Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Abbreviations

It is time to allow contractions of auxiliary verbs

It's time to reconsider the general prohibition of contractions in articles.

Background

Unless I've missed something, the most recent significant discussion about the topic was held in January and February of 2011.

I'm specifically addressing the use of contractions of auxiliary verbs, such as 'll and 're, along with their negative forms using the -n't negative suffix. The proposal is not related to other contractions such as ol' for old, 'em for them, ne'er for never, etc. Also, non-standard forms, such as ain't along with less common forms such as should've still require specific guidance. These, however, don't need to be dealt with under the topic of contractions generally.

Precedent

The times have changed, and the sense that contractions are informal has mostly dissipated. As far back as 1964, Rudolf Flesch wrote in The ABC of Style,

It's a superstition that abbreviations shouldn't be used in serious writing and that it's good style to spell everything out. Nonsense: use abbreviations whenever they are customary and won't attract the attention of the reader.

The 1989 Webster's Dictionary of English Usage entry for "contractions" says,

Contractions became unfashionable in the 18th century and continued so until the early 20th century at least; in 1901 a correspondent of The Ladies' Home Journal was still wondering if can't, couldn't, and won't were permissible. Today many handbooks for writers recommend contractions to avoid sounding stilted.

Style guides

Most recent editions of style guides for news and academic publishing allow or even encourage these forms, even in formal writing. These include Dreyer’s English: An Utterly Correct Guide to Clarity and Style, Garner’s Modern American Usage, and the MLA Handbook [1]. The Chicago Manual of Style encourages the judicious use of contractions [2].

The AP Styleguide only urges only against "excessive" use of contractions. The main holdout seems to be the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed), which still says to avoid them.

Other encyclopedias and reference books

Such forms are commonplace in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. A sample follows

• "Its color and smell are simple impressions, which can’t be broken down further because they have no component parts." [3]
• "An explanatory coherentist might say that, for you to be justified in believing (H), it’s not necessary that you actually believe (1) and (2)." [4]
• "We’ll get there by considering how SEF deals with cases of late preemption such as the Suzy and Billy case." [5]

The same is true for The Canadian Encyclopedia.[6] Britannica allows contractions, but it can hardly be seen as a serious encyclopedia any longer.

Other books that just came to hand (no cherry picking):

NO: The Oxford Encyclopedia of Islam and Women doesn't, nor does Encyclopedia of Linguistics (Routledge), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender, Encyclopedia of Climate Change (2nd ed; Salem Press), The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Child Development (2nd ed).

YES: The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies, The Encyclopedia of Neuropsychological Disorders (Springer), Encyclopedia of Tribology (Springer).

The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language uses contracted auxiliary verbs throughout.

Universities

Some university writing centres still encourage students to avoid contractions, for example, Hull,[7] but others, such as University of Edinburgh [8] and Monash [9] have moved on.

Harvard seems neutral on the topic[10],[11].

Governments

The government of the UK allows them on their website [12]. The government of Canada (including the Supreme Court for its Cases in Brief) [13], though the Government of Australia continues to recommend avoiding them in formal contexts [14].

Overall, then there is a significant movement towards using contracted auxiliary verbs in formal writing, and Wikipedia should follow along. Brett (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Possessive use

I have recently noticed the input of @Gawaon that possessives are not contractions. While this is true, as I have found, it could be confusing to other editors, including me before my research. As such, I propose that a new section be added to the page talking about possessives and how they are permitted, and have the contractions section link here. 2003 LN6 16:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

2003 LN6, i hope i may ask without appearing rude, because it certainly isn't intended that way: Is English a second language with you? I ask because i don't remember ever coming across someone for whom it was the first language who was confused by apostrophes of possession ~ plenty who don't understand apostrophes and try to add them in willy-nilly, to be sure, just not the other ~ so i'm having trouble understanding why we would need such clarification. Whom are you suggesting that it would help to add this section, and do people actually get confused by apostrophes? I'm not sure i have seen any possessives in Wikipedia which would have benefited from it. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm takling about the possessive 's. For example, "The country has the world's third-largest land area[...]" (from United States). 2003 LN6 16:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is normal English usage. Whilst the apostrophe is sometimes used as a placeholder for omitted letters (a form of contraction), e.g. "can't" for "cannot", that's not the case with the possessive apostrophe. Consider: in a word like "world's", what letter or letters have been omitted? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Some) contractions use apostrophes and possessives use apostrophes, and they are two different things. I understand that you weren't aware of that, and that's fine, but the first sentence of the Contraction section already explains that [a] contraction is an abbreviation of one or more words that has some or all of the middle letters removed but retains the first and final letters (e.g. Mr and aren't). "Dave's", a possessive, is not a word that has some of all of the middle letters removed, so it isn't a contraction. I believe that's as clear as it needs to be. Largoplazo (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! 2003 LN6 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"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)