Talk:RAS syndrome/Archive 1

Along the lines of You have two cows, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for a list this long. I think five or ten good ones would serve us well. This isn't List of redundant acronyms, though I don't think that would make a particularly good article. :-) --DevastatorIIC 11:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

The "not redundant" table appears at the proper place in the page's source code, but the HTML output puts the table at the end of the document, under "References". At first I thought it was my browser putting it in a strange place due to a broken HTML table tag or something, but checking the actual HTML source code, I note that the <table> and its contents really do come after "References". Is this a new Wikimedia bug? — Wisq (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

UPS is no longer known as “United Parcel Service...

This is a common big company ploy, to say that the letters no longer stand for something. Can you make letters "unstand"? If you can then it would be Ups not UPS (and Ibm etc.).

I removed the dubious reference; I too have always seen XSS. Lacking this argument, I removed the mention of CSS style sheets as a disambiguation (how many people talk about Content Scrambling Systems and Cascading Style Sheets in the same conversation?), but I added CSS to the examples section as we were lacking a double-word redundant initialism. – 74  14:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

While the argument in this section is legit (expanding can cause improper grammar), I feel that the example was very inappropriate. This section uses the example "I have RTFM'ed, for half the morning, and the information is not there". RTFM = read the f*cking manual (I didn't feel this acronym was common knowledge, so looking it up was necessary) I realize that wikipedia isn't exactly censored, but we must realize that self-censoring isn't always a bad thing. Can someone think of a better example to represent this idea with.74.241.86.117 (talk) 09:52, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Bleh, I hate forgetting to sign in Curtbash (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

You could try creating an example with LOL'ed. As long as it's at least as good as the current example I see no reason not to replace RTFM. (Yes Wikipedia is not censored, but it isn't here for shock value either; all other concerns being equal, a less offensive link should be preferred.) – 74  14:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RBIs would probably be a better example, as it isn't offensive and is probably more commonly known among non-geeks -i have no account but whatever, i wrote this at some point so here's my damned signature —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.193.126 (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeb, of course standing for: John Ellis Bush.--Steven X (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for posting here instead of just adding it to the article! I don't know that I'd consider that "common usage"—I'd never actually thought about it until you mentioned it, but it does make sense. Unfortunately, we only need a few examples to get the point across, and ideally those examples would be very common in usage. – 74  23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Does this major malfunction include cases where the words tagged onto the end of the acronym aren't part of the acronym, but are still redundant? For example, SCUBA gear would be redundant as the acronym already calls it an apparatus. Gear is just another random word to mean 'thing' that sounds more important than it is. I think the only way this could not count as being redundant is if the 'gear' was referring to other items you might use while SCUBA diving, apart from the SCUBA itself (things like a wet suit, flippers, goggles, etc). But this would seem a very rare case, since if you were swimming with any or all of those items on and claimed to be wearing 'SCUBA gear' without actually wearing a SCUBA, the fish would all raise an eyebrow and look at you as if you didn't know which way was bright and sparkly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.193.126 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

According to our article, RAS Syndrome "refers to the redundant use of one or more of the words that make up an acronym or initialism with the abbreviation itself, thus in effect repeating one or more words." (emphasis added). So redundant concepts using distinct words would likely fall under the more general category

rhetorical tautology. – 74

  00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a good example. Meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government are known as "CHOGM Meetings" - in other words, "Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Meetings". -- JackofOz (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines

Indeed, it seems that this has been brought up before (see Talk:RAS_syndrome#Poor_examples) but never fixed until now. --EpochFail (talk) 14:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah it's a sod there's not a transcript. It was quite an intelligent radio programme so it would be a reliable source to show its use affects the BBC too. But without a durable source it might as well go.

Interesting poit about System vs. Satellite. I have a feeling that one single satellite in the system is thus called (adding to the confusion), but I'd have to check that out, perhaps I was just having a blonde moment. SimonTrew (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Filling your car with LPG Gas is something quite commonly done in Australia. Feel free to add to the examples... or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XQx (talk • contribs) 07:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh and in the UK you get diesel for DERVs. Again not sure if that is RAS (Diesel Engine Road Vehicle) but in many applications it is, in practice, RAS. DERV diesel here etc. SimonTrew (talk) 14:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Two ideas, just thrown on the table for people to mess with, tear apart, or improve upon:

1. Create a category RAS syndrome acronyms. Any examples with wikipedia pages can add themselves to that category, and clicking on the category will list them, but
   1. the term has to be notable enough to have its own wikipedia page, which will be a test of whether or not the term is worth of inclusion in the list, and
   2. people have to elect to click to look at the list, rather than forcing it on them
2. Have a collapsed list. To my mind this has pros and cons:
   1. + the page is shorter when initially loaded, as long as the section is marked as collapsed
   2. + users can still elect to view the list on a single click of a mouse
   3. − it still has to be loaded even if the user isn't going to look at it, costing the bandwidth (though I doubt this is a serious consideration unless the list gets ridiculously long!)
   4. − I don't know how non-graphical (e.g. text) browsers will handle it, or whether it has accessibility issues.

Both ideas, however, would offer what I think is a reasonable compromise between, on the one hand, wanting the list to exist and, on the other, not wanting it to dominate this page.

For what it's worth, I think my preference would go to the first, in that it creates the additional link from the wiki page for the term to this topic, which strikes me as being somehow more "right". It also means that any ambiguous terms being added would automatically be linked to the correct page, whereas the existing system (if it had been allowed to continue) or the collapsed list system would risk linking to a wrongly disambiguated page.

--ClickRick (talk) 10:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

For a fuller comparison between the two techniques, see

WP:CLN. --ClickRick (talk

) 11:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

--71.82.103.146 (talk) 16:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

So how often have you unwittingly said Asynchronous Digital Subscriber Line line, even knowing what the L stands for? So as instructed, I propose this one for the list of examples. Acronyms really shouldn't contain the word that comes naturally right after, I say. But I didn't get to coin this one.

There are currently six examples on the page. By consensus, this list should not be changed, as lists of examples have a tendency to grow unnecessarily. Unfortunately, these examples were not referenced. I was able to find

I know you guys dont want to add any more examples, but this may be worth adding as it is doubly redundant (the full expansion being Array Technologies Incorporated Technologies Incorporated). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.225.186.97 (talk) 19 October 2009

There are scores of similarly 'worthy' acronyms that could be added, but we can't list them all (nor would we want to). Cnilep (talk) 17:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I propose this one because it's one of the few that aren't technology related: Detective Comics Comics.Medinoc (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

In the same vein of official corporate names that are RAS examples, there's a DSW Shoe Warehouse store down the street from me, which means Discount Shoe Warehouse Shoe Warehouse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.168.28 (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"For your FYI" = "For your for your information/interest." This one is very common. I was surprised it wasn't already on the page! There are some other great suggestions here too! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishybirdmls (talk • contribs) 15:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Very common? Where? Any thing to back ths up? (Not trying to discourage or to say you are wrong, but everything has to be verifiable, not just personal experience)

Same, never heard this one before, but maybe it's common where Fishybirdmls comes from. 75.72.7.108 (talk) 04:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Personally I would add/change TCBY Yogurt as a very common one, but again needs sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.220.249 (talk) 13:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It could be argued that TCBY yogurt is not an instance of redundancy because "TCBY," the name of the company, functions only as an adjective modifying the noun "yogurt." Darkgroup (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The list in the article is not intended to highlight common occurrences of RAS syndrome. It includes a few, but that's only to give an example. If you can think of a way that demonstrates a unique occurrence of RAS, by all means suggest adding it.

PS: Please don't take this as discouraging you from contributing to Wikipedia.

76.233.147.132 (talk) 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as there are multitudes of these RAS's, would it be worth or even a good idea to make a page with examples of them? Many other articles do this, keep the article short then have a page showing "lists" of examples. Or even incorporating them into an already existing list such as

A separate list is a good idea, as it often is on Wikipedia. The main article then links to it, as 69.137.220.249 described. People (random newcomer anons) like to add examples, and it's no fun slapping them down all the time and making them sorry for "daring to contribute". The list becomes a safe container in which to catch the naturally occurring constant stream of (voluminous but harmless) listcruft. Other terms that Wikipedians have coined for this are "lightning rod" (the lightning rod attracts the lightning and spares the building from it; you don't even try to stop the lightning from existing, you just channel it) and "[intentional] cruft magnet" (same concept). In my opinion it's a good idea. Then everyone's happy (good-quality main article; cruftastic comprehensive list). Regards, — ¾-10 00:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PNS Syndrome is the earlier coinage for this phenomenon, and certainly isn't old enough to be considered archaic. Why, therefore, does PNS Syndrome redirect here, instead of the other way around? Personally, I use the term PNS Syndrome fairly frequently, and until I arrived here through the redirect, I'd never heard of RAS Syndrome. Am in the minority in this matter? PRB (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

wtf is "alphabet soup quality"? 80.5.12.72 (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's when you as the message receiver are listening to (or reading) the message from me, the message sender, and it is so full of ATDSAs that you can't concentrate on the content and are left puzzling over what the OEAAs might stand for. It appears to you to be "just a soup full of random letters" whose obscurity defeats much of the purpose of the MBSTTR, which is supposed to be communication. — ¾-10 00:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Red in color" is redundant, but "pine tree" is not. "Red in color" can always be replaced wit "red," but "pine tree" cannot be replaced with either "pine" (which could refer to a pine plank) or "tree" (which could refer to an oak tree).

The example isn't wrong, but I removed it to avoid raising the question in the reader's mind. People can easily say, for example, "a house among the pines" or "the cat climbed an oak." When the word ("pine" or "oak") is being used in that sense, it is equal in meaning to "pine tree" or "oak tree", and thus the [tree] part is redundant from a certain view. But I would rather stick to just the examples that no one can quibble with, so I removed "pine tree". BTW, this is also why someone removed "pizza pie" from the same sentence a while back. They felt that they couldn't "feel" the redundancy strongly enough to keep the example there. I didn't fight the removal, because it was another example that someone could always manage to view through a different prism. — ¾-10 02:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've just found an example where the first word is repeated before the acronym: Adobe AIR (Adobe Adobe Integrated Runtime). Can anyone think of more examples like this?

(I've just remembered Microsoft MS-DOS, not sure if that counts with the redundancy being in the first two letters of the initianym.) -- Smjg (talk) 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Commodore C64 / Commodore C128? Tandy/Radio Shack TRS80? Douglas DC3? Apple A/UX? Apple ANS? Apple ADB?

Going through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acronyms_and_initialisms and looking for examples where a pre-RAS is commonly used may turn up more.

One other example, (imperfect because it uses a foreign language phrase) is "The La Brea Tarpits." "La" means "The" and "Brea" means "Tar Pits" so the phrase is actually saying "The The Tar Pits Tar Pits" - a Pre-RAS and a post-RAS.

I just noticed that CSS is mentioned under Examples, and under Less applicable examples. It certainly can't be both? Alrekr42 (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I get the redundant part (ironically enough) but what about when someone says "RAID array"? That is redundant. Arielkoiman (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lots of people say "SAT test", but isn't that really saying "Scholastic Aptitude Test test"? Mollymoon 22:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It used to be, but I remember reading that the College Board declared that "SAT" is now the full name (it no longer has any expansion, officially). I didn't spend any time confirming that, but feel free if the spirit moves you. — ¾-10 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In the mid-90's I wrote to Radio Shack to complain that they shouldn't say LCD display (liquid crystal display display) in their catalogues. I got a polite reply that they had recently discussed the same topic, and came to the conclusion that people unfamiliar with the inner-workings of LCD technology would benefit from the addition of the word "display" to articulate that it was in fact a display mechanism. So, per that rationale, they used "LCD display" on watches and other consumer electronics, but LCD for the panel parts. -- ke4roh (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with their reasoning, and I feel that that logic explains the natural human urge to say "PIN number" and "ATM machine" instead of "PIN" and "ATM", most especially in casual speech with non-experts, most especially 15 years ago while talking to your grandmother who would experience "PIN" and "ATM" by itself as mere "alphabet soup". When people talk to each other, they strive to make themselves clearly understood, and sometimes tools like redundancy (and assuming by default that the listener is relatively clueless about the topic and needs explicit mentions and explanations) help the speaker to achieve that, or at least to feel that they've done everything they can to be as clear as possible. That's why I find it very pedantic for people to complain about subtle, non-painful redundancy in natural language—for example, RAS syndrome. The complaining is not upholding "correctness"; it's merely upholding a pedantic fixation on hypercorrectiveness. Not saying that all wordiness is good; just acknowledging that some "anti-wordiness" is misguided. — ¾-10 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The idea that a term like "ATM machine" or "LCD display" is "redundant" implies that the speaker knows what "ATM" (or "LCD") stands for. I would wager that most instances of the phenomenon arise simply because people have heard others call the machine that dispenses money an "ATM machine." As they are neither banks nor manufacturers of banking equipment, ordinary people have no reason whatsoever to care what "ATM" stands for; it is a completely opaque term to them. Clearly, it is a machine, and the type of machine it is, is "ATM." Similarly, manufacturers of computer displays care about the technology inside them; most users do not. They call the lighty unit they hook up to the computer a "display" or "monitor" (the former taking prevalence since it was enshrined in Windows) and the specific type of display is "LCD," and they neither know nor care what the acronym stands for. Jerry Kindall (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

ISIC Card = International Student Identity Card Card — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas the Comeback Kid (talk • contribs) 22:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a suggestion—why not create a list of recursive acronyms (preferably sourced), which can include all of the examples that people have suggested and then some? I have another example of a recursive acronym that can go into this new list (NOT into the current article!):

• Zaanstreek
  Alkmaar
  • Background: AZ is a Dutch football club that was formed in 1967 with the merger of Alkmaar '54 and FC Zaanstreek. The merged club was originally AZ '67, but became simply AZ in 1986. For an example of how "Alkmaar" is added to the club name outside of the Netherlands, see ESPN's team page in its soccer section.

Think this idea is worth pursuing? — Dale Arnett (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If such a list were created it would need clear and

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See the essay Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia for further consideration. Cnilep (talk

) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

"AMOLED display." Although the "D" in "LCD" stands for "display," supposedly making "LCD display" redundant, the "D" in "LED" (of which "AMOLED" is an extended version indicating a particular type of LED) stands for "diode", so "AMOLED display" is not redundant. Jerry Kindall (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I have just removed a paragraph from the section 'Reasons for use' that summarized the section by suggesting that obsession with RAS syndrome is "hypercorrective". (See the page history from 1 July 2011 for the paragraph.) I happen to agree with this sentiment, but that does not change the fact that it is an expression of sentiment or opinion, and therefore probably not in the spirit of

I see it as a matter of epistemology. Since you're a linguist and I'm not, I don't feel qualified to dissuade you, but I've typed out "where I'm coming from" below, in the hopes that you'll explicate your differences from it: You say that calling out hypercorrection as mistaken is a sentiment or opinion; but to me that's analogous to saying that calling out any folk belief that's substantially contradicted by science is just-an-opinion. Although science includes an epistemological element of reserving absolute certainty as a limit that a curve of certitude approaches but never touches, it's misleading to laypeople to present linguistics and traditional grammar as "just two theories about language, neither of which is more right or wrong than the other". Unlike cosmology, where science and non-scientific epistemologies often "agree to disagree" (e.g., making room for both science and religion in life), I'm not sure that linguistics-versus-traditional-grammar is a matter of opinion—anymore than is, say, the question, "21st-century chemistry versus 17th-century alchemy: which knows more about the true nature of matter and the elements?" Is that really a matter of opinion? Sure chemistry and physics are still an unfinished body of knowledge; but they're something more than a judgment or opinion. Can't Wikipedia operate on the premise that linguistics is more informed about how language actually works than is traditional grammar, just as it operates on the premise that chemistry is more informed about how matter actually works than was alchemy? Otherwise we may as well revise the article on valence electrons to read like "just someone's sentiment". Although it's true that there are both valid and invalid variants of prescriptivism, hypercorrection is not one of the valid ones. I'd say that the only valid reason to edit to suit it is to make sure that people who don't know any better than to believe in it don't dismiss your writing. This viewpoint is why I would disagree about the irony that you suggested. For example, I don't see Geoffrey Pullum's prescription against [invalid] prescription here as ironic. Impatient, yes, but not ironic. See what I'm saying? If you see this viewpoint as misguided, please do give a counterargument! Thanks. — ¾-10 03:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

PS: I'm not married to the exact wording that I wrote recently in the article. But I do think that this article needs to lay out the linguistic truth, which would mean gently disabusing some pedants of their high horse (e.g., dashing any self-congratulatory spasms they might feel when they tell someone who just said "PIN number" that s/he's an unwashed idiot [in the pedant's view]). — ¾-10 03:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that detailed and cogent response. I do see where you are coming from, but a central part of your argument seems to rest on a shaky premise, confusing hypercorrection with language attitudes. (By the way, thank you for pointing me toward Hypercorrection, too. That page appears to confuse the issue.)

Hypercorrection is a "linguistic" issue in the sense that it describes or explains elements of linguistic production. To give a canonical example of a hypercorrection: in some varieties of English, post-vocalic R in words such as bird /bərd/ are pronounced as a diphthong, as in Boyd /bɔɪd/ (see

Mergers characteristic of non-rhotic accents

). Since these varieties are generally low-prestige (for example, the pronunciation was common among working class New Yorkers during the early twentieth century), some speakers "correct" their pronunciation of bird and then over-extend the correction to words such as toilet /tərlət/ (still heard among some upper-working class or lower-middle class New Yorkers during the late twentieth century). Linguistic description (and theory) notes that the non-standard form is produced by over-applying a perceived standard-dialect rule, a practice which is labeled "hypercorrection".

Language attitudes are a "linguistic" issue in the sense that they relate to language and often affect language behavior, though they are not behavior as such but attitudes or opinions. Attitudes and opinions can, of course, be studied scientifically, and citation of such studies would be entirely appropriate in this article. To give an examples of language attitudes: in surveys, many Americans express a belief that "proper" language forms are an ideal to be aimed for, and that this ideal exists outside of actual speech, which may be a flawed reflection of the ideal. There is of course significant overlap between these categories; a belief (language attitude) that rhotic pronunciation is "ideal" and that non-rhotic pronunciation violates this ideal may have led to some of the "terlet"-type hypercorrection described above.

I take it that when you refer to "traditional grammar" above, you intend the sort of usage and style advice that is sometimes referred to as "grammar" and that often focuses on solecism. (There are, by the way, more or less scientific traditions of descriptive grammar dating back as far as the European Renaissance, but linguistics is generally reckoned to have emerged as in independent science in the twentieth century, perhaps accounting for the tradition/science split.) I certainly agree that linguistics is a scientific endeavor while the prescriptive hunt for solecism is not (if I didn't they'd probably revoke my Linguistic Society of America membership), but I still say that decrying certain language attitudes that may stem from this "tradition" is decidedly different from describing the process of hypercorrection.

There is no doubt room to note that redundancy is noting to be feared and that labeling partially-redundant initialisms a "syndrome" is apparently meant to be humorous (ideally with sources), but there is room for some degree of gentleness in calling out people's attitudes or beliefs. As possible sources, you've mentioned Pullum; I'd also suggest Nancy Niedzielski and Dennis Preston and the journal American Speech. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. Wikipedia does have [the beginnings of] an article for traditional grammar, although I'm not currently qualified to critique it or to add any value to it. I hope more linguists can come and help at Wikipedia to bridge the gap between linguistic science and laypeople. Catch you later. — ¾-10 03:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

How is the RAS syndrome a "syndrome"? --Arno Matthias (talk) 10:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A syndrome is a group of signs and symptoms, so for example, if you have Tourette syndrome, you might exhibit echolalia in your speech as a sign. The "joke" of the name "RAS syndrome" is that the wag is claiming that a speaker who is predisposed to using terms like "PIN number" or "ATM machine" has a syndrome in the psychiatric sense. It's tongue-in-cheek. However, in all seriousness, the idea that every occurrence of a phrase like "PIN number" or "ATM machine" is "erroneous" is ill-founded, in about the same way that the notion that preposition stranding is always "erroneous" is ill-founded—it actually reveals ignorance of linguistic science on the part of the "accuser". Nevertheless, if you use too many RAS acronyms, you open yourself up to being criticized by the more pedantic sort of folks, whether the criticism is valid or not. — ¾-10 16:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

I understand your explanation, and thank you for that, but the article does not say that at all. --Arno Matthias (talk) 17:14, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, and ideally it should. But I have a feeling based on past experiences that if we add it, someone will attack it for being unreferenced. Call it "original research" when it's not original and didn't take any research to figure out. People are brainless like that. Maybe I'll try adding it to the article sometime. Regards, — ¾-10 02:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if some of the current sources, such as Garner or Newman, make clear that calling it a "syndrome" is tongue-in-cheek. If so, the explanation may cite them. Cnilep (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

wiki-guidelines don't require to source the obvious. --Arno Matthias (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well then we've only got trolls to worry about, and I notice that no one has pounced on the suggestion (unreferenced but obviously true) that the name constitutes self-referential humour. Cnilep (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Arno Mathias's edits have helped make this issue clearer. The current language, however, puts focus on the name and more specifically on supposed sufferers of the "syndrome". I believe primary focus belongs on perceived lexical redundancy instead. Furthermore,

My attempt to edit the page met with objection, so perhaps a third party could try a rewrite. The explanation of the name is good, but the focus of the lead section should (in my opinion) be on the phenomenon itself, whether that is called RAS syndrome, PNS syndrome, RAP phrases, or what have you. Cnilep (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

when opening a credit card account in aus now they actualy have rewritten the word pin number to mean personal identifying numeric number in all paperwork. i believe this was done deliberatly to kill the RAS but keep people who use the term pin number happy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 03:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Because "numeric number" isn't at all redundant(!)^[sarcasm] 86.15.236.184 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I've seen this phrase used in quite a lot of places, most recently at [3]. It expands to Personal Personal Identification Number Number. Might it be worth replacing the third quoted example with this even more ridiculous form? 86.15.236.184 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't count the number of times I've heard someone talk about their "cac card".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Access_Card —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.132.205.29 (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but is it a common enough term outside of the military or DoD to warrant inclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.15.255.228 (talk) 14:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

• SALT Talks
• START Treaty (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Treaty)
• CD Disc
  . DVD disk is even more used.
• RPG Game —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.162.6.233 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

-Anomalocaris (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

CSBC Corporation, Taiwan - where CSBC stands for China Shipbuilding Corporation, hence, "China Shipbuilding Corporation Corporation, Taiwan". The official name of the company is "CSBC Corporation, Taiwan" since 2007, where it was previously known as just CSBC. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 04:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

UPC code. swain (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

MIDI interface. --188.126.207.212 (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat surprised that no one has suggested 'AC current' (Alternating current current). 86.178.9.171 (talk) 09:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

It's already mentioned, in the "Reasons for use" section ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• FLOPS per second (floating-point operations per second per second)

Added to the page by 82.101.19.66 on 17:30, 9 November 2011. Moved here by Cnilep (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• DC Comics (Detective Comics Comics) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.202.252.106 (talk) 16:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• HIV Virus AndrewHZ (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded!! One of my pet peeves in newspapers. So if there should be added one more, it's this, because medicine/science has not yet been covered in the list at all. Plus, 3 is really a bit too few. BTW, it's even mentioned in Paul's list: http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/hiv.html -andy 77.191.218.187 (talk) 15:54, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• ISBN number — Justinbb (talk
  ) 02:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

• MPR reconstruction" and "PACS system." --UrsoBR (talk
  ) 15:41, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

• PCR reaction (polymerase chain reaction reaction) added to the page by User:J. Walter Weatherman; moved here by Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• RIP in peace — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alxbnt (talk • contribs) 23:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• NIC card AndrewHZ (talk)

• DSL line AndrewHZ (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

• GMT Time AndrewHZ (talk
  ) 16:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Lanby buoy – Large Automatic Navigation BuoY 86.42.254.182 (talk
  ) 19:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

• GPA average AndrewHZ (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• GPS system Msramming (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Some Colorado examples that are too geographically limited for inclusion:
  • DIA Airport - often seen on headsigns of RTD SkyRide buses
  • RTD district^[1], which may refer to the full geographic extents of the special governmental unit, or 15 subdivisions thereof, each represented by a district director^[2] Msramming (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
• SSD drive (Solid State Drive drive) 114.161.186.52 (talk
  ) 08:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

We don't need more examples. JDDJS (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I have just rolled back two added examples, noting "Consensus is to keep the list at these 3 items." I copied that edit summary from the hidden comment on the page. To my slight embarrassment, though, I see that there are currently only two examples listed, following Afjweb's edit to remove CSS. There is an older comment above pointing out that CSS is a problematic example, since it is also called "less applicable" further down the page.

Can we work toward some consensus on a new item to add to the examples? I think that three is a nice number: large enough to illustrate the pattern, but short enough not to invite attempts to be exhaustive.

Examples suggested in the past include:

• PCB board (printed circut board board)
• UPC code (universal product code code)
• LCD
  display (liquid crystal display display)
• RCP plan (reflected ceiling plan plan)
• ISP
  provider (internet service provider provider)
• GUI
  interface (graphical user interface interface)

See also the numerous examples suggested in other sections of this talk page.

My vote is for "UPC code", since I feel it is the most commonly used. (I have no empirical evidence for that feeling, though.) LCD display is perhaps equally frequent and equally well-known; the others seem either slightly obscure (RCP, GUI) or unlikely to to use the expanded form (PCB board, ISP provider). Cnilep (talk) 04:30, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected: the Corpus of Contemporary American English lists 5 examples of "UPC code" and 65 of "LCD display" in its 425 million word corpus. I'll add that example for the time being. Comment here if you disagree. Cnilep (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

UPC codes are rarely talked about by "the common man" (although extremely frequently used!); LCD displays, however, are a frequently marketed and discussed consumer technology, so it seems intuitive to me that it be a more common example. - IMSoP (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

[I understand it's useful to keep the article's example list trimmed, but it seems to me this talk page is a fine place to collect additional examples.]

Now that LEDs are being used in more and more lighting applications, we're starting to hear people refer to "LED lights".

My favorite: The

Unlike with others like "ATM machine" which are clearly redundant, "PIN number" is not completely redundant. There are other types of pins. 4.238.1.82 (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not true, for several reasons:

• The basic meaning of "redundant" is that something is repeated. It doesn't necessarily indicate that the repetition serves no purpose. Sometimes redundancy does serve a purpose, e.g.
  failsafe
  systems.
• You've already distinguished it from a pin, by writing "PIN" instead of "pin".
• Even in speech, where you don't have this way of distinguishing them, the phrase "pin number" could equally be a number by which a pin is identified. I imagine that this is common in discussions of audio-visual and computer peripheral connectors.
• 99% of the time, whether a PIN or a pin is being talked about is obvious from the context.
• Even if we did need a way to distinguish the two in speech, what's wrong with "PINumber" or "pea eye en"?

— Smjg (talk) 18:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Plus: An acronym/initialism can stand for more than one thing. So people could potentially say "ATM machine" or "ATM Manager" to distinguish them, though it is still silly. — Smjg (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

actually, "repetitive" means that something is repeated. "redundant" does in fact mean that the redundancy serves no purpose. 74.108.54.119 (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)