Template talk:initialism of
This template generates redlinks in its most common use with proper nouns, such as organizations, which we rarely include. Of course, normal humans have no prospect to correct the template. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- You can use [[w:Name of the organization|Name of the organization]] or split the link up using brackets, such as [[name|Name]] [[of]] [[the]] [[organization]]. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- Why doesn't it work the other way around, with one having the ability to add brackets to achieve a link? There are more organizations with initialisms than those that have a WP article. The word-by-word blue links are stupid. This is the result of making massive changes without understanding or caring about consequences. The structure of templates doesn't allow correct editing short of replacement. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
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, though feel free to discuss its conclusions.
There are many problems with this one. First of all, it is very redundant, since the part of speech header already says "Initialism" for all of these. Secondly it links entries automatically, which is in most cases not appropriate since the written out terms do not meet CFI. In short, this is not needed, and what it does it does badly. -- Liliana • 15:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that just now, when Cirt added a sense line at ADS. It does seem redundant. Equinox ◑ 15:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think it's not needed either. Usually initialisms are defined just by writing the expansion as the definition, there is no need for 'Initialism of' before it. And linking isn't necessary in many cases either. On the other hand, it would be nice if a link existed if the entry it links to exists as well. And we need to account for that in cases where the expanded form is created after the initialism. —CodeCat 15:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The part of speech isn't "initialism" for each of these. See e.g. [[USSR]], which is as it should be. Also, I believe this template is used in some etymology sections. Strong keep.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Those uses are wrong and should be removed, as this is explicitly not an etymology template. -- Liliana • 20:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
When the "Initialism" section is ever needed, anyway? I have the impression that we can always replace it by "Noun", "Verb", etc. headers in English. --Daniel 12:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ideally yes, I'm strongly in favor this, but sometimes when the initialism is expanded it's a phrase, like for the win. It seems a bit silly to categorize FTW as an English phrase. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- If for the win is an adverb, then FTW could have an adverb section, too.
- Possibly GTFO is a better example because it expands to a full sentence.
- Frankly, maybe "Abbreviation" or "Initialism" is common in dictionaries, but a "Phrase" header (or maybe a "Sentence" header) does not look half bad in there. --Daniel 22:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)