Talk:Cheque/Archive 1

The opening sentence says:

thought to have developed from Persian چك chek

whereas the history section says:

The cheque was originally titled such (variously spelled check, checque and cheque) in reference to the counterfoil used to check against forgery and alterations.

These statements can't both be true. (Also, the opening sentence is a disaster area of obfuscation, and needs rewriting in plainer English.) -dmmaus 22:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I could find no evidence to support the statement thought to have developed from Persian چك chek, so I removed it. I also separated out the History section (about precursors of checks/cheques, as used in the Roman and other early empires) from the Etymology and Spelling section (about the well-documented etymology of the English word from the game of chess -- which, by the way, does derive etymologically from the Persian word shah) and the non-controversy about the "proper" spelling of the word in the U.S. vs other English-speaking countries. --Potosino 19:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The English word cheque or check is one of many meanings that derive ultimately from the action of putting a king in check in the game of chess^[1]; derived from the Persian Shah (king). When the king is in check, his choices are limited. The term was originally used in its financial sense in the late 1600s in reference to the counterfoil of a draft that was used to "check" (prevent, forestall) forgery and alterations. The word has been used in its modern sense since the late 1700s. The Arabic term ṣakk has been used to refer to promissory notes in the Middle East since the 4th century.

I just checked the OED and could find no sign of this explanation there, so I've removed it pending further confirmation. Could someone give a full citation, or extract before re-inserting. - Francis Tyers · 09:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Any explanation of where the very unusually term "to cut a check" comes from? 68.39.174.238 21:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The following request to move a page has been added to Wikipedia:Requested moves as an uncontroversial move, but this has been contested by one or more people. Any discussion on the issue should continue here. If a full request is not lodged within five days of this request being contested, the request will be removed from WP:RM. —Stemonitis 10:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Cheque → Check — User:Smack moved the article without discussion, which was highly unnecessary, as Wikipedia clearly mandates keeping the Original article name spelling (in the case of United Kingdom English versus United States English.) In this instance, Smack moved the article out of his own POV as evident by the history page (), which clearly is unacceptable, and, as stated before, it is mandatory to keep the article names Original spellings. 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)-- Hrödberäht (gespräch)
  • Your entire proposal is based on incorrect assumptions. Smack didn't move the article to Cheque, he moved it to Check (finance). Later, in 2005, there was a discussion where the consensus was to name this article Cheque, for sensible reasons. As this move proposal goes against that consensus, it certainly isn't uncontroversial. Masaruemoto 19:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose based on previous explanation, article history. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, despite my BE bias. - PeeJay 11:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As noted above, this request is based on a misunderstanding of what occurred. The article was moved to Check (finance) to differentiate it from the other meanings of the word "check," and it was moved to Cheque to eliminate the need for parenthetical disambiguation. —David Levy 17:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. As above -- request is based on a misinterpretation of what happened. older ≠ wiser 14:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose - due to chech's ambiguity. Reginmund 05:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Before the introduction of this standard, the only way to know the 'fate' of a cheque has been 'Special Presentation', which would probably involve a fee, where the drawee bank contacts the payee bank to see if the payee has that money at that time. Maybe I'm being slow here, but aren't drawee and payee the wrong way round in this sentence? (Most of this sentence was here before I made the changes regarding the new standards. I merely added Before the introduction of this standard) --PeterR 08:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Per policy, this article sould surely be written with one spelling of "Cheque/Check". In its current format, the article is very messy, and policy doesn't allow for american related sections of an article to have a different spelling; the consistancy must be there throughout the article. As the article is actually named "Cheque", then this should be the only variation used (excepting of course explaining the differences etc.). Look at the article Zucchini. While the British usage is Courgette, only Zucchini is used. -Toon⁰⁵ 00:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the zucchini article presumably has no text about specifically British zucchini. References to "cheques in the United States" look very odd. I think this should be an exception to the usual rule about keeping a consistent spelling in an article. (By the way, that rule is a "guideline" and not "policy", IIRC.) --Trovatore 00:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a few uses of "check" that had crept in. There are several I've left, however, as they refer to specific legal wording as used in the U.S. (In those cases, it seems best to use "check", and I have italicized them so as to make the point that it is a specific term.) I've also made a minor tweak to some text about security checks so as to avoid confusion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 00:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ckatz, I think that your edits have probably sorted it, the remaining "checks" are legal terms and should stay. Trovatore, thankyou for pointing out to me that it is "guideline" not "policy", I'm sure it changed the meaning of what I said completely. -Toon⁰⁵ 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that guidelines allow for exceptions when circumstances justify. They do justify it here. Some of the "cheque" instances should go back to "check". --Trovatore 02:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your point that the guidelines allow for exceptions. However, in this case, the only appropriate exceptions would be the legal spellings. Having mixed spellings for the general references to "cheque" wouldn't be encyclopedic. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree. The clearest example is the external link to the FTC site, where you actually substituted "cheque" within a direct quote. The link seems to be broken anyway, though, and should probably just be removed.

But in my opinion it would also be justifiable to use "check" consistently in the US section, given that that section is specifically about US checks. The image caption about the "US dollar cheque" is correct because it's drawn on a Canadian bank. If it were drawn on a US bank it should be "check". When I lived in Canada I distinguished between my cheques (drawn on TD) and my checks (drawn on a US bank). --Trovatore 05:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oops - thanks for catching the quotation marks. I've reverted myself for that one example. However, I still disagree with you about mixing the two - it would look unprofessional, and is contrary to Wikipedia custom. --Ckatz^chat_spy 06:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should remain "Cheques in America", as they are the same item as in other parts of the world, and it would be like using US:En in the "LA Galaxy Era" section of David Beckham, calling it "soccer" in that section only, while the rest of the article is written in British English. Whether a Cheque is drawn on a British, American or Canadian bank, it is the same thing and should be written in the same style, there's no exceptional circumstance there. -Toon⁰⁵ 17:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I don't think it would be like that; the section is specifically about United States checks, not checks that just happen to be in the United States. If the football (soccer) article has a section about United States soccer specifically (say, differences in rules, or the fortunes of Major League Soccer), then I think it would be justifiable to use "soccer" in that section. --Trovatore 17:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it is any different; if a "check" is something different in the U.S. to the rest of the world, it should have its own article and that can be written in US:En, but if it's the same thing, then there is no reason for the language to be different. Either way, there is only one spelling used in general description. I don't argue with the spelling in "order check" and "bearer check", as that's quoting specific examples which aren't used in the UK. However, the title refers to types of "cheque" (as used in the UK), so should be spelled "Cheque". -Toon⁰⁵ 17:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The section is specifically about the ways in which checks are something different in the US than in the rest of the world. That's the precise burden of the text of that section. If they weren't something different, then there would be no need for the section at all. --Trovatore 17:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Talking about types of "something we have all over the world" is different to saying the name of a specific something in just the US. -Toon⁰⁵ 17:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

a few things to consider are- 1) wikipedia is an american website. if the limeys want to make their own encyclopedia, then go ahead. 2)limeys do not write checks, they use bank transfers. if you want to bring the french into this, then they also do not write checks, and use bank transfers. so if americans are really the only ones writing checks, then it should be spelled according to the american way.

This article has a section specifically for cheques in United States but not for other countries. I am wondering the reason for this bias? 213.114.118.44 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The bias is systemic. Feel free to help correct it. —David Levy 19:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about bias; it's simply because nobody who actually knows anything about british, or elsewhere's cheques has contributed. Please help if you can! -Toon⁰⁵ 14:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

A small point but one that I think ought to be discussed, not all banks in the UK print their drafts. Agreed that the majority of Banks/Building Societies in the UK print theirs but the big High Street Bank that I work for all of ours are hand written on a blank template. I'm not keen on just changing it as I don't want to start an 'editwar', besides in other counties it may be true. I just think that this sweeping statement ought to be revised slightly. 193.108.78.10 (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Any reason for not having a check issued by a US Bank (a fake one actually) instead of the second Canadian one? Merry Christmas _{from Sasha} 06:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

What's the deal with banks charging a fee for cashing checks drawn on their accounts? Is that legal? And if so, doesn't that contradict the claim that checks are negotiable?Heqwm (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

How long does it take, on average, for a bank to post the payment and determine whether the check clears or bounces? And what would be a reasonable worst-case amount of time? Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you include two "and"s in the description of the amount of currency, on the cheque?

I don't, I always limit to one "and", whatever the amount. So, for the amount of £173.34, I would write it on the cheque as One Hundred Seventy Three Pounds and 34p________ rather than One Hundred and Seventy Three Pounds and 34p_____. Does it matter, am I worrying about nothing?

I never omitted any "and"s, I wrote it as I would say it. For example, a sum of £143.15 would be written as "One Hundred and Fourty Three Pounds and Fifteen Pence Only." Never had any backlash yet! 94.193.223.140 (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

It merely needs to be unambiguous; so long as the amount is readable as a real amount of currency and you have that currency present, the cheque will be honoured. Also note that the written part takes precedence over the numerical box if there is a conflict, though often the bank will refuse to honour the check and return it as improperly made out. In the USA this is called the 'Legal line' or 'Legal amount' in banking jargon and if a 'check' is deposited and the amount entered as in the numerical box but that differs from the legal amount a later adjustment will be made, often leading to customers calling their bank about an 'error' with a deposit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.173.108.126 (talk) 07:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The page needs a diagram denoting where on a sample hand-written check the various parts are listed and what they are called. For example, there is a lot of confusion as to the "check number." Many people list it as the sequential identifier of the order of checks in a checkbook (usually in the upper right corner), but as far as I know it is the bank check number just below that is in smaller type and often contains a forward-slash in it. Other things useful in the diagram would be date, name, issuing bank, place where you should handwrite the spelled out amount of the check, etc. -kslays (talk • contribs) 18:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it true that these cannot be cashed? One part of the description implies that it simply means that it can't be endorsed to a third party - not that the person named on the payee line can't get cash for him/herself, yet another place it says you can't get cash - which is it? --Random832 (contribs) 17:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Under Irish law there are different types of crossing. The basic crossing means that the cheque cannot be cashed but may still be endorsed and lodged to a third party's account. A cheque crossed "Account Payee" must be lodged to an account in the name of the payee. I assume the same applies to the UK but I don't know about elsewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanstaple (talk • contribs) 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

in Srilanka the businesmen and the rich people are opening current accounts.Middle class people and the poor people dont use cheques.some of them dont know what a cheque is .

Perhaps it's because I'm sleepy, but wouldn't it make more sense to make this section more American in spelling? Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks strange to me too, but the rule is that spelling choices should be consistent throughout an individual article. Of course the particular types of checks mentioned there keep their American spellings, because it's the only one they have -- "bearer check" is defined by the US Commercial Code; "bearer cheque" is not. But for the purposes of the article a bearer check is a type of cheque. I don't really like it either, but it's hard to think of a rule that works better -- we don't really want spellings switching back and forth haphazardly within a single article. --Trovatore (talk) 04:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the majority of the population of the Anglosphere resides in the US, but it still seems strange that in a global site such as Wikipedia, that spelling English words using British spelling would be deemed incorrect. CalgaryWikifan (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

The photo caption "A cheque is a cheque no matter how small the amount" does not really seem all that professional or adhere to the general Wikipedia manner of presenting information. Rather, it seems like a phrase out of a children's "consumer science" textbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddharth9200 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I concur. Feel free to go ahead and change it to something more informative. – Toon^(talk) 02:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Checkbook currently redirects here, as a result, I believe there should be a section describing the nature, issuance, features and characteristics of checkbooks. Obviously I cannot write it myself since I came here looking for information on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.217.181.54 (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Guys may i know what is the different between the Draft and Cheque? does can you able to get the some (cash) if your money that was sign on the draft are too much to pay your bills such us in telephone nor electricity bills?.shin368 (shin368) 17:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Crossed cheque: The notions of "to cross" a cheque and "a crossed cheque" are mentioned several times, and although the meaning is more-or-less presented in the article, this is done in a rather dispersed way – partially in image captions and footnotes. I think this merits a more consolidated treatment, particularly for the benefit of readers not familiar with this non-universal concept.

Endorsement: The notion of "to endorse" a cheque is also not explained clearly; someone who does not know what this means, like who does this when, why and how, and what is the effect of the presence or lack of a proper endorsement, most likely still does not know this after studying the article.  --Lambiam 09:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If a person wrote me a check and i took it to my bank,the same bank the person who wrote me the check bank with.The bank cashed the check and gave me a large amount of that check i cashed back in the form of cah,i deposited the rest in my checking acount.Three days later the bank called me and said that acount was closed and they over drafted my acount.Is that legal?they checked the acount the check was writen from before cashing it because it was a large amount to verify the person writing me the check had the money in their acount to cover the check.Can a bank cash a check and then say they did it on good faith? Travis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.178.133 (talk) 21:22, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

This may be a phenomenon unique to the US, but beginning perhaps in the 1960s it became possible to order checks with an image lightly printed in the background. I don't know what kinds of sources would be available that discuss the practice, but I'd imagine that it's significant enough to merit a sentence or two. Thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  00:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the current article Cheque be moved to Check. Wikipedia is after all an American based project and therefore it is only fair to American Wikipedians that the proper American English spelling be used. Mrld (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The general issue has been litigated many times — please read WP:ENGVAR for the compromise that allows us all to work together. --Trovatore (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

(As for whether the history of this particular article is in accord with ENGVAR, I think it is fair to say that it is not, exactly. The original article was at, I forget, check (financial instrument) or some such, and it was moved to cheque on the grounds that that name does not require disambiguation and is also at least marginally recognized in the United States. If I had been there at the time I would likely have argued against that move, but the article has been at this title for many years, and it is not worth changing it at this point.) --Trovatore (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Move proposals based only on WP:ENGVAR objections are likely to fail. The unofficial rule is that the article sticks with the spelling in the first non-stub version. "Cheque" seems to have broken this at some point, but it is not worth going through the spelling arguments again. Wikipedia is not an American English encyclopedia, as any spelling can be used as long as it is within ENGVAR guidelines. See also Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Enforce_American_or_British_spelling.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We stick with the English variety used in the first non-stub revision unless there's a good reason not to (i.e. something other than an arbitrary preference). As noted at WP:RETAIN (the relevant subsection of WP:ENGVAR), switching from one English variety to another can be justified when "a term/spelling carries less ambiguity" (precisely the rationale in this case).

For the record, I'm American. —David Levy 15:32, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Is a cheque money?

Orchids8 (talk) 11:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Is a cheque legal tender?

Orchids8 (talk) 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why there are so many instances of "cheque" on this page and others. People write checks, not check-wees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.186.60 (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:ENGVAR. --07:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Can I also say that in my country - The United Kingdom - the word is almost always spelt "cheque". ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Also in the United Kingdom. the word cheque is pronounced the same way as check making it a homophone. Tk420 (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Not a homophone, "check" and "cheque" are the same word (from the French word "eschequier"), not two different words that sound the same. It's just spelled 2 ways in the UK depending on context. It's splitting like canon split into "canon" and "cannon" but America is holding it together by only using the old spelling. Ikmxx (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Source: 2011 report from the Banque de France Link Content : Cheques were used for 20% of non cash paments in 2010. Second biggest coutry after the US. Average 50 cheques / person a year. Twice as much as the next EU country (UK), five time the EU average. Decline is 4% a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.218.2.35 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed the tag saying the article is written in British English on the talk page. There is currently no explanation on why this is. According the the style guide (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English particularly the section on opportunities for commonality) terms common to all varieties of English are preferred unless the are strong national ties to the topic. I am not aware of any strong national ties to the United Kingdom on the topic of cheques. It is most likely the spelling cheque, which is dominant in British English, which attracted the tag. According to some American Wikipedians the spelling cheque is used in the United States for some brands of traveler's cheques such as American Express so cheque appears to be the international spelling. Tk420 (talk) 12:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "international English". --Trovatore (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that probably came off a bit aggressive. Let me explain what I mean.

In my experience, people who use the term "international English" usually mean specifically to exclude those aspects of American English that are systematically different from the forms that predominate in the British Commonwealth. Their argument is usually "we do it this way in x many countries, whereas there's only one country (occasionally two, counting Canada) that's the odd man out". But in my opinion you can't have an "international English" that systematically excludes the country with two thirds of the language's native speakers.

In the case under discussion, while it is true that the "cheque" spelling is occasionally used in the United States, it is a clearly unusual and somewhat "marked" spelling. In the case of American Express, I am almost sure that it was deliberately chosen to evoke the unstated "British equals upper class" idea that lingers in the American psyche.

As a practical matter, the principal guideline governing the spelling of cheque/check in this article is ENGVAR. If an ENGVAR is not chosen, then it would be harder to explain to editors why they should not repeatedly "correct" the spelling to "check". Moreover, if we do not choose an ENGVAR, then how are we to spell, say, "colo(u)r"? That word does not seem to appear in the current article, but it easily could. "Personalise" does appear. --Trovatore (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The article for Sidewalk faced a similar problem: the standard terms used in many English-speaking countries (pavement, footway, footpath, etc) were all ambiguous to others. It was agreed that sidewalk would be understood by most native English speakers, even if they did not use it themselves natively, and even more importantly it also *describes unambiguously the object of the article*. And everyone agreed with this conclusion! Here we have another term cheque that *describes unambiguously the object* of the article, is understood by *all English speakers, even in the USA*, and yet it still seems to come up with complaints of bias and some vague implication that it is an attempt to make americans feel insecure about themselves: sorry, but an encyclopedia is not a therapist to talk one through ones feelings of inadequacy against the british, however repressed they might be.

The name of this article has been discussed multiple times on this talk-page, and it is clear that check is ambiguous, and that check (finance) is more complicated than cheque, so what is the point of trolling the topic now? Although Tk420 states "There is currently no explanation on why this is", yet this exact topic has been discussed multiple times on this very page: cheque is the only completely unambiguous term, and it is *also* understood by *all* native English speakers.

(Declaration: native speaker who is happy with both of sidewalk and cheque, for the reasons given) 80.254.148.123 (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion is not on how to spell cheque. It is on which dialect to use when discussing the topic in general. Currently there is a tag on this talk saying the article is written in British English. According to the Wikipedia style guide terms common to all varieties of English should be used where possible unless there are strong national ties to the topic. I cannot see any strong ties to the UK on this topic. Tk420 (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood the point of WP:COMMONALITY. The idea is that, if a term common to all varieties works equally well in context as a variety-specific one, then use the one that works for all varieties. That's a separate problem from what variety to use for the article, for those words where you have to make a choice.

For example, the article talks about "personalised" cheques. That's the best word; there is no substitute that works equally as well in context. So we have to choose how to spell it, with the s or the z; there's no in-between. And ENGVAR stipulates that the same choice should be made for a whole article at once. Given that the spelling that we're going with for the article title is very strongly associated with British English (well, at least non-American English), we might as well choose British English for the article as a whole. --Trovatore (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It should be -ize in both the US and UK spelling, -ize is from -izare, -izare is the main reason the letter Z was added to the alphabet. Ikmxx (talk) 06:25, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

On further thought I decided to suggest changing to Oxford spelling which originated in Britain but shares at least one element with American spelling (the preference for a z after i in the ize suffix e.g. organize) and is the closest we have to international spelling. Oxford spelling is already used in Wikipedia articles such as The Lord of the Rings but the tag for that says British English with Oxford spelling. I still do not think it is appropriate to label articles without any strong national ties to any English speaking countries as British English. I have considered calling for a dispute resolution on this matter. Tk420 (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

If people want to change the article to Oxford spelling, it's OK with me. I don't see much point in it, though. It's certainly not in any sense "international spelling"; it's a subtype of British spelling that conservatively keeps the -ize endings that were also kept in American English when most of British English changed to -ise. --Trovatore (talk) 21:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

This article was started in American English, not British English, it was changed without any rationale, so why not change it back to American English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.62.161 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 24 April 2015‎

No, that isn't true, there was a rationale. The rationale was that "check" required disambiguation whereas "cheque" was unambiguous. Whether or not you think that's a sufficient reason, it is a rationale, and the claim it makes is certainly true. (A side point also raised was that "cheque" is sometimes used in American English. This one is just barely true — it's hardly ever used except for AmEx's posh affectation, but yes, you can't quite say it's never used.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Second sentence second paragraph ("While paper money evolved from promissory notes, another form of negotiable instrument, similar to cheques in that they were originally a written order to pay the given amount to whomever had it in their possession (the "bearer").") doesn't seem to be grammatically correct - doesn't look like a full sentence. I'm not sure what exactly it's trying to say (should it be "meanwhile"?) or the best way to revise, but hopefully someone can. -KaJunl (talk) 22:29, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In this sentence, can someone confirm whether "whom" is correct or whether it should be changed to "that"? I think of companies as inanimate, but I'm not sure the rule:

"Certain companies whom a person pays with a cheque"

-KaJunl (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cheque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121019001522/http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er08no4_QuinnRoberds.pdf to http://www.frbatlanta.org/filelegacydocs/er08no4_QuinnRoberds.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lib.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/GOLD/thumbs?class_mark=T-S_Ar.30.184

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Cheque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613101220/http://www.ukpayments.org.uk/resources_publications/key_facts_and_figures/cheques_and_bankers%27_drafts_facts_and_figures/ to http://www.ukpayments.org.uk/resources_publications/key_facts_and_figures/cheques_and_bankers%27_drafts_facts_and_figures/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ukpayments.org.uk/files/candc/history_publication_final_-_small_version.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914101037/http://sblegal.innovation.gov.au/Lists/New%20Relevant%20Legal%20Issues/DispForm.aspx?ID=691&RootFolder=%2A to http://sblegal.innovation.gov.au/Lists/New%20Relevant%20Legal%20Issues/DispForm.aspx?ID=691&RootFolder=%2A
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150421060830/http://www.troygroup.com/support/documents/50-70300-001_CMICRBasicsHandbook_000.pdf to http://www.troygroup.com/support/documents/50-70300-001_CMICRBasicsHandbook_000.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090319173648/http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft868.pdf to http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/financial_products/oft868.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100120112829/http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/media_centre/press_releases_new/-/page/855/ to http://www.paymentscouncil.org.uk/media_centre/press_releases_new/-/page/855/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Why is this British English? It’s not specific to a region, and the article says that “check” is the older spelling. The American spelling (while I’m biased) is definitely more intuitively pronounceable, and more of the natively English-speaking world uses it than the other spelling. DemonDays64 (talk) 23:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it used to be at check (financial instrument) or some such — right now that redirect dates from 2011, but in the dim past moves didn't use to be as cleanly discoverable from the file history as they are now. There was a move discussion, and the article was moved based on the rationale that check is ambiguous but cheque is not, which is a legitimate though not mandatory reason to change an article's ENGVAR if agreed by consensus. This is all from my memory, but you can look back in the talk-page archives if you really want to know for sure. --Trovatore (talk) 23:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

See the threads above and the talk page archive. Mucho discussion here, but the current spelling is likely to stay.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 03:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)