Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

Inconsistency in Military Ranks' Abbreviations

Hello, I have a question regarding military ranks' abbreviations. I read that US. military ranks are normally abbreviated but on the other hand we should avoid creating new abbreviations, if possible. So in order to ensure consistency what do we do, if we have an article with many military ranks, where half of them are abbreviated and the other half are not? Should we abbreviate the rest, or should we fully spell out the ones that are abbreviated? MilenaR21 (talk) 13:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Style for linking to full term and acronym?

Re [1]

Should this use:

International Christian Maritime Association (ICMA) / [[International Christian Maritime Association]] (ICMA)

Or what else?

The two terms linked are linked in their full form and it would seem (the target articles give the acronyms in their ledes) that the acronym is widely used, but of course is still unlikely to be familiar to our readers. So how should we link, per MOS? I would favour the original form here.

As a separate point, the two linked articles use different bolding styles for their title and acronym in their ledes,

The International Christian Maritime Association (ICMA)

vs.

North American Maritime Ministry Association (NAMMA)

Which would be favoured? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

The convention that I've encountered and used most frequently is the former, with the acronym not linked bolded. If an acronym is overwhelming common, it can be rendered like the following: North American Maritime Ministry Association (NAMMA). This prevents the parentheses from being bolded or possibly misleading the reader from believing the full name incorporates the acronym (except in the rare cases where the official name actually does this). ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

What about the main question here, how to refer to such an article from elsewhere? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

In terms of linking? I generally link just the name and separately list the acronym, if only because I don't like putting redirects or pipes where I don't need to. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

We need to be clear here that the dispute [2][3][4][5] is not about whether the terms (eg International Christian Maritime Association) and acronyms (ICMA) should be in bold or which should be linked, but whether the acronym should appear at all in The Mission to Seafarers. (The article in dispute is not International Christian Maritime Association or North American Maritime Ministry Association, and the acronyms are not disputed in those articles.) The Mission to Seafarers does not use the acronyms at all, so there is no need to define them in that article; they are unnecessary clutter that adds nothing about the article's subject.

the acronym ... is still unlikely to be familiar to our readers — and the reader of The Mission to Seafarers does not need to be familiar with the acronym, because The Mission to Seafarers does not use the acronym, and the acronym tells the reader nothing about The Mission to Seafarers. It is not the job of The Mission to Seafarers to define acronyms for some other organisation (unless The Mission to Seafarers itself subsequently uses the acronym, which it does not).

Mitch Ames (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Inclusion of unused acronyms

Editors are invited to comment at Talk:The Mission to Seafarers § Inclusion of unused acronyms on the appropriateness of including unused acronyms in an article, when those acronyms are not for the article's subject. Mitch Ames (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder vs ADHD

I’d like to propose that ADHD be treated as a well-known acronym that doesn’t require the full term (attention deficit hyperactivity disorder) on first mention.

Here's why:

• Major publications and medical organizations use ADHD without expansion.
• Acronyms like OCD, AIDS, and PTSD are already treated this way because they are universally recognized; I believe ADHD meets the same threshold.
• Requiring the full term on first mention can feel artificial and inconsistent with common usage. It also makes articles less readable given the length of the full name, and may even create confusion since the condition is almost universally referred to as ADHD.

Thoughts? Cringechancellor (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I generally disagree with this. While I think there's a reasonable case here, the convention in reliable source news coverage seems be utilizing the acronym in headlines but write out the whole name on first mention in the text (for example, this from the BBC). However, this could change over the next few years as the acronym becomes increasingly common to the point of becoming the primary name like AIDS has. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Periods/full stops as separators

I've seen this method creeping into WP as well as other places: N.F.L versus N.F.L. , if periods are to be used. Should this be addressed? Mapsax (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't MOS:POINTS already do this? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:24, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Well, maybe; the second sentence says "In the unusual case of an acronym containing full points between letters, it should also have a full point after the final letter", but the style in question now seems to encompass abbreviations which are neither unusual nor acronyms. I don't know if it's a case of WP:ENGVAR, or it's due to influence for generations who have grown up with URLs and the 2025.11.17 date format, but in my opinion there should at least be a red incorrect/green correct contrast example. Mapsax (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

"N.F.L" is totally wrong. (Better, of course, is the more modern "NFL".) Tony (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)