Talk:Australian Antarctic Medal

message: It seems a bit cumbersome to repeatedly use “Australian Antarctic Medal” throughout the body of the article. Perhaps “it” or even “the medal” would suffice for many of the subsequent uses after the first sentence of the lead? Unless the full proper name is needed each time so as to possibly avoid confusion with other medals, it might be best to not repeat each and every time. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Marchjuly, thanks for taking the time to read the Australian Antarctic Medal article. As you may have read, there are actually three medal names in the article, the Polar Medal, the Antarctic Medal (used until late 1987) and the Australian Antarctic Medal (used from 1988 and retrospectively applied back to 1987).  A key requirement of MoS is that prose must be clear and understandable to an appropriately broad audience (beyond those who may have some familiarity with a particular area of information), and where potential confusion may exist, it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full... [as] Wikipedia does not have the same space constraints as paper. Multiple medal names do mean some consideration is required to avoid potential confusion. The use of  as a substitute should be avoided due to the clear and understandable MoS requirement, although  as a style preference (where misunderstanding is preventable) is a possibility that could be considered where appropriate. It is something for analysis. Thanks for the input.  Kangaresearch  07:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Australian Antarctic Medal" is referred to by its full name 16(?) times throughout the article, including 4 times in the lead. it's not possible to use "the medal" or even "the AAM" in any of those other locations? It's not possible to rewrite a sentence like "The reverse (rear) of the Australian Antarctic Medal" as "The reverse of the medal" without any loss of clarity? -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything is possible, subject to the guidelines (in particular, on style choice); whether it is an edit that should be made is another question. The use of , given it is also the post-nominal, would be inappropriate (as per the policy extract already given). As already mentioned, other proposed alternatives are something for analysis. An expectation that another editor instantly make changes without such consideration taking place would be unreasonable, particularly on a style preference issue (for which clear guidance on preferences exist). There can be a perception, when a sudden flurry of edits immediately take place, on an article an editor had not been involved in (immediately following some unrelated perceived conflict) as to whether they are being made for the benefit of the article. I assume these are being made in good faith, but it may be worth reflecting on the perception created (especially where the edits are stylistic choices).  Kangaresearch  08:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to notify another editor like  of this discussion then you could simply ping them to the discussion. Do you think that the edits I made regarding :MOS:DOCTOR, etc. were more :WP:NOTHERE than :WP:HERE? If that’s the case, than you could ask for clarification here on the article’s talk page or just revert outright per :WP:BRD. Editors don’t need to get their edits pre-approved per :WP:BOLD, but being BOLD doesn’t mean the edit was one that should’ve been made. Editors can just show up and edit at anytime if they feel they can improve it in some way. If you think that adding a Wikilink to :Obverse and reverse, removing “the late” because it seems unnecessary for medals awarded posthumously, and removing “Dr”/“Professor” aren’t really improvements or aren’t accordance with relevant guidelines, then feel free to revert or discuss. I’m happy to discuss them with you or anyone else. Anyway, moving back to the subject of this thread. You feel that AAM is not a good idea, but what about “the medal”. For example, the “Design” section seems to be only about the AAM, not the other medals mentioned in the article. Is it necessary to mention the medal by its full name 5 times. Will there be any loss of understanding if the full name is not used each and every time in that section? — Marchjuly (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated use of “article name” throughout the article