User talk:Msh210/Archive/Abbreviation header

This page is an archive of old discussion. Please don't edit this page. If you wish to communicate with me (msh210), you can do so at User talk:Msh210. Thanks!

Are you still interested in abbreviations (or do I have you confused with someone else)? You were unhappy User_talk:DCDuring/2007#Abbreviation_POS_header with the abbreviation-type PoS headers, a sentiment I share. Let me know your level of interest, current thoughts, etc. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was never "interested in abbreviations" more than in other entries. I was merely opinion-holding about their headers. And, yes, I still am: I still think, as I did when I wrote you, that the Abbreviation header (or similar) should not be used when another is good. Why do you ask?—msh210℠ 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I had been working on Ullman's list of notcounted entries and a lot of them were abreviations. I had just been putting wikilinks in to get them counted, but noticed how defective they were as entries: no differentiation by language (many are Translingual) or by PoS, headings not consistent, etc. I am loath to go too far in working them over without someone else who is "intested" and provides either support, constructive criticism, or at least another view. It does seem to be an area that should be rationalized a bit and the PoS idea is certainly important to that. But there are other projects that have my interest, too, like working over the 130,000-article WikiSpecies database for new entries, getting Translingual templates, and exterminating English-language transitive/intransitive verb headers (of which low hundreds still remain despite the category being empty). DCDuring TALK 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

When I add abbreviation entries, I put in a proper POS header, if applicable. But I'm loath to change existing headers, especially en masse, inasmuch as I think people disagree with us regarding the use of Abbreviation and the like as headers.—msh210℠ 16:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should ask for a run of those entries that are in both the abbreviation category and a non-noun/prop noun PoS category and collect such instances. That would at least provide evidence for the case for change. I wonder if there is any good material on such concerns in any reference or text book for lexicographers. DCDuring TALK 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure what you mean by your first sentence.—msh210℠ 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I took your point about the lack of support at the moment for any change in the use of the Abbreviation templates in lieu of real PoS headers. I thought that evidence that there actually was a problem that could not be swept under the rug would be useful in changing people's minds. I believe that many editors believe that almost all abbreviations are nouns (including proper nouns). Having evidence that there were, say, 200 abbreviations that had other PoSs might be useful. I don't want to locate and record cases myself. Some of your work and possibly the work of others might be captured by processing the XML dump. QED. OTOH, how many do you think you have identified and so marked so far in your efforts. My own contribution to date is certainly fewer than 10 entries. Perhaps some of the IM/Internet abbreviations are a good place to look for more. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not sure how many I've done, but adverbs that come to mind are AFAIK, AFAICT, IOW, OTOH, and IINM; verbs, ITYM, ICQ, IM, and ROFL; and other non-nouns, IANAL and LOL. Those are just the Internet-based abbreviations. A dump might not be useful, because many of the relevant entries will not be listed as verbs (etc.) at all. (If what we're looking for is merely intersection of categories, we can use CategoryIntersect, anyway.)—msh210℠ 19:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Reply