Wikipedia talk:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates

This project page was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

retarget to Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines to cite in deletion debates (at RFD), November 5, 2015, see discussion.
redirect to Wikipedia:Glossary (at MFD), April 28, 2014, see discussion.
converted to an article (at RFD), November 13, 2013, see discussion.

Requested move[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 03:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates → ? – After this former redirect was turned into a page, I saw what the scope of this page was going to become. I think that this page is going to eventually include abbreviations besides those used in "deletion debates"; this phrase probably needs to be more ambiguous to fix the future scope of this page. Examples that I have that could encompass a larger scope are Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in debates or Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in discussions, considering that these abbreviations can also be used for discussion on user talk pages, all WP:XFDs, WP:RM, WP:RFA, and almost any other discussion-based forum on Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm concerned that a comprehensive guide to abbreviations used in discussions would be too unwieldy, so I'd rather keep a more limited scope here. If we are to expand it, I'd prefer Wikipedia:Guides to abbreviations used in discussions. Perhaps similar guides for other subjects should be made first, and then potentially merged here at a later date. --BDD (talk) 18:58, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Steel1943, what do you think? It doesn't look like anyone's really taking an interest here. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 2[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by nominator. Due to some of the recent information presented, I believe that this discussion might be better for WP:MFD. Steel1943 (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations used in deletion debates → Wikipedia:Guides to abbreviations used in discussions – Please refer to the previous move request of this page for the rationale. The only opposer in the previous mover request has a point that I agree with, and thus, have relisted this move request ... since RL got in the way at the time for me to be able to respond to the previous move request. --Relisted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind so long as this would be accompanied with an expansion in scope. Obviously, just changing the name would be a bit silly. --BDD (talk) 20:36, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This just occurred to me: why not Wikipedia:Guide to abbreviations? --BDD (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- BDD, probably not. That proposed name's scope seems to be part of the already-existing functionality of Wikipedia:Glossary. Steel1943 (talk) 18:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I didn't know about that page. In that case, I'm slightly in favor of keeping this as is. Generally speaking, it's redundant to the glossary, though I could see some value in keeping a smaller page with a narrower scope. --BDD (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.