Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Manual of Style
WikiProject icon This page falls within the scope of WikiProject Manual of Style, a drive to identify and address contradictions and redundancies, improve language, and coordinate the pages that form the MoS guidelines.

Shortenings examples[edit]

The Shortenings section of the article uses the words rhino and bike, neither of which I want to see in normal article prose, except in quotes. If a Wikipedia article needs to discuss the commuting habits of someone, it should say something like "John Jones usually commutes to work by bicycle", or "John Jones usually bicycles to work"; it should not use the word "bike", which aside from excessive informality can also be taken to refer to a motorcycle. I am horrified that it says "words such as rhino are fine". The word "rhino" is not fine. If John Jones was gored by a rhinoceros, it should say "rhinoceros", not "rhino". —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. Chris the speller yack 15:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


It says "single-word contractions are acceptable as long as they are not ambiguous". I don't think "gov't" ot "dep't" belong in Wikipedia aticles, except of course in quotations. These words might be considered abbreviations rather than contractions, but other than standard expectations of usage, how is "Mr" as a contraction of "mister" different from "gov't" as a contraction of "government"? —Anomalocaris (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Appropriate usage of "i.e." and "e.g." on Wikipedia[edit]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Appropriate Usage of "i.e." and "e.g." on Wikipedia for a discussion on whether "e.g." and/or "i.e." should be followed by a comma consistently on Wikipedia. sroc 💬 10:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


Re this edit - West Coast Railway Company has been initialized as WCRC after its first use. That paragraph is talking about the company as an entity, thus the use of the possessive WCRC's instead of thw plural WCRCs would seem to be correct, but I've got a gut feeling that somewhere it is written in the MOS that the apostrophe is not used. For that reason, I've not reverted the edit. I'm comfortable with either, but if it is to be reverted then the reason should be stated and linked to in the edit summary. Mjroots (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any basis for argument; the possessive requires an apostrophe and an 's'. If the MOS says otherwise (and I'm sure it doesn't), then the MOS needs to be fixed. Chris the speller yack 10:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Mjroots: Yes, when pluralizing the apostrophe is not used.
I agree with Chris the speller and Bob the Angry Flower[1]: Never add an apostrophe when pluralizing. Always add an apostrophe when indicating possession. If the MOS says otherwise, the MOS needs to be fixed. --DavidCary (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree the apostrophe is absolutely required for a possessive. DBAK's edit was correct. -- Alarics (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
So: several members of the Royal Society would be several FRSs ? Looks odd. (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Not nearly as odd as several FRS's. -- Alarics (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Jr. and Sr. punctuation[edit]

Why does the table instruct editors to follow "First Last, Jr." format? No consensus for using the comma has been reached during discussions in archives. fdsTalk 23:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)