WWF

It was originally named the World Wildlife Fund.


In 1986, the organization changed its name to World Wide Fund for Nature, to better reflect the scope of its activities, retaining the WWF initials. However, it continues to operate under the original name in the

fivejedjonIt was originally named the World Wildlife Fund. In 1986, the organization changed its name to World Wide Fund for Nature, to better reflect the scope of its activities, retaining the WWF initials. However, it continues to operate under the original name in the United States and Canada .

fivejedjonIn 1986, the organization changed its name to World Wide Fund for Nature, to better reflect the scope of its activities, retaining the WWF initials. However, it continues to operate under the original name in the United States and Canada .

Gosh, I never knew it had changed. Obviously I have not been paying attention since 1986...

Both are equally acceptable to me. What I see is that if you intend to use these words (or word) as an acronym, you write them as two words; however, that is not to say to say it is a rule. It's okay to use either per your whims and fancies.

Regards,
Nash

This graph may be of interest:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=world+wide%2Cworldwide%2C+

Thanks, everybody.
I am not inclined to using things 'per my whims and fancies'. I need something solid to refer to.

GPY, the I couldn't have access to the site because 'the service is not available in our country'. Please could you tell me what the content is about.

nsfs2GPY, the I couldn't have access to the site because 'the service is not available in our country'. Please could you tell me what the content is about.

The graph, which is based on Google Books data, shows that historically "world-wide" was most common. In the 1970s this was overtaken by "worldwide", which since that time has grown substantially in frequen