remained that way until around January of 2006[21] when Engish varients started to creep in.
- Probably because most of the work in the last couple of years has been done by UK and Australian authors. Whatever what is the problem? --Snowded (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then why did you make this argument [22] to retain the original spelling when this original discussion first came up? Everyone then agreed that the orginal spellings should be used (as WP:ENGVAR states), but it was assumed that it was British, which I've shown is incorrect. The American spellings were used for the first four years of this articles existance. In your own words, I ask you, "what is the problem?"
- Its been English spelling as long as I have been involved it, come and spend some time improving the page and earn the right to worry about petty issues like this. I haven't checked your statement about the origins by the way so I don't necessarily concede the point --Snowded (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- and please sign your comments --Snowded (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, then why did you make this argument [22] to retain the original spelling when this original discussion first came up? Everyone then agreed that the orginal spellings should be used (as WP:ENGVAR states), but it was assumed that it was British, which I've shown is incorrect. The American spellings were used for the first four years of this articles existance. In your own words, I ask you, "what is the problem?"
- Probably because most of the work in the last couple of years has been done by UK and Australian authors. Whatever what is the problem? --Snowded (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
