Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (abbreviations)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:MOSABBR
Archive
Archives
1


On May 24, 2008 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations) was merged into this MoS page and now redirects here, per discussion at: this page (permanent link); see old talk page of merged guideline, here


Contents

[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)
Sounds plausible to me. This really tells me that we need to remove things like "Ph.D." and so on from the list; just because they are sourceable as occuring "in the wild" offline does not mean that a WP guideline on acronyms should recommend them for us here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mount / Mountain / Mt. / Mt

Thanks to someone "being bold," and undertaking changing all instances of "Mt." to "Mt" in Oregon-related links, specifically with reference to the various things named after Mount Hood, I have noted that there is substantial inconsistency of usage. Neither Mt. nor Mt are on the abbreviation list (nor do I personally think they should be). My inclination is that the naming convention applied to the article on the mountain itself should be applied to all related articles, Mount Hood spelled out in full, especially since the abbreviation Mt can be interpreted as either Mount or Mountain. Spelling out the word "Mount" is consistent with articles on other mountains in the Cascade range, and throughout the country. Specific examples of variations include:

Before I undertake "fixing" this, I thought I should check to make sure there is consensus that it is broken. (If this is the wrong venue for this discussion, please forgive me, and point me in the right direction.) -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 20:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed this at Timberline Lodge, which refers to both "Mount Hood National Forest" and "Mt Hood Scenic Byway" in the intro. "Mount" should always be spelled out, in my opinion. It's a short word anyway. If others agree, we could request that a bot or a user with AWB make the changes. -Big Smooth 23:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. At worst, Mt. might be mistaken for several unintended things: Montana, Mountain, the chemical element Meitnerium. At best, not fully specifying the meaning is sloppy editing and not worthy of an encyclopedia which presumably exists to elucidate, not obfuscate. —EncMstr 23:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree that "Mount" should be spelled out everywhere. It only saves 3 letters to abbreviate it. -- Spireguy 03:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
(It saves only 2 characters.  :-) —EncMstr 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
In the interest of due process with respect to honoring consensus, I'll wait a few days for objections to be raised. Absent any, I will conform any instances I can find to the prevailing usage. (I have posted notices of this discussion on the Mountain and Oregon Wikigroup talk pages to avoid appearing to have conducted it "behind closed doors.") -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 03:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The original bold person concurs. I don't think waiting much longer is needed: tomorrow is probably good enough. —EncMstr 03:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, having raised objections to unilateral actions being taken while discussions were still ongoing, and still being a relative newcomer (having some difficulty deciding where lines should be drawn), I didn't want to appear to be disrespectful of consensus process. I have AWB, so it will take me longer to locate the offending instances than fix them. I'll borrow a little of your boldness, and give it a shot tomorrow evening. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 07:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The consensus was already in place. No opposing views had emerged. The fact that no additional comments appeared means either that the subject got little notice, or that no new arguments had been thought of—readers agreed with what was already written. —EncMstr 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm strongly in favor of the "Mount" and "Mountain" usage, against the "Mt" and "Mt." usage, for reasons given above. That is how we do it in WikiProject Mountains (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mountains#Naming_conventions). This naming convention is incorporated into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (landforms) by wikilink. hike395 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree about using "Mount" when referring to landforms however in the case of companies or organizations such as Mt. Hood Meadows I don't think the case is as clear. For example Mt. Hood Meadows ski resort refers to itself on its web page using the abbreviation. --Droll 09:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is consistency of style, not self-description, per MoS(Wikipedia:Naming conventions). Variations, even when used by companies in their advertising, not only appear sloppy, but make it impossible for readers to anticipate what they need to type in to navigate to similarly named articles. There seems to be consensus that "Mount" makes more sense in this regard than "Mt.," so I am going to proceed with implementing it. If there are individual exceptions that should be made, I think they should be dealt with on their respective talk pages. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 19:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
While Mt. Hood Meadows does a fairly good job of consistency, the same website has a major exception: The online store. I suspect the use of Mt. is marketing- and branding-driven rather than anything grammatical. —EncMstr 20:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the United States Board on Geographic Names "discourages" the use of periods in place names (as well as apostrophes); see #18 at http://geonames.usgs.gov/domestic/faqs.htm -- they also list "Mount Hood" as "Mount" without even a "variant name" of "Mt Hood", and definitely not "Mt. Hood". While there is no ultimate authority on placenames in the US, the BGN is as close as we get. Pfly 03:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You do need to be careful in your move that you are not moving articles that are properly located at Mt. to Mount. As an example Mt. Spokane High School's official name is Mt. Spokane, not Mount.;) --Bobblehead 05:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
We do have precedence for official names with abbreviations not being spelled out. The highest visibility example is Mount St. Helens, which in fact is not Mount Saint Helens, because 1) the BGN says so, and 2) it was named after Alleyne FitzHerbert, 1st Baron St Helens.
However, for non-landform articles, it may be very difficult to determine the source of the official name: how would we do that without original research? hike395 12:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It looks like broad consensus exists, with a few specific exceptions. I'll add that to the policy page. —EncMstr 06:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Abbreviated terms which fail to appear un-abbreviated

Resolved. Issue is covered in MOS

I was taught that in its first appearance, an abbreviated term should appear un-abbreviated, with its abbreviated usage following soon afterwards. Abbreviations tend to be obvious to article creators and frequently non-obvious to casual readers, and so if there is no immediate explication it can be off-putting, especially for more technical areas. Is there a Wikipedia style policy which more or less states this? I don't want to "correct" anyone on this unless it goes against WP standards. Noahjz 22:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It should be mentioned here too, when this document is expanded as described at #Lead rewrite; focus/scope — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AM / PM

I think the current a.m. / p.m. abbreviation standard should instead be AM and PM, in accordance with AD, BC, CE, BCE, and many many other abbreviations. How can this get changed? John Stattic 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

But why should a.m. / p.m. be in accordance with AD, BC, CE, BCE, etc.? -- JHunterJ 21:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, because full stops are becoming somewhat of an archaic usage. On the project page we see "BC" and "AD" for those terms, but the alternative uses full stops, i.e. "B.C." and "A.D.". For CE and BCE, however, there is no full stop alternative listed, which seems to suggest that the newer alternatives are discarding archaic full stop usage. I will at least suggest that we remove the full stops from "a.m." and "p.m.", leaving "am" and "pm", if capitalization is not going to be implemented. Full stops are too archaic and out out place, IMO —John Stattic 07:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There are other full stops in the list (including the ever-popular U.S.). Are you in favor of doing away with all of them? -- JHunterJ 11:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
This is something I would like to see sourced-for-analysis. What do, say, 15 other style guides have to say on the matter? I think the adherence to "a.m." is a "traditionalist" kind of thing, but by now may well be deprecated by some style guides in favor of "AM". But I won't stake my rep on it. I am not saying we should simply do what the CMoS does or whatever, but rather look at what if any offline consensus is forming over time, as a point to consider here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Born and died

Can the abbreviations for "born" and "died" be removed from this list? Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death specify the spelled-out versions, and at least one editor is using the list here as reason to change existing entries from (born 1948) to (b. 1948), for example. I can't think of any other place that "born" and "died" would need to be abbreviated in Wikipedia, other than when giving dates of birth and death. Thanks. -- JHunterJ 04:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

this is far too an established method, adopted and utilised globally in all manner of print, literature, and reference to not be used in wp. --emerson7 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not see any reason for us to use it. Do you have a specific example? We are rarely cramped for space, and we should not do pure genealogies. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree; there is not a compelling need for us to use these abbreviations ( Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia); furthermore, in the MoS we try to encourage consistency where possible. In my view, this is a good example of a time when we can prescribe consistent use—born and died rather than b. and d. Also, I think that writing out born and died is helpful in the aims of Wikipedia:Accessibility. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And the original point still holds, I think: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates of birth and death says to spell them out, and that seems to cover all of the times that b. and d. have been used in WP. If there is consensus to change that, then that should be changed, not simply made inconsistent here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the abbreviations should still be an option. It's not a matter of being "cramped for space"; it's a matter of easy reading, of a standard and much-used format. Tony (talk) 12:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
And I think that would be a reasonable discussion for WT:MOSDATE. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Huh? "Born" and "died" have always been easier to read than the abbreviations, although the difference is small. There may be special cases where b. and d. fit better; but they're allowed for as the list stands now: this list does not claim to be exhaustive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any objection to John Doe (February 29, 1900 – December 18, 1999)? No born nor b. No d nor died. No ambiguity. —EncMstr 17:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Typically that is the standard format -- born/died or b./d. should only be used when only one date is known. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
When one isn't known—or hasn't occurred, I've seen these:
John Doe (February 29, 1900 – )
John Doe (? – December 18, 1999)
Is that not preferred? —EncMstr 18:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Not by me, in any case. The first case looks as though a vandal has simply removed the date of death. The latter should be more clearly spelled out as in either "date of birth unknown" or "c. 1900". The usage of "b." or "born", as far as I'm aware, is typically used with living persons, where there is only one date. For persons known to have died (or at least can safely be assumed to be dead), there should always be some sort of explicit indication).
Only incidentally by way of reply to EncMstr, but meant for anyone, I just noticed this -- why is is acceptable (according to MOS:DATE) to use "c." but not "b." or "d."? If we the latter, shouldn't we also deprecate the former? Or do Latin abbreviations have a special status? older ≠ wiser 18:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
The first case is occasionally seen for biographies of living persons. The second seems to be normal with persons for which no definitive birth date is established by a source. For example, Mary Ramsey Wood, though there is now something more concrete there. —EncMstr 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
i frankly don't get the "wikipaedia is not a paper encyclopedia" argument. were that the case, the use of all abbreviations should be deprecated. i don't think anyone is arguing 'space' is the issue. it's one thing to have a policy on restricting the use of abbreviations in opening headers and such....thats fine. but to apply that restriction to all text, tables, charts, et cetera, just doesn't make practical or realistic sense. --emerson7 19:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Has someone claimed that b. and d. are forbidden? They're not reading clearly; this is not a list of what we permit, but of what we endorse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Uh, if someone says, you can't use b. because it's not in the MOS, what is a sensible argument? The MOS doesn't apply, perhaps? —EncMstr 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
There is the usual point that MOS is a guideline. Despite the opinions of some editors, it did not descend from the heavens, and it is not legislation. It may be more telling to quote it: "That's not what MOS says: In Wikipedia, abbreviations for common terms are often in parentheses within the head paragraph. Wikipedia has found it both practical and efficient to use the following abbreviations." Italicise as necessary, especially if you're not discussing a lead paragraph. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Input requested on requested move

At Talk:Ftr#Requested move, there is a proposal to move ftr to FTR (bus), claiming that the lower-case trademark "ftr" should be presented in standard English as all capitals. I don't see that the guideline explicitly addresses this situation, in that "ftr" is not really an acronym and perhaps not even strictly speaking an abbreviation. WP:MOSTM recommends that lower case trademarks like adidas should be presented as proper nouns and capitalized accordingly as "Addidas". Input on this question is welcome at Talk:Ftr#Requested move. older ≠ wiser 17:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Full stops in abreviations considered harmful

Stuck. Wrong forum; this is a matter for WT:MOS.

My point of view is that full stops in abreviations (eg 'et al.') make the text difficult to read. If I were to write the style manual, I would recommend to drop full stops (eg write 'et al'). Has this issue been discussed? Note that Guardian Style Guide recommends not to put full stops in abbreviations[1]. NerdyNSK 19:04, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that WP's manual of style here says that 'Many periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage. For example, PhD is preferred to Ph.D. and Ph. D.. Periods are retained in abbreviations that cannot otherwise be clearly identified' but here it seems to suggest the use of full stops. Sounds like a mild inconsistency to me. NerdyNSK 19:33, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
The Guardian style guide says nothing about et al. The following use et al. and nothing else (i.e. they do not offer et al as an alternative):
Need I go on?--Damac 20:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Guardian says: 'Do not use full points in abbreviations, or spaces between initials: BBC, US, mph, eg, 4am, lbw, No 10, PJ O'Rourke, WH Smith, etc' - you notice that they do not put a . in etc (which is an abbreviation). They do not say anything about el al but I assume that since et al is also an abbreviation then they write it without full stops as well. Furthermore, this discussion is not only about et al. NerdyNSK 21:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Of all the style guides we could possibly refer to, those produced by newspapers (regardless where) are the least useful. News style is radically different in many ways from formal writing. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Note that PCMag says 'et al' without the full stop: [7]. NerdyNSK 21:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Although I'm a Guardian reader, it's not an academic publication. I like some of the issues in its style guide, but dislike others. We are under no obligation to follow it here. I would like to think that Wikipedia should follow standard academic conventions in the use of et al. I don't use fullstops in all the examples you raised, but do use some. The English language, unlike others (French, German, Greek) is regulated by no one authority, nor does it have a definitive set of rules on punctuation. I can rely on a host of publications that justify the use of the full stop in et al., etc.--Damac 07:01, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That's correct, English is regulated by no one. So, we should base our decision on what looks best and what is likely to be understood better by our readers. As I said, use of full stops in acronyms and abbreviations looks confusing to me, but I assume not to you. Perhaps we should refactor the MoS to allow or equally recommend both usages (as a matter of fact, the most modern usage is without the full stops, so it looks like this usage is increasing). It would be nice if we could count how many find full stops confusing and how many are okay with them. NerdyNSK 15:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pronounceable all-capital acronyms considered harmful

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations says 'In British usage, acronyms (abbreviations pronounced as words) that are in common usage are sometimes not capitalized in their entirety (Aids rather then AIDS)' but Wikipedia:Manual of Style (abbreviations) appears to suggest all-capital acronyms even for the ones that can be pronounced as words (Nasa vs NASA). Looks like a small inconsistency between the two pages. I suggest changing it to prefer Nasa over NASA or at least consider both forms equally correct. See also Economist style guide. NerdyNSK 19:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that Wikipedia is not in a position to treat both forms as equally correct except in the rare cases where the acroyms have become words in everyday usage, and I can only think of four of them right off hand, all with the features that a) no one would recognize them as spelled out acronyms in spoken usage ("el-ay-ess-ee-arr"), b) few would recognize them as all-caps acronyms in writing, and c) the are utterly unambiguous: scuba, radar, laser/maser, snafu. Aids is totally out of the question, since that is ambiguous with a much longer-standing English word. Nasa is out of the question, as that is simply not the officially recognized acronym of the organization (i.e. it would be WP:OR to use it in a Wikipedia context), and it also fails the second of these tests. Many others present similar problems. If MoS proper still says what is quoted above, it needs to be deleted or at least radically changed to address this issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Too many dots

Resolved. Proposal updated to reflect all of this.

In view of the controversy evident on this talk page about the large number of dots in the abbreviations overleaf, and MOS's explicit attitude towards dots (see the quote above), I propose that in most or all cases, the undotted version be given in the table as well. Does anyone object? Tony (talk) 11:05, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes absolutely. Much wiki-blood has been spilt on these issues, and while I have no significant preference on US vs U.S. or p.m. vs pm (or even vs vs vs.) one of the purposes of the MoS is to make it possible to present a uniform appearance, where a reasonable consensus can be found. Clearly on the issues of international spelling and BC/BCE the disruption to the project was seen to outweigh the benefits of standardizing. However on all these more minor points, we should stick to one specific way of doing things if possible. Bearing in mind, always that we are not using the MoS as a stick to beat users, just to bring style into line across articles. Rich Farmbrough, 08:44 5 October 2007 (GMT).
Just wanted to summarize what was changed on Sept 27. This Sept 27 edit, with an associated comment of "rearranged," rearranged the list from alphabetical to categorized by type of abbreviation, but also made the following changes:
This September 27 edit, which had no associated comment, changed the order of synonymous abbreviations to list those without periods first (e.g. changed "Capt. or Capt" to "Capt or Capt."), and made the following functional changes:
  • department was changed from "dept." to "dept. or dept"
  • Avenue was changed from "Ave. " to "Ave. or Ave"
  • Boulevard was changed from "Blvd." to "Blvd or Blvd."
  • Highway was changed from "Hwy." to "Hwy or Hwy."
  • Road was changed from "Rd." to "Rd or Rd."
  • Street was changed from "St." to "St or St."
  • Association was changed from "Assn." to "Assn or Assn."
  • Limited was changed from "Ltd." to "Ltd or Ltd."
  • Bachelor of Science was changed from "B.S. or B.Sc. or BSc" to "BS, B.S., BSc or B.Sc."
  • registered nurse was changed from "R.N." to "RN or R.N."
-Agyle 18:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
Response: Adding "US", which is now necessary as part of the compromise wording that has been introduced into MOS), but I agree with it. I did wrongly goof by changing the original dotted versions '"a.m." and "p.m." to "am" and "pm" (rather than adding the undotted options that MOS and MOSNUM now explicitly allow (it's widespread in some varieties of English, and who will confuse "12:45 pm" with picometres, as the inline comment said?). I've now fixed this goof to include both. Sorry.
Those two changes are explicitly mandated by MOS. I made a few other changes (frankly, insisting on dots in "B.Sc." is unrealistic nowadays). I must say that "Nato" etc. look unfamiliar, although I think BrEng might be keen on this (they certainly use "Aids" rather than "AIDS"); I didn't add the lower-case options in those cases. But when it comes to practices by whole varieties of English, I do not think that inserting the option to do it their way should be reverted. This is as true for the "US" versus "U.S." issue as it is for some of the other items.
As far as the other introductions of undotted abbreviations, again, MOS says:
Periods and spaces
Many periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage. For example, PhD is preferred to Ph.D. and Ph. D. Periods are retained in abbreviations that cannot otherwise be clearly identified.
While I might have copy-edited the wording a few months ago (I honestly can't remember), I certainly didn't introduce this point into MOS. And I have to say that it's a clear recognition of the realities of dotting practice in all varieties of English. This is recognised in the original and now modified point about the formatting of "US": "when referring to the country in a longer abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods are not used." I put it to you that (1) 20 years ago, these items were customarily dotted, and (2) most Americans, and certainly almost all other English-speakers, do not nowadays dot items such as "PhD", and many abbreviations that include the final character of the full word, and that increasingly, abbreviations that do not include the final letter of the full word are undotted.
Providing a mere option not to dot recognises that this practice is widespread on and off WP. Trying to enforce dots at this stage in the history of the language is old-fashioned at best, and inexplicable at worst. It may be the case that this submanual has been, in good faith, subject to influence by those who are used to maximum dotting. I think that this was overly proscriptive before the recent edits by me, on a minor scale, and someone else on a greater scale. Tony (talk) 02:47, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can we fix up the opening?

Stale. Topic re-opened at #Lead rewrite; focus/scope below

Here it is:

In Wikipedia, abbreviations for common terms are often in parenthetical notes within the head paragraph, as well as in other tangential notes (though these may violate MoS —see Wikipedia:No self-refs). While the Manual of Style may defer to other sources (Chicago MoS, etc.), in practice Wikipedia has found it both practical and efficient to use a slightly altered and simplified set of abbreviations.

Style and formatting
Manual of Style and its subpages
Related policies and guidelines
Related help, tutorials and proposals
Related to specific cultures

Such include:

  • I don't understand what it means by "parenthetical notes within the head paragraph". What are "tangential notes", and why might these violate MOS? It's all very confusing.
  • The big about deferring, IMO, has to go. Is there anything in the second sentence that is worth retaining? Tony (talk) 13:31, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know, they may mean "Hat notes" - those bits that say "This article is about XXX for YYY see ZZZ" - these have no reason to be exempted from MoS. Rich Farmbrough, 10:56 5 October 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Missus

My Encarta dictionary says that this is "informal or humorous". Is there a formal spelling? Tony (talk) 03:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It was previously listed as an abbreviation for Mistress (form of address), which seems factually correct, but perhaps it was changed to missus is for clarity or something. At least in the U.S., "Mrs." is pronounced something along the lines of missus, and "mistress" would be generally understood to mean a woman who is having an affair with a married man. I don't think there's any currently used unabbreviated form of Ms. or Mrs., the way Mister is an unabbreviated form of Mr. -Agyle 04:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
The dictionary is wrong; it was probably right at some point, but is obsolete on this particular matter. The "Missus" spelling is quite common when this is spelled out at all (which isn't common). I.e. of the .0001% of the time that it happens, 99% of those will be "Missus" not "Mistress". :-) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Military ranks

The U.S. Army abbreviations SGT and SSG were just removed as alternatives for Sergeant and Staff Sergeant. Presumably for consistency, since captain, corporal, and general don't include U.S. Army abbreviations. I think "Staff Sgt.", though not recommended on Wikipedia, has always been the most common abbreviation for "Staff Sergeant," but SSG, SSGT, SSGT., SSgt, and SSgt. are all in some use. This article's SSgt. recommendation is the official abbreviation used by the U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marines, and British Army, while the U.S. Army uses two- or three-letter all-capital abbreviations (e.g. SSG) for all their ranks. Each branch of the U.S. military has its own abbreviation system, so captain might be abbreviated as CPT, CAPT, or Capt. (Here's a list.) Many reputable U.S. publications stick with traditional abbreviations, like Staff Sgt. or Capt., regardless of official abbreviations. -Agyle 00:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me, and I was following an invisible editors' comment on the first one I saw, that seemed to indicate it was not legitimate. Just being bold. Please re-insert, or I will (but you might do a better job, knowing that system. Tony (talk) 01:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
We need not concern ourselves at all with how the British Navy does it versus the US Coast Guard; simply isn't germane. To the extent that they are abbreviated on WP at all they should be done so consistently (with allowance for no dots in Commonwealth usage, per MoS compromise on that issue). On the "Staff Sgt." issue, I tend to agree, but have not done anything about it yet. Probably worth a longer discussion. To start it off, I propose that after first occurrence, it be written out in full ("General", etc.), and only abbreviated later, and abbreviated the way it would be done by mainstream publication ("Gen." "Staff Sgt", not "GEN" or "SSgt"). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. vs US

Unresolved. WP:NCA may still be in conflict with WP:MOS.

Please see WT:MOS#U.S. vs US. for a discussion on what we should say on this weighty subject. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Which has come down to allowing either; BTW, the single dot after US, as rendered above, is not an option. Tony (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Moved discussion back to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (abbreviations)
That isn't the proper forum for the discussion. This page or WT:MOS is. WP:NCA needs to follow WP:MOS's lead here as it does with everything else, not the other way around. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 14:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a basis for this claim? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the overriding need for harmony and coordination among MOS and its sub-pages, as much as you seem to want to promote chaos and disorder. Tony (talk) 02:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
As often, the New MOS Order seems to be spreading confusion as it goes. The claim here is not the project, a few sections below, to have WP:MOS domineer over all its affiliated pages; we have discussed that elsewhere. It is a claim that this page dominates a completely non-MOS page, for which there appears to be no foundation in policy or discussion whatever. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Esquire

Why not add the abbreviation for Esquire = Esq. Despite the article's dubious claim that the term has become meaningless, it is still in fairly common use among US lawyers, among others. Kel - Ex-web.god 22:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a list of acronyms, but a list of acronyms to use in Wikipedia articles. A WP article should not include "Esq." after anyone's name just because they like the look of it on their business card. It doesn't really mean anything. In a context where if did have a defined meaning, if there is such a context any longer (I don't know, but suspect that their might be), there isn't any compelling reason not to use the full word. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cf.

Stuck. Needs further discussion at WT:MOS

I object to "cf" being a standard abbreviation. It is a bit obscure, and is more likely to confuse or mystify, than simply not using it. For example, look it up on Merriam-Webster online: without knowing what it means, what are the odds of choosing the correct definition from the entry displayed? —EncMstr 18:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking of obscure definitions, what is a GOP? Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
GOP is quite well known in the U.S., but probably isn't well known outside. It stands for Grand Old Party and is easily found in dictionaries. There's some basis to omit it from standard abbreviations, but it is unlikely to appear in a non-U.S.-centric context, so perhaps it's okay to allow it. —EncMstr 18:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The same reasoning could be used to introduce all manner of nation-specific abbreviations that are only understood by that nationality (Canadian, British, Australian etc) but that doesn't seem consistent with the spirit of this article
  • I think GOP should be removed
  • Regarding cf. I am happy with it going and happy with it staying
Any other opinions? Thunderbird2 (talk) 19:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Cf. should stay; it is a standard abbreviation in formal/academic writing, along with i.e., e.g., q.v., ibid., viz., etc., etc., etc. GOP should go for the reasons given here; it is an abbreviation for an informal nickname mostly only known to Americans (and even then only to politically-aware Americans; ask the average US high school student what "GOP" means and they'll probably come up with some text messaging/IM jargon answer! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't have chapter and verse, but aren't e.g. and i.e. on the list of things to avoid on Wikipedia? I've noticed several editors replace them. —EncMstr 00:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I see what you are getting at, since we're talking about "cf." The MoS suggests that using plain, longwinded English may be more helpful to readers than "e.g." and "i.e.", but does not require this (or didn't last time I looked, which I think was yesterday; MoS is always a moving target, a bit too much so due to some activist editors who do not understand WP:CONSENSUS and WP:CCC). Personally I disagree with MOS on this point, and I see "e.g." and "i.e." all the time, but I do not care if someone dumbs them down after the fact, and I do not change "for example" or "in other words" to the abbreviations when I encounter them. Basically, the MoS is almost neutral on the matter and slightly prefers simple English. One thing that hasn't really been raised in that little debate, as much as it has even been debated, is that context is probably important. "I.e." is more likely to be understood by the average reader of an article on genetic disorders than the average reader of an article on Britney Spears. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
See my thread below about rewriting the lead and refocusing this nascent guideline. What is missing most is advice on particular abbreviations and what contexts they should be used in. A colspan=3 table cell under entries requiring such commentary will do the trick. For cf., qv., qqv., ibid., and id. among maybe a few others, we should note that these should only be used in reference citations, not in general article prose. In other cases (Corp., Inc., Ltd., and so forth) it should be noted that these should be used only with organization names and only a) if the abbreviated form is official part of the entity's name, which in fact is often the case, or b) on subsequent occurrences. And so on. I.e. we do not need to take a "if it isn't something we would use in the lead of an article it should not be on this list", binary-thinking approach. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I, too, have wondered about that bit in MOS about preferring the spelling out of e.g. and i.e.. They are SO common that hardly an English-speaker is not familiar with them. I'd not prefer either way in MOS. Tony (talk) 05:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like this should be revisited over at WT:MOS then. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I would read the present text as recommending that writers consider "that is" instead of i.e.. I find this useful, and usually comply in text (notes are a different matter). That's a very weak tilt, considering that there is a proposal at WT:MOS to disallow such forms altogether. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lead rewrite; focus/scope

Something is just all wrong here. The rationale for this document says "...are often in parentheses within the head paragraph." But probablly more than half of the entries here are unlikely to ever show up in this context. However, before we just purge them all, clearly many of them are important, and are used in other contexts (especially source citations when it comes to things like ed., pub., etc.) It seems to me that the lead has to be rewritten. We should also take the opportunity to make it more explanatory, advising, cross-referencing to the MOS, etc. My take would be:

In Wikipedia, abbreviations and acronyms for common terms are often used in articles. Within the lead paragraph, in reference citations, in infoboxes, and in general article prose where their context makes them clear.
Some abbreviations are so common (Mr., etc.) that their expanded forms are rarely used. In other cases, editors should use the full word on first occurrence, and only abbreviate later instances where repeating the full word would be tedious for the reader (e.g. "approximately" and "approx.") See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Abbreviations and acronyms for further guidance
Wikipedia has found it both practical and efficient to appropriately use the following abbreviations:

After that, I think we should look at porting over the entire section at MOS and expanding upon it, perhaps reducing the length of it in MOS itself, and moving the list of abbreviations down. Right now this "guideline" is nothing but a list, and it should actually be a guideline. I think redoing the lead will be a good first step to getting there. However there have also been moves to merge more subguidelines back into the MOS proper, so the quasi-split I'm proposing might be controversial. If so, that should not prevent the rewrite of the lead. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a very good idea. Having a disparate set of guidelines that have grown topsy-turvy like old hospital architecture is not a good prescription for a cohesive project, and makes learning the system a huge task for newbies. I'm all in favour of SMcCandlish's proposal to trim, rationalise and integrate. Tony (talk) 01:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Without trawling history, I think the original purpose of this page was to standardise a very small number of abbreviation suitable to be used in the lead, mainly of biographical articles. Born, died, Dr, PhD, etc. Like so many things it changed... Rich Farmbrough, 14:01 1 February 2008 (GMT).

[edit] Proposal to formalise the relationship between MOS and its sub-pages

Dear fellow colleagues: the idea is to centralise debate and consensus-gathering when there are inconsistencies between the pages. The most straightforward way is to have MOS-central prevail, and to involve expertise from sub-pages on the talk page there, rather than the fragmentary discourse—more usually the absence of discourse and the continuing inconsistency—that characterises WP's style guideline resources now. Of course, no one owns MOS-central, and we're all just as important to its running as other editors. I ask for your support and feedback HERE. Tony (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

The proposal is that this page be merged into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations), and why not? More input is required at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(abbreviations)#Merger. TONY (talk) 14:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal

The proposal is that this page be merged into Wikipedia:Naming conventions (abbreviations), and why not? More input is required at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(abbreviations)#Merger. TONY (talk) 14:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Circa and century

I noticed that the abbreviation for circa is given as "ca." or "c." The latter is wrong, as it is the standard abbreviation for century (e.g. "4th c.") If c is used to mean "circa" then it should not be followed by a dot (e.g. c10,000 men). This is confirmed by the supreme authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. It seems to me that, as a public work of reference, Wiki must follow standard abbreviations and not invent its own. EraNavigator (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OED isn't the supreme authority, just a well-respected authority. (I suppose usage would be the actual supreme authority, if it could be perfectly documented.) The Wikipedia manual of style may differ from OED without cataclysmic results. Two things can have the same abbreviation, too, such as Street and Saint. "c." seems to be a widely used abbreviation for circa. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Surely ca. is the correct abbreviation for circa. That's the one I've always used; I think I got it from the OED. -- Korax1214 (talk) 02:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Afro

When I did charity work in the 1990s, I was always told to avoid using "Afro-" in compound names for ethnic groups, and use "African-" instead, on the grounds that "Afro is a hair style" (the bushy one for which Jimi Hendrix, and the Jackson Five, were famous).

This may not be so worldwide, but it certainly is so in British English (London dialect at any rate); so I've added it to the main page. -- Korax1214 (talk) 02:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lossage

I just noticed that Mt. now appears in the list of abbreviations. There was complete agreement to eliminate that above, which led to a new item in the section Things to avoid. That section no longer exists. The addition of the Mt. entry, and removal of the Things to avoid section occurred with this edit on September 27, 2007 by Crissov (talk · contribs) with the edit summary rearranged. The diff is complex, and it's hard to follow what changed, since the diff seemingly shows everything affected. —EncMstr (talk) 07:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)