Talk:Acronym/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Specific explanations of why the changes edit-warred by 75.162.179.246 are not acceptable

Time to serve a complete explication of why the edits by 75.162.179.246 are a degradation, not an improvement, and will not be accepted no matter how many times reinserted with nasty edit summaries.

Regarding the operational definition of acronym, and specifically, whether or not one makes the distinction that divides acronyms from other initialisms: This article already concisely explains that "the distinction, when made, hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word or as a string of letters." The article already clearly states, "In the rest of this article, this distinction is not made." In other words, this Wikipedia article, by consensus worked out long ago, is not asserting that part of the definition as "the only correct definition", and there is a solid epistemology-of-language reason for why—indeed, it's why a nomenclature section exists and why it explains the nomenclatural topic the way it does. There is a long history behind this article and its talk discussions that developed the article to its stable and circumspect state of balance on the description–prescription spectrum. Editor 75.162.179.246 is trying to topple that balance in the lede, apparently without bothering to read or comprehend the rest of the article nor to change it to avoid having the rest of the article's content contradict the flawed change to the lede. That's the minimum level of systemic changes that would be required for logical consistency throughout the article if 75.162.179.246's lede change were to be accepted by consensus (although that is not going to happen, because its language epistemology is several levels below that which Wikipedia has already developed as its standard).

Regarding styling laser in all caps: the reason this article does not use that long-outdated styling is that well-known anacronyms including laser, radar, sonar, and scuba are now styled by major dictionaries the same as any other common nouns. This topic (anacronyms) is already covered in this article (and has been for a long, stable time).

Regarding styling Benelux in mixed case (intercaps): the reason why this article, and Wikipedia's article on Benelux, and current editions of major dictionaries (including Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 11th and American Heritage 5th) do not style it in intercaps is the same principle why they also don't style laser, radar, sonar, and scuba in all caps: it's not present-day-consensus editorial style.

— ¾-10 22:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


I DID actually read the rest of the article, but I rewrote the lede in an attempt to motivate better writers than myself to try to conform the rest of the body to my modifications. As I can see now that the louder-spoken folks here would rather follow the lame lay-crowd who insist that two different things are "the same thing" (so that we now pointlessly have two terms for "the same thing," rendering one or the other of them vestigial), and then even though I appreciate what the 2 people (NOT sock-puppets of me, I swear!), I actually have given up. Thanks for your efforts in constructing a thorough explanation, but do not gloat in some kind of supposed "victory" now!

75.162.179.246 (talk)

I actually do understand your position on this and can reassure that I am not looking to gloat. To prefer that Wikipedia maintain the usage distinction—that's not a bad thing to want, and in fact there are other instances of usage distinctions that Wikipedia does maintain. I'm posting the info below (long, yes—optional reading) just to share with everyone (who may care) why this was even "a thing" (a thing that provoked so much discussion).
<more info>
The only reason I defended the current stable article version so strongly is that this instance isn't one where Wikipedia can choose sides on usage prescription without deviating from NPOV. To give an example of usage distinctions that Wikipedia does maintain, off the top of my head (trying to limit time spent on this right now), a goofy example (but relevant, as far as I can think in a hurry) would be calling a whale a fish, which people used to do in centuries past (for example, "the great fish" in Moby-Dick), especially before the science of biology taught everyone (everyone who would listen) that whales are mammals (with dog-like ancestors, interestingly). Of course Wikipedia sets the reader right by pointing out that whales are not fish—they just partially converged in morphology toward fish over millions of years. But the problem with this particular instance of a usage distinction (acronym contradistinguished from initialism, with that stated as if absolute truth like whales aren't fish) is that if Wikipedia maintains it, Wikipedia is asserting a POV in a particular instance where the two word senses are both prevalent in the respectable speech of educated people. What I mean by that, specifically, is that an educated person can call USDA and FBI acronyms in respectable, even edited and published speech—even when that person is aware of the usage prescription that reserves acronym to those pronounced as words—because the sense of acronym that is a hypernym of both the narrower sense of acronym and of initialism is a widely used, understood, and accepted sense even among educated people—which is why when you look up acronym in, for example, Merriam-Webster Collegiate, it covers both senses (see the "also:" part of the definition there). The strength of the duality of senses is probably driven by the fact that people naturally want to be able to talk about the whole class and label it with one hypernym, and the way natural language often accomplishes that, somewhat unfortunately for artificial natural language processing and for usage clarification lovers, is to reuse the same word in multiple senses (which makes word-sense disambiguation a sometimes thorny problem for AI development). However, humans and their machines are stuck with dealing with it, because it's idiomatic. Escaping idiomaticness, such as by forcing a constructed language as a new standard language and then policing its usage as a living language under natural pressure, is another topic for another day (called controlled natural language). The upshot is that it's easier said than done and involves a lot of problems (some of which were explored by Orwell). Anyway, that's a digression—returning to this article, this article actually used to be titled acronym and initialism (reflecting the usage preference), but the community of editors working on it eventually settled on the decision that Wikipedia is allowed to title it just acronym and to then explain, neutrally, in the nomenclature and orthographic styling sections, how different people prefer to prescribe the definitions and styling. Thanks to everyone who was willing to hear out this explanation. Sorry I did not write it sooner—it was only time pressure that made me skip doing so at the beginning. I will try to improve on that in future.
</more info> — ¾-10 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this explanation. I've been trying to get people to understand this for literally a decade. My name may be familiar from some of the angry arguments from long ago. I think that people don't really realize that the important distinction is that acronyms are both a written and spoken abbreviation, whereas other abbreviations are only written. That is, NASA is written differently from National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and it is pronounced differently. Other abbreviations, like "Mr." for "mister", are only written differently. Whether the spoken form of the abbreviation is derived from pronouncing the names of letters or by combining sounds is a red herring. Nohat (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Amen, ¾-10. Now, wouldn't it be a corollary of your explanation that Wikipedia editors stop smugly scattering "initialism" all over the articles, when this term is barely ever used outside WP? (And yes, portfreakingmanteau is next.) 87.113.162.150 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Acronym. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Backronym or contrived acronym?

Is AMBER Alert a backronym or a contrived acronym? The article says backronym, but contrived acronym fits the fact that the acronym was coined to match the name of the girl whose case inspired the alert.

For more humorous instances, while WIMP does not seem to have been contrived originally, it spurred MACHOs and RAMBOs. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that some people include the notion of contrived acronyms in their definition of backronyms. So whether it's either one or both depends on whose definition is operative. — ¾-10 22:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
I've just noticed that Backronym gives AMBER Alert as one of its examples; that must be where I learned about it originally, although I later forgot it. (Duh!) Since it was originally "Amber alert" and was only turned into an acronym afterwards, it is a true, unambiguous backronym. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. It was named after an abducted girl named Amber.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

All-caps versus sentence-case styles

Despite claims that sentence case for word-pronounced acronyms (as in "Unesco", "Nato", etc.) "is British", I find no evidence that supports such a nationalistic distinction, and it absolutely is not British academic style, just common in newspapers. The evidence demonstrates that it is, rather, virtually unknown outside of journalism, and is more common in British/Commonwealth journalism, but that neither more typical "UNESCO" style (which is virtually universal in academic writing) nor the confusing "Unesco" style are universal in British or American usage.

The sourcing I've done for this is note quite complete (I'll add missing page numbers later, and there are a couple of sources I would add, like some major dictionaries), but there's more than enough provided below to write a very solidly sourced section on this question. Given the nature of this and much other material in this article, a lot of it needs to be moved into an Acronyms and initialisms in English article (like Quotation marks in English, or at very least be consolidated into a "Use in English" section at this article, with cross-language generalities being above this fold (the same approach we're talking at Comma, Full stop, etc.

I recall reading (but didn't make a note about it) that the "Unesco" style evolved from the house style of radio/TV news broadcasting organizations, as a way to indicate to the presenter to pronounce the word as as word instead of spelling it out on the air, but a RS will need to be found for that.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive sourcing run

Except where specifically noted, all the below sources are the most recent editions (I don't want to pay the outrageous price for the new FranklinCovey and Gregg right now, especially since little in them changes from edition to edition; the new .au gov. manual isn't out yet; and I'm not sure about the 3rd ed. of the Canadian manual (it's been announced, but I've not seen if it can be ordered yet, and it's low on my priority, since not much in it will have changed, either). I do have a few more on order (Penguin Handbook, etc.), but they won't affect this analysis.

More information British style guides that use the all-caps style: ...
Close
More information British neutral/indeterminate sources: ...
Close
More information British sources for "Unesco" (sentence case): ...
Close
More information American major sources: ...
Close
More information International, and other national, sources: ...
Close
More information Notes: ...
Close

Between this material and everything in the article already, we have more than enough material to WP:SPINOFF an English-specific article, per WP:SUMMARY since the present article is overly long, and mostly dominated by English-specific material, which is a WP:BIAS problem. See the split-off of Quotation marks in English from Quotation marks as a model (a structural one, anyone; there are serious WP:CCPOL problems with the content at the English-specific one, which I'll be addressing soon).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Updated.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase statistical acronyms

Many style guides have several statistical acronyms in lowercase (e.g. Notation in probability and statistics#Abbreviations). This should probably be mentioned at Acronym#Case. --Bequw (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition

(Moved from Myrvin's Talk page)

Myrvin, please consult dictionary definitions of "acronym": http://www.onelook.com/?w=acronym&ls=a Note that the first, main definition in the most authoritative dictionaries define an acronym to be a word -- an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word. I am well aware that many speakers are unaware of this distinction, and use/misuse the word to refer to any initialism, regardles of whether it is pronounced as a word. If such misusage continues, the dictionaries will eventually change to reflect that new meaning. When that happens, it would be reasonable to change the encyclopedia in accordance. In the meantime, it is misleading to readers to use the word "acronym" in a sense that is not widely accepted as proper usage and does not agree with the main definition of the most authoritative English dictionaries.

Unfortunately, someone seems to have a mission to dilute the meaning of the word. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please help it be accurate by aligning the use of this term with the prevailing dictionary definition, which is an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word. -- DBooth (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You might find these interesting. Myrvin (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I see that your position has changed somewhat from your initial(!) idea that NATO wasn't a word. Also, you have ameliorated your rather strong position that an acronym MUST be spoken as a word. But now the first sentence is confused. Myrvin (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. Abrupt, Composite, Readily, Odd, Name, You, Make — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.52.127 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acronym. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of these are not acronyms.

The overwhelming majority of examples in this article are not acronyms.

An acronym is a kind of a word. If a set of initials is pronounced as a word, such as NATO or FIFA, it is then an acronym.

But if an abbreviation is meant to be read as a string of letters, such as IBM or HTTP, then it is just an initialism, not an acronym.

The failure to account for this fact makes this article one of the most fundamentally erroneous ever seen on Wikipedia. It should be edited to contain only actual acronyms; and most of the article's current content should be moved to an article called "Initialisms". Ferdinand Cesarano (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ferdinand is correct, and the latter part of the article is very misleading, particularly after the move. The article was earlier called 'Acronyms and initialisms'. The confusion may have been aggravated by varying understandings of 'initialism'. From Chamber's:

initialism noun 1 Brit a set of initial, usually capital, letters used as an abbreviation, especially of an organization, where each letter is given its own separate pronunciation, eg 'BBC' for British Broadcasting Corporation or 'FBI' for Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2 US an acronym.
acronym noun a word made from the first letters or syllables of other words, and usually pronounced as a word in its own right, eg NATO. Compare abbreviation, contraction, initialism

--Cedderstk 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The reality is, of course, that no one actually uses the term "initialism", as the distinction is unclear and not useful. Is CD-ROM an acronym? What about IUPAC?

I think the Chambers definition for acronym is telling: "usually pronounced as a word in its own right". The Chambers editors are weaseling a bit using using the adverb usually, but the implication is clear: sometimes a lexical item called an acronym might not be "pronounced as a word in its own right". The Merriam-Webster editors are less obtuse about the usage facts.

Some people feel strongly that acronym should only be used for terms like NATO, which is pronounced as a single word, and that initialism should be used if the individual letters are all pronounced distinctly, as with FBI. Our research shows that acronym is commonly used to refer to both types of abbreviations.

Nohat (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acronym. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Error in "Extreme Acronyms"?

The acronym COMNAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA apparently stands for "Commander, Naval Sea Systems Combat Engineering Station" but if you look, the words don't line up:

COMNAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA
CommanderNavalSeaSystemsCombatEngineeringStation

Shouldn't it be either COMNAVSEASYSCOMBATENGSTA or "Commander, Naval Sea Combat Systems Engineering Station"; or does correct acronym have an inherent error? Human-potato hybrid (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed SAT as an example of an acronym

As was noted in the text of the article, the College Board no longer considers SAT to be an acronym. It hasn't for a long time actually (see this source). Because I could see this leading to some confusion, I decided to remove SAT as an example of an acronym. The article still has three other examples of acronyms that can be pronounced either as a word or as a string of letters, so this revision shoudn't detract from the clarity of the section. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

OR

There also seem to be a lot of uncited assertions. The first part of the Historical and current use section seems to be OR, with no citations. All of Aids to learning the expansion without leaving a document is uncited. As is As mnemonics, Other conventions, Small-caps variant, Numerals and constituent words, and lots more. Myrvin (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough—more citations are needed—but all of the information is of good quality,[according to whom?] so the end of that sentence is not "... and we should delete everything that lacks a citation." I just wanted to head that off in case anyone might conclude that that was the upshot. There's nothing original here[according to whom?] and there's no research,[according to whom?] so it's not a matter of original research per se.[according to whom?] We just need to have the hunting down of supporting citations catch up with the content development. The biggest problem that gets in the way of that is that it can be a time-suck. It's a goal to work toward. — ¾-10 02:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Yah, that's me who added the tags to the foregoing. My intent is to point up how OR is so often used to defend OR.
The simple fact is that the "Comparing a few examples" section is entirely OR, even if individual entries are sourced — either the list was created by one or more citable sources, or it was created by one or more editors & therefore OR, Q.E.D. It is typical of the trivia piles infesting WP. Either give it its own List page, or chop it down to one example of each AND THEN rewrite it all in prose rather than tabular form.
It appears that nobody has seen fixing these faults as "a goal to work toward" in the past THREE years. To my mind, that speaks for wholesale deletion. In fact, more than half the article deserves to be pruned. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Questioning MEC (Mountain Equipment Co-op) an example of "pronounced only as a string of letters

Shop there regularly, and I hear lots of people, including staff, call it "mec" (one syllable, rhymes with check). Can't remember the last time I heard someone say it as a string of letters.DavidHeap (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I removed it. There are three other examples of that kind of acronym, which is plenty. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Did KFC really change its name from Kentucky Fried Chicken because of 'Fried'

I have heard many times that it was actually because of the state of Kentucky which started charging businesses licensing fees to use 'Kentucky' in their names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.108.104 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Tidying up (minor)

The following tagged statement is clearly unsourced opinion. Absent evidence (other than anecdotal) that Bahasa Indonesia is an outstandingly acronym-heavy language, I've deleted it, but saved it here in case anyone feels strongly about it Chrismorey (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Heavy acronym use by Indonesians, makes it difficult for foreigners and learners of Bahasa Indonesia to seek information and news in Indonesian media.[citation needed]

Examples given under "Historical and current use" not acronyms?

In this section, the examples given under Roman and Greek biblical usage (SPQR, etc.) in the first two dot points do not appear to be acronyms, but initialisms.

I'm not too sure that the fish symbol for Jesus actually fits the definition of an acronym - more like a secret code, perhaps?

Further down, ANV for "Army of Northern Virginia" - does anyone actually pronounce ANV as a word?

The last paragraph in the section says In English, acronyms pronounced as words may be a 20th-century phenomenon. But the definition of an acronym means that it can be and is pronounced as a word in common usage, and several sources suggest that this is mainly or wholly a 20th century phenomenon.

I think that some re-writing of this section is necessary. Any thoughts? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Agree. An acronym is, by definition, initials that are PRONOUNCED AS A WORD. This article doesn't seem to understand that, calling "BC" "AD" "FDR" etc "acronyms" when they are not. This article needs extensive changes to reflect the true definition of "acronym." Barubiito (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Barubiito. I did a bit of tidying of the leads of both articles since seeing your comment yesterday, but am too busy with other things to focus on this an do a thorough revamp at the moment. I'll put it on my ever-growing list! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
ThanksBarubiito (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
I think anyone planning to embark on an editing campaign to redefine "acronym" on this page will need to read and research the citations in the "Nomenclature" section beforehand because it appears that the discussion above about the "true definition" of acronym is a little bit ignorant of the facts at hand, so any changes will have to ensure the page is not self-contradictory. Nohat (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

DVD

DVD is supposed to have both "no official meaning" and DVD to stand for "Digital Versatile Disc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.38.232 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to have a description of every acronym in Wikipedia? That could be a separate Wiki all to itself, and a slippery slope if we begin listing them on this or any other page: it will balloon out of control. I used to know 18 different things that ABS stood for, for example (it was for work, don't ask). The writer above is correct, however, in that "DVD" is commonly misused but actually means, "digital versatile disk" (with a "k"; only laser discs (LDs) use the "c"). I've never heard of the first statement, however, that it's supposed to have "no official meaning". Dorthea Glenn 18:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorthea Glenn (talk • contribs)

No, Dorthea. DVDs are a -c-disc just like compact disCs are. Where did you get the "k" stuff? For some reason that doesn't really make that much sense to me, disks are just magnetic, while discs are every other type of round, flat or nearly flat object that could reasonably be termed as such because of meeting certain criteria. Why we have two words that mean basically the same kind of thing but one is spelled differently from the other, while at the same time we have other sets of words that are spelled exactly the same but mean entirely different things, I'll never understand. But still, -k-disks have come to be known as only magnetic media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.179.246 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I always thought DVD was Digital Video Disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.52.127 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

IMO, the evolution is obvious (which may be why you haven't be accorded the courtesy of a reply until now; actually this is only incidentally a courtesy to you, as my real intent is to document for future generations that in spite of evidence of this mad, mad, mad, mad world, we aren't completely dumb. I'm confident that close attention to sources would confirm that the DVD format was defined by engineers who were smart enuf to see that the usefulness of new video product was far from limited to video applications, and that their employers would benefit (and thus reward them by not reassigning the engineers to design more reliable float valves for flush toilets) for thinking ahead and realizing that they could exploit "DVD" first with the rationale "video" and (before long, and with negligible fanfare) that of "versatile". Engineering arose as the profession of building siege machines, but such engines demand ingenuity, and ... well, let whosoever hath wisdom interpret.
--JerzyA (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup of "nomenclature" section

I committed a major edit to the "Nomenclature" section. I separated it into three separate sections: etymology, nomenclature, and lexicography and style guides.

Etymology is just for origin information. The nomenclature section just describes the different terminology associated with acronyms without getting into disputed/overlapping meanings.

The new "Lexicography and style guides" section is meant to be a more rational exploration of contemporary writing on usage and meaning of the word "acronym", incorporating how dictionaries define the term, as well as how usage and style guides recommend the term be used. Whereas the previous version of the section cited many dictionaries and other various (random) web pages, it now limits its citations to significant general English dictionaries and style guides, the majority of which already have their own Wikipedia pages—and are thus bluelinked. It also names them explicitly in the text and includes some relevant quotations directly in the text. I believe the new version is much clearer about what different language authorities say about "acronym" and, especially, is much clearer about who holds which position.

There was, at some point, a "citation battle" on this page of the pro-initialisms-are-acronyms vs the anti-initialisms-are-acronyms camps that resulted in a surfeit of citations. I may have been a participant in that battle but with hindsight (which this year has the special status of being not just 20/20 but also 2020) I don't believe restoring them would add anything not already covered by the remaining citations. But in the interest of transparency I wanted to call them out:

  • http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/abbreviations-initials-and-acronyms
  • http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=acronym
  • http://www.netlingo.com/word/acronym.php
  • Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing (2012). Stedman.
  • http://www.aes.org/par/a/#acronym
  • http://www.scribendi.com/advice/the_correct_use_of_acronyms.en.html
  • http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/the-difference-between-an-acronym-and-an-initialism/
  • Crystal, David (1995). "Abbreviation". The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55985-5. p. 120: Under the heading "Types of Abbreviation", this article separately lists initialisms and acronyms, describing the latter as "Initialisms pronounced as single words", but adds, "However, some linguists do not recognize a sharp distinction between acronyms and initialisms, but use the former term for both."
  • http://whatis.techtarget.com/reference/The-10-Most-Misunderstood-Terms-in-IT
  • http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=initialism&allowed_in_frame=0
  • http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/guide-to-the-third-edition-of-the-oed/
  • 'Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2003), Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-4975-2: "1. a word created from the first letter or letters of each word in a series of words or a phrase. 2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation

I also put a lot less emphasis on the MWDEU citation, which, from a contemporary standpoint doesn't appear to make much sense. It claims that "Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction" which doesn't appear to actually be true. Maybe they meant that the typical dictionary definitions of the time were written vaguely enough for an expansive definition to be a reasonable interpretation. In any case, I don't think it's a very strong argument based on the facts presented now in the article (many dictionaries which do make a distinction) so I have relegated it to a much less prominent position in the article.

Nohat (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

contradiction, citation needed

This section says,

The New York Times ... uses lower case in "UNICEF" ...

Shouldn't it be

The New York Times ... uses lower case in "unicef" ...

or

The New York Times ... uses lower case in "Unicef" ...

?

Not having a copy of The New York Times, i don't know if the U should be capitalized, or if the statement is even true. (i guess the source to cite would have to be The New York Times itself.)

96.244.220.178 (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Have changed to version 3. - Snori (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Euouae

Certainly not an initialism, but what exactly is this form of Abbreviation, using only vowels? Sparafucil (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Although this comment was posted in 2013, I felt compelled to answer it, any way. Maybe another user will come along and have the same question. The term "euouae" is a syllabic mnemonic——a technique used to memorize and recall a specific pattern or order. AbeautyfulMess06 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think someone check my android I'd also they maybe hack I think

So I need save im all of I'd in phone 95.84.83.210 (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is abjad an acronym?

In the section on the earliest used in English, abjad (meaning the Arabic alphabet) is cited as the earliest in the OED. But is it really an acronym? It seems to me that it falls into the same category of words (whatever category that is) as alphabet and futhark. The first of those has already been removed as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtilque (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What it called

if the acronym refer to the opposite word like stop stand for start testing our people? or if the acronym refer to itself in another language like thres stand for Three Rivers Elementary School? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:4201:D70:AC17:B48A:76A2:A071 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Neither term in the first part is an acronym, and the acronym in the second part doesn't have anything to do with the described quality.
If you somehow created an acronym spelled STOP that meant "go", it would be called "ironic", "clever", "too cute by half", or "actively unhelpful" depending on the context.
If you somehow created an acronym spelled ECOLE that meant high school, it would be called "multicultural", "clever", "francophile", "obnoxious", or—among some of the Canadian electorate—"pro-Separatist". — LlywelynII 00:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

T L E

What does the acronym TLE mean? 2001:4455:6CC:2000:D8BB:1495:BEFD:638F (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

You're probably looking for the Wikipedia:Community portal where you can ask for help with direct questions. This question doesn't have anything to do with this article's content, though. — LlywelynII 00:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

New section

I replaced the previous misinformation for "Showing the ellipsis of letters" with

In English, abbreviations have previously been marked by a wide variety of [[English punctuation|punctuation]]. Obsolete forms include using an [[overbar]] or [[colon (punctuation)|colon]] to show the [[ellipsis]] of letters following the initial part. The [[forward slash]] is still common in many dialects for some fixed expressions{{mdash}}such as ''w/'' for "with" or ''A/C'' for "[[air conditioning]]"{{mdash}}while only infrequently being used to abbreviate new terms. The [[apostrophe]] is common for [[Contraction_(grammar)#English|grammatical contractions]] (e.g. ''don't'', ''[[y'all]]'', and ''[[ain't]]'') and for contractions marking unusual pronunciations (e.g. ''a'ight'', ''cap'n'', and ''fo'c'sle'' for "alright", "captain", and "forecastle"). By the early 20th century, it was standard to use a [[full stop|full stop/period/point]], especially in the cases of initialisms and acronyms. Previously, especially for [[Latin abbreviations]], this was done with a full space between every full word (e.g. {{lang|la|A. D.}}, {{lang|la|i. e.}}, and {{lang|la|e. g.}} for "[[Anno Domini]]", "[[id est]]", and "[[exempli gratia]]"). This even included punctuation after both [[Roman numerals|Roman]] and [[Arabic numerals]] to indicate their use in place of the full names of each number (e.g. ''LII.'' or ''52.'' in place of "fifty-two" and "1/4." or "1./4." to indicate "one-fourth"). Both conventions have fallen out of common use in all dialects of English, except in places where an Arabic [[decimal number|decimal]] includes a medial [[decimal point]].
Particularly in [[British English|British]] and [[Commonwealth English]], all such punctuation marking acronyms and other capitalized abbreviations is now uncommon and considered either unnecessary or incorrect. The presence of all-capital letters is now thought sufficient to indicate the nature of the ''[[United Kingdom|UK]]'', the ''[[European Union|EU]]'', and the ''[[United Nations|UN]]''. Forms such as ''the U.S.A.'' for "the [[United States of America]]" are now considered to indicate [[American English|American]] or [[North American English]]. Even within those dialects, such punctuation is becoming increasingly uncommon.<ref>[[Oxford English Dictionary]]: ''initialism''. "Globe & Mail (Toronto) 22 May 10/4 Americanization has also largely done away with periods in acronyms and initialisms."</ref>

If anyone reverts it to the old text, at minimum, kindly restore the UK/Commonwealth versus US/NA distinction; mention the numbers; and remove the phrasing that makes it sound like it's still standard for Americans to use spaces between the letters of an acronym. It hasn't been normal in decades if not centuries at this point. — LlywelynII 00:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

May need better source

We might need a better source for the term "word acronym" (also spelled "word-acronym"). I went with the first free-full-text source in a journal that I ran across, and it triggered an edit-filter that doesn't like this journal. https://ijifactor.com/journals/151/International-Journal-of-English-Linguistics-(IJEL) doesn't seem to show any red-flags; says the journal is double-blind peer-reviewed. But someone on WP must have an issue with it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted all the changes introduced by 70.50.49.6, as they completely change the definition and were implemented without building consensus here on the talk page. Nohat (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
That works, too. However, we do mention "word acronym" later in the material, and it could maybe use better sourcing anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"Contrived acronyms" section

@Six Oh Five: Why does this section have this cleanup tag? Jarble (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jarble not sure what tag that is as I'm on the mobile app. If you're asking about the tone tag, the paragraph beginning with "The short-form names of clinical trials..." reads like an informal essay. Six Oh Five (talk) 04:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Confusing use of Gaelic in the last paragraph 81.98.11.143 (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

The last paragraph mentions Gaelic when talking about the abreviation TBh for TV, but the previously talked about Irish and Scots Gaelic. Which is meant by "Gaelic"? (I know that the Irish language is commonly referred to as "Gaelic" in the US, but the English word for the language is "Irish" not "Gaelic") 81.98.11.143 (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI