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 is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiltshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Wiltshire 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.WiltshireWikipedia:WikiProject WiltshireTemplate:WikiProject WiltshireWiltshire articles
Dormskirk, I see all these moves have gone ahead. I am sceptical, as what surely matters is what the reliable sources say. Most seem to prefer MoD, which has the advantage of an immediately clear meaning. MOD sounds to me like something quite different. I suppose the point is that "Of" would never be capitalized in "Ministry of Defence". Even if some loutish civil servant has decreed its use, "MOD" is still uncomfortable as well as not being used outside the MoD. Moonraker (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I recently saw an article in The Times using MoD, and there are plenty of other examples of that format. I don't feel strongly about it but think we need consistency across all these articles. Dormskirk (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply