Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Manual of Style/Abbreviations page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6: 90 days

Manual of Style

	This page falls within the scope of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style, a collaborative effort focused on enhancing clarity, consistency, and cohesiveness across the Manual of Style (MoS) guidelines by addressing inconsistencies, refining language, and integrating guidance effectively.Manual of StyleWikipedia:WikiProject Manual of StyleTemplate:WikiProject Manual of StyleManual of Style articles
	This page falls under the contentious topics procedure and is given additional attention, as it closely associated to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style, and the article titles policy. Both areas are subjects of debate. Contributors are urged to review the awareness criteria carefully and exercise caution when editing.
	For information on Wikipedia's approach to the establishment of new policies and guidelines, refer to WP:PROPOSAL. Additionally, guidance on how to contribute to the development and revision of Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia's policy and guideline documents is available, offering valuable insights and recommendations.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process.

italicization of i.e. & e.g.

MOS:ABBR#Latinisms and abbreviations says, Latin-language terms should be tagged as such using the {{lang|la|...}} template […] except those that are commonly used in English, such as AD, c., e.g., etc., i.e., and several others found in the table above. That "table above" links to MOS:ABBR#Miscellaneous shortenings, which—contrary to the examples provided—does not list "AD", "e.g.", "etc.", nor "i.e."

I do see the and in that original sentence, but for clarity's sake, should those Latin-derived abbreviations added to the MOS:ABBR#Miscellaneous shortenings table just to make explicit whether they should be italicized and marked or not? I've a lot of time on the project, and even I find the current wording and explanation kinda unclear. Just a suggestion! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 17:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting they are listed in another table a few headings above. Maybe just say "those that are listed on this page in general", as their inclusion would imply they are English vocabulary? Remsense诉 18:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The abbr template - how often?

See User talk:Mauls#Over-use of abbr

Regarding the {{abbr}} template, is there a guideline on how often it should be used in an article, section or paragraph? More specifically, is this edit an overuse of that template? I counted 27 instances of {{abbr|L&CR|Lancaster and Carlisle Railway}}, 20 instances of {{abbr|N&CR|Newcastle and Carlisle Railway}} and 16 instances of {{abbr|M&CR|Maryport and Carlisle Railway}}, a total of 63 uses in one section alone - there are dozens more elsewhere in the article. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For that specific example, absolutely overkill. If L&CR is preferred, then the first time it appears it should be Lancaster and Carlisle Railway (L&CR) with all subsequent uses only needing to be L&CR; {{abbr}} shouldn't even be necessary. Primefac (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ACRO says “Upon re-use in a long article, the template can be used to provide a mouse-over tooltip, giving the meaning of the acronym again without having to redundantly link or spell it out again.”

In the case of this article, it was very much necessary - a large number of very similar abbreviations are used densely in close proximity (L&CR, M&CR, N&CR, NWR, NER, LNWR…) and it is very easy for a reader to get confused.

Mauls (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the key phrase there is a long article, so I will grant you that repeated use might be worth an abbrev if those instances are in different sections, but not 8 times in 2 paragraphs. Primefac (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expand "e.g." to "for example"

Is this a good edit? @Mikepyne: Per MOS:LATINABBR I'm not seeing it as our usual editing practice. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me like something totally innocuous on an individual basis but would be instantly disruptive if pursued or insisted upon across pages. The screen reader point is not persuasive to me for this specific case—to me it is natural to enunciate it as an initialism as a screen reader would.Remsense ‥ 论 11:40, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I might actually rewrite the last one completely, because the basic point in that para is totally wrong! Andy Dingley (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From a side discussion I found that Mikepyne derived the screenreader rationale from a misinterpretation of the InsideGovUK blog article linked below. That article found "eg" (and "ie") without the periods to be a problem, and says explicitly that "e.g." isn't a problem for screenreaders, though it goes on to give other reasons to replace it. Largoplazo (talk) 10:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not yet be in the normal editing practice; I would advocate it should be.

Have a look at https://insidegovuk.blog.gov.uk/2016/07/20/changes-to-the-style-guide-no-more-eg-and-ie-etc/

In the context of the page I edited, the first replacement improves the reading flow. The second case, where the example text is in parentheses, is perhaps an instance where e.g. is more appropriate. Applying that difference consistently is challenging, though!

It would be worth investigating other style guides to see what other sites and users recommend. For example, https://universaldesign.ie/communications-digital/customer-communications-toolkit-a-universal-design-approach/customer-communications-toolkit-a-universal-design-approach-navigation/digital/writing-for-the-web Mikepyne (talk) 08:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Autism#Acronyms

Editors are invited to comment at Talk:Autism#Acronyms on whether an acronym needs to be defined if it is only used in the references. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]