Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

RAS syndrome question: discouraged or not?

I came to MOS:ACRO to find out about the manual of style's policy on the RAS syndrome (redundant acronym syndrome syndrome [sic!]). It turns out this is neither part of the manual nor has it ever been discussed on the talk page. However there is a Wikipedia article on the concept stating "Many style guides advise against usage of these redundant acronyms in formal contexts, but they are widely used in colloquial speech."

AncientWalrus (talk) 16:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

That's just a matter of sensible writing. See WP:MOSBLOAT: If there has not been a series of protracted "style fights" about an issue, then MoS should not cover it, because MoS is too long already. Where are their cases of people editwarring to retain an instance of RAS syndrome in our article content? I don't see this happening with "ATM machine" vs. "ATM", "PIN number" vs. "PIN", etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Acronyms in page titles" is mis-placed in an MoS page

The section Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Acronyms in page titles (also known as MOS:ACROTITLE, WP:NCA, WP:NCACRO) needs to move, and its MOS:ACROTITLE shortcut to no longer be "advertised". This section of narrow interpretation/application of WP:RECOGNIZABLE is entirely and only about article titles and not about article content in any way, so it is not properly part of MoS and has no business being in here. We may apply MoS frequently to WP:RM discussions, because principles that apply to the in-body text generally apply also to titles, but MoS is not the place for title-only rulemaking. We have separate naming-conventions guidelines for a reason. If you showed up today and proposed adding a new section of titles-only rules ("hyphenation in article titles" or whatever) to MoS, you'd be shouted out of the room. I'm not sure why this particular section has survived for so long in the wrong place.

• Option A: WP:NACRO should be split out and moved to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (acronyms),
• Option B: WP:NACRO should merge as a section into WP:Naming conventions (capitalization), and then rename that WP:Naming conventions (capital letters) to make the total scope clearer. This would also have the minor benefit of being more consistent with WP:Manual of Style (capital letters), and avoid having the title in one particular ENGVAR. And we'd have one less guideline page than under option A.
• Option C: Do nothing.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Use of apparently concocted acronym in template for video games

More input would be useful at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Use of "XSXS" as an acronym for "Xbox Series X/S" regarding the use of a seemingly made-up acronym that even after 3 years of use on Wikipedia has very little use anywhere else. Given that this page says not to use made-up initialisms perhaps some watchers of this page would be able to provide input in the discussion. For reference, "XSXS" xbox gets me about 22,000 google hits and "PS5" playstation gets about 142,000,000. There is also a discussion regarding a redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#XSXS. Thank you for any advice and input you may have. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC on the use of acronym "XSXS" to stand for "Xbox Series X/S" across a wide range of articles in tables and templates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should "XSXS" be used as an acronym for "Xbox Series X/S" (Xbox Series X and Series S) on any public-facing portion of Wikipedia? For example it appears in Template:Video game reviews which is included in a vast number of articles. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Survey

• No "XSXS" seems to be made up by Wikipedia and even after years of use here has very little use in the wild other than blog posts and tweets and such. I could find essentially no RS publishers using this term, least of all relevant sites like Metacritic. For reference, "XSXS" xbox gets me about 22,000 google hits and "PS5" playstation gets about 142,000,000, and I would say most of those google hits for XSXS could be chalked up to WP:CITOGENESIS. For further reference "Xbox Series X/S" gets about 34,000,000 hits.

  Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations clearly says:

  Avoid making up new abbreviations, especially acronyms. For example, "International Feline Federation" is good as a translation of Fédération Internationale Féline, but neither the anglicisation nor the reduction IFF is used by the organisation; use the original name and its official abbreviation, FIFe.

  If it is necessary to abbreviate in small spaces (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), use widely recognised abbreviations. As an example, for New Zealand gross national product, use NZ and GNP, with a link if the term has not already been written out: NZ GNP; do not use the made-up initialism NZGNP).

  —DIYeditor (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

• No: This acronym doesn't convey much, if any, information on its own. I don't know if outlawing it across the entire project is necessary, however it shouldn't be included as in the article. Use Xbox Series X/S instead. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 13:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
• @DIYeditor: Why are you holding this RfC here, when an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Use of "XSXS" as an acronym for "Xbox Series X/S" already exists (linked from section above)? This talk page is for discussing improvements to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations, and that is not what is being requested - you're asking for advice on an article. Also, why is this RfC under |lang|media|style|policy|tech when it should be none of those - see WP:RFCCAT, this is a matter for WP:RFC/SCI, hence should use |sci. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 06:52, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  1. The discussion at that Wikiproject has already been archived once and is going nowhere, it should just be closed or archived again. It's stale. It's wasting my time and testing my patience. Projects especially "fluff" projects tend to like to make up their own policies or just not care about policies.
  2. This seemed like neutral ground to hold it on. I don't see anything on this talk page that says it is only for discussing changes to the MOS and not questions about the MOS.
  3. The RFC relates to language (acronyms), media (video games), wikipedia style (acronyms), wikipedia policy and guidelines (MOS), technical issues (templates). Science and technology could apply as well if you like, can that just be added and the bot will update it?

  —DIYeditor (talk) 16:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  It's wasting my time and testing my patience. You could try dropping the stick. -- ferret (talk) 17:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

  Multiple people agreed the acronym was a problem in the discussion actually. Your stubbornness to accept that necessitated an RfC. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• It's fine. This is improper forumshopping. This user has held a lengthy discussion at WT:VG which didn't get what they wanted. They already pinged this MOS page to gather more opinions then. They also took the acronyms redirect to RFD, where it was also kept. That original discussion archived for inactivity with no consensus, so they unarchived and pushed again. There was no traction, so now they've made an RFC and tried to change venues. Bottom line: The acronym/initialism has sourcing, however minor. It is used only for tables and infoboxes for brevity, which is allowed under this guideline. It has a redirect, and the template also pipes it when used as a column. -- ferret (talk) 17:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiProjects are for coordinating activities and communicating needs on individual articles: they are not meant to be used to form their own idiosyncratic rules which their members then apply as if they are policy or style guidance to any article that those users perceive to be within the purview of their project--see WP:Advice pages. This is impractical and often disruptive for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that different WikiProjects with overlapping interests would create their own pet rules that would come into conflict. The appropriate place to propose changes to policies, guidelines, or style pages is at the talk page for those PAG/MoS rules, or through a WP:PROPOSAL in a central community discussion space. This is longstanding community consensus and has even been the subject of ArbCom cases that unambiguously concluded that groups of editors at Wikiprojects creating and trying to enforce their own cottage rules across numerous articles is not proper process. I appreciate that this is one of those rules that is not always understood by newer (and even sometimes quite experienced) editors, and so these kinds of rules very often do get discussed, and often don't lead to problems if those editors are the only ones working in a niche area, but that's clearly not the case here.

So, long story short, even if DIYEditor were trying to game the situation (which I see no evidence of), this still would not be WP:FORUMSHOPPING, because WT:VG was never the proper forum to reach a firm rule constituting community consensus in the first place, even had it reached a firm consensus, which is unclear in this instance. RfD is another matter, but any conclusion there would not not preclude a style guidance discussion here in any event. This RfC looks to be entirely proper and above board. Please feel free to ping all participants from the previous discussions here: they can reiterate their !votes and their reasoning on the matter. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

TL;DR -- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume this comment is meant to be paired with your acroym-laden !vote below, for (theoretically) humourous effect, and not that you are genuinely saying your brain boggles at the prospect of parsing two paragraphs worth of longstanding community consensus. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ferret, about the only person at the WikiProject I saw defending the abbreviation was you. Lee Vilenski, after their initial description of the abbreviation as "a weird acronym" might have been somewhat in favor, I couldn't really tell, but I don't think so. And that was it. For you to say that DIYeditor "didn't get what they wanted" seems to mean that since they couldn't get you to budge, that's the end of the story, because you're the gatekeeper for that sort of thing. Which you aren't. Anyway, RFCs are supposed to be preceded by less formal discussion to get the lay of the land: see WP:RFCBEFORE. So following that path isn't the sort of "forum shopping" that's looked down on. Largoplazo (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

• No per DIYeditor. Some1 (talk) 23:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
• It's fine 2 — OMG WTF ICYMI & AFAIK — this is how people talk IRL. XSXS is the shorthand for next gen Xbox consoles IKR, it's Cray. TBH YSK LOL— Isaidnoway (talk) 15:26, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  You seem to have ignored the evidence of very sparse use of the acronym in the wild (vs. the ones you cited which are established, yet unprofessional and unencyclopedic) and the guidance on this very page not to concoct acronyms for Wikipedia, and gone ahead with "acronyms are cool bro, plus txt msg!" I don't see what that tweet even demonstrates except that its contributors also weren't sure what an appropriate acronym would be. We need a publisher with editorial oversight like a game magazine, or a category on Metacritic (they seem to use "Xbox X/S" for brevity) or such. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

  And you seem to have missed my point. Acronyms are part of our everyday vernacular, especially when writing or as you point out, texting. We navigate WP everyday with them, RfC NPOV, BLP, MOS, RS, DUE, UNDUE, UGC, SPS, etc. etc. etc. And this claim it is not used "in the wild" doesn't hold water. There are plenty of gaming forums and boards (not RS) that use the acronym. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and that's just a handful. Just because RS don't use the acronym, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I got over 250 hits for it on WP gaming articles alone, Google gave me an autosuggest for it, and hell, there is even a re-direct for it — XSXS. It's a well-known acronym and this idea we shouldn't be able to use it on WP, in my view, seems pedantic and reeks of CREEP. But, having said that, I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it, if you fucking nuke every use of it on WP.— Isaidnoway (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

  XSXS might be the shorthand for Xbox Series X/S, but is XSXS the official abbreviation though? PlayStation is "officially abbreviated as PS"; does Xbox have an official abbreviation? It's a well-known acronym If the acronym is indeed "well-known" or widely used, surely reliable sources reporting on the Xbox Series X/S would use the acronym to refer to it, but googling "xsxs" xbox, I'm not seeing much, if any. Just because RS don't use the acronym Wikipedia articles should follow what RS, not gaming forums and boards, use. Some1 (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

  The re-direct I referenced goes to Xbox Series X and Series S. And I didn't say WP articles should follow gaming forums and boards, I was merely pointing it is a widely used acronym. Like I said, if you want to remove the acronym from over 250 WP gaming articles and delete the re-direct, go for it, I won't lose any sleep over it.--- Isaidnoway (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  The redirect won't be deleted regardless. It was already kept at RfD. -- ferret (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, so now the mission is to nuke it from everywhere else on WP. Got it. Now I understand what's going on here. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

• Use Xbox Series X/S instead per AquilaFasciata.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• No per DIYEditor - The acronym isn't informative and isn't used at Xbox Series X and Series S either. Google brings up 1.7k results[9] which are all spam. I have no objections to in-house terminologies providing they convey the information or at least make some sense. XSERX and XSERS both make slightly more snese than XSXS imho. –Davey2010^Talk 19:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
• No Wikipedia made up an acronym for this, in violation of MOS:ACRONYM. This acronym should not be used. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
• No. My Google search turns up rather limited usage, most of those hits appear to be abysmal quality. Using XSXS is more likely to confuse a reader than to aid them. Alsee (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC about military rank abbreviations

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC: Abbreviations of rank Jc3s5h (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)