Template talk:short for
Deletion debate
The following information passed a request for deletion.
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
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. —RuakhTALK 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.) —RuakhTALK 02:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
- Keep at least for now, and passes anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Redundant with {{clipping of}}?
Please see this discussion: Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2017/April#Category:English_clippings_.26_Category:English_short_forms. --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:
- 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 {{short for}} 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:
- 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 {{short for|en}}. DAVilla 05:39, 7 August 2021 (UTC)