This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of
redirects and their
categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of
mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages
This template was considered for
deletion on 2008 January 20. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".
Acronyms vs Abbreviations
I've noticed this template being used for
abbreviations which are not
acronyms. An acronym is something which spells out a pronouncable word (e.g.
NATO); for instance,
RCMP is not an acronym (it is read as R-C-M-P). I also fail to see how CTZ, MVM, TNR or MA-1 are acronyms. Perhaps a more suitable template could be created? --
RFBailey21:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
If X acronym redirects and could stand for Y page, wouldn't we want Y to be wikilinked? You can manually get around it by adding wikilinks yourself (i.e.
here), but if the page itself exists wouldn't we want it linked within the template?
WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, it should absolutely be linked. I don't get why it wouldn't be. All other {{
redirect}}-like dablinks work this way, and the documentation relies on such uniformity. Are there any pages where the entire text of the second argument isn't linked? And if so, why can't they just use {{
redirect3}}, or if it's common enough, create a {{
redirect-acronym2}} that doesn't link, as seems to be convention? This looks like a job for someone with
AWB and some free time. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
00:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The request isn't based on not using the template for acronyms. The request is based on using it for other things in addition to acronyms. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I also see no sufficient reason for a rename. Again, looking at the list on
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Redirect-acronym, this is precisely how the template is being used. Is there some confusion because "TERM" instead of "ACRONYM" is used in the example in the
template documentation? If anything, this hatnote template should be renamed to some other term that encompasses both acronyms and synonyms.
Zzyzx11 (
talk)
07:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Synonym and
MOS:DABSY. If you'll tell me how {{redirect}} is inappropriate for acronyms, I'll explain how it's inappropriate for synonyms -- it will likely be the same explanation since the text of this template is not at all specific to acronyms, as the Erpert mentioned in the proposal. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
No, I mean what differentiates a "synonym" as you use the term from uses of the {{redirect}} template that you would consider legitimate? Wouldn't just about everything covered by {{redirect}} be considered a "synonym"?
PowersT18:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Who would say something like that? "Serving spoon may also refer to
Tablespoon" seems to be worded better. But either way, if this template is useful, it is useful for any "may also refer to"s, not specifically acronyms. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
13:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, the example was yours, not mine. We don't actually have an article for
Serving spoon, so it would be helpful if you provided an actual example from the encyclopedia where you think this template would work better than {{redirect}} and its compatriots.
PowersT18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)reply
No, it wouldn't be any more helpful, although it would issue more work to me. Yes, the example was mine, and the illustration still holds. If (A) is the redirect title, (B) is the title of the other article, and (C) is the description of the other article's topic from its lede, then:
"(A) redirects here. (A) may also refer to (B)." can be preferable to
You have yet to provide any example of a non-acronym (A) for which this template's wording is preferable. Absent that, I'm afraid I can't simply accept your assertion that it is indeed preferable in some cases.
PowersT02:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
That's OK. You haven't given any example to show that this template is somehow specific to acronyms, which is the real part that needs acceptance by the closing admin. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
14:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I believe the conventional burden of proof is on those who wish to change away from the status quo. So we come back to my original question: in what way is {{redirect}} inappropriate for "synonyms"?
PowersT21:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
That's OK. My example bears the burden well enough, and this isn't a court of law anyway. "(A) redirects here. (A) may also refer to (B)." works better for synonyms. In fact, it works precisely as much "better" for synonyms as it does for acronyms, because the language has nothing to do with acronyms, and the title of the template shouldn't imply such a restriction. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Redirect, a collaborative effort to improve the standard of
redirects and their
categorization on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks. Note: This banner should be placed on the talk pages of project, template and category pages that exist and operate to maintain redirects. This banner is not designed to be placed on the talk pages of most redirects and almost never on the talk pages of
mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.RedirectWikipedia:WikiProject RedirectTemplate:WikiProject Redirectredirect pages
This template was considered for
deletion on 2008 January 20. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".
Acronyms vs Abbreviations
I've noticed this template being used for
abbreviations which are not
acronyms. An acronym is something which spells out a pronouncable word (e.g.
NATO); for instance,
RCMP is not an acronym (it is read as R-C-M-P). I also fail to see how CTZ, MVM, TNR or MA-1 are acronyms. Perhaps a more suitable template could be created? --
RFBailey21:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)reply
If X acronym redirects and could stand for Y page, wouldn't we want Y to be wikilinked? You can manually get around it by adding wikilinks yourself (i.e.
here), but if the page itself exists wouldn't we want it linked within the template?
WLU(t)(c) Wikipedia's rules:
simple/
complex15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, it should absolutely be linked. I don't get why it wouldn't be. All other {{
redirect}}-like dablinks work this way, and the documentation relies on such uniformity. Are there any pages where the entire text of the second argument isn't linked? And if so, why can't they just use {{
redirect3}}, or if it's common enough, create a {{
redirect-acronym2}} that doesn't link, as seems to be convention? This looks like a job for someone with
AWB and some free time. —/
Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/
00:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Requested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The request isn't based on not using the template for acronyms. The request is based on using it for other things in addition to acronyms. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
21:19, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I also see no sufficient reason for a rename. Again, looking at the list on
Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Redirect-acronym, this is precisely how the template is being used. Is there some confusion because "TERM" instead of "ACRONYM" is used in the example in the
template documentation? If anything, this hatnote template should be renamed to some other term that encompasses both acronyms and synonyms.
Zzyzx11 (
talk)
07:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Synonym and
MOS:DABSY. If you'll tell me how {{redirect}} is inappropriate for acronyms, I'll explain how it's inappropriate for synonyms -- it will likely be the same explanation since the text of this template is not at all specific to acronyms, as the Erpert mentioned in the proposal. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
18:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
No, I mean what differentiates a "synonym" as you use the term from uses of the {{redirect}} template that you would consider legitimate? Wouldn't just about everything covered by {{redirect}} be considered a "synonym"?
PowersT18:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Who would say something like that? "Serving spoon may also refer to
Tablespoon" seems to be worded better. But either way, if this template is useful, it is useful for any "may also refer to"s, not specifically acronyms. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
13:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)reply
Well, the example was yours, not mine. We don't actually have an article for
Serving spoon, so it would be helpful if you provided an actual example from the encyclopedia where you think this template would work better than {{redirect}} and its compatriots.
PowersT18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)reply
No, it wouldn't be any more helpful, although it would issue more work to me. Yes, the example was mine, and the illustration still holds. If (A) is the redirect title, (B) is the title of the other article, and (C) is the description of the other article's topic from its lede, then:
"(A) redirects here. (A) may also refer to (B)." can be preferable to
You have yet to provide any example of a non-acronym (A) for which this template's wording is preferable. Absent that, I'm afraid I can't simply accept your assertion that it is indeed preferable in some cases.
PowersT02:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
That's OK. You haven't given any example to show that this template is somehow specific to acronyms, which is the real part that needs acceptance by the closing admin. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
14:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
I believe the conventional burden of proof is on those who wish to change away from the status quo. So we come back to my original question: in what way is {{redirect}} inappropriate for "synonyms"?
PowersT21:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
That's OK. My example bears the burden well enough, and this isn't a court of law anyway. "(A) redirects here. (A) may also refer to (B)." works better for synonyms. In fact, it works precisely as much "better" for synonyms as it does for acronyms, because the language has nothing to do with acronyms, and the title of the template shouldn't imply such a restriction. --
JHunterJ (
talk)
21:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.