Talk:GAFB

RFD discussion: February 2022
Air force bases do not meet WT:CFI. This, that and the other (talk) 02:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. We aren't providing definitions of the air force bases; we are defining acronyms, and the definition of the acronym happens to be multiple possible air force bases. This reminds me of the J-Lo/K-Stew/Scar-Jo debacle. I wanted all of those deleted, but it didn't work out that way. We wouldn't have an entry for Jennifer Lopez, but apparently we will for J-Lo, and I can't see much difference between having a nickname for a person and an acronym for an air force base. bd2412 T 07:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What distinguishes the two situations is that abbreviations like "J-Lo" and "Scar-Jo" are novel, unpredictable, and applied to relatively few people, while "GAFB" is completely predictable - about as mundane an abbreviation as you can get. Therefore I think we should fall back to vanilla CFI and exclude it. This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems comparable to our (good) practice of having, say, BBC for "British Broadcasting Corporation", but no entry for the full expanded form. As stated above, we are listing the words that the acronym stands for, not writing a definition describing the air force base or whatever else. Equinox ◑ 11:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * (Sigh. We do, foolishly, have British Broadcasting Corporation. Well you can think of better examples than I can.) Equinox ◑ 11:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, for two reasons:
 * There are an enormous number of terms which are acceptable as definitions for initialisms/acronyms that fail CFI. Otherwise, we'd have to delete well-known terms like UCLA or CDC.
 * Wiktionary exists as a reference guide. The fact that GAFB is mundane doesn't help someone who doesn't actually know what it stands for in a given situation.
 * Theknightwho (talk) 11:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, these can be useful, but I think they should be linked to Wikipedia pages - I wondered where the hell Glasgow Air Force Base was, so I fixed that one. DonnanZ (talk) 15:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right that the senses should all link to Wikipedia. Of course, that then makes our entry essentially redundant to the Wikipedia disambiguation page GAFB - admittedly that was my "intuitive" reason for this deletion nomination. It seems pointless for us to maintain this entry when it conveys less information than the corresponding Wikipedia page and cannot possibly add any more details of lexical interest. But I don't think we have a policy about that. This, that and the other (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per norm. ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  21:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think if we deleted initialisms whose full versions are not entry-worthy, then we'd run into the issue where we sometimes have an entry but it defines only a rare sense, leaving any user who wants to look up the common senses confused (e.g. AFP where all but the biochemical senses would have to be deleted; I'm sure there are better examples even). We don't want that; it is also the reason why we have &lit. Furthermore, I disagree that such pages are just a copy-paste of Wikipedia's disambiguation page; our attestation-based CFI are a lot more inclusive than Wikipedia's notability requirements. &mdash; Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don’t believe we have a rule that entries for abbreviations and initialisms cannot exist unless the full terms have entries in their own right. (Of course, having the abbreviation or initialism is not a justification for then creating the full term.) — SGconlaw (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Happy for this to be RFD-kept. This, that and the other (talk) 04:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

RFV discussion: February–March 2022
Rfv-sense: Grissom Air Force Base. It’s a former name, the current name being. (Just wanted to be sure if the initialism for this old name is attested.) ·~   dictátor · mundꟾ  22:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Easily found in a Google Books search. Always worth checking first. Equinox ◑ 19:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

RFV-resolved This, that and the other (talk) 11:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)