Talk:Financial centre

message: First, that is against Wiki rules (Financing is not something British). But more importantly, it leads to several needless misquotes of sources.
IFC is defined by the IMF. And for whatever reason (And unlike e.g., the UN) the IMF chose to define it in American English. As an ENCYCLOPEDIA we cannot just change that. If IFC weren't a defined term, I would have proposed to use Financial Hub instead, but that would also not be correct.
By default, this article should honor and honour the international character of this topic.
Hence:
The Financial Center of Manhattan. (By location)
The Financial Center of Dubai. (By name)
The Financial Centre of London
The Financial Centre of Paris
The ones open for discussion would be Amsterdam and Frankfurt. They sometimes think they use British English, but they really don't 
National varieties of English
See also: Wikipedia:Article titles § National varieties of English, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Spelling
National varieties (for example American English or British English) differ in vocabulary (elevator vs. lift ), spelling (center vs. centre), and occasionally grammar (see § Plurals, below). Articles such as English plurals and Comparison of American and British English provide information about such differences. The English Wikipedia prefers no national variety of English over others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.133.57.207 (talk) 00:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: MOS:RETAIN says to keep using whatever the article was already written in, in the absence of strong national ties, although when mentioning a specific organisation such as the International Finance Center Seoul within this article it should follow that entity's spelling. The IFC appears to use both spellings in its literature. -- Belbury (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

text: @76.133.57.207 my vote would be to make it American English as it is more neutral and universal. ~~ Matteow101 (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

text: The article’s nationality should not be changed without broad consensus according to MOS:ENGVAR Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 13:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I prefer American, to the point where it's in my signature. IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 05:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, we do not go by editor’s personal opinions. Doing so violates WP:NPOV. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't consensus just editors sharing the same personal opinion? IPs are people too 🇺🇸🦅 14:53, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: We can and should build a consensus on which angle of MOS:ENGVAR applies to this specific article, as the original IP poster tried to do. A WP:POLL of personal (general?) preferences for US or Commonwealth spelling doesn't get us anywhere. Belbury (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

text: I was talking to IPs are people too, he said that he prefers American English on this article. Aitraintheeditorandgamer (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This cannot be a British English Article 

message: I'll get straight to the point: Tokyo does not deserve to be listed as an International Financial Centre. It did not even rank among the top 20 centres in the latest GFCI 33 rankings, far below other Asian cities, like Singapore (at 3rd) and Hong Kong (at 4th). Moreover, the Lost Decades made (or has been making) Tokyo, and Japan in general, experience widespread stagnation and loss of confidence. Dolphinchimpanzee (talk) 01:15, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tokyo does not deserve IFC