Talk:Acronym/Archive 7

Specific explanations of why the changes edit-warred by 75.162.179.246 are not acceptable
Time to serve a complete explication of why the edits by 75.162.179.246 are a degradation, not an improvement, and will not be accepted no matter how many times reinserted with nasty edit summaries.

Regarding the operational definition of acronym, and specifically, whether or not one makes the distinction that divides acronyms from other initialisms: This article already concisely explains that "the distinction, when made, hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word or as a string of letters." The article already clearly states, "In the rest of this article, this distinction is not made." In other words, this Wikipedia article, by consensus worked out long ago, is not asserting that part of the definition as "the only correct definition", and there is a solid epistemology-of-language reason for why—indeed, it's why a nomenclature section exists and why it explains the nomenclatural topic the way it does. There is a long history behind this article and its talk discussions that developed the article to its stable and circumspect state of balance on the description–prescription spectrum. Editor 75.162.179.246 is trying to topple that balance in the lede, apparently without bothering to read or comprehend the rest of the article nor to change it to avoid having the rest of the article's content contradict the flawed change to the lede. That's the minimum level of systemic changes that would be required for logical consistency throughout the article if 75.162.179.246's lede change were to be accepted by consensus (although that is not going to happen, because its language epistemology is several levels below that which Wikipedia has already developed as its standard).

Regarding styling laser in all caps: the reason this article does not use that long-outdated styling is that well-known anacronyms including laser, radar, sonar, and scuba are now styled by major dictionaries the same as any other common nouns. This topic (anacronyms) is already covered in this article (and has been for a long, stable time).

Regarding styling Benelux in mixed case (intercaps): the reason why this article, and Wikipedia's article on Benelux, and current editions of major dictionaries (including Merriam-Webster's Collegiate 11th and American Heritage 5th) do not style it in intercaps is the same principle why they also don't style laser, radar, sonar, and scuba in all caps: it's not present-day-consensus editorial style.

— ¾-10 22:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I DID actually read the rest of the article, but I rewrote the lede in an attempt to motivate better writers than myself to try to conform the rest of the body to my modifications. As I can see now that the louder-spoken folks here would rather follow the lame lay-crowd who insist that two different things are "the same thing" (so that we now pointlessly have two terms for "the same thing," rendering one or the other of them vestigial), and then even though I appreciate what the 2 people (NOT sock-puppets of me, I swear!), I actually have given up. Thanks for your efforts in constructing a thorough explanation, but do not gloat in some kind of supposed "victory" now!

75.162.179.246 (talk)


 * I actually do understand your position on this and can reassure that I am not looking to gloat. To prefer that Wikipedia maintain the usage distinction—that's not a bad thing to want, and in fact there are other instances of usage distinctions that Wikipedia does maintain. I'm posting the info below (long, yes—optional reading) just to share with everyone (who may care) why this was even "a thing" (a thing that provoked so much discussion).
 * The only reason I defended the current stable article version so strongly is that this instance isn't one where Wikipedia can choose sides on usage prescription without deviating from NPOV. To give an example of usage distinctions that Wikipedia does maintain, off the top of my head (trying to limit time spent on this right now), a goofy example (but relevant, as far as I can think in a hurry) would be calling a whale a fish, which people used to do in centuries past (for example, "the great fish" in Moby-Dick), especially before the science of biology taught everyone (everyone who would listen) that whales are mammals (with dog-like ancestors, interestingly). Of course Wikipedia sets the reader right by pointing out that whales are not fish—they just partially converged in morphology toward fish over millions of years. But the problem with this particular instance of a usage distinction (acronym contradistinguished from initialism, with that stated as if absolute truth like whales aren't fish) is that if Wikipedia maintains it, Wikipedia is asserting a POV in a particular instance where the two word senses are both prevalent in the respectable speech of educated people. What I mean by that, specifically, is that an educated person can call USDA and FBI acronyms in respectable, even edited and published speech—even when that person is aware of the usage prescription that reserves acronym to those pronounced as words—because the sense of acronym that is a hypernym of both the narrower sense of acronym and of initialism is a widely used, understood, and accepted sense even among educated people—which is why when you look up acronym in, for example, Merriam-Webster Collegiate, it covers both senses (see the "also:" part of the definition there). The strength of the duality of senses is probably driven by the fact that people naturally want to be able to talk about the whole class and label it with one hypernym, and the way natural language often accomplishes that, somewhat unfortunately for artificial natural language processing and for usage clarification lovers, is to reuse the same word in multiple senses (which makes word-sense disambiguation a sometimes thorny problem for AI development). However, humans and their machines are stuck with dealing with it, because it's idiomatic. Escaping idiomaticness, such as by forcing a constructed language as a new standard language and then policing its usage as a living language under natural pressure, is another topic for another day (called controlled natural language). The upshot is that it's easier said than done and involves a lot of problems (some of which were explored by Orwell). Anyway, that's a digression—returning to this article, this article actually used to be titled acronym and initialism (reflecting the usage preference), but the community of editors working on it eventually settled on the decision that Wikipedia is allowed to title it just acronym and to then explain, neutrally, in the nomenclature and orthographic styling sections, how different people prefer to prescribe the definitions and styling. Thanks to everyone who was willing to hear out this explanation. Sorry I did not write it sooner—it was only time pressure that made me skip doing so at the beginning. I will try to improve on that in future.
 * — ¾-10 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * — ¾-10 15:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this explanation. I've been trying to get people to understand this for literally a decade. My name may be familiar from some of the angry arguments from long ago. I think that people don't really realize that the important distinction is that acronyms are both a written and spoken abbreviation, whereas other abbreviations are only written. That is, NASA is written differently from National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and it is pronounced differently. Other abbreviations, like "Mr." for "mister", are only written differently. Whether the spoken form of the abbreviation is derived from pronouncing the names of letters or by combining sounds is a red herring. Nohat (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Amen, ¾-10. Now, wouldn't it be a corollary of your explanation that Wikipedia editors stop smugly scattering "initialism" all over the articles, when this term is barely ever used outside WP? (And yes, portfreakingmanteau is next.) 87.113.162.150 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Acronym. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100726124408/http://www.writersblock.ca:80/tips/monthtip/tipmar96.htm to http://www.writersblock.ca/tips/monthtip/tipmar96.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121118220424/http://grammar.about.com/b/2010/06/02/what-does-bp-stand-for.htm to http://grammar.about.com/b/2010/06/02/what-does-bp-stand-for.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120114062047/http://www.cie.org.uk:80/qualifications/vocational/clait/overview to http://www.cie.org.uk/qualifications/vocational/clait/overview

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120326035748/http://www.nac.nl/nieuws/28047/nooit-opgegeven-al-95-jaar-doorgezet.html?portal=selectie&jaar=2007&maand=9&Speler_id=&offset=20 to http://www.nac.nl/nieuws/28047/nooit-opgegeven-al-95-jaar-doorgezet.html?portal=selectie&jaar=2007&maand=9&Speler_id=&offset=20

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Backronym or contrived acronym?
Is AMBER Alert a backronym or a contrived acronym? The article says backronym, but contrived acronym fits the fact that the acronym was coined to match the name of the girl whose case inspired the alert.

For more humorous instances, while WIMP does not seem to have been contrived originally, it spurred MACHOs and RAMBOs. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that some people include the notion of contrived acronyms in their definition of backronyms. So whether it's either one or both depends on whose definition is operative. — ¾-10 22:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that Backronym gives AMBER Alert as one of its examples; that must be where I learned about it originally, although I later forgot it. (Duh!) Since it was originally "Amber alert" and was only turned into an acronym afterwards, it is a true, unambiguous backronym. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. It was named after an abducted girl named Amber.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

All-caps versus sentence-case styles
Despite claims that sentence case for word-pronounced acronyms (as in "Unesco", "Nato", etc.) "is British", I find no evidence that supports such a nationalistic distinction, and it absolutely is not British academic style, just common in newspapers. The evidence demonstrates that it is, rather, virtually unknown outside of journalism, and is more common in British/Commonwealth journalism, but that neither more typical "UNESCO" style (which is virtually universal in academic writing) nor the confusing "Unesco" style are universal in British or American usage.

The sourcing I've done for this is note quite complete (I'll add missing page numbers later, and there are a couple of sources I would add, like some major dictionaries), but there's more than enough provided below to write a very solidly sourced section on this question. Given the nature of this and much other material in this article, a lot of it needs to be moved into an Acronyms and initialisms in English article (like Quotation marks in English, or at very least be consolidated into a "Use in English" section at this article, with cross-language generalities being above this fold (the same approach we're talking at Comma, Full stop, etc.

I recall reading (but didn't make a note about it) that the "Unesco" style evolved from the house style of radio/TV news broadcasting organizations, as a way to indicate to the presenter to pronounce the word as as word instead of spelling it out on the air, but a RS will need to be found for that. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Massive sourcing run
Except where specifically noted, all the below sources are the most recent editions (I don't want to pay the outrageous price for the new FranklinCovey and Gregg right now, especially since little in them changes from edition to edition; the new .au gov. manual isn't out yet; and I'm not sure about the 3rd ed. of the Canadian manual (it's been announced, but I've not seen if it can be ordered yet, and it's low on my priority, since not much in it will have changed, either). I do have a few more on order (Penguin Handbook, etc.), but they won't affect this analysis.

Just from a quick spot-check: Fowler's Modern English Usage ("acronym", p. 16; latest ed., with new editor, Butterfield), The MHRA Style Guide ("Abbreviations", pp. 30–32, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, Grammar and Style in British English: A Comprehensive Guide for Students, Writers and Academics, Scientific Style and Format ("Abbreviations", p. 183–186, 6th and final British-published CBE edition, Cambridge U. Press), Berghahn Journals' UK Style Guide, and those of the two major UK legal publishers, Hart Publishing Style Guidelines, Sweet & Maxwell House Style (the latter notes not to blindly apply to rule to company names); and (peripherally relevant, given little difference between .uk and .au written style) The Greenslade Free Australian Style Guide. The Oxford Guide to Style/Oxford Style Manual/New Hart's Rules (the three most recent titles for successive revisions of Hart's; in latest: "10.2.4 All-capital abbreviations", p. 177–178) mention both styles, but exclusively follow the "UNESCO" model, and advise against "Unesco" style if it's based on an arbitrary number-of-letters cutoff (which it almost always is; I can't find a single style guide that would render a three-letter acronym in sentence case – "a Cat scan and a Pet scan", "a computer running Dos needed very little Rom and Ram", etc.). Almost all of the Oxford U. Press manual, large and small, use "UNESCO" style, including: New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (p. 4, "acronym"), New Oxford Dictionary for Scientific Writers and Editors (no rule, but all-caps throughout), Oxford Modern English Grammar, Practical English Usage (p. 2, "abbreviations and acronyms", and the style guides of Oxford-published journals; I could only find one Oxford guide that did not, given below), and other, non-guide publications from OUP. Oxford English Grammar (the big one) and The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary (among other OUP dictionaries) the down-cased form as a secondary alternative, but uses all-caps throughout. It's OUP's official house publication style: "The publisher OUP's preferred style for acronyms that can be spoken as words is also all capitals" (Oxford Guide to Plain English, "Capitals", pp. 88–89). Oxford/Hart's even specifically labels the "Unesco" style to be "house style" of particular publishers. Oxford style dominates British book and academic publishing, which is why WP:MOS draws on it and its American counterpart, Chicago, for almost everything that's not field-specific, and prefers their advice over that of journalism style guides (per encyclopedic/formal register, and WP:NOT). At any rate, the inconsistently British and very rarely American habit of writing "Unesco" has been objected to in formal British writing for half a century: "In the interests of clarity [it] might well be discouraged, since hereby the reference is made unnecessarily cryptic", (Our Language, 1966, p. 177).

I'll address the two Oxford semi-exceptions first. The previous ed. of Fowler's (Burchfield, Oxford, pp. 17–18, "acronym") simply describes the process by which these transformations may happen, without making a recommendation; it illustrates "Nato" and "Aids", both "UNESCO" and "Unesco", and "SALT" and "WASP", without any discernible rhyme or reason (e.g. proper names vs. common nouns); in its own content, it uses all-caps consistently. The Oxford A–Z of Grammar and Punctuation (2nd ed., 2009–2010; p. 3, "acronym"), a pocket guide for student writing, appears (from its examples, without stating an explicit rule) to use sentence case for acronyms made from common nouns ("Aids") and all-caps for those that are proper names ("CRASSH"), but it's hard to be certain. It seems unlikely that they would advise "Sonar" or "ANZAC" against convention. Its Canadian edition (pp. 1–2, "acronym") has no such confusion, and uses "AIDS". SAGE UK Style Guide (&sect;4.4 "Abbreviations, General") mentions "Unesco" style as an alternative, uses all-caps style (SAGE Publications has a US headquarters, but is an intl. publisher; this is for their British journals and books). The semi-relevant Australian government Style Manual of Authors, Editors and Printers (5th ed., "Shortened forms", pp. 106–112) also recognizes both styles without recommending one (it uses "may" language with regard to sentence-casing acronyms pronounced as words, though the work itself seems to prefer sentence case for things like "Unesco"). Gowers (most recent ed.; I've misplaced the previous one that had an independent editor) and Gwynne's don't address the question as far as I can find, nor does British English, A to Zed. The BBC actually contradicts itself: The BBC News Styleguide is for "UNESCO", but the BBC Academy journalism student website's BBC News style guide is for "Unesco". Intellect Journals House Style does not address the question or provide examples (all the acronyms it illustrates are initialisms). The Economist Style Guide (pp. 6–9 "abbreviations", p. 11 "acronym") has an almost unique rule – I have only elsewhere found it and old Gregg Reference Manual (US, 5th ed., &sect;522): Prefer mixed (sentence) case for proper-name acronyms if the abbreviation is composed of multi-letter parts of words, not just individual letters; examples were "Unicef" and "Amtrack", but otherwise both books stick with upper-case acronyms, with even "UNESCO" given specifically in contrast to "Unicef" by Economist. (This is actually a process of private coining of trademarks, not a linguistic process; NORAD is still NORAD, not "Norad", 3 generations after its founding, and Anzac was never conventionally "ANZAC" as far as I can tell. The "Unicef" example is factually wrong; it's a first-letters acronym of the organization's original full name; the idea that it's " Uni ted Nations C hildr e n's F nd" is folk etymology, and a research error on the part of Economist.)

The only genuine British-English style guide support I can find, in four hours' research, for "Unesco" style comprises: Guardian and Observer style guide, The Times Style and Usage Guide, and The Financial Times Style Guide (p. 3, "Abbreviations, acronyms and contractions"' last published in 1994). Curiously, Telegraph Style Book omits the issue entirely, as far as I can tell, but skimming their content, they appear to prefer "Unesco" style, at least for longer ones like "Unesco" itself [but see notes; it is not a good search term to use]; they use both "AIDS" and "Aids" inconsistently and "NAFTA" and "Nafta", then use all-caps for three-letter or shorter ones consistently, e.g. "RAM". I've observed broadly similar patterns in the rest of these "Unesco"-favoring publications: three-letter and shorter acronyms are always all-caps; four-letter ones are treated inconsistently, and tend toward lower casing when they are not proper names, but some are all-caps even in the same publication; five-letter and longer ones are usually given in sentence case. But they do not apply this consistently at all, not even at The Guardian where this style is most prominently championed, and not at Financial Times, either.

No major American style guide recommends "Unesco", only the house styles of a few particular organizations, only a handful of which have been advanced as style guides for public consumption, most notability The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage. Other one-newspaper guidebooks use all-caps entirely (e.g. Los Angeles Times Stylebook) or almost entirely consistently (Wired Style had an exception for "Arpanet" for some reason, and The Wall Street Journal Essential Guide to Business Style and Usage ("abbreviations and acronyms", p. 1) uses "NATO", etc., but specifically listed "Unesco" and "Unicef" as "acceptable", without further comment). Much more importantly, both the Chicago Manual of Style (which dominates American book publishing) and the AP Stylebook (which dominates journalism) both directly advise "UNESCO" style. The short but highly influential The Elements of Style (Strunk & White, Longmans) gives no rule, but uses all-caps ("Not everyone knows that MADD means Mothers Against Drunk Driving ...", pp. 90–91, "19. Do not take shortcuts at the cost of clarity"). The legal Redbook (while allowing for exceptions, presumably for the same reason the UK legal publisher did; the official name of "Amway" is that, not "AMWAY"), and Merriam-Webster's Guide to Punctuation and Style ("Abbreviation", p. 119) both directly recommend all-caps style. The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing  states no rule, but uses "UNESCO" style, throughout, except for conventional and technical exceptions like "PhD"; MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers is just an abridged version for students). The FranklinCovey Style Guide for Business and Technical Communication (5th ed., "Abbreviations", pp. 3–7, "Acronyms", p. 8; with exceptions for trademarks like "Nasdaq"), The ACS Style Guide'' (pp. 42–69, "Abbreviations and Acronyms", which makes allowance for jargon like "ATPase", "mRNA", certain symbols/units, and other conventional technical exceptions), The New York Public Library Writer's Guide to Style and Usage ("Abbreviations", pp. 323–325), APA Publication Manual ("3.20, Use of Abbreviations", pp 1.3–105; same exceptions as ACS), AMA [medical] Manual of Style ("10.6, Acronyms and initialisms", pp. 379–380; same exceptions as ACS and legal), AMA [management] Handbook of Business Writing ("Abbreviations", pp. 33–34), the Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation (Wiley), Right, Wrong, and Risky: A Dictionary of Today's American English (p. 35, "Acronym or initialism?"), The Columbia Guide to Standard American English (p. 10, "Acronyms"), and all use all-caps style. So do Garner's Modern American Usage (p. 2, "Abbreviations. A. Acronyms and Initialisms") and The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style (p. 2; it is an abridged version of Garner's), though they observe the existence of "Unesco" style, and label it British (without distinguishing between British journalistic and academic writing; the examples given are from journalism).

Oddly, The American Heritage Book of English Usage does not address abbreviation at all, while the Merriam-Webster's [Concise] Dictionary of English Usage, and Webster's New World English Grammar Handbook (Wiley) do not address this question. Cruising through their pages for long enough would probably turn up incidental examples of acronyms, but this is not necessary, since the corresponding dictionaries on which they are based all illustrate "UNESCO" style (though the larger ones also give "Unesco" style as secondary alternatives for many of them). [Not going to cite all of these individually here; that would add another hour of research time.] The McGraw-Hill Handbook of Grammar and Usage does not address acronyms, either.

The upper-case style also seems to be the norm in Canada, e.g. in Editing Canadian English (2nd ed., pp. 46–49, "Abbreviations"), The Canadian Style: A Guide to Writing and Editing ("1.16. Acronyms and initialisms", pp 28–29, allows exceptions for trademarks like "Nabisco"), A Canadian Writer's Reference (&sect;&sect; M3-g, M4-b, pp. 307, 308; doesn't state a rule, but illustrates "OPEC" and "CUPE"), Gage Canadian Dictionary [does not even give "Unesco" as an alternative!], The Canadian Oxford Dictionary'' [it does], etc., though I do not have much of a collection of Canadian English style guides. I don't have any general-purpose ones that are specific to Ireland, South Africa, New Zealand, or more minority "markets" for English at present (and I'm not sure many exist; there is an NZ equivalent of the AU government-published style guide, but it's rather outdated). Elements of International English has no rule (other than, basically, "try to avoid using acronyms", but uses all-caps throughout; same goes for A Guide to Writing for the United Nations, and United Nations Editorial Manual Online. The CSE's Scientific Style and Format (now US-published, but with an international editorial board, and intended as a general not American reference) and Scientific English: A Guide for Scientists and Other Professionals (pp. 89–94, "Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms", published in both the US and UK), both use upper case (with same exceptions as ACS). The Manual of Scientific Style: A Guide for Authors, Editors and Researchers (Elsevier, US/Eur./Asia) provides no rule, but uses all-caps throughout, except for conventional/trademark exceptions.


 * Most of the above sources (on all sides) advise against "U.N.E.S.C.O." style, and use it. (Right, Wrong, and Risky still saw it as a valid house style, on the basis that the NYT still used it, but that is no longer true as of the last two editions of their style guide, and Garner's observed that the style still exists but is in decline.)  Various (mostly American journalism and legal) sources permit "U.S." (Chicago no longer does); of those that do, some require, some forbid, and some are silent about "U.K." and "U.N."  American journalism organizations don't even consistently use "U.S." in headlines, with AP using "US" there, some others not.  At any rate, to the extent it's an exception, it's just a conventional oddity, and doesn't affect how publishers treat other initialisms.
 * Most also mention conventional common-noun exceptions that have been assimilated as words ("sonar" being the most frequent example). Those that really got into the details also recognized occasional exceptions among proper names (like "Farmers Home Administration" using "FmHA" to avoid confusion with the Federal Housing Administration). Those that use "Aids" do so because "aids" in an everyday word; they do not also write "Radar" or "Laser".
 * A small minority of those that do not habitually use "Unesco" style but observe its existence also tried to apply that assimilation idea to proper-name acronyms that are simply frequent, e.g. suggesting that "Nato" for "NATO" is acceptable – I think only three of them did. But that's a side matter, anyway, as none in that group directly recommended it, and many of those that favor "Unesco" style only do so for long word-sounding acronyms. I.e., their house style is based on the tangential concern of long strings of capital letters in cramped newsprint columns, or they would do it to all word-pronounced acronyms (several even give specific minimum lengths, typically 5 characters, before converting an acronym to sentence case). Furthermore, the APA even rebuts the random assumption downcasing for "assimilated as words" (in &sect;3.22), instead saying to follow the spelling of a major collegiate dictionary (though it says if they appear in it, they should be treated as words in the sense that they can be used without explaining what they stand for, using examples like "IQ" and "HIV").
 * I have skipped institution-specific house style guides, like those of universities, individual UN agencies, national government agencies/ministries, and those of specific publishers that are only intended for in-house use, not as general-public style guides. I made exceptions for BBC and some major publishers of multiple journals and legal matter, as directly relevant. I don't have all day for this, and most of the non-journalism house stylesheets of which I'm aware also support "UNESCO". I also skipped citation-only guides like Turabian and the US legal Bluebook; too often, the handling of text formatting in citations is divergent from the document style, so it would not be reliable data for this question.
 * I've also skipped technical writing and computer science style guides, since we all already know they use "UNESCO" style consistently; can add some major ones later.
 * And, finally, I skipped popularization works like Eats, Shoots and Leaves, since all they do is compress and regurgitate what other style guides say more authoritatively and in more detail.

Between this material and everything in the article already, we have more than enough material to WP:SPINOFF an English-specific article, per WP:SUMMARY since the present article is overly long, and mostly dominated by English-specific material, which is a WP:BIAS problem. See the split-off of Quotation marks in English from Quotation marks as a model (a structural one, anyone; there are serious WP:CCPOL problems with the content at the English-specific one, which I'll be addressing soon). — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Updated. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:47, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Lowercase statistical acronyms
Many style guides have several statistical acronyms in lowercase (e.g. Notation in probability and statistics). This should probably be mentioned at Acronym. --Bequw (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Definition
(Moved from Myrvin's Talk page)

Myrvin, please consult dictionary definitions of "acronym": http://www.onelook.com/?w=acronym&ls=a Note that the first, main definition in the most authoritative dictionaries define an acronym to be a word -- an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word. I am well aware that many speakers are unaware of this distinction, and use/misuse the word to refer to any initialism, regardles of whether it is pronounced as a word. If such misusage continues, the dictionaries will eventually change to reflect that new meaning. When that happens, it would be reasonable to change the encyclopedia in accordance. In the meantime, it is misleading to readers to use the word "acronym" in a sense that is not widely accepted as proper usage and does not agree with the main definition of the most authoritative English dictionaries.

Unfortunately, someone seems to have a mission to dilute the meaning of the word. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please help it be accurate by aligning the use of this term with the prevailing dictionary definition, which is an abbreviation that is pronounced as a word. -- DBooth (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You might find these interesting. Myrvin (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I see that your position has changed somewhat from your initial(!) idea that NATO wasn't a word. Also, you have ameliorated your rather strong position that an acronym MUST be spoken as a word. But now the first sentence is confused. Myrvin (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

A.C.R.O.N.Y.M. Abrupt, Composite, Readily, Odd, Name, You, Make — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.52.127 (talk) 19:48, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Acronym. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707214856/http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsStyleGuide.pdf to http://www.bbctraining.com/pdfs/newsstyleguide.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of these are not acronyms.
The overwhelming majority of examples in this article are not acronyms.

An acronym is a kind of a word. If a set of initials is pronounced as a word, such as NATO or FIFA, it is then an acronym.

But if an abbreviation is meant to be read as a string of letters, such as IBM or HTTP, then it is just an initialism, not an acronym.

The failure to account for this fact makes this article one of the most fundamentally erroneous ever seen on Wikipedia. It should be edited to contain only actual acronyms; and most of the article's current content should be moved to an article called "Initialisms". Ferdinand Cesarano (talk) 05:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Ferdinand is correct, and the latter part of the article is very misleading, particularly after the move. The article was earlier called 'Acronyms and initialisms'. The confusion may have been aggravated by varying understandings of 'initialism'. From Chamber's:


 * initialism noun 1 Brit a set of initial, usually capital, letters used as an abbreviation, especially of an organization, where each letter is given its own separate pronunciation, eg 'BBC' for British Broadcasting Corporation or 'FBI' for Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2 US an acronym.
 * acronym noun a word made from the first letters or syllables of other words, and usually pronounced as a word in its own right, eg NATO. Compare abbreviation, contraction, initialism

--Cedderstk 23:14, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

The reality is, of course, that no one actually uses the term "initialism", as the distinction is unclear and not useful. Is CD-ROM an acronym? What about IUPAC?

I think the Chambers definition for acronym is telling: "usually pronounced as a word in its own right". The Chambers editors are weaseling a bit using using the adverb usually, but the implication is clear: sometimes a lexical item called an acronym might not be "pronounced as a word in its own right". The Merriam-Webster editors are less obtuse about the usage facts.

Nohat (talk) 00:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Acronym. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110514001329/http://www.rane.com/par-a.html to http://www.rane.com/par-a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Error in "Extreme Acronyms"?
The acronym COMNAVSEACOMBATSYSENGSTA apparently stands for "Commander, Naval Sea Systems Combat Engineering Station" but if you look, the words don't line up:

Shouldn't it be either COMNAVSEASYSCOMBATENGSTA or "Commander, Naval Sea Combat Systems Engineering Station"; or does correct acronym have an inherent error? Human-potato hybrid (talk) 07:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed SAT as an example of an acronym
As was noted in the text of the article, the College Board no longer considers SAT to be an acronym. It hasn't for a long time actually (see this source). Because I could see this leading to some confusion, I decided to remove SAT as an example of an acronym. The article still has three other examples of acronyms that can be pronounced either as a word or as a string of letters, so this revision shoudn't detract from the clarity of the section. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

OR
There also seem to be a lot of uncited assertions. The first part of the Historical and current use section seems to be OR, with no citations. All of Aids to learning the expansion without leaving a document is uncited. As is As mnemonics, Other conventions, Small-caps variant, Numerals and constituent words, and lots more. Myrvin (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enough—more citations are needed—but all of the information is of good quality, so the end of that sentence is not "... and we should delete everything that lacks a citation." I just wanted to head that off in case anyone might conclude that that was the upshot. There's nothing original here and there's no research, so it's not a matter of original research per se. We just need to have the hunting down of supporting citations catch up with the content development. The biggest problem that gets in the way of that is that it can be a time-suck. It's a goal to work toward. — ¾-10 02:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yah, that's me who added the tags to the foregoing. My intent is to point up how OR is so often used to defend OR.


 * The simple fact is that the "Comparing a few examples" section is entirely OR, even if individual entries are sourced — either the list was created by one or more citable sources, or it was created by one or more editors & therefore OR, Q.E.D. It is typical of the trivia piles infesting WP. Either give it its own List page, or chop it down to one example of each AND THEN rewrite it all in prose rather than tabular form.


 * It appears that nobody has seen fixing these faults as "a goal to work toward" in the past THREE years. To my mind, that speaks for wholesale deletion. In fact, more than half the article deserves to be pruned. Weeb Dingle (talk) 15:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Questioning MEC (Mountain Equipment Co-op) an example of "pronounced only as a string of letters
Shop there regularly, and I hear lots of people, including staff, call it "mec" (one syllable, rhymes with check). Can't remember the last time I heard someone say it as a string of letters.DavidHeap (talk) 02:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I removed it. There are three other examples of that kind of acronym, which is plenty. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Did KFC really change its name from Kentucky Fried Chicken because of 'Fried'
I have heard many times that it was actually because of the state of Kentucky which started charging businesses licensing fees to use 'Kentucky' in their names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.108.104 (talk) 23:33, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Tidying up (minor)
The following tagged statement is clearly unsourced opinion. Absent evidence (other than anecdotal) that Bahasa Indonesia is an outstandingly acronym-heavy language, I've deleted it, but saved it here in case anyone feels strongly about it Chrismorey (talk) 10:03, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Heavy acronym use by Indonesians, makes it difficult for foreigners and learners of Bahasa Indonesia to seek information and news in Indonesian media.

Examples given under "Historical and current use" not acronyms?
In this section, the examples given under Roman and Greek biblical usage (SPQR, etc.) in the first two dot points do not appear to be acronyms, but initialisms.

I'm not too sure that the fish symbol for Jesus actually fits the definition of an acronym - more like a secret code, perhaps?

Further down, ANV for "Army of Northern Virginia" - does anyone actually pronounce ANV as a word?

The last paragraph in the section says In English, acronyms pronounced as words may be a 20th-century phenomenon. But the definition of an acronym means that it can be and is pronounced as a word in common usage, and several sources suggest that this is mainly or wholly a 20th century phenomenon.

I think that some re-writing of this section is necessary. Any thoughts? Laterthanyouthink (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Agree. An acronym is, by definition, initials that are PRONOUNCED AS A WORD. This article doesn't seem to understand that, calling "BC" "AD" "FDR" etc "acronyms" when they are not. This article needs extensive changes to reflect the true definition of "acronym." Barubiito (talk) 12:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I did a bit of tidying of the leads of both articles since seeing your comment yesterday, but am too busy with other things to focus on this an do a thorough revamp at the moment. I'll put it on my ever-growing list! Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ThanksBarubiito (talk) 23:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I think anyone planning to embark on an editing campaign to redefine "acronym" on this page will need to read and research the citations in the "Nomenclature" section beforehand because it appears that the discussion above about the "true definition" of acronym is a little bit ignorant of the facts at hand, so any changes will have to ensure the page is not self-contradictory. Nohat (talk) 17:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

DVD
DVD is supposed to have both "no official meaning" and DVD to stand for "Digital Versatile Disc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.38.232 (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to have a description of every acronym in Wikipedia? That could be a separate Wiki all to itself, and a slippery slope if we begin listing them on this or any other page: it will balloon out of control. I used to know 18 different things that ABS stood for, for example (it was for work, don't ask). The writer above is correct, however, in that "DVD" is commonly misused but actually means, "digital versatile disk" (with a "k"; only laser discs (LDs) use the "c"). I've never heard of the first statement, however, that it's supposed to have "no official meaning". Dorthea Glenn 18:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorthea Glenn (talk • contribs)

No, Dorthea. DVDs are a -c-disc just like compact disCs are. Where did you get the "k" stuff? For some reason that doesn't really make that much sense to me, disks are just magnetic, while discs are every other type of round, flat or nearly flat object that could reasonably be termed as such because of meeting certain criteria. Why we have two words that mean basically the same kind of thing but one is spelled differently from the other, while at the same time we have other sets of words that are spelled exactly the same but mean entirely different things, I'll never understand. But still, -k-disks have come to be known as only magnetic media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.179.246 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I always thought DVD was Digital Video Disc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.57.52.127 (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * IMO, the evolution is obvious (which may be why you haven't be accorded the courtesy of a reply until now; actually this is only incidentally a courtesy to you, as my real intent is to document for future generations that in spite of evidence of this mad, mad, mad, mad world, we aren't completely dumb. I'm confident that close attention to sources would confirm that the DVD format was defined by engineers who were smart enuf to see that the usefulness of new video product was far from limited to video applications, and that their employers would benefit (and thus reward them by not reassigning the engineers to design more reliable float valves for flush toilets) for thinking ahead and realizing that they could exploit "DVD" first with the rationale "video" and (before long, and with negligible fanfare) that of "versatile". Engineering arose as the profession of building siege machines, but such engines demand ingenuity, and ... well, let whosoever hath wisdom interpret. --JerzyA (talk) 11:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup of "nomenclature" section
I committed a major edit to the "Nomenclature" section. I separated it into three separate sections: etymology, nomenclature, and lexicography and style guides.

Etymology is just for origin information. The nomenclature section just describes the different terminology associated with acronyms without getting into disputed/overlapping meanings.

The new "Lexicography and style guides" section is meant to be a more rational exploration of contemporary writing on usage and meaning of the word "acronym", incorporating how dictionaries define the term, as well as how usage and style guides recommend the term be used. Whereas the previous version of the section cited many dictionaries and other various (random) web pages, it now limits its citations to significant general English dictionaries and style guides, the majority of which already have their own Wikipedia pages—and are thus bluelinked. It also names them explicitly in the text and includes some relevant quotations directly in the text. I believe the new version is much clearer about what different language authorities say about "acronym" and, especially, is much clearer about who holds which position.

There was, at some point, a "citation battle" on this page of the pro-initialisms-are-acronyms vs the anti-initialisms-are-acronyms camps that resulted in a surfeit of citations. I may have been a participant in that battle but with hindsight (which this year has the special status of being not just 20/20 but also 2020) I don't believe restoring them would add anything not already covered by the remaining citations. But in the interest of transparency I wanted to call them out:


 * http://dictionary.cambridge.org/grammar/british-grammar/abbreviations-initials-and-acronyms
 * http://www.wordsmyth.net/?ent=acronym
 * http://www.netlingo.com/word/acronym.php
 * Medical Dictionary for the Health Professions and Nursing (2012). Stedman.
 * http://www.aes.org/par/a/#acronym
 * http://www.scribendi.com/advice/the_correct_use_of_acronyms.en.html
 * http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2012/05/the-difference-between-an-acronym-and-an-initialism/
 * Crystal, David (1995). "Abbreviation". The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-55985-5. p. 120: Under the heading "Types of Abbreviation", this article separately lists initialisms and acronyms, describing the latter as "Initialisms pronounced as single words", but adds, "However, some linguists do not recognize a sharp distinction between acronyms and initialisms, but use the former term for both."
 * http://whatis.techtarget.com/reference/The-10-Most-Misunderstood-Terms-in-IT
 * http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=initialism&allowed_in_frame=0
 * http://public.oed.com/the-oed-today/guide-to-the-third-edition-of-the-oed/
 * 'Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary (2003), Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-7607-4975-2: "1. a word created from the first letter or letters of each word in a series of words or a phrase. 2. a set of initials representing a name, organization, or the like, with each letter pronounced separately, as FBI for Federal Bureau of Investigation''

I also put a lot less emphasis on the MWDEU citation, which, from a contemporary standpoint doesn't appear to make much sense. It claims that "Dictionaries, however, do not make this distinction" which doesn't appear to actually be true. Maybe they meant that the typical dictionary definitions of the time were written vaguely enough for an expansive definition to be a reasonable interpretation. In any case, I don't think it's a very strong argument based on the facts presented now in the article (many dictionaries which do make a distinction) so I have relegated it to a much less prominent position in the article.

Nohat (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

contradiction, citation needed
This section says,
 * The New York Times ... uses lower case in "UNICEF" ...

Shouldn't it be
 * The New York Times ... uses lower case in "unicef" ...

or
 * The New York Times ... uses lower case in "Unicef" ...

?

Not having a copy of The New York Times, i don't know if the U should be capitalized, or if the statement is even true. (i guess the source to cite would have to be The New York Times itself.)

96.244.220.178 (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Have changed to version 3. - Snori (talk) 06:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Euouae
Certainly not an initialism, but what exactly is this form of Abbreviation, using only vowels? Sparafucil (talk) 08:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Although this comment was posted in 2013, I felt compelled to answer it, any way. Maybe another user will come along and have the same question. The term "euouae" is a syllabic mnemonic——a technique used to memorize and recall a specific pattern or order. AbeautyfulMess06 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I think someone check my android I'd also they maybe hack I think
So I need save im all of I'd in phone 95.84.83.210 (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Is abjad an acronym?
In the section on the earliest used in English, abjad (meaning the Arabic alphabet) is cited as the earliest in the OED. But is it really an acronym? It seems to me that it falls into the same category of words (whatever category that is) as alphabet and futhark. The first of those has already been removed as an example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtilque (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

What it called
if the acronym refer to the opposite word like stop stand for start testing our people? or if the acronym refer to itself in another language like thres stand for Three Rivers Elementary School? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C3:4201:D70:AC17:B48A:76A2:A071 (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither term in the first part is an acronym, and the acronym in the second part doesn't have anything to do with the described quality.


 * If you somehow created an acronym spelled STOP that meant "go", it would be called "ironic", "clever", "too cute by half", or "actively unhelpful" depending on the context.


 * If you somehow created an acronym spelled ECOLE that meant high school, it would be called "multicultural", "clever", "francophile", "obnoxious", or—among some of the Canadian electorate—"pro-Separatist". — Llywelyn II   00:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

T L E
What does the acronym TLE mean? 2001:4455:6CC:2000:D8BB:1495:BEFD:638F (talk) 08:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're probably looking for the Community portal where you can ask for help with direct questions. This question doesn't have anything to do with this article's content, though. — Llywelyn II   00:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

New section
I replaced the previous misinformation for "Showing the ellipsis of letters" with
 *  In English, abbreviations have previously been marked by a wide variety of punctuation. Obsolete forms include using an overbar or colon to show the ellipsis of letters following the initial part. The forward slash is still common in many dialects for some fixed expressions—such as w/ for "with" or A/C for "air conditioning"—while only infrequently being used to abbreviate new terms. The apostrophe is common for grammatical contractions (e.g. don't, y'all, and ain't) and for contractions marking unusual pronunciations (e.g. a'ight, cap'n, and fo'c'sle for "alright", "captain", and "forecastle"). By the early 20th century, it was standard to use a full stop/period/point, especially in the cases of initialisms and acronyms. Previously, especially for Latin abbreviations, this was done with a full space between every full word (e.g. A. D., i. e., and e. g. for "Anno Domini", "id est", and "exempli gratia"). This even included punctuation after both Roman and Arabic numerals to indicate their use in place of the full names of each number (e.g. LII. or 52. in place of "fifty-two" and "1/4." or "1./4." to indicate "one-fourth"). Both conventions have fallen out of common use in all dialects of English, except in places where an Arabic decimal includes a medial decimal point. 


 *  Particularly in British and Commonwealth English, all such punctuation marking acronyms and other capitalized abbreviations is now uncommon and considered either unnecessary or incorrect. The presence of all-capital letters is now thought sufficient to indicate the nature of the UK, the EU, and the UN. Forms such as the U.S.A. for "the United States of America" are now considered to indicate American or North American English. Even within those dialects, such punctuation is becoming increasingly uncommon. 

If anyone reverts it to the old text, at minimum, kindly restore the UK/Commonwealth versus US/NA distinction; mention the numbers; and remove the phrasing that makes it sound like it's still standard for Americans to use spaces between the letters of an acronym. It hasn't been normal in decades if not centuries at this point. — Llywelyn II   00:56, 24 June 2023 (UTC)