Looking at other news sources, a search for DNA in Google news gives 24,488 articles, while "deoxyribonucleic acid" gives just 51. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I gotta go with the status quo here.
I work in a large research institute on projects that emphasize cell and molecular biology (I'm being vague to protect my privacy), and I can't remember the last time that I or any of my colleagues used the term deoxyribonucleic acid. Yes, DNA stands for deoxyribonucleic acid, but even among experts in the field nobody uses the full form. Is there any harm in having DNA under the name DNA? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC) There are several benefits in having DNA under its full name: technical accuracy, clarity of information, consistency in style, etc. The guideline is very clear: "
Acronyms can be used in page naming if the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form." I have done my duty; I've expressed my doubt whether this is true and have even supported it with a poll. Now it's up to you to a) prove otherwise, b) explain why this guideline does not apply here (while at the same time it obviously does for LSD,
THC, GABA, ISDN, ISBN etc), or c) gain consensus and change its wording. We're writing an encyclopedia, which means we should not use jargon like it is used in news and elsewhere unless DNA is indeed almost exclusively known by its acronym. --Eleassar my talk 09:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)It is exclusively known by its acronym. David D. (Talk) 14:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC) This suggestion has been brought up before, what would people think about a straw poll to try to get a better idea of the balance of views on this issue? Tim Vickers (talk) 19:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)I think it is a waste of time. The basis of this argument is that LSD is at its full name but a reading of the wikipedia guidelines is clear that: "Acronyms can be used in page naming if the term you are naming is almost exclusively known only by its acronyms and is widely known and used in that form."
If DNA is not an example of this exception then what is? Far better would be a discussion of why Lysergic acid diethylamide is not at LSD rather than using that as a precedent to move this article to deoxyribonucleic acid. David D. (Talk) 19:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC) My straw vote would go to “DNA”. Although it’s possible to use the full name in the article title, it seems silly if during the rest of the article it will be referred to only as DNA (not just because it’s shorter, but because it’s less confusing). And as a scientist, “deoxyribonucleic acid” falls under the category of “trivia question” rather than “practical term”, at least for me. Dihydrogen monoxide anyone? (sorry, couldn’t resist...)
Forluvoft (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Even searching in the scientific database PubMed gives you 938,211 results for DNA, and only 10,567 for "deoxyribonucleic acid" - almost a 100:1 ratio. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC) I've proposed Lysergic acid diethylamide to be moved to LSD. You may comment this at Talk:Lysergic acid diethylamide. --Eleassar my talk 12:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
