4 ms·
https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133530 https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201307021121335... > Use the abbreviated form of a
by vngzs 6y ago
https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art20130702112133530 https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/articles/art201307021121335...
> Use the abbreviated form of a title without explanation only if there is no chance of any misunderstanding (eg UN, Nato, IRA, BBC). Otherwise, spell it out in full at first reference, or introduce a label (eg the public sector union Unite).
>
> Where you would normally say the abbreviation as a string of letters - an initialism - use all capitals with no full stops or spaces (eg FA, UNHCR, NUT). However, our style is to use lower case with an initial cap for acronyms, where you would normally pronounce the set of letters as a word (eg Aids, Farc, Eta, Nafta, Nasa, Opec, Apec).
For the average reader, I would argue there is little chance of misinterpretation, and BBC certainly agrees. Besides that, because "NATO" is pronounced "nay-toh", they spell it with an initial cap.
- jhrmnn 6y agoInteresting. Is this really not confusing? I haven't seen it done elsewhere. I find it confusing just because of that. Their reasoning for why they do it seems actually reasonable. EDIT: Actually the fact that their rule is followed by a list of exceptions, because NICE -> Nice, SAD -> Sad would be confusing shows why this style might be not so good after all. Also, whereas N.A.T.O. -> NATO is really just a style change in some sense, because NATO can be still interpreted only as abbreviation, NATO -> Nato feels like stealing a part of the identity from the subject. NATO emphasizes some meaning behind the letters, whereas Nato resigns on that origin.
- vngzs 6y agoPerhaps it's confusing to Americans, but it's common among the UK press: > Use all capitals if an abbreviation is pronounced as the individual letters (an initialism): BBC, CEO, US, VAT, etc; if it is an acronym (pronounced as a word) spell out with initial capital, eg Nasa, Nato, Unicef, unless it can be considered to have entered the language as an everyday word, such as awol, laser and, more recently, asbo, pin number and sim card. Note that pdf and plc are lowercase. https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-a https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-a It appears they are doing the equivalent of considering pronounced acronyms to be proper nouns. Despite the style ambiguity, it makes a bit of sense if you read the text aloud, as the style gives some indication of how to say the word.
- zeristor 6y agoShouldn't that "Bbc" which looks odd to me?
- hnarn 6y agoThe same rules applies in Swedish, so the correct way, in Swedish, is to write "Ikea".[1] [1]: http://www.isof.se/sprak/namn/samverkan-inom-namnvard-och-namnforskning/namnvardsgruppen/rad-och-rekommendationer/forkortningar-av-myndighetsnamn.html http://www.isof.se/sprak/namn/samverkan-inom-namnvard-och-na...
- nemetroid 6y agoOn the topic of capitalization in Swedish, proper practice is to normalize everything. E.g.: Eon instead of E.ON, Ebay instead of eBay, Iphone instead of iPhone.
- karaterobot 6y agoFor what it's worth, I've always found this confusing, and every time I encounter it, it slows me down for a second. I don't know if I'm an average reader or not. I wonder what that even means in this context: I imagine the average reader is probably expecting consistency with other media outlets. It's especially odd when an organization always insists on capitalizing its own abbreviated title (NATO, NASA, OPEC, etc.) but the BBC refuses to do it. Seems like an instance of esthetics getting in the way of clarity. Like many minor typographical issues, this one evokes an unnecessarily powerful reaction.