Talk:Export control

Policy: Use of initialisms even when not otherwise referenced

Export control, like several other technical and quasi-technical areas, is replete with initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations. The landscape is an alphabet soup. This article aims to be useful to those encountering the field. Here is a proposal for the policy on this page. It follows the precedent on many other pages, including Trade,

Initialisms, where well accepted by the industry, should be included on the page even if there is no further reference to them on the page. Include the initialism in brackets after the full definition. E.g. Standard Individual Export Licence (SIEL).

The reasons for this are as follows:

• It indicates that this is an industry-accepted initialism, and that use of this acronym would be typical in discourse within the context of this subject matter.
• It permits the information on the page to be found when searching using just the initialism, both within page and within the entirety of Wikipedia. This is particularly useful when the search term is common in the industry, but doesn't necessarily warrant a separate Article for the topic.

Correspondingly, and in accordance with MOS:Sourceable abbreviations and MOS:Don't invent acronyms, where an initialism is NOT generally accepted in this context, it should NOT be included within the page. Evidence of the common use of the initialism should be readily available. Acceptable evidence could include the definition of the initialism, or reference by the initialism alone, on some reliable, independent source of reasonable prominence. Note that this does not appear to conflict with MOS:1STOCC, which could be interpreted as saying "don't use unexplained acronyms".

There was a debate at Talk:MoS; the conclusion was basically 'On a per-case basis', so in this case the policy above stands.

Comments on this policy are welcomed below, but please don't change until consensus is obtained. Chumpih. (talk) 2021-03-14 and 2021-05-25.

ECJU

Please restore this article to the status quo until consensus is reached. You know that this is a contested edit with no consensus to include it. You directed the discussion to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style and I responded there. I was not aware that you then arbitrarily decided that you would move it back here minutes after my reply. Meters ((talk) 03:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

To quote my reply to your reply on Talk:MoS : There is an attempt at a policy for initialisms that don't get a second mention on Talk:Export Control . The bold highlighting is from that page. You also haven't further discussed there.
The one other comment there is lightly in favour of the initialism.
I've included links to this discussion from another MoS talk page. I even put a link to this policy on your talk page, with an invitation to discuss, but you deleted it., presumably because it came after a 3RR warning. It's been > 48 hours. Nevertheless, since you feel this is still contested, I'll revert accordingly. Please can you suggest how long it takes to reach consensus, when it would appear to a first approximation that only you and I care, and you're not so willing to engage in discussion? Chumpih. (talk) 04:06 + 04:15, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BRD I've made an edit that addresses the main concern of the initialism being declared without further reference, and also handily introduces further pertinent information about the ECJU. Feel free to revert, but I think the next steps will be via the dispute resolution processes. Chumpih. (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

You really should make up your mind. You pinged me to respond at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style]]. When I did so so you said that it was out of scope and moved it here. I responded here, and now you're complaining because I didn't respond at MOS. Hard to AGF. I'm too busy in real life to waste any more time on this. Meters (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, that's an incredible interpretation of the events. Thanks. Chumpih. (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)