Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style

Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Wikipedia's Manual of Style contains some conventions that differ from those in some other, well-known style guides and from what is often taught in schools. Wikipedia's editors have discussed these conventions in great detail and have reached consensus that these conventions serve our purposes best. New contributors are advised to check the FAQ and the archives to see if their concern has already been discussed.

Information.svg To view an answer to a question, click the [show] link to the right of the question.

Why does the Manual of Style recommend straight (keyboard-style) instead of curly (typographic) quotation marks and apostrophes (i.e., the characters " and ', instead of , , , and )?
Users may only know how to type in straight quotes (such as " and ') when searching for text within a page or when editing. Not all Web browsers find curly quotes when users type straight quotes in search strings.
Why does the Manual of Style recommend logical quotation?
This system is preferred because Wikipedia, as an international and electronic encyclopedia, has specific needs better addressed by logical quotation than by the other styles, despite them being more frequent in externally published style guides. These include the distinct typesetters' style (often called American though not limited to the US), and the various British/Commonwealth styles, which are superficially similar to logical quotation but have some characteristics of typesetters' style. Logical quotation is more in keeping with the principle of minimal change to quotations, and is less prone to misquotation, ambiguity, and the introduction of errors in subsequent editing, than the alternatives. Logical quotation was adopted in 2005, and has been the subject of perennial debate.
Why does the Manual of Style distinguish between hyphens (-), en dashes (), em dashes (), and minus signs ()?
Appropriate use of hyphens and dashes is as much a part of literate, easy-to-read writing as are correct spelling and capitalization. The "Insert" editing tools directly below the Wikipedia editing window provide immediate access to all these characters.
Why doesn't the Manual of Style always follow specialized practice?
Although Wikipedia contains some highly technical content, it is written for a general audience. While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts. When adopting style recommendations from external sources, the Manual of Style incorporates a substantial number of practices from technical standards and field-specific academic style guides; however, Wikipedia defaults to preferring general-audience sources on style, especially when a specialized preference may conflict with most readers' expectations, and when different disciplines use conflicting styles.
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject iconThis page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.
 

Style discussions elsewhere[edit]

Add a link to new discussions at top of list and indicate what kind of discussion it is (move request, RfC, open discussion, deletion discussion, etc.). Follow the links to participate, if interested. Move to Concluded when decided and summarize conclusion. Please keep this section at the top of the page.

Current[edit]

(newest on top)

Concluded[edit]

Extended content

Native American Name Controversy[edit]

Has there been a resolution on WP of the Native American name controversy? There are some editors who use, or insist on using, the word Indian. This word is considered pejorative or racist by some. It is also inexact in an internationally available site or publication, as it refers to persons of the sub continent. The article Indian Massacre of 1622 is misleading as the title infers that Indians were massacred, the event is popularly known as the Jamestown Massacre or Jamestown Massacre of 1622,not the Indian massacre. I've seen it referred to as the Powhatan massacre.

I have changed the word Indian to Native American and "Indian" only to have the change reverted by an editor, different pages. I have tried to bring the issue to discussion on talk pages, but either no response, or an angry response. Is a consensus possible? It would eliminate edit warring and cool things down. The US Government has opted for the term Native American. Should not WP follow the lead of the government?Oldperson (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@Oldperson: This is several issues at once. The central matter might be ripe for an RfC by now. I would suggest that WP:VPPOL is the best venue for that. Read WP:RFC carefully. Advocating for one side or the other when drafting an RfC will get it labeled non-neutral and possibly administratively closed as an invalid RfC. Opinions will be divided on it; even some Native Americans prefer the term "Indian[s]", so it's not a cut-and-dry matter (though the potential for confusion is higher on WP that it would be in some other contexts).

Whether a particular page should move is a WP:RM matter. In this case, you're making a WP:COMMONNAME argument as well as a WP:PRECISE one, so it might turn out to be a pretty routine move).

Finally, WP doesn't care what some government's "official" position on usage is (see WP:OFFICIALNAME, and notice that we have our own WP:Manual of Style rather than follow third-party ones like the US Government Publishing Office Style Manual). We care about the dominant usage in independent, English-language, contemporary reliable sources.
 — AReaderOutThatawayt/c

@AReaderOutThataway:Thanks so very much for your clear and succinct response.It took some research but I think that I have done the job. See the template Talk:Native American name controversy I hope that does it. There shouldn't be a controversy on WP, as it is a source for the public at large and especially. School children, what they see here they carry with them, be it myth, fact, propagana or AGF disinformation.Oldperson (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

I just responded over at Talk:Native American name controversy and will repeat it here: Usage is generational and, to a lesser extent, regional. And the way folks talk in-group is rarely going to be the same as the voice that is appropriate for article space on the 'pedia. Urban Indians, descendants in academia, disconnected vs connected descendants, those on-reserve, on one coast or another, on the Plains, etc etc etc, all may have a bit of a different take on this. And all may answer with authority, or humility, and varying degrees of accuracy. Because on Wikipedia, you rarely know who you're really talking to, unless you have the background to already know the answer. When in doubt, you can come over to the Indigenous wikiproject talk page and ask for input. But, in brief,

  • "Indian" is not racist if, for instance, it is the name of an established organization run by Native Americans (and there is zero doubt they are actually Native Americans. For more on this, see the work in progress essay: User:Vizjim/The "Indian princess great-grandmother" principle), or if it's part of the self-identification of someone who is clearly Native American. Obviously, if someone is intending it as a perjorative, don't use it. But there is zero need to go around changing it in pages unless it was clearly intended as part of a slur or attack. However, "Red Indian", like Redskin, is a pejorative and should not be used. "Amerindian" or "Amerind", while primarily found in literature from the 1970s, is no longer used and seen to be... kind of annoying.
  • Use people's actual Nation/Tribe - this is best. The usual formula used in the Native press is Name of person (Nation). For example: Kim TallBear (Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate), or Chuck Hoskin, Jr. (Cherokee Nation).
  • Native American or Native is probably the most common nowadays, especially among younger people, running neck and neck with,
  • Indigenous, though Indigenous is not specific to the Americas. It can be coupled with a more specific term such as "Indigenous Australian" or "Indigenous Canadian". But on it's own it's too broad if you're only referring to Native Americans in the United States and/or
  • FNIM people. FNIM is an accepted umbrella, but more specific naming is good when possible. See those articles for more specifics. And, again, feel free to ping the wikiproject. - CorbieV 21:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)::@CorbieVreccan:Thank you. Exactly what I was looking for. Issue resolved on my partOldperson (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Generally concur on using the actual nation/tribe name, and Native American or Indigenous [Where ever]ian otherwise. "Indian" (racist or not) is ambiguous. FNIM is a Canadianism no one else recognizes, though it might be okay on second+ use, in an article about Canadians, after being given in full form (e.g., "...First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (FNIM) of Canada ...").  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 20:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I can not remember where I read it (so I can’t say it was an RS) but one source used the term “initial immigrants”. Certainly not common enough for us to use it... but thought provoking. Blueboar (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Vlueboar Initial immigrants is factually accurate, however (as far as we have origin knowledge about our species), every occupant of every part of the globe can be described as I.I. Australian aborigines are I.I, the Ainu of Japan are II, and the various peoples of China are I.I. Teutonic tribes, British Celts, the Basque. To call Native Americans I.I is disquieting, the migration, at least in North America, occurred about the time of the ice age. There is a serious question though about the origins of South American natives (especially from DNA analysis). Given it serious consideration even Native American is misleading, as ambiguos as Indian. Essentially I am a native American, but America is a large continent, North,South and Meso.I don't think that we have yet devised an accurate, unambiguos, non insulting, non pejorative term acceptable to all. Much the same as Black or African American. I know some who react negatively to being referred to as African American, and rightfully so, they aren't from Africa. In fact I have no use at all for hyphenated anything. Am I English-American, German-American, Scotch Irish-American, Irish-American, those are all my ancestral roots, and then there is the"one drop" rule, by which people of color are often stigmatized, and discriminated against. The real question is what underlies the psyche of our species that we so need to categorize, label, disenfranchize, marginalize and discriminate against those that aren't like us.. and that is an across the board critique.Oldperson (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Request for comment on lead formatting at Kate Dover[edit]

There is an RFC about lead formatting, partially concerning MOS:LEAD. Any attention is appreciated. — MarkH21 (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DONTHIDE.[edit]

Surely Navboxes and particularly the template {{Navboxes}} for subgrouping and hiding sub navboxes, all fail the Don't Hide guideline en masse? -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 11:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Navboxes are not generally considered part of the article-proper. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
OK. I'm trying to figure out why the rules that apply elsewhere don't seem to apply to Navboxes (which are usually pointless hidden bloat). -- 109.79.169.24 (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Comma after "e.g."/"i.e."[edit]

Should there be one? Is there a site standard, or should just each article be self-consistent? I've seen both styles used in various articles and I can't find a MOS guideline about it in MOS:PUNCT or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, and WP:MOS itself (the section-redirect target of MOS:PUNCT) isn't even consistent about it. DMacks (talk) 14:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 215#e.g. --Izno (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


RFC on Sorting of Names with Particles[edit]

This issue has to do with the sorting of surnames that are preceded by prefixes known as particles, such as de or von. The rules for sorting of surnames are complex and depend on the customs of the nationality. The question is whether names should be sorted based on the national origin of the surname, or the nationality of the person. An example is Luann de Lesseps, an American socialite and reality TV personality, whose surname is that of her French nobleman husband. Should she be alphabetized as: A. de Lesseps, Luann (nationality of person, American) or B. Lesseps, Luann de (national origin of name, French) or C. It depends. If so, specify what it depends on.

Enter your !votes with a brief statement as A or B. Enter any back-and-forth comments in the Threaded Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC) I have updated the RFC to add C. If specifying C, please indicate what it depends on. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

  • Oppose both A and B. The correct answer is: it depends. If we have evidence that the subject prefers one usage or the other, we should follow that. The two given choices A and B are insufficient, and we should not start making rules for things that would normally fall under editorial judgement per WP:CREEP. So formulating this RFC as a binary choice between which of two new rules we should impose was a bad choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A, B or C. It is standard practice in the library and archive world to index names by the particle if the name is not native to the country from which the individual comes and without it if it is. So, in this case, as she's American it would be A, but if she was French it would be B. However, this would only apply if it was her birth name. Given it's her married name and her husband, as a Frenchman, would be indexed without the particle, it's a less cut and dried case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:09, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support B. Lesseps, Luann de. Since her name is a French name that she still uses post-divorce, given to her by marriage from a French nobleman, Count Alexandre de Lesseps, and the traditional cultural usage as well as historical indexing of the name is to sort by the surname not the particle, I think one would conclude that in this case it should be indexed under Lesseps. I see no reason to index them differently because of nationality. AnAudLife (talk) 17:25, September 16, 2019 ‎(UTC)
  • Support B. The sorting order of names should depend solely on the name, not on any other factor that has nothing to do with the name itself. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Support B - The sorting order of names should depend on the national origin and history of the name, not of the person with the name. If related persons in a family have different nationalities, they should still sort together. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

C – it depends. The same name is apt to be indexed differently by language and other cultures considerations. Jan van Leuwen in Amsterdam probably expects to be alphabetized under L, and even most English-language sources would do so (at least formal and academic publishers would, and WP is one). But a Torontonian, Londoner, or San Franciscan named John Van Leuwen (and he probably would capitalize the V) would generally expect alphabetization under V. "Van" is just an opaque name fragment in English, but means (and is parsed as) 'of' in Dutch.  — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 22:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

  • C - Make it simple and base it on the same reliable English-language sources that presumably informed the rest of the article. We can spend hours parsing a name's history and details of cultural usage but at the end of the day, if the New York Times (or some other reliable source) uses de Lessup, Luann, then why not go with it? If equally solid, respectable sources use different naming conventions (there's plenty of that) then sort it out on the talk page. Glendoremus (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Suoport C, The sorting of names with prefixes varies according to cultural tradition. This case refers to an American television series, and an American person, written in American English. I see no reason not to follow American procedure per WP:MCSTJR, with the proviso that an American name means the name of an American person, regardless of the history of the name, as that is the simplest logical interpretation of WP:MCSTJR. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 05:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • A it depends on the article language - the description is correct that the rules are complex and depend on the customs of the nationality. The order or capitalizing of nobiliary particles in grammar guide (Chicago Manual of Style et al) or common answers would be hard to describe. (I'll note that I have seen cases such as John le Carre listed under l and under C, and Vanderbilt as a single string is obviously under V, Van Gogh is capital V but not Vincent van Gogh, , Charles de Gaulle is lowercase d, but not Cecil De Mille, and then Martin van Buren and so forth.) But there could at least be a simplification convention for practicality that the usage in a list would dependent on the article language (e.g. in British English) so that the list would consistently follow one set of rules and a name can be found. In the context shown I think that would be to start with the particle and to capitalize it as the first letter: "De Lessups, Luann"; "Le Carre, John"; "De Gaulle, Charles". Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion[edit]

  • According to this [2] there was a Proton family in New Jersey in 1880 and Protons lifespan has been decreasing recently ("An unusually short lifespan might indicate that your Proton ancestors lived in harsh conditions"). This [3] suggests there are Protons in far-flung India, Australia and Argentina. So this question about particles has more significance than one might think.
Seriously, we've talked about this recently with no resolution:
At that time I passed on someone's suggestion to start alphabetizing with the first uppercased word (i.e. ignore the particle if it's lowercased). We're certainly not going to countenance rules based on someone's nationality -- can you imagine that Arbcom case? (That's assuming we adopt a rule at all -- not convinced yet of that, as I still haven't seen the dispute on multiple articles called for in WP:NONEEDNORULE.)
Of course, in these days of <ctrl>-F I wonder how much this matters anyway. EEng 01:41, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:MCSTJR states: Whether or not to include the particle in sorting can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality, and that American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization. What is the correct interpretation of these guidelines? For example, all of the most common surnames in Australia in 2007 originated elsewhere. So, would Australian names in this context be names that originated in Australia, are popular in Australia, or names of Australian nationals? If it is all of the above, then wouldn't the customs of one's nationality encompass traditional cultural usage? Furthermore, regarding this case specifically, according to this New York Times article, the subject states that she prefers to be addressed as Mrs. de Lesseps. I wonder whether that qualifies as a personal preference. KyleJoantalk 01:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • In WP:MCSTJR it says, “Names with particles or prefixes are a complex field and there are exceptions and inconsistencies.” And then goes on to say, “Whether or not to include the particle in sorting can be up to the individual's personal preference, traditional cultural usage or the customs of one's nationality.” Firstly, we have absolutely no idea how she prefers her name to be alphabetized but we do know that she likes it spoken out loud as “Luann” or Mrs. de Lesseps, which is common, you don’t drop the particle when speaking the name. Secondly, traditional cultural usage is, according to WP:MCSTJR, “Generally, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles.” Example being Ferdinand de Lesseps, the French diplomat, who, according to Merriam Webster’s Manual for Writer’s and Editors should be sorted under Lesseps not under the particle de. *Note, Luann’s ex-husband, whose name she bears, is a direct descendant of the French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps. Thirdly, Luann de Lesseps is of French, Canadian and Algonquin ancestry and she was born in America, so that brings us to the sorting by “custom of one’s nationality”. So what is the custom of American sorting? There are so many other American references like International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (page 68 & 69 of publication, but page 40 of PDF) and the Merriam Webster’s reference I cited earlier and many others that also support sorting by the surname and not by the particle in American reference and catalogue. I don’t want to clutter this area up with a massive amount of links but I will if asked or if necessary. Let me also add, that indexing members of a family bearing the same name that all have different nationalities not only sounds absurd but extremely complicated, unnecessarily tedious and would open up a world of problems in other cases, which is maybe why most indexing instructional references prefers sorting by traditional cultural usage. How would one know to look up Luann by the particle and her ex-husband by the surname? In this particular case, Luann is listed and mentioned along with several other socialites on the The Real Housewives of New York page so making this determination is important for alphabetization purposes. Lastly, WP:MCSTJR also states, “American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization.” Her name is neither American, Australian, Canadian or English, as we’ve already deciphered that it is indeed a French name. What this seems to boil down to is does Wikipedia want to adhere to American cataloging norms and customs and index as Lesseps, Luann de or under a different set of indexing rules yet to be established? AnAudLife (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am not convinced that we have established that de Lesseps is a "French name". How is "French name" defined in this context? Is du Plessis a French name or a South African name? Most of the people I know with the name are from families which immigrated over a century ago and cannot speak French at all. Is van der Merwe South African or Dutch? At which point does a name become Australian? Are the names that came over with William the Conqueror now English? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:09, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
The name de Lesseps in this particular case: Luann's ex-husband is a direct descendant of the French diplomat Ferdinand de Lesseps (who developed the Suez Canal), can be traced back to France as far back as the 14th century, prior to that some of his ancestors, it is believed, came from Spain, see Wikipedia. Which takes us back to WP:MCSTJR, “Generally, Dutch, French, German, Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish names do not include lowercase particles in sorting, but do include uppercase particles.”AnAudLife (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Not quite my point. Does the MOS explain how a name is allocated to a nationality? If it does I have missed it. Two immediately obvious possibilities are that the person with the name is French (either a national of France, or French speaking), or the name has a French origin, which in this case is not disputed. In the case of American and Australian names, the second option is unlikely, as most Australian and American names originated in other countries, including France. For consistency we must consider the possibility that the first option was intended, but it remains unclear. The context of MOS suggests that the first possibility may have been intended, so there is a need to know how a "French name" is defined in this context. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:33, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Unless we have data that supports the notion that the first person with the surname de Lesseps had adopted or were given the surname while under French jurisdiction, the exact origin of the name is not and will never be fully known. The reason it’s colloquially known as a “French name” is because the people known as having the name are/were French nationals. KyleJoantalk 21:54, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
@Pbsouthwood: Some would argue that we're all descendants of Adam and Eve who had no surname that anyone knows of. Some could also argue that we all evolved from apes who had no names at all. At some point we have to draw an intelligent conclusion. As I stated previously, de Lesseps can be traced back to France as far back as the 14th century, that is a far cry from the one century you spoke of when referring to people you personally know with a French surname. And since the 14th century is as far back as we can go with this surname, then that should be the accepted origin until we learn otherwise. AnAudLife (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
I am clearly not getting my point through, so will try again. I do not think that the origin of the name is what WP:MCSTJR refers to in American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization. However, there are discrepancies between different sources on whether to sort on the prefix or not. I think that it is the nationality of the person with the name. I accept that this could be clearer, and it is possible that the intention of the person who wrote the guidance may have differed from my interpretation, but until someone comes up with a reasonably plausible explanation of what constitutes an "American, Australian, Canadian, or English name" other than the name of an American, Australian,Canadian or English national, I consider the name should be sorted on prefix. Whether the first person to bear the name on record was French by nationality or home language, or whether the first instance of the name on record was written in France or elsewhere is to my mind not relevant. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 04:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, obviously there are different interpretations here of the sentence "American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization. However, there are discrepancies between different sources on whether to sort on the prefix or not" in WP:MCSTJR. I still believe the intention is to refer to NAMES, it even says names, not meaning the nationality of the individual, but the names. WP:NAMESORT is written in great detail about sorting many different surnames and it covers a lot of name origins; Arabic, Chinese, Icelandic, Nobles, Spanish, French, Jewish, etc., and then it covers American, Australian, Canadian and English in the sentence we're discussing. I can't imagine the nightmare of indexing based upon where someone was born and I sincerely doubt the author meant it that way. Additionally, The New York Times article that is being referenced, is being completely misconstrued. Luann de Lesseps is talking about how on the show she had chastised Bethenny Frankel for introducing her as "Luann" instead of "Mrs. de Lesseps" to a driver. She references it being "a level of respect", she believes it's proper manners to not introduce someone by the first name only (I watched the episode). Both Luann and Alexandre refer to themselves as Mr. or Mrs. de Lesseps, they don't drop the "de" when being introduced or spoken to. This has nothing to do with how she prefers to be indexed and I can't understand why anyone would draw that conclusion from this article. AnAudLife (talk) 05:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

"MOS:CONSISTENCY" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MOS:CONSISTENCY. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -DePiep (talk) 11:13, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Similar:
MOS:US =/= WP:US
WP:PLURAL, WP:PLURALS -- Archive 211 -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

MOS:US and proper names[edit]

I would like to clean up the Gulf War article's inconsistent usage of "US" vs. "U.S.". The former is the clear majority, and the article uses e.g. "Ultimately, the US and UK stuck to their position", so "US" should be used consistently. My question is whether proper names should be consistent with this. For example, should we use "U.S. Navy" or "US Navy" alongside "US military"? In particular, today's edit by another user of a photo caption changing "US military" to "U.S. military" [4], as well as "US barracks" [5] and "US troops" [6], should be reverted per the "retain" part of MOS:US. But should the change from "US Navy" to "U.S. Navy" [7] as well as "US Army" [8] also be, for the same reason? Or is there another rule that would prioritize using "U.S." for those?

The Navy itself seems to be not entirely consistent. The home page of https://www.navy.mil/ currently has several instances of both forms, including a mailing address with "US Navy". The https://www.army.mil/ site seems to be more consistent.

There is also inconsistent usage of "US Marine" (five instances including one of "US Marine Corps", plus several of the citations) vs. "U.S. Marine" (two instances including one of "U.S. Marine Corps", plus one reference). The https://www.marines.mil website and Twitter account] seem to use "U.S." consistently.

Here there is mixed usage in the same sentence: "The U.S. Department of Defense reports that US forces suffered 148 battle-related deaths".

What about "the U.S. 3rd Armored Division also fought..."?

--IamNotU (talk) 14:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

"Proper names" are not immune to our style guidelines in the general case, and in this specific case, I'd say certainly not. Consistency is preferable. --Izno (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
MOS:US is clear about in-article consitency (not WikiProject-wide though). When lack of consensus, a first article version periods or not could be decisive. -DePiep (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
DePiep, thanks, but the question isn't about which variant to use overall, but whether, in the case of an established use of "US", there is any guideline to favor spelling a proper noun, such as "U.S. Marine Corps", the way they spell it themselves, even if it's not consistent with the rest of an article's established usage. --IamNotU (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Got that, nothing to add. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks both for the feedback, I edited the article for consistent spelling of "US", including "US Navy", etc. --IamNotU (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)