Some of the iterator concept stable names are a bit unmanageable as well, e.g., [iterator.concept.weaklyincrementable]. Maybe use iter uniformly to abbreviate iterator?

I also apologize for [common.alg.req], which has subclauses like [common.alg.req.indirectlycomparable]; LWG universally hated the prior [commonalgoreq], but we could come up with nothing better.

@CaseyCarter, I'll try [common.alg.req.ind.cmp] etc.

Do we even need "common" in front? [alg.req...] seems good enough.

Regarding [iterator.concept.weaklyincrementable]: Regrettably, none of the other stable labels in the vicinity abbreviate "iterator" as "iter". I've abbreviate the stuff at the end a bit.

Do we even need "common" in front? [alg.req...] seems good enough.

[alg.req] could be easily confused with [algorithms.requirements], but I'm not concerned that this will be a problem in practice since [alg.req] contains only subclauses and [algorithms.requirements] contains only paragraphs.

Thanks for the cleanup.