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.

Africa: Tanzania High‑importance

	Africa portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Tanzania portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as High-importance).

Higher education

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

Official acronym and citation info

[edit]

I suggest we include the acronym in the opening paragraph. AfricaTanz, can you explain why you keep on reverting the "format" data of the citation template? Ali Fazal (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(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

[edit]

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 Van Isaac_{WS Vex}^contribs 21:12, 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.

I request comments from other users on this matter. Thanks. Ali Fazal (talk) 22:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Support acronym-Per the TCoU and the university's usage of the acronym. Oppose format input-Per Huon. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 22:01, 25 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 -- Gadget850^talk 22:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really - None of the icons have alt text? Ugh. That needs to be fixed! ElKevbo (talk) 16:52, 26 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]

Support acronym - Certainly. Per ElKevbo, this seems like a clear cut issue. Ronan McGurrin (talk) 21:20, 1 August 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 format Hardcorekancil (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; talk 18:00, 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.