Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (abbreviations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Definite articles before acronyms of proper nouns

Should a definite article be used before an acronym or initialism of whose expansion is used with a definite article, such as proper nouns? For example, is it correct to write "He went to USA", or only "He went to the USA"? Which should be preferred? -Pgan002 08:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that both options are unusual. More common would be "He went to the U.S." USA is rarely used. HistoryBA 21:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As to the 'the' - I'd say, use it. Only one writer (a Scot) that I edit uses, for example, 'weather in UK' as opposed to 'weather in the UK'. (On the U.S. v. USA issue, at least using USA can avoid a double stop at the end of a sentence, avoiding U.S.. --Tony in Devon 12:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

At the end of a sentence consider using "United States". Rich Farmbrough, 17:35 18 November 2006 (GMT).
FWIW dept. -- From the ChiMoS on-line: "6.122 No double period. When an expression that takes a period ends a sentence, no additional period follows." So, by all means, "U.S." can end a sentence. ;-) RCEberwein | Talk 20:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Abbreviations

Would anyone object if I added a few other abbreviations to the list? I am thinking of LL.B. (or should it be LLB?), P.C. (PC?), M.A. (MA?), Ph.D. (PhD?), and others that are abbreviated in different ways on different articles. HistoryBA 21:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. & UK

I note that this list has a recommended format for the abbreviation for United States (U.S.), but not for United Kingdom.

The article American and British English differences consistently uses "U.S." (with stops) but "UK" (without stops). Why? In my personal view, either form (with & without stops) is acceptable, but I would have expected consistency with both abbreviations in the same format within a single article.

Certainly the abbreviation UK (without stops) is commonly used within the United Kingdom, but so is the abbreviation US (without stops)! Either UK or U.K. is (in my view) acceptable on its own; but it seems to me odd to use one form for one abbreviation and a different form for another very similar abbreviation in the same article.

Is there a policy or guideline on this?

TrevorD 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Trevor, welcome to WP and thanks for your contributions! Well... UK is very common in the UK, while U.S. is the usual form in the U.S. So the MoS (M.o.S.) came up with this (a tad cumbersome, indeed) tradeoff, U.S. (US) vs. y'all. Go figure...--JackLumber 20:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
There is another important consideration here. People searching for articles that mention the U.S. don't want to go to the word "us." For that reason, Wikipedia prefers "U.S." to "US," regardless of national preferences. HistoryBA 20:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You're dreadful right. U.S. vs. US / US vs. THEM. Yet this doesn't explain the U.S./UK dualism---why not U.K. then?... JackLumber 20:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the above comments and altho' "UK is very common in the UK", so is U.K.. I'm happy to accept U.S. (even tho' it's twice as much to type!), and I'm fine with either UK or U.K. when it stands alone - but to mix U.S. and UK in the same article bugs me and offends my sense of style! As neither UK nor U.K. is listed in the list of abbreviations, are we allowed to use either form? If so, I would be inclined to change the 'offending' article to use U.K.. TrevorD 23:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"US" is very common in the "U.S.", too. In my mind this rule should be more contextually flexible. "Today, the U.S. government announced" is correct, but "ships of the US Navy" would be correct too. List headings should be consistent, thus "US" and "UK" if side-by-side (who wants extra clutter in a table?). Particularly in certain articles, where typing "U.S. Senate" vs. "US Senate" a dozen times grows tedious, I prefer the less cluttered version, and having the style guide declare it's incorrect gives people an excuse to, well, clutter things up unnecessarily. --Dhartung | Talk 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Advice from WP:MoS is When abbreviating United States, please use "U.S."; that is the more common style in that country. When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. When including the United States in a list of countries, do not abbreviate the "United States" (for example, "France and the United States", not "France and the U.S."). You can find detailed discussions on the talk page archive. Rich Farmbrough 09:12 6 August 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Bachelor of Science

This list apparently mandates use of the abbreviation B.S. for Bachelor of Science. The standard UK abbreviation for Bachelor of Science is B.Sc. or BSc, and I think many brits would not understand B.S. as meaning Bachelor of Science, especially as it can mean Bachelor of Surgery, British Standard or Building Society. I would propose that the abbreviation used should be that appripriate to the institution that granted the Bachelor of Science degree (e.g. B.S. from an American institution, and B.Sc. from a British one), without prescribing a standard fixed abbreviation which may be unclear or ambiguous to other readers. For general reference to the degree, the full expression could be used. TrevorD 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that the alternatives have now been added. Thanks. TrevorD 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AD & B.C.

This list permits either A.D. or AD for anno Domini, but prescribes B.C. (with stops) for Before Christ. If either format of the former is allowed, surely either format B.C. or BC should also be allowed, provided, of course, that there is consistency within a single article. TrevorD 18:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I note that the alternatives have now been added. Thanks. TrevorD 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The option of using periods or not here conflicts with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Eras, which prescribes no periods. Also, should this list add BCE and CE? Finell (Talk) 07:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] M.D. - Doctor of Medicine

Just a note to point out that in the UK, M.D. is also commonly used to mean Managing Director of a company (similar to CEO or President), so preferably any usage of this abbreviation should not be ambiguous. TrevorD 20:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rel.

I don't think the final note in the article on the abbreviation "Rel." is clear. Could someone please try to reword it? I would, but I'm not sure what it is trying to say. HistoryBA 14:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AKA

I have been observing an increase in the use of the abbreviation aka (also known as). I personally dislike this abbrevition and I do not believe it is encyclopadic. However, I would like to know what do you all think, should it be used, and if not, what alternative shall we use? --Francisco Valverde 15:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it isn't encyclopedic. HistoryBA 14:16, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
And yet "a.k.a." is in the list of examples for the following Chicago manual of style (online) rule:

15.4 Periods: general guidelines

To avoid unnecessary periods in abbreviations, Chicago recommends the following general guidelines: use periods with abbreviations that appear in lowercase letters; use no periods with abbreviations that appear in full capitals or small capitals, whether two letters or more. For feasible exceptions, see 15.5. For a mixture of lowercase and capital letters, see 15.6. For the omission of periods in scientific usage, see 15.55, 15.58.

[edit] @ and &

Would these count as abreviations of at and and respectively?Cameron Nedland 03:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No. They are symbols. Finell (Talk) 07:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Sorry.Cameron Nedland 20:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US postal abbreviations

It seems to me that the use in articles of US postal abbreviations (IL for Illinois, NY for New York, CA for California, etc.) should be discouraged (read: removed on sight) except, of course, when discussing the abbreviations themselves. (While I can't find it explicitly stated, I'm fairly certain that the article pages for US cities do not use the postal abbreviations.) For example, in article text, one should say "...in Houston, Texas...", not "...in Houston, TX..." (linking is a separate, but related question). Any comments? –RHolton≡– 18:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I change them to the full state name whenever I see them (barring contextual exceptions). Soltras 06:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, too. Please spell in full. As a non-U.S. reader, I always have to look up MI, MN, MO & MT for instance, to check my memory (and get correct in a magazine).--Tony in Devon 10:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've put in a section - things to avoid - containing only this example. In principle it should not be a problem because of the MoS rule saying "introduce abbreviations". Rich Farmbrough, 17:44 18 November 2006 (GMT).
Sorry, Rich, I changed your wording to "postal code" before seeing this entry. But I think it's the outcome you intended all along? GMTA -- RCEberwein | Talk 21:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Fine, actually I found the same rule somewhere else in the MoS, just can't remember where. Place names, perhaps. Rich Farmbrough, 16:30 29 November 2006 (GMT).

[edit] e.g. and i.e. and brackets

1. e.g. certainly needs to be in the list, so I will add, with a translation. 2. I'll add a translation of i.e. as well, as so many people confuse these two. 3. QUESTION - as a copy editor (non-Wiki) I hate to see 'e.g. xxx' in brackets - a comma followed by the i.e. or e.g. is sufficient to provide the break. And if the sentence continues after the example? Well, probably better to start another sentence or use a hyphen. Opinions? Or have I missed advice already available in a guide? --Tony in Devon 10:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In formal US usage in print, e.g. and i.e. are considered parenthetical expressions as are whatever follows them, so both should be set off by commas before and after. Example:
Use of pairs of complementary colors, e.g., red and green, is an important compositional element in painting.
It looks like a lot of commas, but it is correct. Finell (Talk) 07:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] U.S.

I am concerned that the advice at the recently promoted to guideline page, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms) is that articles should be disambiguated as "blah (US)". This breaks conformity of the MoS in quite a big way. Looking at the history it appears that this was introduced not intending to conflict with MoS:

[edit] The reasons for various positions:- (US),(U.S.),(United States), don't change any names, be consistent

  1. to minimize typing.
    • Favouring US then U.S. (yes a significant number of people think that the two extra "."s are a killer!)
  2. to be clear
    • Favouring the longer solutions, mainly United States
  3. to be consistent with article content
    • Disfavouring US
  4. to be consistent with other titles
    • Disfavouring US
  5. to be able to be consistently used as a wikilink
    • Disfavouring US (The bracketed expressions are not always used as hidden disambiguators)
  6. to not create redirects
    • Should be irrelevant - clean up any doubles as ususal.
  7. affects related changes
    • (I.E. making changes is bad.) Don't quite understand this argument.
  8. affects google/yahoo searches
    • In favour of longer names.

I think that sums up all the arguments put forth, although doubtless there is something I've missed. As the US vs U.S. debate is probably the hoariest chestnut on this talk page, I apologise for bringing it back, but I think it deserves a slightly larger audience than it may have had before. (I will leave a note on WP:NCA's talk page.)

I favour allowing (U.S.), (United States) or (United States of America) as desired. I would be against any other abbreviation.

Rich Farmbrough, 22:35 18 November 2006 (GMT). P.S. "I would be against any other abbreviation." - Unless the main MoS changed. RF 10:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the fourth time this debate has been opened (26 Feb 2005, 19 Apr 2005, 12 Feb 2006, 18 Nov 2006, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (acronyms)). Must we debate this endlessly? (You can tell I'm somewhat tired of the debate, sorry).
A couple of times, people have been bold, and simply moved over pages over. Contrary to what Rich says above, double redirects were not fixed in those attempts. This left a mess.
Regarding Related Changes: Simply redirecting (e.g.) Sierra Nevada (US) to Sierra Nevada (U.S.) breaks "Related Changes" on the pages that contain the old link Sierra Nevada (US). A change at Sierra Nevada (U.S.) does not appear as a Related Change in a page that contains Sierra Nevada (U.S.). And this page is heavily linked to. I would be less concerned if a bot were used to substitute Sierra Nevada (U.S.) directly for Sierra Nevada (US) in all pages, rather than using redirection.
I'm one of those individuals who is often typing Sierra Nevada (US), and find the extra periods quite annoying.
You left out one point that mav made, which was that Wikipedia disambiguation is idiosyncratic to Wikipedia: it doesn't need to follow externally validated styles.
Sigh. I'll contact all of the main participants in the previous debates, and see if people still have the energy to continue the discussion. hike395 07:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Related changes: if it's a big deal, I'm happy to deal with the re-directs as well. (Has a bug been filed?)
  • You're right about missing Mav's point. Lets break that down
    • Wikipedia style does not need to follow external rules. Indeed.
    • As I understand it Mav also said that disambiguation qualifiers don't need to follow the same MoS rules. Here I disagree, for four fundamental reasons:
      1. The name of the article is there at the top of the article in big neon letters - it is not an invisible internal construct.
      2. Some links to the article are not piped through MoSifying placeholders, particularly but not exclusively
        1. "See also" links
        2. "Lists of"
        3. Diambiguation page entries (where disambiguation style currently discourages piped placeholders).
          What is more if piped MoSifying placeholders are used, then the saving from typing all thoise "."s is at least halved by a "|".
      3. There is no clear demarcation between titles withand without disambigution qualifiers.
      4. It encourages by example use of whichever abbreviation is chosen.

Rich Farmbrough, 10:48 19 November 2006 (GMT).
I think it should be abbreviated with the "A" included with it (USA) or (U.S.A.). The full name of the country is the United States of America. I think it's also relevant to note that the full name of Mexico is the United States of Mexico (Estados Unidos Mexicanos). Mexico also has united states. America isn't the only country with united states. Adding the "A" to the abbreviation isn't very hard, it reflects the full name of the country, and it removes any ambiguity with Mexico and any other country named the "United States." Personally I prefer the format with periods over the format without. I'd much rather see the "A" in there though. Jecowa 10:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jecowa. I understand your point. However I'd like to keep focussed on this question: "Do we use the same abbreviation as the rest of Wikipedia when it appears in brackets in an article title, or a different one. The debate over which to use has also been had many times (and I am agnostic about it, if anything preferring US), but could be resurrected if you wish. Rich Farmbrough, 10:37 19 November 2006 (GMT).

I'd prefer USA. – flamurai (t) 11:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like "U.S.". It's not very aesthetic on a computer screen. I'd prefer "United States" when in the title name, and "US" in the article text. Both are clear, aesthetic, and properly convey the information that it is intended should be conveyed. jguk 15:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I oppose changing the disambiguation standards. I have a hard time seeing any problem with using "(US)" as a disambiguator. Really, how many countries are known by this abbreviation? "(US)" is easier to type as I don't have to bounce on the shift key; yes, I can use caps lock, but that doesn't resolve the parenthesis like the letters. We've been using "(US)" for the two years that I've been editing, and it's been in use that way long before now. The reasons presented so far to change this practice do not seem ample justification for me to agree to it. Slambo (Speak) 16:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The title of the country article is established as "United States" because that is the most common name. We should retain the previous preference for this over "United States of America" and for the same reason U.S. over U.S.A. Personally, I prefer to see (United States) in article titles, because it's not always obvious what "US" stands for if you're not sure what the article is about (because you are only looking at the title). Some search engines (like Yahoo but not Google) don't know that United States is the same thing as U.S. or US, so it's important to use United States and U.S. because they are not going to get articles mixed in with the many others with "us" in the title. I think there should be redirects from "US" to "U.S." for the convenience of editors. A bot could change article links to fix the "related changes" problem by bypassing simple redirects. If people insist on US instead of U.S. for consistency with the rest of the alphabet soup (like UK and NASA), that's not the end of the world; smart search engines like Google can deal, and consistency is nice. Though it might also not be a bad idea to have consistency with the article text convention, which makes an exception that adds periods to U.S. unlike other initialisms, due to the search engine problem. -- Beland 18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, that search engine problem is pretty much a myth. Also, regardless of what the MoS says, it's not difficult to find articles abbreviating to "US" rather than "U.S." (it's one of those things where the written guidelines have never conformed to what happens on the ground), jguk 19:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Almost inevitably you get an article called "Foo (US)" which starts something like "Foo in the U.S. is a....." . To me this looks amateur. I am gob-smacked that people think typing two fullstops is burden. The amount of typing discussing the issue far outweighs that. What is more, as it is only a guideline, you can carry on using US and let other people put the fullstops in for you, if they so desire. Rich Farmbrough, 20:05 19 November 2006 (GMT).

Here's an example: 2nd Brigade (US 1st Infantry Division) but U.S. 1st Infantry Division. Rich Farmbrough, 20:41 19 November 2006 (GMT).

Not sure what "gob-smacked" is (sounds bad, though :-) )... I have not seen the "almost inevitably" happen, if you could find some examples of it, I would find it more convincing. I tried using Google, but I can't get it to find the literal string "(US)".
I appreciate the argument of MoS uniformity in lists, and think it has a fair amount of weight. A quick Google search of the string "Sierra Nevada (US)" shows 37 instances, so it does happen a lot.
However, I think several/many other people agree with me that there is something about constantly typing (U.S.) is incredibly annoying for editors. If you had a bot change all of the Sierra Nevada (US) to Sierra Nevada (U.S.) in the articles themselves, I would still be a weak oppose. Only weak, though, because of the strength of the MoS argument.
hike395 05:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Some examples.
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 10:52 21 November 2006 (GMT). P.S. wikt:gobsmacked.
OK, I guess I am now neutral, as long as a bot fixes the Sierra Nevada (US) links. I don't think we've reached consensus, though, since Slambo is still opposed? hike395 04:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Great. We'll see if Slambo has any more comments. Rich Farmbrough, 22:51 22 November 2006 (GMT).
I like the current standard of (US) - it nice and concise. --mav 02:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections/Additions

I've made the following changes to the list (feel free to return any of them to their previous form if I've erred)

Added new OR parallel entry:
Bachelor of Arts (Artium Baccalaureus) --> B.A. or A.B.
Before the Common Era --> BCE
Common Era --> CE
post meridiem --> p.m.
Changed case (for parallelism w/case of abbr.):
Abbreviation --> abbreviation
Ante meridiem --> ante meridiem
Born --> born
Died --> died
Flipped Abbr. order to reflect WP:MOSDATE omission of "." (so, not sure about the or option now)
A.D. or AD --> AD or A.D.
B.C. or BC --> BC or B.C.

A question:

Shouldn't it be RN (and also MP for Member of Parliament, which I was not bold enough to add)? They are certifications/titles which Chicago-MoS says to use w/o "." but then this page mentions that these are supposed to reflect Wikipedia usage... -- RCEberwein | Talk 23:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/n/Wikipedia_talk%7EManual_of_Style_%28abbreviations%29_f167.html"