Talk:List of U.S. government and military acronyms

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

Military history: Technology / North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article

There are hundreds more U.S. military acronyms. Is this list meant to be a union of all acronyms of all military organizations, and all governments ?

This list includes items that are not technically acronyms. Before the MPs (hehe) show up, perhaps the focus of this list should be changed to abbreviations, not just acronyms?

I imagine this list will eventually need to be split off categories for country and organizations as suggested by above poster.

Given that there are many acronyms that are only used within the limited scope of certain organisations (such as only one particular military branch, as opposed to all military branches from all nations), it should be noted that placing the the scope of where the terms are commonly used would be appropriate. (In other words, listing in parentheses the military branch and nation that typically uses the acronym.)

Ricojonah 09:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How to split the list

I think that this list should (if not now, eventually) be split into several catagories: weapons list (comprised of everything from airplanes to the M1 designation, whatever it means), acronyms of departments, non-U.S. acronyms (which could eventually be seperated by country if enough acronyms were listed), and probably many more.

I noticed in trying to find out what the M1 designation means that there is no list for military designation or code, so that list could also be created.

There should also be a list of military jargon such as BCG, for Birth Control Goggles, the name soldiers use for the standard issue glasses.

Will 18:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the military jargon split off from the official acronyms. There's a huge difference between COMINT and MIA and KISS and FUBAR. TychaBrahe (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms?

Looks to me like most of them aren't. They're abbreviations, & it's unencyclopedic to make the mistake... Captain Spellcheck 09:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant list?

It appears to me that the scope of this list is a subset of the scope of List_of_acronyms_and_initialisms. Rather than worry about splitting this list into categories, or relabeling the initialisms and abbreviations, should we talk about merging this into the other list? --orlady 04:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OFO

On 66.31.127.134's suggestion, I have looked into the addition of the acronym OFO to try to see if it is in fact vandalism. It is difficult to say with certainty. We should probably begin by reviewing the nature of the edits made by 71.202.205.148, the IP contributor who added this term. Any thoughts? -Thibbs (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 1

List of government and military acronyms → Glossary of government and military acronyms — In accordance with other "Glossary of -" articles 174.3.98.236 (talk) 10:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. GTBacchus^(talk) 15:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of government and military acronyms → List of U.S. government and military acronyms — All the terms listed here are of U.S. origin; as far as I can see, there are next to no acronyms from other English-speaking countries, and no non-English acronyms at all. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nominator appears to be correct in his assessment and, even if a non-American acronym suddenly appears, limiting this list geographically makes sense. — AjaxSmack 01:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adding Citations To This Article Would Be Easier Than it Appears

There are several good (Cite-able) online sources. Many of these entries would have the same citation source, which means once the first citation is entered, much of the article could be done easily by cutting and pasting. NOTE: Please only use this method where the citations actually match the terms (don't abuse).

Telemachus.forward (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tits up

Tits up is included in this list and also List of British words not widely used in the United States. How do I reconcile the two? Tommy Pinball (talk) 00:55, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Tits up" should not be on this list, period, because it is neither an acronym nor an abbreviation. Frankly, I think all slang should be removed from this list. I can guarantee you that somewhere there is a dictionary at the DOD that explains what FOB, HHC, and 4ID mean, and I'd bet good money it does not define SNAFU or SSDD. Meanwhile, this list does not define HHC or ID (infantry division). TychaBrahe (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The speckled bold is pretty bumpy

Does anyone mind if I do a global search and replace to remove the bold initials throughout? I think anyone consulting such a list knows that the acronym stands for the initials in the expanded form, and the bolding makes the page look messy, and the text hard to read. Tony (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This list is weird

Why are there non-US terms here, against the title? Either the title should exclude "US" or the list should be split up into country-related lists. Is it necessary to include "government" here? Can it be "List of English-language military abbreviations"? Tony (talk) 01:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Factual Error

0K (Zero Killed" meaning "Okay") is actually derived from a Choctaw Indian word Okeh, which was used to mean "it is so". The initials OK (for president Martin VanBuren, or "Old Kinderhook") took off during his election campaign. It has never been used for "Zero Killed" outside of the online FPG scene.

Profanity

You people are in violation. Usage of profanity on the Wikipedia constitutes a TOS violation. Abusing the United States Military, and the Wikipedia, for the purpose of aggrandizing vulgarity is unethical. Remove all profanity. Immediately. Or, I will level a grievance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.26.76 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, please read WP:NOT#CENSORED. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A formal is now officially lodged! We've begun the process in earnest, lodging formal complaint with Wikipedia principals contending this page is wholly unsuitable for our children! Profanity and vulgarity have no place on the Wikipedia! Clean up this page! Posthaste! Or, we will see that it's permanently shut down! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.39.26.76 (talk • contribs) 03:01, 27 August 2015‎

With all due respect, you're barking up the wrong tree. By internet standards, Wikipedia is actually a very tame website which occasionally includes potentially offensive words or images when necessary for an encyclopedic treatment of a few subjects. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 04:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]