Talk:RAS syndrome/Archive 1

"I can't remember my Pin"
I have removed the first paragraph of reasons for usage because the example used is irrelivant and only prooves the point in theory, but in practical terms in makes no sense whatsoever.

"I can't remember my PIN." In the sense of a 'pin' rather than 'PIN' doesnt make semantic sense. It implies that someone is saying "I can't recall my pin."

PIN in the context of a Personal Identification Number, as well as being a noun also implies the idea of inputting said number. So, when people say "I can't remember my PIN." they are not solely refering to it as a noun, unlike "I can't remember my pin." in which they are.

The point being made is that context would inform any listener what kind of PIN is being refered to. And for this reason "I can't remember my PIN." is not an example of RAS Syndrome.

thomfilm 15:25, 28 febuary 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not exactly sure what your point is. Saying "I can't remember my PIN number" is an example of RAS, regardless of whether or not "number" was intentionally added for clarity.

Also, please leave new comments at the bottom of the page  superapathy man  00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

a linguist would tell you...
these are not "mistakes" at all (the article said "mistake" when this was written; it no longer does... but in case anyone thinks these are mistakes, read on). Words have histories and they have meanings, and the two might be related, but they might not be. When you talk about New England, do you think it's "new"? No, you don't. When you speak of hunting, do you realize that you are using a word derived from the same root as "hound"? Probably not. Do you find "the color red" redundant compared to just saying "red"? So, in a like manner, PIN means something like "password" to most people, and if their password is a number, it's a PIN number, and if it's actually a word, it's a PIN code. There is simply nothing wrong with this linguistically: it's not a mistake, it's deliberate and acceptable.


 * It's also no less redundant. It's also similar to other constructions that make sense grammatically (though most of the examples I can think of add either a comma or "of").  OTOH a "PIN number" is more like a "dog animal", which I don't know of anyone who says. -- Smjg 14:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * It's actually not the slightest bit redundant. By changing word into its first letter, a lot of information is being lost. Apparently, this information is important, otherwise the "syndrome" would not exist. 71.102.186.234 06:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to be claiming that to these people, "PIN" is a word rather than an acronym. But if this is so, why do they still write it in uppercase?  Moreover, neither "password number" nor "password code" strikes me as a common phrase.... -- Smjg 14:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * yes, that is what I'm saying. orthography (writing) has little to do with language. children learn to speak fluently before they are literate (some adults--entire societies even--never become literate but their languages are fully formed and functional), and some of the words kids learn are acronyms. However, they don't know that these words are acronyms, nor do they know how to spell them, or even what a capital letter is. That illustration (using children) is also valid for adults: the part of your brain that speaks does not spell. So, yes, people use the word "PIN" as a word, and that is what makes it a word: usage. This is why the plural of PIN is PINs, rather than PIN (Personal ID Numbers). That latter wrong version is dictated by "a foolish consistency" with the supposed rule that N stands for number in the word PIN. A simpler and more consistent rule is the one that I propose: acronyms through usage become words, and they follow the rules that words follow, and there is no unacceptable redundancy in saying "the color red" and there is no unacceptable redundancy in saying "a PIN number". As to your example, you can't just ignore my example and propose yours. You need to explain why "color red" passes your personal test, but "dog animal" does not. I'll bet I can construct a sentence that uses "dog animal" acceptably (my sentence would contain other noun clusters like "human ghost" and "human animal"). Do you have  problem with "rock and roll music" as redundant versus "rock and roll" versus just plain "rock"? Language is defined by how people use it, not by how some wish it is used, nor by what is precisely the minimal number of words. If "jazz music" is unacceptably redundant, does that make "jazz musician" redundant, and because we can say "rocker" then we must be able to say "jazzer"? Language has rules, but absolute consistency is not one of them--else, PIN would have to stand for "numerals" rather than "number", and then PINs the plural could not exist.


 * I can only assume that you agree they are at least redundant. :) The color red isn't redundant because color and red aren't the same thing. Human ghost isn't redundant because in that context human is an adjective. Your other examples are similarly mischosen; they are adjectives, not redundant nouns. A jazz musician is just that; I'm sure you'd agree he is not a jazz music musician. I'd better stop there, because after re-reading your comment, it seems you are disputing the concept of unacceptable redundancy, which is irrelevant to this article. I don't know if it was added since your comment (or by you even, who knows), but the first paragraph states It should be noted that most people find these usages to be acceptable. -- salt3d 05:22, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * (I took the liberty of editing your post and mine for clarity, re the "mistake" claim) As to your remaining claim: I think you are confusing two words: "redundant" does not mean the same thing as "repetitive", but you are using it as if it does. I am saying that in the language center of your brain and mine, "red color" and "pin number" are structurally the same, and they do not trigger a grammatical error, nor a morphological one. Cognitively, you may know that historically the word pin comes from an acronym. But if you are going to be a word-history-nazi, then please start also complaining that "hunting dog" is redundant, because the word "hunt" comes historically from the word for dog.


 * I agree however that some of the reasons in "Reasons to use" are a bit far-fetched. Some of those acronyms just become words on their own. E.g. computer protocols: those are referred to as "IP", "FTP", "Ethernet", "Telnet" etc... They've become words or concepts on their own (well, I'm not a native English speaker, as you might notice, but I see the same things happen in Dutch and in English ;) )... sure, IP actually means IP "Internet Protocol", on the other hand when using Ethernet, you could say "Ethernet Protocol" ... But all those words or concepts, technologies, or ideas are defined by that single acronym = word... And that's why we say the "IP" protocol, since in our mind, the word "IP" is just like "Ethernet" the name of a protocol ... Another example is LCD. We may use the words CRT display, so we also use the words LCD display... no need to look for a special reason ? LCD and CRT have become words with their own meaning.


 * I think this is a reasonable enough point, and I've tried to add it to the article: the examples given in this discussion aren't great, but acronyms do indeed become words sometimes - think about radar and laser - and who's to say when that happens? Mostly, though, the point is that people do, could, or "should" know what the term is an acronym for, so that RAS syndrome represents either laziness or ignorance; this is partly why it's so much more frowned on in formal writing than in colloquial speech. - IMSoP 15:21, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The addition looks good. A related remark: I think the use of such acronyms in English may be similar to the use in other languages. E.g. LCD display: In dutch, the term "LCD-scherm" is used ("scherm" = screen, display,...). In these cases, many people don't know what the acronym means, the word that's added may or may not be different as the original english word, and it may even have a slightly different meaning. I think the natural reason people use it is the same in every language, although in english, more people might know the actual meaning. Oh, a final remark (and yet another example ;) )... The list includes obvious examples like NTFS file system. Sure, theoretically this can be redundant. But name a few filesystems: FAT, FAT32, NTFS, EXT2, ... Those terms stand on their own, so I think it's natural to say NTFS file system, just like one says FAT32 file system. But, well, we could go on with this discussion this way...


 * Well, just a quick answer on that file systems example: you could almost argue that "FAT32 file system" or "ext2 file system" was pretty redundant in its own right - from what are you distinguishing it? Most sentences could quite happily be of the form "Under ext2...", "In FAT32...", etc; you might want to be more explicit to avoid ambiguity - "Our thin clients use the FAT file system" would be better than "Our thin clients use FAT" - but the article already lists this as an excuse for RAS syndrome. I can't think of anything else that "NTFS" could mean, so in most contexts there's no more need to refer to "the NTFS [or ext2] file system" than "the Windows NT [or GNU/Linux] operating system". - IMSoP 14:59, 9 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but it just doesn't wash. "Personal identification number number" is wrong, full stop. Incorrect language should not be allowed to thrive, still less be condoned. JS.Farrar 12:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This discussion is redundant. 218.103.132.187 14:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not wrong if enough people use it that way. That's how language works.  164.55.254.106 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dilbert
Both this page and the Recursive acronym page mention a Dilbert strip about TTP. Does anybody have a copy/link of that specific strip?

The end of the article mentions, as a justification for the use of redundant acronyms, technical clarity. A counter argument to this is obviously that in those cases, no acronym should be used. I think this argument should be incorporated into the article. --Allstarzero 20:44, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CSS?
"Likewise with ""CSS style sheets"", where CSS can also refer to the Content-scrambling system used on DVD Video titles, or even Client-side_scripting."

Why on earth would anyone talk of content-scrambling system in the same context as cascading style sheets? Moreover, nobody would use CSS to mean "Client-side_scripting" [sic] - a quick OneLook and Google search reveals no evidence of this meaning, and CSS already has an established meaning in the common context. AISI this sentence is just conjuring up an ambiguity that isn't really there. -- Smjg 14:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree that "CSS" &rarr; "client-side scripting" is not something I've ever heard of before (indeed, I'd never heard the term at all, although it's reasonable enough to distinguish from server-side techniques); but I can see that, occasionally, you might be talking about technology in broad enough terms that it could take in either DVDs or web-pages, leaving you with 2 genuine expansions of "CSS". That said, I've never seen anyone refer to "CSS style sheets" anyway... I've reworded slightly, but obviously feel free to make further changes. - IMSoP 13:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

"Cascading Style Sheets style sheets" is not really an RAS... CSS is a technical specification, while files that conform to that specification are called "style sheets". In fact, you can also have XSLT style sheets, which are distinct from CSS style sheets. It's more akin to saying, "Kleenex-brand kleenexes".

"NIC card" is a poor example
Edited to remove "NIC Card" as an example of RAS symdrome. NIC really, and originally, means "Network Interface Controller" and does not always need to be on a card. For example, the NIC could be part of the motherboard, OR a card inserted into an interface slot, OR a dongle, connected to an external port. I agree that "NIC" is sometimes defined as "Network Interface Card", but given the dual interpretation, it makes a poor example. --Ch'marr 17:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This example appears to have now been removed. - IMSoP 17:16, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * And re-inserted again. I re-deleted it; I'm pretty sure the onboard NIC in my motherboard is not a "card". --Qviri (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved NIC Card from non-redundant back to redundant. Consensus in my searching indicates the "C" in NIC is "Card". The linked Wikipedia article agrees. Bharnish 14:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

LCD = Liquid Crystal Diode?
Didn't the "D" in "LCD" originally refer to "Diode"? In which case, wouldn't the phrase "LCD Display" be appropriate?


 * I think you may be confusing it with LED, which stands for "light-emitting diode"; as far as I know, there are no diodes involved in a standard LCD. Of course, this confusion may also be one reason people use the acronym redundantly - "LED display" would indeed be correct, but the two technologies are actually unrelated. - IMSoP 17:21, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * LED == Light Emitting Diode, LCD == Liquid Crystal Display. LEDs require a DC drive, as sending current through the device in the wrong direction can in extreme cases destroy it; LCDs require an AC drive, as DC would rapidly destroy the cholesterol on which the device is based (by electrolysis?). 193.122.47.170 11:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Edited to correct spelling of "humorous" --Attila the Pooh 10:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

wrong name
RAS don't have to be acronyms, as the name implies - it would be better if it was called Redundant Abbreviation Syndrom syndrom. Every acronym is an abbreviation (but not the opposite direction). LCD for example is no acronym.

Also, SMS message is a wrong entry, I delete it. SMS is a service, therefore the message part is not redundant.

--Abdull 11:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't bother with the whole acronym and initialism distinction - acronym covers both of them fine for me, and many other people. I know that some people expand TLA to "Three Letter Abbreviation" in order to promote their side of and/or avoid the initialism/acronym holy war, but as for "wrong", RAS syndrom is so slangy anyway that it seems reasonable to treat it as correct just by it being in use (let's face it, it's not really a syndrome either!).
 * You raised an interesting point, though, even counting initialisms as acronyms - can anyone think of any examples of the "syndrome" which aren't acronyms at all? Something like, I don't know, "interpol police"? - IMSoP 14:51, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

RPG
Doesn't it stand to roleplaying game instead of roleplaying games? The plural usually being RPGs.

Furthermore I've seen FPS shooters used too.

(of course, there's RPG games and RPG grenades -- RPG rockets) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.102.2 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

UMB Bank
I am so glad I found this page! I have been irritated for years that "United Missouri Bank" changed its name to "UMB Bank". When they did that, I wanted to scream, "Hey, has anybody noticed that's redundant?" Are corporate name that are examples of RAS appropriate for this page? Joe 18:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The list contains things it should not
Curious that, between the main page and this discussion page, all of the observations have been made that would be necessary to note something obvious about laser but it doesn't seem to have been noted yet ... even though laser has already been singled out for special attention in both places. Ok, here goes:

Suppose laser stood for Light Amplified by Stimulated Emission of Radiation. In that event, laser light would indeed be redundant, on exactly the same pattern as the other examples around it, as laser would be a kind of light. But that is not what it means: it is Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation, and it is not a kind of light, but a technique for amplifying light, and laser light is light that has been produced/amplified using that technique; nothing redundant about it, even though the word light appears in the expansion. The distinction parallels that already made (below) for SMS.

It is true that laser has grown into use as a simple word, but even so the usage laser light remains nonredundant, because it has grown into a word that can mean a device that produces light using the amplification technique, not into a word that refers to the light so produced. Laser light is the light produced by that device, still without redundancy.

One quibble could be made, but it turns on an equivocation. The word light can also refer to a device that produces light ("turn on that light in the hall"), and so in that sense a laser is a kind of a light. But in the phrase laser light the second word is not light in that sense, but the electromagnetic radiation itself. ("Shine some laser light on that target" is a much more likely utterance than "Turn on that laser light sitting on the table.") So laser can only be a kind of light in a different sense of the word than the explicit light in laser light, and the phrase is still nonredundant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.101.30 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC1)

If this is true (taken from the page right below the list):


 * SMS message = Short Message Service message is not a redundant acronym, as SMS is a service, while message is something you get out of the service.

Then these should not be included in the list either:


 * IM message = Instant Message message
 * IP protocol = Internet Protocol protocol

The protocol is in fact called IP. The message did in fact come from something called an IM (which probably stands for Instant Messenger, not Instant Message, here). Okay, the second one is debatable, but I definately think IP should be removed from the list. --Celada 01:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think your reasoning for IM is stronger than that for IP. The reason the "SMS message" is not redundant is because it is of the form "foo Service message"; the fact that foo="Short Message" makes the expansion awkward, but not really redundant, since foo is still the kind of "Service", and "foo Service" is the kind of message. (I suppose you could argue that just "Short Message" would be enough, but the "Short" wouldn't really define the kind of message well enough, would it, so you do need to state that it's a message carried by the service called SMS).
 * "IP protocol", however, expands to "foo Protocol protocol" - which is redundant for any value of "foo", unless it's a protocol defined by, implemented across, or whatever, another protocol; IP is the "Internet Protocol", so we really don't need to say "protocol" over again. [Of course, we may still deliberately choose to do so, but the article already covers that]
 * The point you make (in parentheses) about "IM" is more interesting - "IM message" could be expanded to "Instant Messenger message" or "Instant Messaging message", neither of which are directly redundant. However, they're still redundant in a deeper sense in that, unlike the "Short Message" of SMS, "Instant Message" would probably be sufficiently unambiguous. So in a way, it's kind of a special case, where given different conventions of jargon it could be simplified with no loss of information, but in itself it's basically "correct". - IMSoP 14:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Why is IP Protocol, or TCP/IP Protocol not on the list? CSS for some reason makes the list, when the only people in the world who would use the term "CSS Style Sheets" are PHB's in charge of developers, and Developers who should be joining the unemployment lines now the economy is not great and people who _don't know their trade_ are getting what's coming to them... Can anyone explain why "Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol Protocol" is not a widespread and valid example? XQx (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Honourable mention!?
I think the "honourable mention" section in the current article is somewhat dubious - it basically says "the following don't belong here, but we feel like mentionning them because they're vaguely related". Now, that'd be OK in a standalone article - a kind of "postscript", as it were; but in a hyperlinked encyclopedia, it's just crying out to be moved somewhere and replaced with a "see also". The problem is: where? What is the correct term for redundancies introduced by "language loans" of this sort? (My own favourite example, although I can't quite remember it, is a place that's ended up meaning "Hillhill hill", using three different languages). Anyone know a more appropriate article? - IMSoP 00:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I doubt if it has a name yet. I propose macaronic tautology; or, in the spirit of "RAS syndrome", überflüssig redundancy. Joestynes 16:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Anaheim Angels
I fail to understand how the name change translates to the full name of The The Angels Angels of Anaheim. Is it because "Los Angeles" can be shortened to "The Angels", or is there some cultural reason the name is expanded in that way? Jayvdb 23:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * "Los Ángeles" is spanish for "The Angels." By replacing all of the non-english words from "The Los Ángeles Angels of Anaheim" with their engish translation, you end up with "The The Angels Angels of Anaheim." --Bharnish 02:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, but those are 2 different sets of angels! One set is the namesake of the city, the other set is the present-day baseball team. Korky Day 06:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"Huang He River"
Does Huang He River count? It's not exactly an acronym but "Huang He" means "Yellow River" in Chinese/Mandarin, so "Huang He River" is "Yellow River River." 69.236.72.116 03:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * see Pleonasm. I tend to use just "Huang He" when writing in English, but then I am Chinese.. 218.103.132.187 14:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

"Tian Shan Mountains" is another, and so is "Mount Fujiyama" (but not 'Mount Fuji') ("Shan' is mountain(s) in Chinese; 'Yama' is Japanese).

"Hong Kong Harbour" might also be on the edge of this phenomenon ... (the 'Kong' is an Anglicisation [or corruption] of the Chinese for 'harbour').

Apparently "Gobi Desert" is one of these things too, but I don't know what language "Gobi" is from. 141.243.60.12 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Adam 24th April 2007

Confusing sentence
I am confused by the sentence, "...sometimes the usage is created by the Department of Redundancy Department or the Redundant Department of Redundancy." in the introductory paragraph. Am I missing something?--GregRM 16:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I have removed the confusing sentence. If there is disagreement, feel free to revert and discuss.--GregRM 17:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's commonly-used humorous phrasing. Adding "Department" to the end of "Department of Reduncancy" is, well, redundant. Shawn D. 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Redundant explanations
in the not redundant section. E.g. Examples appearing here may appear to be redundant but are actually not, for the given reasons:, so it is not an example of RAS syndrome either.,  is not redundant. If anything, these verbosities should be placed in the redundant section. 218.103.132.187 14:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Aliases
I've removed aliases "RWS syndrome", "ASR redundancy", "vacuoiteration"; Google suggests these are nonce terms that have not caught on at all. Although no canonical name exists (yet) for the phenomenon, we can't allow a suggest-your-own-name-here policy. I've added sources for the remaining aliases. jnestorius(talk) 16:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

SAT Reasoning Test
The Scholastic Aptitude (or Assesment) Test was renamed to The SAT Reasoning Test, where SAT is not an acronym anymore. Should this be removed from the list?


 * Don't remove it, because in the UK SAT means Standard Attainment Test. These are usually referred to in the plural (SATs /sæts/) and it is quite common to hear "SATs tests". See SATs.212.137.63.86 (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

False redundant phrase, and an easy test is proposed
RAID disks = Redundant Array of Independent Disks disks is not redundant, and should be moved to the "disputed" section. The noun in the term RAID is Array. The other words all modify the Array. What kind of Array? One that is redundant, and consists of Independent(Inexpensive) Disks. Therefore, it may be perfectly valid to refer to RAID disks--if one of the disks fails, you might say "I have to replace one of the RAID disks." (Leaving aside the technical challenges of doing that for the moment.) It would only be redundant to say "I have to replace the RAID array." Easy test: just identify the noun referred to by the initials. If the noun is repeated, redundant. If the noun is not repeated, but only adjectives are, not redundant. Of course, this "test" is at least implicit in the Laser discussion, the noun is "Amplification," not "Light," therefore no redundancy.

I also don't think that "Redundant RAID" is a redundancy, as long as you are talking about a second RAID that serves as a backup to the first RAID, rather than just talking about the one RAID. In the latter case, I would argue that saying "Redundant RAID" is not so much redundant as just saying something incorrect-- it just doesn't mean what you intend to say. 12.24.244.131 Anonymous in Mpls. 19:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC).

RAID array might be OK too, in distiction to the non-RAID array in the other server. Rich Farmbrough, 20:43 11 October 2006 (GMT).

Is this because it's treated more as an adjective? WalrusMan118 10:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's possible to have non redundant RAID arrays (RAID-0) so it's worthwhile to specify redundant even if there's only one RAID array. 131.15.48.59 (talk) 15:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Brand names, e.g. Banks
I would argue that TCBY Yogurt is not redundant, because the entire brand name "The Country's Best Yogurt" is strictly a modifier of yogurt, it's a noun only as regards the name of the company. If someone asks you "What brand of yogurt is that? It's delicious." You would not say "The Country's Best." as that is not the complete name of the yogurt's source. Once a bank changes it's name to initials, you need a generic noun to refer to the type of product (whether the choice of that name is stupid because it's derived from the old name is irrelevant to the current discussion of redundancy). Is it just me? I'm a trademark lawyer, so I'm always telling people to make sure and use a noun with their trademark (Kleenex brand facial tissues). 12.24.244.131 19:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

NIV Version
I suggest adding NIV version to the list. It stands for New International Version (the Bible) and people get it wrong all the time. 12.27.12.103 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Honourable mentions
Should these be shifted to pleonasm? They aren't acronyms after all. A Geek Tragedy 12:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

al-Qaeda
Since "al-Qaeda" can mean "the base," would "al-Qaeda base" (meaning the base base) be an honourable mention?--Padishar 05:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because it would be "base" with two totally separate meanings. Qaeda means "base, foundation"; the other word means "training ground, headquarters".   Silversmith  Hewwo 08:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Honorable Mention
I just moved around some items in the honorable mention area, and made a subsection and a short header, and when I finished, I looked at the whole article and realized that they didn't even belong in the article as they're not acronyms, or abbreviations. It seems like more than one person added them there, as they were all mixed about RSVP and WB Mason, but I am removing them now. JesseRafe 01:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

A-key?
I didn't understand this example. Could someone explain? — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think what it may be getting at has something to do with the fact that when it is spoken it sounds like "the a key" with "the" and "a" creating a (semi-?)redundancy. I'm not sure though.--GregRM 01:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's not redundant at all, not even semi-redundant! It's only redundant if you think hard about it and deliberately mislead yourself, in my opinion. I'm going to remove it; if someone can explain better, he can add it back. Thanks for trying to figure out the explanation! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

VIPIR Radar
According to Baron Services, (VIPIR's OEM manufacturer) the previous abbreviation, Volumetric Imaging and Processing of Integrated Radar, was correct as it was previously listed. I have reverted the abbreviation back to the way it should be. Editors: Please note the above reference before changing the abbreviation or I will continue to change it to the way it should be. Compdude512 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

HSBC Bank
Does the HSBC (Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation) Bank count as an RAS? I thought so, but having read the laser and RAID entries on this page, I think maybe not. "I'm going to the HSBC office" "I'm going to the HSBC bank". Jeremymiles 08:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LCD Display
I'm thinking that people say LCD display in analogy with LED display, which is not redundant. Any thoughts? --Zemylat 02:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * See section 5. Rich Farmbrough, 20:46 11 October 2006 (GMT).

Why so many examples?
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)

"Not redundant" table out of order
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 &lt;table&gt; and its contents really do come after "References". Is this a new Wikimedia bug? &mdash; Wisq (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Power over thought
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.). Rich Farmbrough, 21:01 11 October 2006 (GMT).


 * Yeah, KFC did the same thing, I assume mostly so people forgot to say "Fried". Oddly, in the UK local competitors who imitate them tend to use it in full: California Fried Chicken, Southern Fried Chicken, etc. SimonTrew (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

MOT - not redundant but not accurate
Originally, when road vehicles were tested for roadworthiness, the test was administered by the Ministry of Transport, and became the MoT Test. An early example of Camel Case!

The Ministry of Transport has long-since ceased to exist; after quite a few changes, vehicle testing is now administered by VOSA (Vehicle and Operator Standards Authority). However, this organisation now refers to the test as the MOT test and issues MOT test certificates. So, now, MOT does not stand for anything at all.

Indeed, in common usage in the UK, "MOT" is a noun. If you sell a car, you will be asked, "Does it have an MOT?". You might answer, "Yes, until July 2007".

It is never pronounced "mot"; it is always "em-oh-tee", hence the indefinite article "an" rather than "a".

A


 * It is the Department of Transport, but even they call it an MoT because it is just so common, nobody calls it a DoT. MoT or MOT is put on a lot of semi-official documents SimonTrew (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

ATI
It says that ATI technologies is not redundant and says to refer lower in the page. However, there is no specific mention of ATI later on, which is somewhat confusing. -- Prod-You 04:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SCSI Interface
If "RAID disks" is acceptable, then isn't SCSI interface? A piece of hardware that implements the SCSI standard(s) could be described as presenting a SCSI interface, that is, an interface compliant with the SCSI standard. This seems no different from describing a piece of software as presenting an HTTP interface. Sethhitch 04:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Sethhitch

I would agree that SCSI interface is a valid example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XQx (talk • contribs) 07:59, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

UPS Service
The claim that this isn't redundant seems to be incorrect. According to our own articles, "United Parcel Service" is still the official title of the organization, making "UPS Service" genuinely redundant. -Silence 12:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

FedEx
I would dispute the redundancy of "FedEx Express" as "Federal Express" is a company and the supposedly rendundant Express refers to express (as in next day) shipping).74.226.107.228 16:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow.
I trimmed the list to what I thought are three good (and commonly used) examples. If you change the examples, please try not to make the list grow unreasonably large again. The purpose of the article is to explain what RAS is, not to list every single possible redundant algorithm possible.  superapathy man  03:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * IMO you should've moved the list to another article for the list itself and linking to it instead of deleting it so fast. There was really a lot of research and useful explanation on it. That'd make up for the list growing and taking 2/3 of the article and for saving a work that's been going on for 3 years. -201.26.5.168 00:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The original list can always be grabbed from the history and moved to a new article if you want. "Been around for a while" is not a valid argument for keeping edits.  When I cleaned up the examples, I considered creating a separate article for the lists.  Wikipedia articles need to be verifiable.  None of the entries had any sources indicating that they were part of popular usage and seemed very much like original research.  Unlike "PIN number", many of the entries seemed plausible, but not widely used (e.g., "LED diode".  How often do you hear people saying that?  Most people don't even know what LED stands for).  A lot of the entries seemed completely made up, "RSI (RAS Syndrome Instance) instance".  Even if somebody were to create a sourced list of commonly used instances, how useful would that be?  I can't imagine any situation where such a list would have any value/use other than trivia.
 * But, as I said, (apart from not being registered/logged-in) nothing is stopping you from creating the article yourself. You just need to be ready to provide sources and defend its merit.  superapathy  man  00:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like there were 3 big attempts to delete the whole redundancy list, which seems to be retained because a lot of people defended (and improved) it. What's the difference between that list and this one?  If you doubt some particular entries, you can dispute them, but the list itself is encyclopedic as much as any of the other thousands of list-articles in Wikipedia ("List of . . .").  (There's one listing songs with numerals or numbers in the song titles!) Eventually, as we volunteers put in the labour over the years, each will have not only an example of Dubya using it, but a reference to a style book mentioning it. Korky Day 05:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See especially in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_redundant_expressions#E the excellent treatment of the expression "equally as". Korky Day 05:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You're forgetting that this article is not a list article. If you think that such a list has merit, by all means create an article for it, but keep it separate.  You said that there were three big attempts to clean it up.  When I pruned it, a significant number of the entries were implausible or obscure.  If people were so adamant about the list staying, why didn't they help maintain it?  superapathy  man  06:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then why does the List of redundant expressions say not to add more RAS examples there but to add them here? The 3 big attempts I mentioned were not of THIS article (see 3 paragraphs above). Korky Day 06:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it says to add them here doesn't mean it's a good/the best idea.  mi km  13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No SPAM(?)
In the RAS syndrome Article, it mentions SPAM as being the correct use for a redundant acronym, but I don't think that is really the case at all. Should this reference be removed from the article?

First of all, SPAM officially stands as an abbreviation (not an acronym) for "SPiced hAM." This is even backed up on Hormel's website. Now the wikipedia article on SPAM mentions two other acronyms. One says that SPAM could be "Shoulder of Pork and hAM" though "Shoulder of pork and ham luncheon meat" is not a redundant statement. The other acronym of "Specially Processed American Meat" is only partially redundant, but there is no citations on either of these terms to prove that they were ever in use. Since the only confirmed use of "SPAM luncheon meat" would be "Spiced ham luncheon meat" wouldn't it be a good idea to delete this reference as it is neither an acronym, nor redundant? Milesba 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry- I somehow posted this on the wrong discussion page. Can this be deleted?


 * Uh, yeah, you just open the discussion page for editing, as you did to post the comment, and simply delete the entire comment (and section heading, if applicable). &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

CIA agency
Example: Central Intelligence Agency agency. - 70.171.41.203 02:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

NDP party
The New Democratic Party of Canada is oftened referred to, even by its own members, as the NDP party.--SteveMtl 08:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What about "MMORPG games" or "MMORPG game"?
Are these widely used enough to be added? --Noerrorsfound 06:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think they're more widely used than the three that are already there. Js farrar 11:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Poor examples
I've been browsing through the page history, and not only are people not seeing (or perhaps wilfully ignoring) the "no more examples" comment, but many of the new examples added are dubious anyway.

As previously noted on this talk page, "NIC" can stand for "Network Interface Controller" (e.g. it can be integrated with the motherboard), so "NIC Card" isn't necessarily redundant. As for another recent addition, "GPS System", I'm sure this is definitely not redundant, as my understanding is that GPS stands for "Global Positioning by Satellite". 193.122.47.170 08:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

GOP Party
"NYC Mayor Bloomberg Leaves GOP Party", Associated Press and taken by hundreds of news sources... :-) bogdan 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, "GOP" is really only significant/used inside the United States.  mi km  15:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Windows 2000: based on NT Technology
NT, in the Microsoft meaning, means "New Technology" -- and doesn't mean much by itself anyway. When one boots the non standard proprietary operating system Microsoft Windows 2000, one can see that it is "based on NT Technology". Which really reads: "based on New Technology Technology". Although one could argue this is because NT doesn't really mean anything for many people, it is still RAS. -- MarcSCHAEFER —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.83.54.2 (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Justifying RAS as a linguistic effect
It seems to me that, while RAS may be redundancy semantically, it is not redundant morphologically. An acronym like "PIN" behaves like a single unanalyzable morpheme—for instance, the plural is PINs, even though "Personal Identification Numbers" would still be "PIN". Appending "number" (or whatever the relevant element of the acronym happens to be) clarifies the speaker's meaning. Is this similar to the use of noun classifiers in some languages?

I seem to recall reading a post on the subject at Language Log or some other linguistics blog a while back, but I haven't been able to find it. 164.55.254.106 (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you sum it up well when you say "Appending 'number' (or whatever the relevant element of the acronym happens to be) clarifies the speaker's meaning". Copyeditor types tend to get hung up on the redundancy in RAS syndrome. But a lot of copyediting is misguided when it's based on lines of thinking that are divorced from linguistic reality. (For example, "all redundancy is always bad".) Speaking of Language Log, GKP himself hates misguided copyediting. Now, copyediting can be a very good thing—it's just that some people are more misguided about it than others. The ones with a heavy touch tend to be worse. Sadly, sometimes some rather stupid "rules" are enforced not because the copyeditor actually agrees that they ought to be, but only to preempt having some readers saying "I can't believe they didn't follow such-and-such rule! They're so stupid!" In regard to RAS syndrome, in real-life speech, people use intensification and redundancy all the time in order to make their meaning doubly clear. The "Reasons for use" section as it currently stands basically explains this. The AC current example is a good one. In addition to what's explained, there is also a subtle efficiency at work in speech that doesn't make a point of switching to the expanded form. The brains of the speakers (say, electricians) are so used to saying /ˌeiˈsi/ whenever they mean AC current that to self-consciously analyze their own speech in order to decide at certain spots to avoid saying it and instead say "alternating current" would require some mental processing that is unnecessary for communication purposes and is therefore forgone. That's my 2¢ for tonight. — ¾-10 02:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BWIA Airways/Airlines/Air
This long-standing subsidiary of BOAC and later BA - working flights throughout the Carribean from post-war until 2006 when ownership and thus regrettably the name changed hands - stood for British West Indian Airways but was invariably referred to as BWIA Airways (or alternatively as BWIA Airlines or BWIA Air), in conversation, in print which ought to have known better and generally in  common usage in fact. Which was rather daft. There's an honourable citation of this in one of Patrick Smith's "Ask The Pilot" articles from Salon and no doubt from elsewhere on the airlines corner of the internets. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternating Current?
I'm really not sure about the logic in this sentence: Also, the phrase "AC current" distinguishes from "AC voltage". If the current alternates then the polarity must alternate as well and, thus, the voltage! TINY Mark (Talk) 08:10, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) There isn't really an "AC voltage" - it's the voltage of an alternating current. However, in this day and age of verbal shortcuts, it often gets referred to as "AC voltage". Similarly "DC voltage".
 * 2) Hence, this doesn't distinguish AC voltage from AC current - if you have an AC current, then you will have an associated AC voltage. What does the distinguishing are the words "current" and "voltage"; the "AC" prefix, in fact, shows the similarity.
 * What AC does is distinguish AC voltage/AC current from DC voltage/DC current.
 * (I'm not sure if this helps or not!!) Pdfpdf (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Presence of an alternating current doesn't necessarily mean having an alternating voltage, as in a superconductor, but that's straying a bit from the original topic. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OR tags assume bad faith
So I replaced the instance here with a tag. I don't see any point in assuming the person did not add something they assumed could and would eventually be sourced. "Citation Needed" sufficiently caries the meaning, and just caries an added connotation. Even if the tag is considered legit (I'll discuss that at, there has been no that the remark was, in fact, original research, and thus is at least POV.

-- trlkly 05:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambig
This syndrome is quite similar to disambiguation on wikipedia. When someone says PIN number, it could be interpreted as "PIN (number)". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.146.15.145 (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Dubious
"...in certain contexts CSS could also refer to ..., or more commonly (as they both occur in discussion of client side web-development) cross-site scripting."

I was under the impression that cross-site scripting is generally abbreviated as "XSS" to avoid this conflict (NoScript would seem to agree with me, though that is by definition unreliable; even the article cross-site scripting uses "XSS"). -- Thin boy  00  @832, i.e. 18:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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. –  7 4   14:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Similar occurrences
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.) –  7 4   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)

Can we add Jeb Bush?
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"&mdash;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. –  7 4   23:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Extended by different, but redundant words
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. –  7 4   00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

CHOGM
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)

GPS example
Wikipedia defines GPS as "Global Positioning System", so where does the "Global Positioning Satellite" reference come from? The reference in question seems to be a radio news bulletin, which isn't really top notch. I'd like to see a reference to actual usage in this contenxt. I've removed the reference for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nettrom (talk • contribs) 14:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it seems that this has been brought up before (see Talk:RAS_syndrome) 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)

LPG Gas
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)

Alternatives to massive lists
Two ideas, just thrown on the table for people to mess with, tear apart, or improve upon: 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.
 * 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
 * 2) 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
 * 3) people have to elect to click to look at the list, rather than forcing it on them
 * 4) Have a collapsed list. To my mind this has pros and cons:
 * 5) + the page is shorter when initially loaded, as long as the section is marked as
 * 6) + users can still elect to view the list on a single click of a mouse
 * 7) &minus; 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!)
 * 8) &minus; I don't know how non-graphical (e.g. text) browsers will handle it, or whether it has accessibility issues.

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)

NFL Football League, NHL Hockey League
These terms are commonly used and serve as blatant examples of RAS Syndrome, especially since the repetition is on two letters of the acronyms. I think NFL Football League and NHL Hockey League should be added to the article.

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

One more? ADSL Line
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.

Citations for examples
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 sources for three of the examples, but the other three need to be referenced. Cnilep (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

ATI Technologies Inc
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)

DC Comics
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)

Request to add "For your FYI"
"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)

For people suggesting new entries for the list, please read this
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)

Worth it?
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 List of acronyms and initialisms: N? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.220.249 (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * 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 Redirect?
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?
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)

Pine Tree vs. Red in Color.
"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). Guy Macon 17:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 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)

Redundant RAS
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. Guy Macon 17:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

CSS
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)

RAID
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)

Request to Add SAT Test
Lots of people say "SAT test", but isn't that really saying "Scholastic Aptitude Test test"? Molly moon  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)

LCD Display
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)

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

How about a list of redundant acronyms?
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!):
 * AZ Alkmaar — Alkmaar 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 verifiable inclusion criteria. That is, the page should not include every initialism that editors recognize as redundant; it should have an explicit description of what is included and what is not, and this should be based on third-party reliable sources. Simply expanding a collection of acronyms and initialisms may also skirt violating the policy Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See the essay Lists in Wikipedia for further consideration. Cnilep (talk) 23:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Another one: PDF Format
Portable Document Format Format  -- X736e65616b (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

SMS statement is an error
SMS message is in fact incorrect. The message is correctly titled "short message" in the system, which created the complete acronym "Short Message System". Beta M (talk) 11:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Recently-spotted counterexample
"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)

Description and POV
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 WP:NPOV. I am also a bit concerned about the following line in the lead section: "not because their usage is always 'wrong', but rather because most of one's audience may believe that it is always wrong." Again, this seems to shade into judgement, perhaps (ironically) prescribing avoidance of prescriptive attitudes. Cnilep (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 are pronounced as a diphthong, as in Boyd  (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  (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)

why "syndrome"?
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, Manual of Style (lead section) suggests, "If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence."

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)

PIN meaning altered in australian banks
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(!) 86.15.236.184 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Personal PIN Number
I've seen this phrase used in quite a lot of places, most recently at. 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)

Can we add CAC?
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)

Further examples perhaps qualifying for inclusion
-Anomalocaris (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2010 (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)
 * 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)


 * Windows 2000's boot screen saying it was "Built on NT technology." And two that are widespread in the medical imaging field: "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, which may refer to the full geographic extents of the special governmental unit, or 15 subdivisions thereof, each represented by a district director 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)

"These 3 items"
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: See also the numerous examples suggested in other sections of this talk page.
 * 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)

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)

Two more examples
[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 La Brea tar pits, which if you translate the original Spanish name expands to "The The Tar Tar Pits". (But I guess this isn't really an acronym issue.) —Steve Summit (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

PIN number
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. error detection and correction and other 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)