Talk:Abh.Berl.Akad.

RFV discussion
German abbreviation of. I made this entry. An anonymous user recently tagged it for verification with the comment “(not to be confused with existing Abh. Berl. Akad., Abh. der Berl. Akad.)”, but without adding a section for it here (I note that neither nor  is currently extant). I got the abbreviation from Liddell & Scott's list of Periodical abbreviations, where it occurs thus, without spaces. However, I am indifferent as to whether the entry should be spelt or ;  shows plenty of uses, but Google Books does not distinguish spaced from unspaced uses. Whichever the form, it is clearly verifiable.

On a different matter, both and  would naïvely expand to : The name of the periodical is not inferrable from  +  +. The name of the Academy and, a fortiori, its periodical varied over time; I expanded the abbreviation of the latter according to the name of the former settled on by Vera Enke (archivist at the ), as quoted in Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften (Königlich Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin).

0DF (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, Liddell & Scott is English and not German. (And English and German spelling differs: in English abbreviations without spaces are common while in German they are proscribed, like Duden only having .)
 * Abh. Berl. Akad. can be found and isn't requested to be verified; only is. So a simply move would be fine as well.
 * The long form "Abhandlungen der Berliner Akademie" can be found too; though several sources explaining the abbreviation refer to the proper/fuller form (like ).


 * Yes, I didn't see any unspaced German uses when I collected the citations I added to Citations:Abh.Berl.Akad., so you may well be right about that. Interestingly, besides the LSJ use, the first three other sources using I found were all typewritten. My guess is that LSJ uses it unspaced to save space (no pun intended), whereas the typewriting authors all considered the spacing in Abh. Berl. Akad. visually excessive. I'm happy with a simple move, just as long we can stick one or more quotations of unspaced uses in the entry so  gets picked in the search results for ; we can use de in the citations I've added for that. 0DF (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Now that English entries exist at and, and a German entry exists at , I've deleted the German entry at , which was the only one that was subject to this verification request. I suppose that technically makes this RFV failed. 0DF (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)