Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive (abbreviations and acronyms)

US or U.S.
US
 * 1) Lirath Q. Pynnor The .s are superfluous and annoying.
 * 2) Angela (I don't like dots)
 * 3) Martin
 * 4) FearÉIREANN The dots are annoying and re-Mattworld's and Hep's comment, whether the US (opps, U.S.) uses dots or not is irrelevant, as US/U.S. is used in contexts far beyond American topics. If US/U.S was only used in American topics, then it would be OK to use American english. But a universally common form is needed in this specific case (or else we will have endless edit wars between AE and BE), and that international usage is US, so it is the logical choice. Anyway, what happens when articles are written in neither of the above but Hiberno-English, Indian English, Canadian English or (god forbid) MTV-english? :-)
 * 5) Stan dots, bleah - I think it's becoming an initialism by analogy to military terms - seems idiosyncratic to write "U.S. Navy" and "U.S. Air Force" one moment, USN and USAF the next, and going by Google, lots of AE writers agree
 * 6) I hate the dots, but for titles at least we should use either "United States" (for when it is part of a noun) or "American" (when an adjective is needed). --mav 06:51, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 7) Viajero (cleaner-looking)
 * 8) Ryan_Cable
 * 9) Fizscy46 (People are more likely to search for things without dots or most other punctuation marks. So it's more user friendly.)
 * 10) MadEwokHerd (dots don't belong in titles unless they are important to the title; these are not)

U.S.
 * 1) Mattworld (more accepted way in United States, IMHO). Of course, I know that the English Wikipedia is not just for people from the U.S.; I agree with Hephaestos's comment below. -- Mattworld 22:17, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
 * 2) Hephaestos (this is fairly straightforward to solve, it should be US in articles where British English is used, and U.S. in articles where U.S. English is used.)
 * 3) James F. (agree with Hephaestos)
 * 4) VerbalHerbal Even the Chicago Manual of Style, which eliminates periods in abbreviations wherever possible, makes an exception in the case of "U.S.", saying it must "bow to tradition".
 * 5) Daniel Quinlan More accepted in the U.S. and clearer than "US" which seems somewhat ambiguous to me. I think U.S. is even better in British articles.  USN, USAF, etc. are okay without periods.
 * 6) Fuzheado being pedantic is often good, especially when searching and parsing.
 * 7) Minesweeper This is what I prefer, and the Random House Handbook puts it this way: "In general, you can feel safe in omitting periods from abbreviations written in capital letters, provided the abbreviation does not appear to spell out another word. Thus USA needs no periods, but U.S. does, since otherwise it might be mistaken for a capitalization of the pronoun us."
 * 8) Peak: Minesweeper's quotation from the "Random House Handbook" is compelling; the "Compromise proposal" below is worth articulating, but it's unwieldy at best, and ambiguous at worst (when does one use "U.S." exactly?). IMO, the utility of 'U.S.' when searching makes the case for 'U.S.' in two-letter acronyms decisive.
 * 9) moink I like the periods. It's nicer looking and somehow, in my mind, less Americentric.  I'm quite surprised that British English uses US, Canadians would use U.S.
 * 10) Jia ng Those who choose no periods are either not American and dont like our superior spelling, or just plain ignorant. Every reputable American grammar or style book will say that the periods must be used. It's not about aesthetics, it's about being right. Naturally, when we speak of the U.S., we use American conventions, not British ones. I would be reverted fast if I went along linking Labor Party with the silly excuse that I'm not using it in a British context. Just as original spellings are to be respected (per our naming conventions) when it comes to names of people, organizations, etc., the same should be done with punctuation. See, , , , ,

Undecided / Confused
 * 1) Optim
 * 2) User:Moogle - Hephaestos' comment makes absolutely no sense seeing how there will never be a strictly briticsh or american article in an English Wikipedia, Daniel Quinlan's comment seems to make sense, but I tend to be a streamliner and Stan makes a good point as well.

Compromise proposal:

When referring to the United States, use "U.S." to avoid ambiguity with "us". However when used as an adjective such as the US President or the US road system, or in a longer abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF, etc.) then the periods should not be used. Daniel Quinlan 06:03, Dec 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * USA, USN, USAF, etc are acronyms and according to style books, should not have periods. It's a matter of convention - U.S. usually has it, USA doesn't usually have it. --Jia ng 01:11, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Compromise proposal II:

When referring to the United States, please use "U.S." so as to avoid ambiguity with "us" and as well as not infuriate easily irritated U.S. copy editors. :) When referring to the United States in a long abbreviation (USA, USN, USAF), periods should not be used. Those seeking a briefer term for the United States of American, sans periods, should enjoy themselves with USA. jengod 20:46, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * Agreed, are there any objections? --Jiang 22:57, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Agreed; that's the way most prof. U.S. writers & editors I know do it. And you know how easily we U.S. copy editors are infuriated, so watch yourselves! ;-) Elf 19:51, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

US or U.S.
I've removed the reference and any specific guidance. United States style guides (apparently) and English style guides directly conflict over US and U.S. and the general guide to use the local convention in articles specific to the topic seems to cover this well enough. Since this article is not a United States-specific article, not enforcing United States English rules is the appropriate practice - but life's too short to argue about it when it can be dodged. Assuming that United States copy editors can agree to accept that their style guides differ and not go on crusades to have only their domestic style folowed in this international work, that is. Jamesday 02:19, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The motion to place those words into the article was put here for months without objection. Therefore, consensus is needed to remove them. I object.


 * The general guide is the follow the official spellings of proper names. "U.S. Department of Defense", not "US Department of Defence". For the same reason, we should respect desire by the U.S. (meaning Americans) to insert the full stop into the abbreviation for their country. Likewise, it should always be "UK" since "U.K." is a bit jarring. The BBC calls Donald Rumsfeld "the US Defence Secretary". Now there's a conflict with our MoS... --Jiang 06:29, 29 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with Jiang. --mav 04:16, 30 May 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that US guidelines should be followed when referencing U.S. entities, but, speaking as an "American" (more specifically, a citizen of the USA), I point out that there isn't a single universal guideline to follow on the abbreviation of "United States". For example, the United States Postal Service always abbreviates itself as "USPS", never "U.S.P.S". Even if you could dig up a formal US publication that recites a specific standard (and I'm sure there are several mutually-contradicting ones, all published in Pueblo, Colorado), you will find that U. S. government agencies pretty much do as they please unless and until they're called on it. And this doesn't even consider the much larger scope of NGOs that use "US" in their names. In this particular situation, the stereotypical world image of Americans as Wild West cowboys is not far from correct. I think Jamesday's point that "life is too short" is the more reasonable one here. Of course, don't ever spell it "defence". &#9786; -- Jeff Q 19:53, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

We explicitly stated that "USAF" should not have periods. I think the same applies to USPS. The thing with periods only applied to "US" alone. --Jiang 21:23, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Two examples do not make a standard. I would offer the following examples, taken from FirstGov, "the U.S. Government's Official Web Portal", of government agencies in their own words (or, more accurately, letters and punctuation):
 * U.S. Senate
 * USA Freedom Corps
 * U.S. Courts (which refers to the "US Code" in some places and "U.S.C." in others)
 * U.S. Air Force (USAF)
 * US Army Corps of Engineers (not U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
 * Now that's just a 15-minute perusal of an entirely new medium (i.e., less than 10 years old), which presumably has a considerable amount of taxpayer-supported staff attempting to provide a consistent window into the government. I will concede that most references to the "U.S." are exactly that &mdash; two periods, no space between the letters &mdash; but I respectfully suggest, as one of those taxpayers, that you're fighting a hopeless battle. But I would also agree that "U.S." is most common, and is probably the best to try to standardize on. (P.S. Re-reading the above discussion, I remember why I originally took offense to the argument flow. Please do not mistake "the desire by the U.S." [government] for the desire of "Americans". As we so often demonstrate [and probably will again in November 2004], we are an unruly lot who frequently punish our government for both its failures and its accomplishments.) -- Jeff Q 06:38, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Abbreviations & Acronyms
What is the policy abbreviations & acronyms within articles? Should they always be expanded, unless they are well-known in their short forms? --gracefool 22:48, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Never hurts. I think it's always a good policy, and often ignored, not just here. ;Bear 21:10, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)


 * The Chicago Manual of Style (14th edition, &sect;14.15, p. 464) suggests in passing that acronyms and abbreviations should be spelled out in their first occurrence in an article. (It's a rather unsatisfying half-mention, frankly.) I've always favored spelling out the phrase first, then parenthesizing its acronym, and thereafter using the acronym alone, as many publications do. Wiki links should be attached to the text best highlighted for a link (usually but not always the full phrase), but links to redirects should be avoided where possible. As far as "well-known" goes, one person's "well-known" is another's "say what?". There is a tendency to assume that anyone reading an article will already have some basic grounding in the subject matter (see just about any Mathematics article for extreme examples, sayeth this college Math minor), but don't forget that wonderful Random page link. &mdash; Jeff Q 22:32, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Latin acronyms
I'd like to make the proposal, consistent with a number of style guides I've read, that all Latin acronyms but especially e.g. and i.e. be avoided in articles in favour of phrases like "for example/example:" and "that is/in other words". Derrick Coetzee 01:28, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree; I think that many people editing Wikipedia of course know what they mean, but my experience with the rest of the world says that most people don't. English is better for an English-language encyclopedia. :-)  Elf | Talk 04:32, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree. In legal writing I might use a term like "viz.", because it's comparatively well known among lawyers, but I'd avoid it on Wikipedia because of its obscurity.  By contrast, "e.g." and "i.e." are fairly common.  This is the English-language encyclopedia, not the Simple English version. JamesMLane 05:01, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * It's true that "e.g." and "i.e." are fairly common. They're also fairly commonly misunderstood, by writers and readers. I've worked with a bunch of highly intelligent, well-educated people who consistently got these the wrong way around. I banned use of all Latin phrases when I was a documentation manager - yes, even "etc" - and I support the proposal here. English evolves, and it's evolving to route around Latin since most people don't have a classical education. I don't think of this as a bad thing: it's just what English does, and has always done. Above all: we write to be read, or else what's the point? -- Avaragado 08:28, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Your comment uses several words that came into English from Latin. As people learn English, they learn the meaning of words like "documentation", and they learn the meaning of abbreviations like "e.g."  They don't need a classical education.  They don't even need to know that the word or abbreviation they've just learned comes from the Latin.  Plenty of people who've never heard of Algonquian can tell you what a raccoon is.


 * I agree with writing to be read. From that perspective, Latin can indeed be overdone.  There are some instances in which a Latin-derived word tends to be favored by writers who want to seem educated, or who think that it's more appropriate to formal writing -- or, perhaps, who've spent too much time in academia.  I personally use "understand" (Old English root) more often than "comprehend" (Latin root).  The most common Latin abbreviations, however, are known widely enough that I don't see their use as an impediment to readability. JamesMLane 13:12, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree with JamesMLane and would also add that banning perfectly ordinary English acronyms like i.e. and e.g. (and yes, they are English even though they are derived from Latin) is not really in the spirit of this place. Neither is it a realistic option. What English does best, and the reason that it has such a huge word store, is that it freely robs words from other languages. If we try to ban them all from Wikipedia, we'll have to write in Anglo-Saxon (or maybe Old Norman French, and isn't that just dog Latin at base?). Filiocht 13:43, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Derrick Coetzee's proposal actually followed a change made by Ortolan88 on Sept. 21, the day before Derrick Coetzee made his proposal. No-one discussing the matter here appears to have noticed. I agree with the change. I don't recall ever reading a style guide that mentioned "i.e." or "e.g." and did not also suggest that English equivalents were preferrable. Following common recommendations of style guides is "in the spirit of this place" and is a very "realistic option". Avoiding unneeded and generally deprecated Latinizations does not mean avoiding all words of foreign derivation. Similarly, just because English has accepted many words of foreign derivations does not mean one should always prefer words of foreign derivation. Either is bad logic. The logic of most style guides is to further the use of good, idiomatic English that is appropriate to the subject and to avoid artificialilty. I have long made a point in my own writing when I catch myself using either "i.e." or "e.g." to change it to an equally precise but less bookish and artificial equivalent. Jallan 17:08, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out that change. There seems to be a difference of opinion on the subject, so the MoS shouldn't simply reflect one user's unilateral preference.  Would a poll be appropriate? JamesMLane 02:56, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd be less concerned with this in the apparatus of reference citation. Generally, someone who ever cares about following up citations understands "ibid." or "p. 32 et. seq.". -- Jmabel 03:34, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * That change is not the opinion of one person, but the normal practice for publications for the general reader. Expressions like e.g., i.e., viz, op cit, or ibid are distracting.    It isn't enough that writers "care about" getting them right; it is readers we should care about and all readers care about is clear, useful communication.  It is just an oversight that they weren't advised against long ago in the MoS.  The fact is, people writing them frequently get e.g. and i.e. wrong, whereas they never get for example or that is wrong.  The only Latin abbreviation that ever works right is etc.. Ortolan88 20:48, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Inconsistent abbreviations
Does Wikipedia have a formal style guide policy on abbreviations? Articles referencing the United States almost exclusively contract to US with the fullstops; however, other abbreviations like KGB, NFL, IBM and so forth never use fullstops. The same issue crops up on Wikinews.

I do not know how the Chicago Manual of Style approaches this; however, CMS FAQ writers reference their own manual abbreviated without fullstops and to the United States with the fullstops. The New York Times advocates using fullstops for all abbreviations that are not pronouncable. British style guides (Guardian, BBC, Times London et al) are exclusively against fullstops.

It's ugly, but if Wikipedia chooses to take a stance on abbreviations, a good percentage of articles will have to be edited. - Anonymous


 * Yes, much discussed (can someone give the links here for the benefit of this anon?), goes case-by-case. Generally if they are pronounceable, then no full stops (agreed). U.S. seems also to be a firm decision, but USA, UK, USSR. On any given abbreviation, we are usually pretty darn consistent, more than you'd think. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:51, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)