User:LaughingVulcan/sandbox/OTOH

---

WIP Page for Essay. Working title:OTOH, ABB HV USES<bk>

Second title (and perhaps better): On the other hand, shortcuts and abbreviations have their uses at Wikipedia.<bk>

Subtitle: OTOH, WP:WP and WP:ABB have WP:USE at Wikipedia.

Shortcuts: WP:OTOH

---

Persons familiar with United States ZIP codes and State abbreviations may recognize their usefulness in addressing letters. Rather than having to type out the entire state name, a simple two letter or five number abbreviation will get a letter to where it goes. Few, if any, people suggest that we should junk these shortcuts. Medical abbreviations can sometimes be confusing to patients, yet are very helpful to medical personnel when used in patient charts. Ticker symbols help the financial community extensively.

The essay "Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!" makes a very fine case for not overusing Wikipedia shortcuts in discussions. There are, however, several fine uses for abbreviation in some namespaces at Wikipedia. Among them:

For experienced editors

Shortcuts provide very quick mnemonics to policies, guidelines, essays, and WikiProjects. Rather than spelling out, "Notability guidelines for academics," or the slightly less cumbersome, "Notability (academics)," a more succinct version is WP:PROF. An experienced editor should be familiar with many, if not all, of the common policies, guidelines, and essays. If not, providing the abbreviation usually gives a quick idea what the link is about, and makes clear that the reader should click on the link if he or she is not familiar.

For new editors

New editors may not read beyond WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, if that.

While confusing at first, including the shortcuts as links may give a new editor a clue that there may be crucial things about Wikipedia he or she does not understand. If a new editor reads, "I question the notability of the article," he or she may assume that his or her own sense of notability may substitute in for a guideline. In fact, the reader may not even figure out that the link is intended to be clicked to find out what Wikipedia's guidelines are. It is far better to say, "I question the article on WP:N grounds," and allow the reader to know that there may be something he or she knows nothing about, but needs to.

Time and effort considerations

It saves time in creation for the editor who writes the links in. When multiple policies are referenced in one edit, the train of thought may be disrupted in taking the time to type out all the acceptable substitutions.

The editor may also not have the time or inclination to go back and pipe all the links. An editor who knows of shortcuts may rightfully assume that because they exist, they may be used appropriately. If they are used by editors and readers for search shortcuts, why should it not be appropriate to use them in discussions?

Finally, it should be noted that they are used because they are used. While shortcuts may be overused and abused at times, suggesting someone stop using them in accepted contexts may smack of advocating censorship, control freak tendencies, or just being a dick.

Generally accepted uses

Arguably, the most common abbreviations are the criteria for speedy deletion shortcuts and abbreviations. All too frequently, they are not even linked to. ("This fails CSD A1.") This usage, however, is rarely-if-ever contested. Who wants to read, "This should be speedy deleted because it meets, 'Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company, product, group, service, or person as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion; an article that is blatant advertising should have inappropriate content as well.' of policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion." It is easier to say and read, "WP:CSD#G12", or, "WP:CSD G12."

This is only the beginning: if you see them frequently used on various pages, it is not unlikely that their use is accepted.

Unacceptable vs. Acceptable Uses

At times it is possible to overdose on shortcuts. Editors are advised to continue contstructing actual sentences. A sentence generally has at least one noun and one verb. Examples:

• Unacceptable Uses

<

Fails WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOR. WP:CSD

• Acceptable forms of the above

The article has problems with WP:N, WP:V, and WP:NOR policies. I recommend WP:CSD A4, and delete otherwise.

Who it hurts the most

The argument is made at Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! that offline readers hurt the most from rampant abbreviation abuse. However, it should be noted that shortcuts generally belong only in the Wikipedia: and Talk: namespaces. Anyone reading these offline is either a) familiar with the shortcut, or b) should be. It is just plain wasteful of electrons to spell everything out. Not using appropriate shortcuts and abbreviations, however, hurts everyone: in much wasted time reading, in much wasted effort typing, and in figuring out what someone else is saying when a quick shortcut works more smoothly and quickly.

Moral of the Story

Nobody wants to see an "alphabet soup" of abbreviations in a sentence. However, neither do many editors want to read a twelve-paragraph essay about why a particular article fails three points of WP:V. Although piped links are a very acceptable substitute at times, at other times an editor just needs to WP:BE BOLD and WP:WP things with appropriate WP:ABB.