This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following
WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
higher education,
universities, and
colleges on Wikipedia. Please visit the project page to join the
discussion, and see the project's
article guideline for useful advice.Higher educationWikipedia:WikiProject Higher educationTemplate:WikiProject Higher educationHigher education articles
(1) The PDF format field in the citation is redundant and unnecessary because the link itself ends in PDF. You have a habit of including unused and/or redundant fields in citations. (2) Any good writer would know that including an acronym in a document "just because you can" and not out of conveience to readers is a taboo. A naked acronym, one that is not used in a document, should always be omitted. Always. Why you insist on naked acronyms is beyond my comprehension.
AfricaTanz (
talk)
21:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Request for comments
Overwhelming consensus is to support including the official acronym in the article lede. A weak consensus is that format data shouldn't be removed without cause, as it can help meet
WP:ACCESSIBILITY concerns. As the only actual guideline or policy argument brought, ACCESSIBILITY seems to be the governing policy, until such time as the CSS generated
external link icons automatically include
WP:ALT text.
WP:NAC by request at
WP:ANRFC by
VanIsaacWSVexcontribs21:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi, I suggest the following:
1) we include the official acronym of the University i.e. UDSM in the opening paragraph because:
The
Tanzania Commission for Universities uses it as per the
register and the university also refers to itself using the UDSM acronym on its
website
2)
User:AfricaTanz insists on removing the "
format" data of the citation template that I have been using.
Came here via RFC at the Wikiproject Africa page (not style). My opinion on the issues is: 1. Yes Acronym. This seems to be a very strong norm in articles about universities around the world and it helps the reader to know what is the standard acronym for the university. I don't see any justification for not having the University's official acronym in the first sentence of the aritcle (for the strong norm of using the acronym, see:
UCLA,
American University of Paris,
Cheikh Anta Diop University,
United Nations University,
Navamindradhiraj University). In addition, other pages on wikipedia that refer to the university use the acronym, so it should be clear in the intro of this article, see:
Kilinux. On 2. I have no opinion. Is adding PDF redundant? Sure. Does it do any harm to the reader to have it in the field? I don't see how it could. The page quality stays the same if PDF is in the field or if it isn't. Reverting it was probably excessive, but insisting on it seems equally so.
No one owns the page, so it is probably best for everyone not to worry about this small stuff.
AbstractIllusions (
talk)
19:27, 17 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Support acronym; even if we don't use it in this article, others might use it elsewhere, and it seems a relevant piece of information about the university. Oppose format; while it's not all that important either way, we already have the "PDF" icon which should be so well-known that an additional
PDF link is unnecessary.
Huon (
talk)
18:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Support acronym. It is very common for universities to be referred to by their acronyms. In fact I would support using the acronym in subsequent text rather than the full name. IMHO it should be in the info box as well, but that is just me. As far as the format issue with PDF is concerned I have no strong feeling either way.
Jschnur (
talk)
03:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment on format: Yes, the site CSS automatically shows a PDF icon, but it does not meet accessibility standards. None of the
external link icons support alt text, thus visually impaired readers have no indication of the format.
T47891 --Gadget850talk22:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Support acronym as standard practice in Wikipedia articles. I don't even see why this is controversial and requires discussion.
ElKevbo (
talk)
16:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)reply
Randomly selected for RFC. It looks like there is consensus to support the use of the acronym and I agree. I work for the
USAMRIID which is usually only known by its acronym, and the proposed use I see using Google is widely in use also.
BiologistBabe (
talk)
18:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Support acronym - Following
AbstractIllusions's comment above, there's plenty of evidence showing that mentioning the university's acronym is standard practice. It is helpful to readers because they may come across the acronym somewhere and need to know what UDSM stands for. No opinion on formatHardcorekancil (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added
10:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)reply
Speedy support acronym - per sources, it is already a redirect, and in use in articles so I have added this uncontroversial acronym. Pls close this. Widefox;
talk18:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.