Template talk:abbreviation-old

lang
Can we change [[Category:bbreviations to [[Category:bbreviations ?—[[User:Msh210|msh210]] ℠ 16:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done (though with not that exact wikitext). And it now also accepts language codes. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Usage
When adding an abbreviations, does one add the expanded form as a separate entry? or is the abbreviation a redirect to the expanded name? (Also, where is the article for this template, about "How" and "when" it should be used. -- IrishDragon 06:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

abbreviated as
For the "long form" of the abbreviation, shouldn't there be an "abbreviated as" template? See for example frequently asked questions and initial public offering
 * There's been some discussion about where to put these, and no consensus AFAICT. Ideas I recall being put forth are: on the inflection line, under "Synonyms", under "Alternative forms". Until a format is agreed on, one can't templatify that format. (I suppose one can templatify an unagreed-on format, though.)—msh210 ℠  18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

clarification on deletion
I am not clear on why this should be deleted. The alternative (abbreviation of) is broken, according to talk on that template. This template is used by hundreds of pages. . . which is no reason to keep, but is a reason for explaining deletion. Thanks for clarifying. --Ceyockey 05:31, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

RFD discussion

 * Note, previous title was Template:abbreviation

I just don't understand why this template was ever created; instead of:

====== 

Just use

===Abbreviation===

How would this be different from a template called say,, or ? Oh, it does link to an appendix, though I (personally) dislike links in headers as distracting, though apparently they can also cause browser problems. But I've never witnessed that. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Useful (and in fact used) for categorizing in etymology sections: "===Etymology=== of...". &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose, though seems to cover that. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Or just ban it in headers then. Perhaps that's why it was created; for definition lines and etymologies. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem banning it in headers. Keep. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've come across entries using or  in etymologies. By way of hypothetical example, interesting:

==English==

Adjective


I would simply switch the 'Etymology' head to 'Verb'. If this were intended to be a definition-line template it would now be redundant to. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Totally agree: delete and use in definition lines.  The appendix link can be added there, if people wish to keep it.  And replace the ====== headers by real POS headers: every abbreviation has a POS, abbreviation is not a POS itself. H. (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I support banning this from headers. —Ruakh TALK 20:57, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mglovesfun. But I would not use in definition lines (or only when this is the best possible definition). The abbreviation character is something of an etymological nature. Lmaltier (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's so bad about using it in headers...oppose. :p 50 Xylophone Players talk 18:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I've updated some wikisyntax in this thread to avoid breakages. Apologies for editing other people's comments as a result. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Kept for lack of consensus and action. --Chicken is fun (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

RFD discussion: September–October 2019
"this is going to be deleted". Well, now the time has come. Also, Template:initialism-old --Vealhurl (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I see it has already been nommed. --Vealhurl (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Benwing2 (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)