Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

"a" or "an"

This may have been discussed before, but when putting the indefinite article before an initialism, should you take account of the sound of the letters or of the root text? I just edited an article to add "an SAATB choir", given the sound of ess. Or should I have written "a", given the sound of soprano? David Brooks (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Initialisms typically don't require articles - you could just say "It is written for SAATB choir". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

"Initialisms typically don't require articles" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:53, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

It's an ENGVAR thing. Brits would write "an SAATB choir". --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The choice between "a" and "an" before anything is based on pronunciation, whether it starts with a vowel or consonant sound (settings aside the business of "an historic"). Hence, it's "a university" because "university" starts with a "y" sound: "yoo ni VER si tee". In contrast, it's "an FBI investigation" because "FBI" is pronounced "ef bee eye". If "SAATB" is pronounced "ess ay ay tee bee", then it's "an SAATB choir". If it's pronounced "sat bee", then it's "a SAATB choir". In other words, in writing you use the form that you probably use when you're speaking without thinking about it. Largoplazo (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would try to pronounce that combination as an acronym. I appreciate Redrose64's comment about the British thing, and what is more British than The Blue Bird? Still, probably best to rearrange the text to eliminate the need to choose. Thanks, all. David Brooks (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

My college had us use "an" when an acronym is not generally pronounced as a word and the first letter begins with a vowel sound. Eg "an FAL" and "a WMD". I think whatever standard you have experience with is acceptable so long as it is consistent within the article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think the treatment of acronyms has anything to do with Engvar. It’s ‘a UN sanction’, based on pronunciation in the same way that it’s ‘a unicorn’ but ‘an unfortunate turn of events’. As a well educated Brit I was taught that ‘h’ words require ‘a’ except that those of three syllables or more carry ‘an’, such that it is ‘a history’ but ‘an historic event’. That’s now seen as relatively archaic, and was never a feature of US English. MapReader (talk) 13:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Your examples don't seem to follow your own rule. "History" and "historic" are both 3 syllable words.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Initial "h" is worthy of another MOS entry (and I was taught in school to blame the French, learn all their h aspiré words, and learn the English exceptions afterwards), but the topic here is initialisms. My personal rule is to read the text out loud. I would never say "sahtbee" or "soprano alto alto tenor bass". So it's "an SAATB choir", although in practice depending on the audience (in the cited circumstance, it's me, but whatever) I might look up and explain it in verbal parentheses. Which is why I think adopting that approach is what works best; alternatively, arranging the bits and pieces so the question doesn't arise. David Brooks (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

CPR

Should this be added to exceptions? Does any one ever say the full name when using the word, let alone know the full initialism meaning?  Augu  Maugu ♨ 07:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't get the second part of your logic. If we spell out an abbreviation on first use, it's for people who don't know what it stands for. Therefore, if you doubt that anybody knows what it stands for, that's all the more reason to spell it out.

The way I would put it is: People who know what "CPR" is use and read the abbreviation without even thinking about its full form (even when they know what it is)—it stands semantically on its own. I'd rank it along with "DVD" in that regard. But another criterion is whether readers are familiar with CPR in the first place. Are readers as likely to know what CPR, unexplained, is as they do DVDs? Largoplazo (talk) 11:57, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I know what CPR is - it's how my brother got broken ribs. I don't know what it stands for without looking it up. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)