Talk:Recursive acronym

message: TINT was the first recursive acronym I ever heard of when I invented the name.  But that doesn't mean it is the earliest by any means.  Surely others have thought of the idea before. TedAnderson 02:45 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:Indeed, the ubiquitous VISA (credit card) appears to predate it, standing for VISA International Service Association since 1976. --Delirium 00:14, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC)  Visa was originally named for the thing that a government issues allowing a person to travel internationally.  It became an acronym later.71.109.154.100 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The first similar thing like this I found was a cheap coloring/puzzle book. On one page, there were four pictures, and you were supposed to take the first letter of the name of each animal in the pictures to spell out the answer to "What do you call a baby sheep?" The first picture was, of course, a lamb. 153.42.168.136 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Older discussion

message: *WISC - Wisconsin Integrally Synchronized Computer 1954 https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_onrASurveyomputers1953_8778395 pp 96 
*MAC - Macintosh Apple Computer - MACintosh apple computer
*Should YAML be on this list? Tjdw 02:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nominations for list 

message: Moved this question from the article: question: (is this Cygnus Solutions?) —Frecklefoot 16:19, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Question on Cygnus

message: I'm a bit confused.. Linux is from Linus Torvalds forename, right? Or is Linux an official "more recent effort" as it says in the start of the list? Or is it just a "more recent effort" by a wikipedian who was bored and added it for fun? Same goes for e.g. "Pika", but *not* e.g. GNU. Shouldn't it be more clear what's made up and what's not? It seems bad to just mix them all together. It is indeed mentioned what's unofficial in some cases, but not always. Personally I think we should just get rid of everything unofficial, or I could just as well add a dozen of acronyms I've made up. :-P Jugalator 14:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Removed these two lines from the list, since they aren't recursive acronyms:
* Linux - Linux Is Not UniX
* XML - XML Meta Language (backronym, just made it up)
-- Khym Chanur 02:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Along this train of thought, I also removed:
* PNG (Portable Network Graphics) file format unofficially also stands for "PNG is Not GIF"
--Avochelm 07:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Were all these made to be recursive? 

message: Both this page and the RAS syndrome page mention a Dilbert strip about TTP. Does anybody have a copy/link of that specific strip?
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-05-18/
:)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doronve (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  TTP and Dilbert 

message: BASS — Bass Anglers Sportsman Society? Given that the second Bass dosen't stand for the name rather it stands for the fish? => Not circular. I came accross this beacuse at the RESPECT Page we were discusing whether it is a recurcive acroymn. Some one suggested that it isn't for the same reason I have given for BASS. (i.e. the R stands for the concept of respect rather then refering to the name RESPECT)--JK the unwise 10:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a recursive? 

message: Does anyone else feel that the long list of technical examples would fit better in its own category (to go along with the Non-Technical Examples)? I feel that by doing so it would better the flow of the article and have it conform more to the generaly accepted style/standards. Ravidgemole 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the whole article could do with a big cleanup. So, sure, go ahead and be bold.--Swift 05:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving technical examples 

message: Several entries on the list are not acronyms, but rather abbreviations.  For example, PLD, PNG, RPM, & TRM.  Since acronyms are abbreviations (but not the inverse), the topic could be more appropriately named "Recursive Abbreviations". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.84.67.230 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 February 2006  (UTC)
: I agree that the topic should be named "Recursive abbreviations," but I must raise two small points. First, "PNG" is pronounced "ping," so doesn't that make it an acronym? Second, I think you might have meant to write "several entries on the list are not acronyms, but rather initialisms." To say that "several entries on the list are not acronyms, but rather abbreviations" is like saying that several people in a room are not women, but rather human beings. :-) --69.231.236.73 08:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the word "ping" existed long before the graphics format, so "PNG" is not an acronym but an acrostic. 86.134.126.50 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree that some of the terms listed are, indeed, initialisms, but should we perhaps rather create a new page for initialisms? There is a merger debate going on at Acronym_and_initialism which we might want to wait to end before moving on this. --Swift 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This topic should be renamed to "Recursive Abbreviations"

message: Ok, so LISP is a recursive programming language, what does that have to do with recursive acronyms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.103.142.226 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 June 2006.
:Good point. Does anyone feel it is a valuable contribution to the article? --Swift 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess not. I've removed the section. --Swift 23:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does LISP have to do with anything? 

message: A recent addition by 212.159.203.213 introduced SPARKS as "Smart Programmers Are Required To Know Sparks". Googling it only turned up one result which is in Turkish and seems to list it only as a secondary explanation (the primary being "Structured Programming A Reasonably Komplete Set"). Is this an actual acronym? Does this really warrant an entry? Could we have some references, please? --Swift 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference was removed by User:ViceroyInterus on 22:34, 17 June 2006. Thanks! --Swift 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SPARKS 

message: Eine isn't one in German, ein is. Although eine could be placed for a female, like an in for instance Eine frau aus Die Niederlande which literally means One woman from the Netherlands, the more normal translation would be A woman from the Netherlands so it doesn't refer to the number 1. So I propose, this is taken from the article. --Uhro87 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EINE/ZWEI 

message: NINJA Is Not Just Air (It's dust-slaying Nano-shurikens of doom)
NINJA is an electronics duster sold by ThinkGeek, and it is a great example of a recursive acronym; a rather witty one, in fact.  It was reverted with the comment "can't see this as anything except product placement."  Does the fact that something is a brand name of a product prevent it from being included in this article?  There's a whole section of corporation names.  It seems unlikely (to me at least) that the person who originally added it to the list would be advertising it or affiliated with ThinkGeek.  I was about to add it myself, and I'm certainly not advertising anything.  68.9.90.28 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NINJA 

message: afaik BUMP means 'bring up my post', not 'bump up my post'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.138.219 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gnu. Wikipedia begs to differ. JordanRL (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BUMP 

message: This article mostly just links to lots of other articles that have recursive names. Therefore, I think it should made into a category instead of just being an article. I think this will also make maintaining the article easier and more decoupled. This way when someone makes a new article about something that has a recursive acronym as its name, they do not need to go to this atricle and edit it in, and instead can just add Category:Recursive acronym at the bottom. Also, with this being a category it could be made a subcategory of the existing category: acronyms. If people really want to keep an article about "recursive acronyms" it could be merged into the existing acronym article, since the body of this article that actually explain WHAT a recursive acronym is, is only a couple of lines long. If noone opposes to making this into a category, I will move it over and make it into a category tomorrow or the day after. --DFRussia 07:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This cannot be a move request, because you are advocating deleting the contents of this page. Secondly, I would oppose such a change; the article format enables much more information to be given, including about acronyms that we haven't (yet) got articles about, and giving the expanded form of the acronym, none of which woul dbe possible with a category. There's nothing to stop us having a category as well, but there's no good reason to delete the article. --Stemonitis 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you're saying Stemonitis. Hmm, ok, are you for making just a category for it then and keeping this article as is? Also... umm, about the whole "this page provides the expanded acronym thing", the articles this page links to, also provide the acronym inside... we could just eliminate some of the redundancy and maybe just list some of the most influential or notable recursive acronyms here... Just throwing ideas out there --DFRussia 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change into a category 

message: The statement "The term was first used in print in April 1986" is false.  Douglas Hofstadter used it in GOEDEL, ESCHER, BACH in 1979.  After explaining that GOD stood for "GOD over Djinn" (quoted above), the Genie says "Aren't you acquainted with recursive acronyms?"   If Hofstadter invented the term he should get credit for it; if not, there must be an even earlier use somewhere.  Either way the 1986 date should go out.
CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to date 

message: I came to the article to find out why these kind of recursive names are so popular, but all I got was a long list of examples. Would it be possible to add some discussion of the history, nature or context of these acronyms? 84.249.50.87 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Go find some info on the history and add it to the article. We're not your personal interns... if you see something in Wikipedia that is lacking, the correct procedure is to add it to that article. JordanRL (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than just examples? 

message: Shabbat is not a recursive acronym.  As an acronym, it's not the "sh" sound that sounds for Shabbat.  It's the "b" sound in בשבת.  So you can't recurse the acronym. M Pinck (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Shabbat

message: Should this article discuss acronyms that are often used as part of a phrase that redundantly references part of the acronym, like "LCD display" or "ATM machine"? B7T (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. Those are human failings that aren't recursive- just redundant. tedder (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tautological phrases that include an acronym 

message: It might be a coincidence, but I'm pretty sure someone invented BING as BING Is Not Google. (Bing (search engine) says it's easy to spell and remember, "so that's why".) Joepnl (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The listed page doesn't currently say anything about "not google". There are no reliable sources indicating it was purposefully named that. tedder (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's BING? 

message: The notability of this page might be enhanced beyond its present disputed status if it were better known that its content has been sampled and discussed by one of the world's leading science magazines for the general public - the British weekly New Scientist – and on several occasions, the most recent on 10 July, 2010. 
On that date, the mag's lighthearted weekly feature Feedback noted that Wikipedia's Recursive Acronym page told us that TIARA (Tiara Is A Recursive Acronym) is one of these, and "is so recursive it points to nothing in the world except itself".  It went on to deal with "nested acronyms" and "multiply nested acronyms", a topic frequently broached there, but surprisingly not one of the innumerable acronymic variants domiciled here in WP (unless I've missed it).  If it has not been defined here, it should be as it arguably more interesting and notable than some of the acronym subsets that DO currently reside with us. I am willing to provide a couple of paragraphs describing them if that is the case. I think such material would belong in the main acronym page, and not here because these acronyms are not recursive even though they are nested. 
Briefly, nested acronyms possess some letters which refer to other acronyms.  New Scientist's Feedback page gives the example SECS, which stands for "SEMI equipment communication standard" where SEMI stands for "Semiconductor equipment manufacturing industries".  Feedback's readers had been invited earlier to send in "multiply nested" acronyms, ones in which the second order acronym itself points to another one further down in the hierarchy.  One reader did much better and contributed a (fully documented) specimen which is a "third order, or arguably fourth order, nesting". RARS we learn, is the "Regional ATVOS etransmission Service", ATVOS is "Advanced TOVS", TOVS is "TIROS operational vertical sounder" and TIROS is "Television infrared observational satellite".  Fully  stretched out, this beast is something to really make you hold your breath. Comments are invited. 
You can read the whole Feedback page here
. --Myles325a (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nested & Multiply Nested Acronyms 

message: RAS is not a valid example.  RAS does not stand for RAS Acronym Syndrome.  RAS stands for Redundant Acronym Syndrome and is not recursive.  The redundancy is in the name RAS syndrome, because the S in the acronym and the word after the acronym both mean Syndrome.71.109.154.100 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RAS

message: Someone want to tell me how you pull "Renault" (or RENAULT, Reno, Renau etc) out of "Régie Nationale des Usines Renault"? At least without either having a needless pronunciation-altering R on the end, or giving up on the normal acronym idea and using a non-initial letter from the appended name? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. I'll remove it until someone can explain. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody here though to look up Louis Renault? Number774 (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renault?! 

message: Struck this one. Clearly not a recursive acronym. If GNU expanded as "Gnus never underestimate", it would be a similar case. Recursive means self-referential, not reference to a homonym. 
--Fader (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  JOE: Joe's Own Editor 

message: It's probably worth reviewing what is and isn't a recursive acronym. A recursive acronym is one in which the acronym appears in the acronym, and does not mean anything there except the subject of the acronym itself.  The classic example is "GNU [is] not Unix".  "GNU" in the acronym stands for the GNU operating system, and does not have another meaning.  For an example of an acronym which can be mistaken for being recursive, but is not, take one I just deleted, "OIL" meaning "Oil India Limited".  In this acronym, the word "Oil" has a separate and distinct meaning -- crude oil from which petroleum products are derived -- and does not stand for the acronym.  Thus, the acronym does not include itself, and therefore is not recursive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Review

message: The original ref link for HIME, https://github.com/caleb-/hime/ seems broken. I searched Github and it looks like it has moved to: https://github.com/hime-ime/hime
Sorry, but I'm not sure the rules on how to change links, especially since it has a specific access date? Can I go ahead and change it, and should I update the access date? Thanks~ ZeniffMartineau (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference link URL changed

message: SLAC: SLAC Linear Accelerator Center
RACRECIR(from GEB): Recursive Acronyms-Crablike RACRECIR Especially-Create Infinite Regress
RACRECIR backwards is RICERCAR, another name for a fugue, is also a recursive acronym at the end of GEB:
RICERCAR: Reentering Introduction Creates Endlessly Rising Canon, After RICERCAR  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.51.115 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them. BMK (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: SLAC is not recursive. Currently the full name of the research facility is SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAC_National_Accelerator_Laboratory SLAC used to an acronym for Standford Linear Accelerator Center, but I am not sure if it stands for anything at the moment.202.73.1.98 (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Acronyms 

message: Why are my edits getting deleted? My edits are verifiable as a put links in...
Another resource : NewGRF Acronyms in themselves - Transport Tycoon Forums — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2c54:d2b0:24c6:7bc1:19cc:c137 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2016‎ (UTC)
:# You put them in as external links rather than in the body of the article\
:# Are any of them real?  They all appeared to be made up. BMK (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting my edits? 

message: For example, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), FARM (Farm Animal Rights Movement) and JOE (Joe's Own Editor).
They certainly seem to follow the same form as the others, however, on closer inspection, they simply don't refer to themselves.
For example, with FAIR, the word 'fairness' does not mean 'FAIRness' (where FAIR is the organisation), it clearly means the pre-existing, already defined English word fairness (root word fair, adjective).
Perhaps these pseudo-examples(?) still deserve a place on this page. The defining trait being that the acronym expansion uses a pre-existing word (this could even be another proper noun), and the whole acronym spells out that same word. However, importantly, the acronym is not attempting to define the pre-existing word, but something else.
The point here is that it's important to distinguish between two words made of the same letters: FAIR and fair are two very different things (note that this has nothing to do with the different case: that is only so we can easily tell them apart here). Similarly, JOE (a program) and Joe (a person) are two different things.
Also note there are possibly cases where it is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as both a real example and a pseudo-example (I'm just putting that out there, I don't see any cases of this in the examples).
Edit: I see that someone else made this same point (regarding JOE) 9 years ago!Lukeuser (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some examples aren't quite examples (in a specific way) 

message: This raises several questions. Why DOES it redirect to French Wikipedia? Why French specifically? Why isnt it on English Wikipedia? Aknip (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited the link to en, reverted when I realized there was no English version. Wayback machine shows that there was a page there before. Was it deleted? Ahartry87 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  TiLP redirect to French Wikipedia?