Talk:Acronym
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Acronym article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 365 days  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | Pseudo-acronym was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 25 May 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Acronym. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.
Discussions:
|
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Orphan initialism was copied or moved into Acronym with this edit on 2013-1-28. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
|
|||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
May need better source
editWe 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
edit@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)
Article pic/example
edit@Bremps I agree that laser is a better example than NYPD (what it was before you changed it). Since laser is pronounced as a word one cannot claim: it's _not_ an acronym; even though that initialism thing is weak IMO. But, I don't think laser is great since it's not all-caps and therefore more unusual. Also, I do not personally like the pic you used. It looks like a gun which is triggering (no pun intended). To me a good pic of a laser is a hand-held pointer or a physics experiment. [I tried to include examples, but WP won't let me link to external images.]
IMO, a good example of acronym is all-caps, has no punctuation and is pronounced as a word. The first one that always pops in my head is NASA. Surely there are many more good candidates. But, most like NASA and what it represents so it's pleasing. Stevebroshar (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- NASA is great. "Taser" as an example of an acronym is loose and weak and while NASA is a more standard, and thus better, example. Bremps... 18:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- oh. It was a taser. Makes more sense that it looked like a gun. Stevebroshar (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Not examples
editAs is common on WP articles, I think the examples have gone overboard; including too much and also including items that are not examples of the concept of the article.
Amphetamine: is an abbreviation of "alpha-methyl-phenethylamine" but not an acronym since is not just initials; an acronym would be like AMP or AMPT (not a chemist so just guessing at important parts of the words)
Gestapo: is an abbreviation of Geheime Staatspolizei; GS would be an acronym; I'd say SS is an acronym
All of the Shortcut incorporated into spelling items are questionable. They look sorta like acronyms since they are all-caps without punctuation. But, they seem like something other than an acronym to me. For example, MMM surely is an acronym, but is 3M? 3M seems to be an abbreviation of an abbreviation!
The mnemonics are acronyms, but ... are they on topic? I think not. Same for multi-layered, recursive, gramograms and RAS. Example overkill IMO. Stevebroshar (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Would agree, as the purpose of examples is to illustrate, not to include everything. If no one objects for a while, I'll be doing a culling. Bremps... 18:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- super Stevebroshar (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)