Category talk:Redirects from abbreviations

message: How is this category useful? --Pmsyyz 16:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll second that. Inquiring minds want to know. -R. S. Shaw 03:32, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Not sure either. Let's WP:CFD this sucker. --Swift 16:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So this went up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 17#Category:Redirects from abbreviation.  The proposed deletion was withdrawn after some votes each way.  I'd summarize the opinions on usefulness as "It might turn out to be useful some time." -R. S. Shaw 18:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usefulness? 

message: Well, this is a mess. We have this tree...
* :Category:Redirects from short names
** :Category:Redirects from shortcuts‎ (1 C, 19,133 P)
** :Category:Redirects from given names‎ (1,059 P)
** :Category:Redirects from surnames‎ (14,849 P)
** :Category:Redirects from abbreviations‎ (4 C)
*** :Category:Redirects from symbols‎ (4 C, 1,886 P)
*** :Category:Redirects from systematic abbreviations‎ (9 C, 15 P)
*** :Category:Redirects from acronyms‎ (564 P)
*** :Category:Redirects from initialisms‎ (2 C, 12,994 P)
**** :Category:Redirects from acronyms‎ (564 P)
**** :Category:Redirects from Greek letter organization letters‎ (507 P)
...with the warning that :Category:Redirects from abbreviations‎ "should only contain subcategories".  So in this theory, every abbreviation is either an initialism, symbol, systematic abbreviation or acronym. (Though of course acronyms are also a subcategory of initialisms; I don't see the benefit of putting it on the tree twice.
Note also that   redirects to . I presume this is a response to the "only contain subcategories" warning. It assumes that nobody will add the template to redirects from symbols‎, systematic abbreviations, or acronyms.
In any case, I believe some abbreviations are not initialisms, symbols‎, systematic abbreviations or acronyms.  Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:R from abbreviation shows that there are many editors who share my definition. A majority are indeed redirects from initialisms, but there are many that are not. 
My recommendations:
* Either Category:Redirects from abbreviations‎ should include abbreviations, clippings, contractions, and blends or it should be deleted and merged up to Category:Redirects from short names. 
*  should not redirect to ; it should add to :Category:Redirects from abbreviations‎ or (if that remains a container category) be deprecated as highly misleading. 
jnestorius(talk) 17:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In answer to your question, this is a container category because it seems nobody can agree on precisely what redirects should be entered here.  So some time back, the rcat was redirected and everything was dumped into the initialisms category.  This category was almost redirected as well, but instead was used as a container to await editors who are willing to clean up the mess, which when one looks at the other categories, extends a bit beyond just the messy tree.  I am not myself expert enough to answer your other issues, but this all definitely needs quite a bit of work by those who know more about it.  Rules of enpagement Paine  02:26, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

text: Not sure, Rich, but yes I think diffusion and more specific categories are needed, and maybe a higher level, more general category to contain them all?  Nobody seems to want to organize all this so that it is more relevant and meaningful.  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  11:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It is effortful, but I think it's worth it.   There is valuable metadata in the redirect classes. That is why I have been so careful with the R-cats I use.  Perhaps we could scope this project out over the next few days. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 12:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is this a container category?