Yeah I guess the difference between your short hand convention and mine is what threw me off.
The fact that your P's turn to C's and C's turns to P's seems prone to confusion though if the convention isn't thoroughly explained.
As for naming conventions on the wiki I think it's best to not use any short hand. Maybe it's just me but it seems the convention used by most people on the forum is to say CHR Axx and CHR ROM Axx and similarly PRG Axx, and PRG ROM Axx when there is a mapper in the middle. I agree that does leave it a little ambiguous though when you don't know if there is a mapper in the middle or not. Now that I think about it I do like how your convention has PPU, CPU, PRG, CHR all different it doesn't leave much to question. The problem really only arises for short hand. Places like the wiki we're probably best to just do without them all together.
Sometimes shorthand is pretty much required though, namely for things like silkscreen on PCBs. For my boards I use C strictly for CHR and P strictly for PRG. So I literally write P11 for PRG A11. When I need to denote something as strictly coming from the NES I write 'N' and assume you'll know it's PPU/CPU based on the nearby label for C11. So for a jumper that ties PPU A10 to CHR ROM A10 I'll write C10/N
Code:
C11/N (silk screen label)
O O (solder jumper)
| |
/ \ (PCB traces)
CHR ROM A11 PPU A11 (connections)
The other time I use a lot of shorthand is code, but honestly my naming convention there (which I won't even bother to share) has even confused myself. I might migrate to PPU_A[10], CHR_A[10], CPU_A[10], PRG_A[10], PRG_D[7] and such which aligns more with your method Tepples. Fairly short to type but still lacks ambiguity.