Talk:Backronym

message: Would anyone object to cleaning up the lead along the MOS:ACRO guideline: "Do not apply italics, boldfacing, underlining, or other highlighting to the letters in the expansion of an acronym that correspond to the letters in the acronym." The examples are pretty straightforward. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. :)   - FlightTime (open channel) 19:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

text: No objection here, either - go for it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  MOS cleanup 

message: I've seen a number of invented acronyms which don't strike me as fitting the definition of a backronym. A backronym, as I understand it, means it was invented to spell out a particular word. What I've seen more often, in the context of spacecraft and scientific instruments on them, is a deliberate effort to come up with an acronym which spells out some pronounceable and cool-sounding word. But without any great concern about what that word is. An example would be the JADE (Jovian Auroral Distributions Experiment) or JEDI (Jovian Energetic particle Detector Instrument) instrument on the Juno spacecraft. Those acronyms were invented by taking a long list of potentially relevant words, and then mixing and shuffling them to find something, actually anything, which could be pronounced and sounded good. There was no a priori intention to create one particular word or another. Does that still constitute a backronym?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcrary (talk • contribs) 22:08, May 25, 2020 (UTC)
:According to the cited definition we are using  " either to create a memorable name or as a fanciful explanation of a word's origin" it would appear that this is acceptable. Meters (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is something a backronym if a specific word was not intended? 

message: I've requested clarification of the first sentence of this article. The  tag has been removed twice, but my concerns remain, so I guess I had better spell them out in a bit more detail. Sorry if I've been unclear in my request for clarity!
::A backronym, or bacronym, is an acronym constructed from a phrase that purports to be the source of a word that existed prior to the invention of the backronym.
That explanation/definition seems unhelpful in at least two ways. First, to me "constructed... to be the source of a word" seems to describe the sort of "backronym as false etymology" accounts in the second subsection of this page. That is one type of backronym, but there are others. (Perhaps I misunderstand what the sentence is intended to mean, but if so that itself is a problem.) Second, and I guess related, the sentence gives a description of (one type of) a backronym, but not a definition. It is probably difficult to define the phenomenon in a single sentence, but a few sentences could be used to give a fuller definition before moving to the taxonomy of humorous/serious/false. Cnilep (talk) 06:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just: "an expression that has been formed from the letters of a word or name" ... we used to have something similar to that before we starting tinkering. The examples make it clear, very quickly so I don't think we need to muddy up the first sentence with lots of hair-splitting.  - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

text: The definition for backronym was confusing until I saw this in the 5th paragraph: "... defining it as the "same as an acronym, except that the words were chosen to fit the letters."--- It seems there is an attempt at a definition in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th paragraphs. 2601:280:4900:54F0:5835:6FAB:6688:11DD (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification of the definition 

message: I agree that the definition as it stands seems to pertain only to false etymologies. That is what I changed "purports to be" to "is treated as." Perhaps the definition can be clarified by replacing the second sentence with two, one describing an accepted acronym and a second describing a false etymology. Should I post my proposed change here, or just make the change and let people edit it?
I think the definition needs to include something about the backronym being invented after the words was already in use. That's what differentiates it from an ordinary acronym.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: How about just: "an expression that has been formed from the letters of a word or name" ... we used to have something similar to that before we starting tinkering. I don't think we need to muddy up the very first sentence with lots of hair-splitting; the examples make everything clear, and quickly.   - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, something like that perhaps. Or as Paul C. Anagnostopoulos suggests, maybe "from the letters of an existing word or name"? Cnilep (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's fine although unnecessary (you can't have a backronym of a word if it doesn't exist) but some others seemed to think it limited the type of backronym, as discussed above. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

text: Since discussion has died down, I put that into the article with a more explicit comparison to an acronym. See what people think. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I don't think the backronym is the word - it's the phrase attached to the word. "Amber" isn't a backronym ... "America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response" is a backronym for the word "Amber". - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: A friend of mine, the late Dan Alderson, preferred the word "mynorca," which is simply acronym spelled backward.  His definition is that the acronym is selected first, then a name is selected that fits rather than the other way around.  I don't expect this to replace backronym, but his definition both fits and is simple and easy to understand.  JDZeff (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving definition of backronym 

message: Is this really a backronym?! It seems very unlikely that that acronym would have resulted by chance. ash (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You have the definition backwards. According to the definition we use, a backronym is "deliberately formed from a phrase whose initial letters spell out a particular word or words" [emphasis added] Meters (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: USA PATRIOT Act

message: Someone doesn't say "ok the bill is going to be 'PATRIOT', find an acronym that fits." It's more like "think of a word related to the theme of a bill and simultaneously choose an acronym that works". 71.231.149.58 (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill names aren't backronyms 

message: Visa International Service Association is the "worldwide parent entity" of Visa.  Would this truly be a recursive acronym, if they came up with "Visa International Service Association" only after the name "Visa" was already in use?  ~~ Fabrickator (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visa International Service Association