Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Unit names, ranks and abbreviations

Military writing is often characterised by the frequent use of abbreviations and acronyms, many of which will not be found in any dictionary or even in service manuals. This phenomenon has its own term – the "Three Letter Acronym" or TLA (ironically also an acronym containing three letters in its own right). Whilst this is likely the reasonable result of the tactical requirement to communicate large amounts of detailed information quickly by radio or data link, it relies on well-developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and the institutional skills, knowledge and attributes that those reading them can be expected to have as a result of their common training in order to ensure that messages passed by these means are correctly interpreted. Perhaps not unsurprisingly then such language may often prove almost impenetrable to those without the required professional background to comprehend it (indeed, this may sometimes even be true for those with a military background, especially with regard to the neologisms that seem to regularly emerge from the ranks of the Special Forces).

Commonly this language is often found in the more popular (yet sometimes lower quality) works of military history available on the market today, particularly in books written by amateur historians, those that focus on first-hand accounts and experiences, and unit histories usually written by authors with military backgrounds. This can often be seen in the repeated use of abbreviations for unit names and ranks. Examples include constructions like "Div" for Division / "Bde" for Brigade / "Regt" for Regiment / "Bn" for Battalion / "Coy" for Company, "Pl" for Platoon, and "Sect" for Section, and "BGEN" or "Brig. Gen." for Brigadier General / "LTCOL" or "Lieut-Col" for Lieutenant Colonel / "MAJ" for Major / "CPT" or "Capt" for Captain / "LT" or "Lieut" for Lieutenant etc. In this regard such works often reflect the official style guide of a given military. This is often the result of the nature of that particular medium, in that they are often written using the words of individual soldiers or officers, yet it is a style that is commonly eschewed in more serious military history and encyclopaedias due to the drawbacks its presents, not least of which being that it assumes that readers will know what these terms mean.

The policy covering the use of abbreviations on Wikipedia is located at Manual of Style/Abbreviations, and although the use of these terms can be considered acceptable when introduced at first use, over time the use of abbreviations and acronyms for unit names and ranks has come to be widely considered something that should be avoided, or at least done only sparingly, with their presentation in full seemingly preferred by general consensus, particularly during community review process such as GA or FAC. Whilst this may be seen as a preference often expressed by non-specialists, at a basic level this goes to the requirement of clarity as many of our readers will have no military background, and may not regularly read military history topics, and therefore cannot be expected to understand such terms. Equally, the excessive use of abbreviations or acronyms, even when appropriately defined, is arguably distracting jargon and not conducive to encyclopaedic tone.

Consequently, it is suggested that unit names and ranks be presented in full throughout an article, and not just at first instance and then abbreviated. For example, units should be presented as the 6th Division not "6 Div", or the 2/3rd Battalion not "2/3rd Bn", and ranks as "Sergeant" not "SGT" etc. There can be exceptions to this though, as for instance there is long standing consensus for the use of abbreviations for ranks in articles relating to the American Civil War as this is reflective of their common presentation in the majority of works on this topic, particularly for general officers. This will usually be accompanied with an appropriate wikilink (for instance Brig. Gen.). However, if this style is considered appropriate for an article it should be applied consistently throughout. Equally, the use of abbreviations for British Commonwealth battalions is often considered acceptable following presentation in full and introduction at first use, such as the 3rd Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment (3 RAR), the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry (2 PPCLI), or the 1st Battalion, Parachute Regiment (1 PARA).