Talk:accd'g to

RFD discussion: October 2016–January 2017

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

accd'g to

And create an entry at accd'g. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:37, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

My first instinct was to simply move it to accd'g, leaving a redirect, but now I'm not so sure. Is the abbreviation "accd'g" ever used without the "to" after it? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:16, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Irrespective of whether it is used without "to", accd'g is the lexical unit at issue, the "to" being a transparently SOP addition. bd2412 T 12:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If according to is not SOP, then accd'g to isn't either. Likewise, if accd'g to is SOP, then according to is as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

As Angr, create accd'g and leave accd'g to as it is (unless accd'g is unattested outside of accd'g to). Renard Migrant (talk) 15:27, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

At the moment accd'g is a hard redirect to accd'g to, on the assumption that the former appears only as part of the latter. If that turns out not to be the case, then the redirect direction can be changed. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:31, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That’s good. Clearly it is not an abbreviation of just according. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought I found a use of "accd'g" without "to", but it turned out to be an awkward line break in a table. I concede that if such a use exists, I can't find it. bd2412 T 15:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I vote to keep it, since now it is cited (with examples from Usenet). --biblbroks_{дискашн} 17:37, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 18:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)