Template talk:Gloss-abbr

Redirect proposal
How surprised I was to see this template. I had been working on Template:gcl, which has the same function, is more sophisticated (and much more cludgy, I have to admit), and has a somewhat higher vocabulary of glossing abbreviations. Despite the slight differences of usage, the two templates do one and the same job. , do you think there's enough functional difference to warrant keeping two separate templates, or should I usurp this template's title and redirect it to Template:gcl (incidentally, that template is pretty new, so I'd also welcome suggestion, ideas, bug reports etc.). – Uanfala (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to this template being converted to a redirect, provided that the existing uses of it will function (with or without modification of parameters). Your module is more complete and more likely to be maintained than mine. — Eru·tuon 21:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I've tweaked the use of this template on Romance languages (not entirely sure my edit was an improvement), while the other page that uses it: Arabic nouns and adjectives appears to be unaffected. I've turned gloss-abbr into a redirect to gcl, mostly to usurp the catchy title and to prevent incidental duplication. However, if anyone at any time would like to use or work on this template (it has the advantage of being more lightweight), then they should by all means do so without the need to consult me. – Uanfala (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)