Talk:Cultural Revolution

Latest comment: 30 days ago by Remsense in topic Abbreviation of Cultural Revolution as CR
Former good article nomineeCultural Revolution was a History good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 21, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
April 5, 2019Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 25, 2007, May 16, 2008, May 16, 2011, May 16, 2013, May 16, 2014, and May 16, 2016.
Current status: Former good article nominee

Wiki Education assignment: States and their Secrets edit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2022 and 14 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mnbvcxz1234567 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Jadassims (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Abbreviation of Cultural Revolution as CR edit

Is there a reason why Cultural Revolution is abbreviated as CR? It seems to have been a unilateral decision made by @Lfstevens in late 2023, and doesn't really make sense as it is (thankfully) not applied uniformly on all instances. If there isn't any opposition to it, I will revert all of them to Cultural Revolution or the Cultural Revolution. I think there is an argument to be made of keeping the long form of CRG "Cultural Revolution Group" as well. Artwhitemaster (talk) 09:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

These should be reverted. I agree with you. JArthur1984 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm ok with switching them back, but I don't think it benefits the reader to do so. Shortcuts are a good thing. If inconsistency is the only critique, I'm happy to convert the rest of the references. Lfstevens (talk) 19:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've seen a bit of attestation of the initialism in sources—which makes sense, because it's a proper name that is both pretty long and will be stated over and over. I would be okay with establishing its use in sources, and using it a bit. Going to be awkward either way, though. Remsense 19:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply