Content deleted Content added
→abbr=on violates MOS: experiment |
|||
Line 83:
If anyone wants to examine how abbr=on is used, see [[User:Johnuniq/sandbox]] ([[Special:PermanentLink/1234955794|permalink]]) which shows 297 {{tl|time interval}} in 77 articles. These are the only ones that used abbr=on in the all-articles dump from 1 July 2024. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 00:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
:Inspecting all occurrences of {{tl|age in days}} shows that none use <code>show unit=abbr</code>. Similarly, none of {{tl|age for infant}} use <code>abbr=on</code>. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 02:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I changed {{tl|Time interval}} to use [[Module:Age/sandbox]] and edited the latter to add the separator for <code>abbr=on</code>. I don't have an opinion on the outcome but I've looked at a couple of articles from my list linked above and the space looks odd to me. Perhaps I'm just used to the extreme abbreviated version? At any rate, it would be good to get opinions from editors currently interested in affected articles rather than rely on a guideline that may or may not throw light on what should happen in these cases. An article which uses a lot of these is [[Uncrewed spaceflights to the International Space Station]] which currently has a mixture of fixed-text durations such as "13 days, 12 h, 35 min" contrasted with "84 d 7 h 52 m" from the template. Using "84 d 7 h 52 min" looks weird to me although even a tiny discussion somewhere showing support would help. Following is an example from that article showing durations without and with the space.
*84d 7h 52m
*84 d 7 h 52 m
If the mixture of days/h/min were wanted, something could be arranged. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 07:11, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
| |||