Template talk:Redirect-synonym

Add topic
Active discussions
WikiProject Redirect (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis 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 never on the talk pages of mainspace redirects. For more information see the template documentation.
Template This template does not require a rating on the quality scale.

Acronyms vs AbbreviationsEdit

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? --RFBailey 21:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

This interpretation is just plain wrong.--Herpdaderp (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No, it isn't. ABC, TNT etc. are not acronyms, they're initialisms. Acronyms are similar to initialisms but can be said as a word, e.g. NATO, laser etc. McLerristarr | Mclay1 09:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be linking second parameter?Edit

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/complex 15:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

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//Δ's/ 00:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested moveEdit

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 result of the move request was: moved Kotniski (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:Redirect-acronymTemplate:Redirect-synonym – The creator of this template seems to be a little confused as to what an acronym is.

That isn't an acronym; it's a synonym (an acronym is an initialism). Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There's no reason this template can't be used in the case where TERM is an acronym. In fact, that's exactly how it is used. See, for example, Audio Interchange File Format, To Tell the Truth, or American Health Care Association. However, while I'm here, may I suggest an error in the way you applied the {{movenotice}} template. Any page on which {{Redirect-acronym}} is transcluded displays {{movenotice}} as if it is the page being moved, rather than the template. Powers T 14:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
  • Merge and redirect to Template:Redirect. And it doesn't appear that there's anything to merge. What does this provide that that doesn't? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    Slightly altered wording that works better for acronyms. Powers T 21:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
    Ah. Agreed, that wording does seem to work better for any synonym, whether it's a acronym or not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The wording tweak from the base redirect templates is suitable for any synonym, not just acronyms. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    I'm curious what you mean by "synonym" and how {{redirect}} is inappropriate for them. Powers T 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    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)
    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"? Powers T 18:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    No, just MOS:DABSY. So it makes better sense to say "Serving spoon may also refer to Tablespoon" rather than "For Tablespoon, see Tablespoon". -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
    Except we wouldn't say that; we'd say something like "For the place-set spoon larger than a teaspoon with a volume of around 15mL, see Tablespoon". Powers T 01:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    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)
    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. Powers T 18:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    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
    "(A) redirects here. For (C) see (B)." for more than just acronyms. Since the text of this template is not specific to acronyms. If "synonym" is a sticking point, move this to Template:Redirect refer to or whatever. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
    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. Powers T 02:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    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)
    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"? Powers T 21:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
    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)
    That's OK; I trust the closing admin will take your refusal to provide support for your claims into account. Powers T 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    You say "refusal to provide support", I say "refusal to dance on command". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
    What are y'all even talking about anymore? Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 07:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
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.