Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

Est.

I propose to remove this one, seems of limited use and should usually be spelled out. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13 13 May 2009 (UTC).

AKA or aka? Or a.k.a.?

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellaneous initialisms: Is "also known as" usually abbreviated as AKA in uppercase, as shown? I think I've always seen it as aka in lowercase. In uppercase it looks more like an abbreviation for some organization - the American [something-or-other] Association, etc. Or should it be a.k.a., which is clearer, but this may be unusual, I think. Milkunderwood (talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

There's no such word (in English) as "aka". its occurrence in informal prose is on par with the abuse of quotation marks for "emphasis" like that, use of the non-word "irregardless", and grocery store ignorance like "Express Lane - 10 Items or Less". If there is one typo I would write a bot to hunt down it would be "aka". It is conventionally "a.k.a.", because as you point out "AKA" looks like an organizational acronym, or like a technical standard (USB, ASCII), title (CEO, MBE), or other subject, instead of an abbreviation of convenience like "n/a", "c.", "etc.", "misc." That said, AKA is a thousandfold preferable to "aka". — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 01:29, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

So in that case the WP initialism should be changed from AKA to a.k.a.. Milkunderwood (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I've at least included it as allowable. I personally think it's preferable, but others' input wouldn't hurt. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, put me down as definitely preferring a.k.a. over AKA. I can't think when I've ever seen the latter in actual use, outside various style manuals. Milkunderwood (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Same here. It's like n/a and c/o - it's one of the ones that has resisted change to "military style" NA or CO. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 06:37, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:ACRONYMTITLE discussion

I've started a discussion which concerns this page's stance on article titles at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Weakening the wording of WP:ACRONYMTITLE. Comments welcome over there. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Acronym exceptions

The list seems inconsistent. For example, laser is included, but maser is not. NASA is included, but FBI, CIA, NAFTA, EU are not. Then also BBC is included, but CNN is not and so on. Then also some medical acronyms, like MRI, CT, etc. are very frequent but not included. What was the basis for the list? It seems to be just thrown together. Probably it would be better to leave the choice whether to use an acronym to editor's discretion, and a link to the corresponding article should be provided, if someone does not understand it. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously haphazard and just some one or handful of editors' personal pet peeves. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 09:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Concerns over "proper nouns": changing the lead at WP:MOSCAPS

Colleagues, please take note of this new section at WT:MOSCAPS:

"Proper nouns", "proper names", and other concerns: amending the lead

Your contributions to discussion would be appreciated.

Noetica^Tea? 00:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)