Talk:Acronym/Archive 5

message: The question of spelling of non-English derived acronyms is raised due to the spelling of Tanakh rather then TaNaKh, where the additive letters -a- and -h are used to provide non-Hebrew speaker with assistance to correct pronunciation of the acronym which in Hebrew is written TNK. If Tanakh is written in the current Wiki usage, it looses not only the form of an acronym, but acquires the form of a proper name such as Bible, which of often used in English to refer to TaNaKh but which is not an acronym. 
I would like to propose that the TaNaKh spelling be adopted throughout Wikipedia as the correct form to reflect both the Hebrew usage from which it is derived, and to differentiation from proper names.--Mrg3105 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of non-English derived acronyms 

message: There is an issue that is not addressed in the pluralization section, namely, what happens in which we are pluralizing an acronym in which the noun is not ordinarily pluralized with an "s." For example -- the plural of tableau is tableaux, so how is one supposed to pluralize the acronym for Standard Young Tableau (SYT)? A related question is what happens if the noun is not at the end of the acronym -- is the plural of CD-ROM supposed to be CD-ROMs or CDs-ROM? It seems to me, adopting a descriptivist point of view, that most people tend to treat the acronym as a whole as one noun (similar to the "lasers" example already mentioned in the article), so I think most people would say SYTs and CD-ROMs. Any thoughts as to what the proper usage is, and whether it's worth including in the article? It may be the case that the rule mentioned for "lasers" applies to more acronyms than just those spelled in lower-case.129.97.192.28 20:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pluralization of Acronymns 

message: An acronym is a pronounceable word formed from the initial letter or letters of the constituent words, such as NATO. An initialism is an abbreviation pronounced as the names of the individual letters, and is formed only from the initial letter of constituent words, such as HTML.
:This is all fine and dandy, except if you read HTML, you will find that the H and T come from the same word, HyperText (also Hypertext).  So how does that meet the requirement of being "formed only from the initial letter of constituent words"? --timc | Talk 15:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also written Hyper Text. No rule can be absolute here though. Anárion 17:57, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was just that HTML is a bad choice of an example since it seemingly violates the very rule that it is exemplifying.  I have replaced it with TLA, which I consider somehow appropriate. :-) --timc | Talk 23:12, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences between acronyms and initialisms 

message: The current entry does not adequately address these cases.  I have seen the lower case simplified initialization more and more frequently.  The argument that "the periods are not needed because each letter is capitalized" clearly does not apply. - BillR
:Interesting. I've never seen these in any carefully written and reviewed work, only in email (attributable to laziness or being hurried). --pjh 22:36, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What about "i.e.", "ie,", "e.g.," and "eg"?

message: I find it amazing all the big abbreviations the Navy, and maybe other services, use for commands, etc., let alone all the smaller ones they might use for other things.  COMNAVAIRLANT, COMFITAEWWINGPAC, NAVAIRSYSCOM, and tons more.  I dunno, that just always amused me.
: these were always called acronyms, and the article would be improved if this type were added in. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.115.98 (talk) 19:34, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USN abbreviations 

message: I am requesting for a word or phraze that describes an acronym that everyone seems to repeat the last word of. e.g:
PIN number,
ATM machine,
LCD Display,
DNS Server,
NT Technology,
To name a few.
:RAS syndrome Joestynes 10:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When I complained about DNS Server a while back, it was pointed out that DNS server is Domain Name System server. --pjh 22:40, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When people say PIN Number I cringe :-) --Doc0tis 17:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Please, sign your post. I don't know of a word for abbreviations that stay the same while their component words change. — President Lethe 01:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A meaning with no word 

message: so it is "a FAQ" or "an FAQ"? - Omegatron 21:43, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
:Depends on how you say FAQ. If you say "ef-ay-cue", then it's "an FAQ". If you say "fack" then it's "a FAQ". Nohat 03:31, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  articles 

message: Sometimes, words in acronyms that start with ex can be used as an X in the acronym; and also, crossing is used as an X as well.  They could also use numbers for words that sould like numbers (e.g. 2,4).  Should we give this a mention in the article? --SuperDude 04:57, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate initials for words in acronyms 

message: rms, mph, emf
Why??
I got this reply once when I asked someone:
:"rms" is written in lower-case because that follows the general accepted practice as outlined in the Abbreviations Dictionary, 9th ed. (Ralph De Sola, Dean Stahl and Karen Kerchelich; CRC Press ISBN0-8493-8944-5, 1995) and other sources. Quoting the CRC book: "American as well as British and Canadian publishers appear to be following the trend to capitalize only those letters normally capitalized: proper nouns and important words in titles. They reserve lowercase letters for abbreviations consisting of adjectives and common nouns." This is the way it appears in the IEEE reference above. Other popular examples are "rpm," and "mph."
How did this start?  In which situations is it used?  (How can we stop it?)  :-) - Omegatron 15:42, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
Why-oh-why has the BBC started using initial capitals only for abbreviations. It may be fine for things like 'Nato' but when they started to apply it to 'Pc' for 'Police Constable' (as in 'Pc [name]) it just started to look silly...
:It's not just the BBC. References to persons of the U.S. Army rank "Private First Class" are often printed "Pfc. So-and-So". The "Plc" (Private Limited Company) that's been in use in Britain for years is another non-BBC example. I share your distate, though—at least in some cases. — President Lethe 22:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  lowercase abbreviations 

message: This has become one of the most commonly parodied clichés of the spy thriller genre. Some of the most popular were:
* C.O.N.T.R.O.L. and K.A.O.S. from the Get Smart series.
According to  
:The letters in CONTROL and KAOS do not stand for anything. The names were picked because evil represents chaos and the opposite of chaos is control. Also, KAOS and CONTROL were never written as acronyms (K.A.O.S.), as U.N.C.L.E. and S.P.E.C.T.R.E. were. There was never an episode where any member of KAOS or CONTROL said that the names stood for something.
If true, I think the information should be clarified (one could argue that CONTROL and KAOS are parodies of the acronym cliché) or removed. --66.216.68.28 21:12, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Smart 

message: I have heard it said (by speakers new to English) that English has far more acronyms than any other language.  They are understandably confusing to new speakers.  I would love it if someone could speak to that on this page.  I did some WWW searching and could not find direct statistical evidence for this, even though I am quite sure it is true, or close to true. David W. Hogg 14:20, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequency as a function of language

message: I think there should be a separate article "Acronyms", incorporating most all of this article. Why? First, because it is SO MUCH more familiar a term than "initialism." This current article title is like having one titled "Automobiles and SUV's". Second, because most people who have even heard of the term "initialism" take it to be a specialized form of acronym, like "NATO," formed solely from the initial letters of each word. Most of the alleged "initialisms" cited in this article are simply "initials" or abbreviations.Sfahey 00:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed title change

message: The Nazi regime certainly rivaled the US govt and the New Deal for use of acronyms. Perhaps the 1930s was a time when the use of acronyms became a global trend. BDM (Bund Deutscher Maedels -- League of German Girls), DAF (Deutscher Abeit Front -- German Labor Front), are two of many, many examples. Gestapo is an acronym (GEheime STAats POlizei -- Secret state police) as is FLAK. Today, in English, we use flak (or the anglicized spelling variation flack) as a synonym for opposition, criticism or verbal abuse. But FLAK is really an acronym for anti-aircraft guns (or fire). FLAK expands to FLieger/FLugzeug Abwehr Kanone (literally: aircraft defense cannon).--Trweiss 20:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps most famously the US Government

message: I am going to remove the sentence about palindromes at the end of the intro.  It seems irrelavent.  Ozone 01:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  palindrome 

message: Should definite articles be used before an acronym or initialism that stands for a proper noun?  For example, is "He traveled to USA." correct or only "He traveled to the USA."? Presumably, style guides differ about this, but this should be addressed in the article.  Pgan002 05:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not an english guru and don't know alot about acronyms or initialism's but I would say you would include the word "the" in the sentence. It doesn't make sense otherwise--Doc0tis 19:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded.  If the full phrase requires an article, the acronym would too.  And I can't imagine that much difference in the style guides, just that acronyms would have different situations.  JFK wouldn't have one, but DVD will (unless you're using it as a name for the format...) USA is fine stand-alone, but I'm pretty sure it's always "the USA" in a phrase.  - BalthCat, 2006.01.27
It depends on the word and the user. For example, in the U.S., a certain television and radio network used to identify itself on the air by having an announcer say "This is NBC, the National Broadcasting Company"—no article for the abbreviation, but an article for its full form. But, yes, usually, whether to use an article for the abbreviation is decided by whether one is used for the full form: for example, "We watch the BBC [(the British Broadcasting Corporation)] and ITV [(Independent Television)]]." — President Lethe 22:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definite articles 

message: This isn't right. There is no article for Initialisation (BrE variation) and Initialization redirects to Booting. I had to find information on initialisations by searching for acronyms.
I suggest adding a redirect at Initialisation to Initialization and creating a disambiguation page at Initialization. Comments? BigNate37 01:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are confusing "initialisations" with "initialisms". Nohat 01:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, you appear to be right. Whoops! BigNate37 01:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initialization redirects to [[Booting]] 

message: initialism?  - this is a word?
OAD claims it is.  I have not researched the origins or age of this word yet, but will.  I believe the full definition of acronym or acrostic would cover this.  Using this word does not see precise to me, but terse and pedantic.  
However, I suppose this word could have crept up into standard usage without me noticing.  
Latr Dayz —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.32.102.49 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 21 August 2006.
:Hi, 71.32.102.49. Please, sign your posts on Talk pages. Yes, initialism is a word. Yes, it's a word in standard English. Yes, it's a standard word among some users of English. Yes, among some of those users, it has a precise meaning. See, for example, the footnotes associated with the first paragraph of this article. — President Lethe 22:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  initialism? 

message: I would query the following statement from the article:
:"Because acronyms so closely relate to the common vernacular, they facilitate widespread usage, which makes it possible for them to enter the lexicon without people knowing their etymology. An example of this is the use of B.C. and A.D. in dating events."
I suggest that almost all words enters the lexicon without "people" (i.e. non-specialists) knowing their etymology, and that, in fact, more people know the origin of initialisms and acronyms such "B.C." and "A.D.", compared to the "average" word in common use. If true then this kind of invalidates the statement. Maybe someone knowledgeable about this has a view? Matt 10:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of those times where policy can make things easier for us.  In this case, any statements like this need to be verifiable, and preferrably cite a source.  If one can't find anything to back up that statement, the right thing to do (IMO) is remove it.  --DragonHawk 14:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this right? 

message: Can we remove the fictional section or at least give it its own page.It just encorages people to add their own favourites.  Eventually the page will get out of hand
Graemec2 14:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Fictional Section 

message: An anon user (IP: 70.112.130.50) added this to the introduction of the article:
VMX ia also a graffiti writer in Austin, Texas. It stands for Visible Man X. Boyee.
It seems VMX now wants to tag in cyberspace. I have removed it.Eco84 | Talk 00:24, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging on Wikipedia 

message: An anonymous user who keeps changing IP address in in the range 208.127.10.X keeps reverting to an older version of this page, complete with typos and a nonneutral intro, without discussing here on the talk page. Because the user keeps changing IP address, it is difficult to leave any messages or block the user. So instead I am going to semi-protect the page for a couple days. Hopefully this will encourage them to discuss changes on the talk page or register an account (which can be blocked if it violates the rules flagrantly). If anyone would prefer I unprotect the page, just say so here or on my talk page, and I'll be glad to do it, or you can point any other administrator at this comment, and I'm sure they will unprotect the page if I am not immediately available. Nohat 07:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unprotected the article. Nohat 17:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anonymous user vandalism

message: In the section on fictious espionage orgs I was going to add a refernce to Pynchon's "Crying of Lot 49" and the organization W.A.S.T.E. ("We Await Silent Tristero's Empire")  Which is an underground postal system.  Please post objections if I shouldn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.206.149.1 (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  W.A.S.T.E. 

message: Please help us understand whether the text displayed 
in the first item in the References section of this article 
violates the Wikipedia admonition against Information Suppression.
:Although the source material cited reads
::Strictly, an acronym is a string of initial letters pronounceable as a word, such as "NATO".  Abbreviations like "NBC" have been variously designated "alphabetisms" and "initialisms", although some people do call them acronyms.  WDEU says, "Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction [between acronyms and initialisms] because writers in general do not"; but two of the best known books on acronyms are titled Acronyms, Initialisms and Abbreviations Dictionary (19th ed., Gale, 1993) and Concise Dictionary of Acronyms and Initialisms (Facts on File, 1988),
:the Administrative Reversion of 11 Feb to the footnote detail removed everything from the referenced material except for that line 
:: "'Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction [between acronyms and initialisms] because writers in general do not'"
to which the source itself would seem to have offered a gentle refutation 
immediately afterward by citing "two of the best known books."
While even "the best known books," and perhaps the reference itself, may not necessarily qualify as reputable sources, 
does it not seem that citing such a source and then quoting only that portion containing an internal exception represents a possibly inadvertent violation of Wikipedia policies against Information Suppression?
 
Wortschätzer 21:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced the quotation with the complete original quotation from WDEU which quite clearly makes the claim that the distinction is not appropriate for general use. If you believe that the Mark Israel quotation is still relevant, you can add it back, in full or in part, wherever you think it is most relevant in the article. Nohat 22:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored Nohat's citation of Alt.Usage.English (Usage Disputes : Acronym). Wortschätzer 01:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV Policy against Information Suppression