Template talk:short for

Template:short for
This template is creating some categories like Category:Russian_short_forms, Category:English_short_forms... which seem to be redundant of Category:Contractions and Category:Abbreviations. To my mind, the whole should be merged into Category:Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms by language. JackPotte 01:54, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * "chimp" is a short form of "chimpanzee", but I wouldn't categorize it under abbreviations, acronyms, and initialisms. —Robin 14:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * An 'abbreviation' is by definition simply a shortened form, and isn't any more specific than that. So I think pretty much all of the types listed above fall under that definition. As such, I also think this 'short for' template and its categories are superfluous, as it communicates no more specific information than 'abbreviation' already does. – Quoth 12:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Re: "An 'abbreviation' is by definition simply a shortened form, and isn't any more specific than that": That's not true. It's actually much more specific than that. —Ruakh TALK 02:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. The entries currently in Category:English short forms are not contractions or abbreviations. Personally I'm not sure that the template is needed, because these seem like regular words that should have regular definitions, but I oppose the suggestion to merge its uses into Category:Contractions and Category:Abbreviations. (Of course, a lot of time has passed since JackPotte's original nomination, and it's possible that the current contents of Category:English short forms are a result of someone removing all the entries that really were abbreviations. But the entries that are there now should not be merged.) —Ruakh TALK 02:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep at least for now, and passes anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Redundant with ?
Please see this discussion: Beer_parlour/2017/April. --Barytonesis (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

gloss vs. translation
Per the description, t= is "a gloss or short translation". However, there's a difference between a gloss and a translation, and as much as I can believe that was mixed up in practice, the correct distinction hasn't been preserved by deprecating the gloss parameter. The following at Raj, a word of the day no less, was incorrectly formatted:


 * 1) Short for British Raj (“the period of colonial rule of the Indian subcontinent by the British Empire between 1858 and 1947”).

Why are we quoting ourselves here? If t= is used in an English definition, when the word would be   another English term, then it should either be treated as a gloss, and not placed in quotation marks, or t= should be avoided altogether, and the alternate definition listed outside of the template:


 * 1) Short for British Raj; the period of colonial rule of the Indian subcontinent by the British Empire between 1858 and 1947.

Either way, something different should occur with  . DAVilla 05:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)