Talk:RAS syndrome/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

PNS syndrome

In July 2013 User:TenPoundHammer removed several bits of unsourced or badly sourced information. I have, however, recently restored one part of that information.

The old version of the page asserted, "The similar term PNS syndrome (which expands to "PIN number syndrome syndrome", and further to "personal identification number number syndrome syndrome") was coined by Usenet users before the coining of RAS Syndrome", and quoted a Google archive of alt.possessive.its.has.no.apostrophe. As TenPoundHammer noted, a Usenet group is not a reliable source, since it is user-generated. It is a particularly unfit source for this bit of information, since it is a primary source.

Nonetheless, the primary source does reveal that the word "PNS syndrome" was used on Usenet. I have therefore changed the article to read, "The similar term PNS syndrome (which expands to "personal identification number number syndrome syndrome") was used by Usenet users." I have also tagged the assertion as requiring a non-primary source. Note that this assertion makes no unverified claim about the word's origin. Cnilep (talk) 00:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC) @Cnilep:I doubt a secondary source would ever come up verifying that something was the case on Usenet. I can think of a billion Usenet-isms that would never have a secondary source verifying their existence. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:20, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Acronyms become used as words

I think it might be worth noting in the section describing reasonable usage that often acronyms end up being used as if they were words themselves. For example, RSVP (the French for something like "respond please" has become an English verb meaning "to respond to an invitation; to comfirm whether or not one will attend an event" or similar. It is often used with suffexes: "Nancy RSVPed via email"; "When did RSVPing fall out of fashion?" When taking as a word rather than an acronym, it makes sense for the apparent redundancy. HIV is a type of virus, as is flu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.155.39 (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

FMS Surname

Rab Butler, Jeb Bush jnestorius^(talk) 12:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If there is ever a list of self-demonstrating articles, this should be on it

For examples of self-demonstrating articles you can look on tv tropes BobHelmut (talk) 14:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

BRD examples

@Thewolfchild:, can we discuss? We should find citations for all of them, otherwise it's WP:OR. (PDF doesn't have one, but I'll remove that once WP:3RR expires.) Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

For example, we could cite to here. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 14:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The one I added has a cite. If the list is capped at 5, and you're going to remove "PDF" (and presumably replace it with "HIV"), then problem solved. - ^theWOLFchild 20:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

No--we need a cite saying that it's an RAS, not just that it's DC comics. Please read the policy on original research. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 01:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"PDF format" not only doesn't have a valid cite backing it as RAS up and is, as it currently stands, OR, but also it seems invalid to me; the cite actually shows that the usage is hardly redundant, because 'pdf' doesn't necessarily have to be an acronym (although it's derived from one). There's a slight but important difference between the very *acronym*, and the *file extension* of a file storing a data in some format. The very same way "FILE.COM" is a "file named 'FILE' with 'COM' extension" and is assumed to be "in COM format" (note that, while the "COM" here is derived from the word "command", it doesn't expand to it and is not an acronym for "command"), the very same way a "file.pdf" is a "file named 'file' with 'pdf' extension" and is assumed to be "in pdf format". IMO it's not a RAS, because 'pdf' here is only *derived* from an acronym, not one itself. File format extensions shouldn't be considered RAS as a rule of thumb; if we treated the extensions as acronyms, they would make no sense (see GIF, TIFF, IFF, AIFF etc.)

tl;dr "PDF format" removed until a valid and verifiable cite source is given. 89.69.175.232 (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a good example?

NES system(Nintendo Entertainment System system) 83.240.82.223 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but we'd need a source referring to it as a RAS. You could list examples forever, so we try to keep it to 5. Origamite^ⓣⓒ 21:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

OPEC countries

I don't think 'OPEC countries' qualifies as "technically redundant". OPEC stands for Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and therefore it's an 'organization' when OPEC itself is used. OPEC countries therefore, in my opinion, correctly refers to 'the countries' (i.e. member states) of this organization as opposed to referring to the organization itself. Just my 2 cents. To further clarify my viewpoint, I'd say an 'OPEC organization' expression would qualify as "technically redundant" instead. Babach (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Agree—"OPEC countries" is not redundant in the same way that "PIN number" is. It's a superficial mistake to jump to the idea that it is. For that matter, if you say that "various US states have laws about topic X," the phrase "US states" is also not in the same class as "PIN number". This seems obvious to me, but if anyone needs analysis to explain how it is true, speak up, it could be worked up if people need it. I abridged the quote in the article by ellipsing past "OPEC". It is still a good and valid quote even with the ellipsis. — ¾-10 01:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So by your logic, referring to the OPEC countries is not redundant, but referring to the OPEC organization is? What about referring to the OPEC petroleum exporters, as opposed to the non-OPEC petroleum explorers? I'm not quibbling, I'm from the "none of them are reduntant, acronyms always move into the unanalyzed morpheme" linguistic camp. 74.65.224.183 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Recently removed

User:Prinsgezinde removed some content with two edits, which I later reverted. Prinsgezinde suggested that the intentional redundancy is "understood" and "doesn't need citations". I'm a bit of fanatic for citations, so I disagree.

Prinsgezinde also noted that Redundant Acronym Phrases is a less reliable source. I agree; it is a primary source using the name. But I also note that other (not necessarily reliable, but independent) sources also use the label "RAP" (example 1, 2). Cnilep (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well I'm not going to challenge you since I have only limited interest in this article, but it seemed to me that most people would be able to spot the irony in the name. Either way, those sources are self-published and can not be used to verify the use of a name. I think the current name, RAS syndrome, is enough. Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 08:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Recursive RAS Syndrom

Guys,

I understand that you wish to keep only 5 examples. However, I would like to discuss the opportunity to add a new one, which can be considered as a redundant redundant acronym syndrome syndrome (Redundant RAS Syndrom) : The TOGAF Framework (The/The Open Group Architecture Framework/Framework). I don't find it relevant to create a new article for Redundant RAS Syndrom but adding this example would do the job.

Don't hesitate to share your comments. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.207.220.1 (talk) 12:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

How about adding PAT Testing?

Like it says. See Portable appliance testing. Hogyn Lleol (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Can we add DC?

The logo for DC Movies is DC Comics.. Which means detective comic comics... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckwoodjohn (talk • contribs) 23:30, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

DC is not an acronym. While the name was inspired by the detective comics, the official name is DC Comics, which is part of DC Entertainment. So it's not an acronym. JDDJS (talk) 02:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

According to our article, the company's name came from their branding of "Superman-DC." So yes, the name means "Detective Comics… Comics." However, I wouldn't consider that redundant—Detective Comics was one of their titles, one of many comics. So it's properly "Detective Comics Comics" (note the italicization), with the Batman title modifying the industry label. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Smile

The page says

Similarly, in 'Wipe that smile off your face' the last two words are tautological—there is no other place a smile could be—but the sentence would not stand without them."[12]

And perhaps Bryson says that, but he's wrong. You could be directed to wipe the smile off of somebody else's face, or could be directed to wipe an image of a smile off of a chalkboard.

Jordan Brown (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Or you could simply say, "Wipe off that smile." The sentence stands fine. I'm removing that unnecessary bit of the quote. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 20:31, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

the title phrase itself

The first sentence was

RAS syndrome (short for "redundant acronym syndrome syndrome"<!-- sic -->) refers to the use of one or more of the words that make up an acronym in conjunction with the abbreviated form, thus in effect repeating one or more words.

I have changed the parenthesized part to

(where "RAS" stands for "redundant acronym syndrome" and "syndrome" jokingly makes the phrase self-referential)

RAS syndrome is not, itself, a "syndrome syndrome", whatever that might mean. The syndrome here is the pattern of these terms, or the behavior of persons creating them, namely (the use of) redundant acronyms; thus redundant acronym syndrome. Anyone who uses the expression and knows what it stands for must be aware of its redundancy, and therefore aware that it is self-referring and not literally accurate, and that the self-reference makes sense only as a joke.

--Thnidu (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

acronym -> abbreviation

This topic should be broadened "abbreviation" because "acronym" is a specific kind of abbreviation that is said like a word.

DNS - an abbreviation

SCUBA - an acronym — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.141.13.226 (talk) 20:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

wrong, according not to me but to the Acronym page. IBM is widely considered to be an acronym too. 74.65.224.183 (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

FAT Table

From someone who, according to his own claims, ought to know better. See http://www.diyphotography.net/not-delete-images-memory-card-using-camera/ 143.159.132.14 (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

the foreign acronym unanalyzed morpheme section is currently confused

Foreign word borrowings in general are unanalyzed morphemes (analyzed morphemes are a feature only of a native language and only a subset (large) at that.) An example would be "the hoi polloi" which would translate back to Greek as the "the polloi" or "hoi hoi polloi". The point being, the borrowing of foreign acronyms is actually evidence that the acronyms themselves are already unanalyzed in the language they are being borrowed from because the speakers of language 2 who are doing the borrowing are also speakers of language 1 whence they borrow it, whence they learned it as an analyzed morpheme. 74.65.224.183 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC on including DC Comics

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There's no consensus here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

---

Should we include DC Comics (Detective Comics Comics) in the list of examples? JDDJS (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support inclusion. This is a good example, it is cited, and has been on the list (intermittently) for quite some time. The list is quite short, now only standing at four entries, as two other redundant examples were recently removed. If anything, it could use another one or two. - wolf 23:36, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

  How about TSB Bank? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

  @Redrose64: Sure, that could be another entry. However, do you support or oppose in this RfC? Thanks - wolf 13:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• What the hey. Yes --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• It needs a citation to a reliable source that says it's a example. If I recall correctly, the company has said "DC" no longer stands for anything. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:30, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

  There is an attached source that states "Detective Comics", numerous times. Are you challenging the source? Or are you claiming the source must state that DC is an example of RAS? Do you have a source to support your recollection? Lastly, even if DC (the parent company) is now is just "DC", it did stand for "Detective Comics" at one time for years, and by all accounts, it's comics still do. It is still an example. Can't pretend it never existed... - wolf 13:59, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose this is article is about RAS itself, and not a list article for every example of it. We just need to list a couple of examples, just so people can get the idea of what it means. I can see no reason that we need to add any more examples to over emphasize the point. Additionally, since DC has long since changed its name to just be DC and not stand for anything, it is highly debatable if RAS even applies here in the first place. I just do not see how including it helps improve the article in any way. JDDJS (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  Didn't you at one point add the suppressed note that said "the list should not be more than 5 examples"...? I removed two duplicates awhile ago, and now, with DC included, there are only four (4) examples. (That's not really considered exhaustive.) You're ok with five, but four is too many? And that fact is, even if the parent company, "DC Enterainment" is just "DC", is still does stand for "Detective Comics" on some of their publications, as per the attached source. And as such, "Detective Comics Comics" is still an good example of RAS syndrome, especially compared to the others, which are all theee-letter initialisms. - wolf 15:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

  It's not about a magic number that is just the right amount. It's about when your point is made. And I feel the point is already made with the other examples. The idea of including DC has been floated around in the past, but it never has gained a significant amount of traction. If you can find any actual reliable sources that point out the redundancy of using the phrase DC comics (doesn't have to refer to RAS by name, just the concept), then I would completely change my stance. But without any sources referring to the redundancy, it's just a piece of unnecessary original research. JDDJS (talk)

  Well, when you put "detective comics comics redundant" into Google, you get loads of results. Most of them are on message boards, which aren't RS of course, but it certainly demonstrates how sooo many people see "DC Comics" as a redundant term. Perhaps that's why is was suggested so much on the talk page here. I'm still not sure why you are so vehemently against including it, but I'm also not sure how the other three examples were selected either. Anyway, I did grab some cites; (some likely more RS than others) [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. But regardless, I think it is well established that "DC Comics" is a widely recognized redundant term. Also, as I pointed out above, I think it's of more value to include (in place of one of the other three examples, if there is going to be a hard cap of three entries for this list) because the other three are all three letter initialisms, whereas "DC Comics" is not. We should show that RAS Syndrome is not specific to three letter initialisms, but that it can come in other forms. - wolf 21:02, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose (Summoned by bot) per JDDJS, the value of a list of (debatable?) examples is itself debatable. When DC or TSB becomes the proper noun for a company (albeit a name originally formed from a pre-existing acronym), it is debatable whether these are RASs or simply proper use, ie name of company followed by their function or product. No one would find the use of the final word reduntant in "Acme Books publications", which is analagous usage. The value of the page seems to exist in informing that the phenomenon exists and a small number of clear (undisputed) examples given for clarification. Pincrete (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

  If you're looking for a "small list"... we have one. At one time, 5 examples was deemed acceptable, now we only have 4. They're all sourced and the "dispute" was from a single editor. The rest of your argument doesnt seem to make sense... DC Comics is just that, no one is claiming 'Comics' is being used in place of another analogous word (eg: it's not "DC Publications"). Whether it's the name of company or a virus, it's still an example of RAS. The list is small and in no way takes away from the article. Of the 4 examples on the list, DC has arguably been proposed the most on the talk page, perhaps becasue it's been around the longest of all the examples and is so widely recognized. And, another factor that gives it value above the other examples is that it's not just another 3-letter initialism. It's the lone example that demonstrates that RAS comes in other forms. (It would be great if we could add a 4-letter example, like HSBC Bank, but that's a different discussion). Thanks - wolf 16:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC on including LCD

Should we include LCD (Liquid-crystal display display) in the list of examples? - wolf 14:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

LCD display has its own independent reference pointing out the relevancy of the name, so it needs to be on the list. JDDJS (talk) 18:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on including UPC

Should we include UPC (Universal Product Code code) in the list of examples? - wolf 14:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC on including HIV

Should we include HIV (Human immunodeficiency virus virus) in the list of examples? - wolf 14:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

RfC comments

Looking through the talk archives, I didn't see any specific consensus for any of the current entries in the "list of examples". A couple of them, such as PIN and DC Comics are mentioned and/or suggested multiple times however. We should establish a clear consensus for all the entries, so that we something to refer to going forward, should there be any issues with the list in the future. (imho) - wolf 14:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

You really shouldn't need to hold RFCs to establish consensus. A plain old discussion on the talk page ought to be enough – assuming that you can't achieve the normal Wikipedia:Consensus#Through editing, which I would have thought was good enough for all of these examples. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

You would think so. As did I. But here we are anyway. There is quite a history behind behind this little 4 word list, (not quite a "pile", but anyway), and apparently this way was needed to get a consensus established. - wolf 08:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I started the RFC on DC comics because there was a clear disagreement between wolf and me about whether including DC, and no other editors were getting involved to break the deadlock, so it was the only way to end the edit war. The other entries on the list have been there unchallenged for a while now, so I see no reason to debate those inclusions. JDDJS (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, DC had been proposed multiple times (as I mentioned) and was on the list for quite some time until you rather arbitrarily removed it. But, regardless, we have an RfC for DC, and the other 3 entries now, so we'll just go with them. - wolf 15:06, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

List limit

Perhaps while we're at it, we should decide if the list is going to have a set number of entries with no exceptions, barring a consensus, (a hard cap), or if additional entries will be permitted under certain circumstances, such as an attached ref that specifically mentions redundancy (a soft cap). Thoughts? - wolf 18:44, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• I was called here by the bot. It seems that it's difficult for writers here to keep on the topic of the "syndrome", rather than focusing on the much more interesting redundant acronym phrases themselves. This is likely because there is no such syndrome ("set of medical signs and symptoms") (well except this); it's just a catchphrase made up by Stanley Newman,([6]) useful because it demonstrated itself, and sounded cute, to describe a common language usage error. If the article was renamed "Redundant acronym phrases", with a subsection and redirect about the so-called "RAS syndrome", it would be easier to justify a longer list of commonly spoken examples. There could even be a list article with lots of them. Otherwise, any four or five examples will do; exactly which ones isn't critical to understanding the concept, or worth spending much time arguing about. Here's an opinion with a reference:[7].—Anne Delong (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
• For starters, let's limit it to entries that are verifiable. None of them have sources that call them redundant acronyms symptomatic of RAS. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

  Why would they though? - wolf 19:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

PDF format

The example PDF format should be added. It seems to be quite common, also in official and legal publications. --91.113.9.215 (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit notice

I see that edit notices have been added using html comments, but I don't think that every editor (e.g. people using WP:VisualEditor) see html comments. Perhaps someone would like to draft an WP:Editnotice, which as I understand it would appear to all editors. Cnilep (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, if you think it would be an improvement. - wolf 02:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

VisualEditor does show HTML comments, FWIW. Nardog (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I've requested one at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/RAS syndrome. The text is based on the current html comments, but with slight editorial license. Please feel free to adjust the language. Cnilep (talk) 02:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Where can smiles be?

"Similarly, in 'Wipe that smile off your face' the last two words are tautological—there is no other place a smile could be—but the sentence would not stand without them."

Couldn't a smile exist on another persons face? This is original research but that quote is just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.222.148.189 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC) It's not an acronym though.Ææqwerty (talk) 04:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

RFC on including RPG games

Some people who like video games prefer to play 'RPG Games'. Or, 'Role-playing games games'. It is used in mainstream articles, etc. Should we include this in the list of examples? Ken https://www.gamesradar.com/best-rpg-games/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.82.80.202 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Acronyms and initialisms from foreign languages are often treated as unanalyzed morphemes

It's not particularly true that "acronyms and initialisms from foreign languages are often treated as unanalyzed morphemes". Pretty much all foreign words are treated as unanalyzed morphemes and that would include, as a very small subset, foreign acronyms; if foreign words are analyzable, like trans-port-ation, then guess what, they aren't foreign words, or they just happen to very closely resemble local words (delicioso is recognizable, but not directly analyzable). And in addition (back to analyzing the sentence from the article), local language acronyms are also more-than-frequently treated as unanalyzed morphemes, and hence the use of those morphemes as words that participate in sentences, such as "type in your password or PIN number (if you have more than one, type in both PINs)". Final point, RAS Syndrome is a joke, it's a grammar nazi's insult, it's not a real syndrome. The article should state that clearly up front. As a phenomenon, it's completely explainable in standard linguistics, new grammatical structures did not need to be invented to discuss it. 98.13.244.125 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Adobe AIR notable enough?

Adobe's development platform is officially short for Adobe Adobe Integrated Runtime 122.213.236.124 (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Gili Islands

Gili Islands is a chain of three islands off Lombok called Gili Air, Gili Trawagan etc. As you may guess, Gili means Island in the local tounge. So its the Island Islands. Rodnebb (talk) 19:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Rodnebb:, that example is more relevant to list of tautological place names (and it is already listed there). Plantdrew (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Laser light?

Laser light refers to the light emitted by a laser, but it literally means "Light amplification(or amplified) by stimulated emission of radiation light." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.173.170.41 (talk) 18:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The term RAS sydrome is itself the expression of an RAS "syndrome"

As a consequence I recommend including it in the list of RAS examples.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.53.197.38 (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

It's noted in the first sentence of the lead. - wolf 02:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

IOLTA Accounts

IOLTA itself is not self-referential or even redundant as it stands for "interest on lawyer trust accounts", but the banks in their infinite stupidity have started referring to lawyer trust accounts as "IOLTA accounts", making it redundant and nonsensical, and then the _interest_ earned on an "IOLTA account" would then become self-referential, as it would be "interest earned on interest on lawyer trust accounts account". This article uses the expression EIGHT TIMES:

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/gpsolo/publications/gp_solo/2011/july_august/ioltas_client_trust_accounts/

67.233.59.39 (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Review?

Perhaps a review is needed? It appears that some of the editors here that monitor and... enforce this page are set on 3-letter examples. Should the article not make it clear that other variations exist? 2 and 4 letters? Or more? Or combinations of letter and words. This article can be misleading with such strict limitations. - wolf 19:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

EC Comics

EC Comics could be added to the list: Entertaining Comics, more commonly known as EC Comics... --217.140.99.251 (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

But we already have an identical example. The point isn't to try any list every possible instance there is out there. Do you have other suggestions, say something that is actually dissimilar to the entries already listed? (eg; a four- or even five-letter example?) I think that would useful. - wolf 18:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

DC Comics

@198.70.2.200 & 184.1.1.160, see both Detective Comics and DC Comics, regardless of what the "official name" is "DC Comics" is an example of RAS syndrome. This has nothing to do with "what you say when you buy a DC action figure", when people say or write "DC Comics" (and it is said and written, often) they are essentially saying "Detective Comics Comics". That is the redundancy, and that is an example of RAS syndrome. - wolf 20:50, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

But it's not a redundancy because Detective Comics is a brand/company name. Comics are one product they sell. It absolutely has to do with their products. When referring to language, redundant means "able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function." If you bought an issue of Superman, you wouldn't say "I bought a Detective Comics" because that's just the company name and they put out products other than comics.

@184.1.1.160, 198.70.2.200, 97.112.198.148: Stop your edit-war. Go away. Come back when you understand the difference between "DC Comics" and "DC comics". — Chrisahn (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

See https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Redundancy/Comicbooks: DC Comics. "DC" stands for "Detective Comics," ergo their name is Detective Comics Comics. They also publish a series called Detective Comics. Which means it's Detective Comics Comics' Detective Comics. And the comics they publish are Detective Comics Comics' comics. If you still don't understand how the brand name is redundant, nothing else will help. We'll just have to block you. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Source

TV Troopes is not a reliable source. DC's name originates with detective comics, however, it no longer stands for anything. The official name of the company is just DC. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Reliable source has been added. Current company name notwithstanding, nothing changes the fact that "DC" stood for "Detective Comics", which made "DC Comics" a redundant acronym. - wolf 23:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

@JDDJS: The official name of the company is "DC Comics". See e.g. [8], [9], [10] or dozens of uses on https://www.dccomics.com/copyright: "The DC logo is a trademark of DC Comics", "Vertigo is a trademark of DC Comics", etc. The name is often abbreviated to just "DC" though, e.g. [11]. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

break

If the official name of the company is 'DC Comics' then it's not a redundancy because that's simply the name of the company. It doesn't matter how many times a word is repeated in an official name, it would not be redundant. 'Redundant' doesn't just mean 'a word repeated' it means a word that can be removed without affecting meaning. Sort of like how 'Bora Bora' isn't redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.202.230 (talk) 22:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

"uh, no. You just haven't said anything new" I haven't had to say anything new because I've been correct the entire time. 'Redundant' does not mean "A word being used more than once, regardless of context". Context is important when it comes to determining whether a phrase is a redundancy. If the name of the company is "DC Comics" then that's just the name of the company, no redundancy.

Redundant : (of words or data) able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function. If the official name of the company is "Detective Comics Comics" and you remove the second 'Comics', then you have not expressed the name of the company. It doesn't matter if it repeats 50x, if that's the official name then unless you say it 50x, you're technically losing meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.202.230 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

You don't just repeatedly remove sourced content based on "I am correct, everyone else is wrong". Can you provide sources that not only support your argument, but are stronger than the sourcing currently supporting the DC Comics entry? Because, that is largely how Wikipedia works: content is based on sourcing, (See verifiability, not truth. But even if you believe your argument is "truth", doesn't mean it is). As far as how "redundancy" is applied here, if you're looking to change the meaning of the article, that is another discussion. - wolf 04:06, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

How is it 'another discussion' as to whether or not the phrase in question even qualifies for the very definition of the syndrome it's being listed under? It's literally the first word of the article, 'redundant'. It seems to be a misconception that any repetition is redundancy. It's not. 'Bora Bora' is not a redundancy, both words together are the name of an island and only using one 'Bora would not convey the same meaning. 'Djibouti, Djibouti' is not a redundancy. I'm not questioning whether that's the name of the company, I'm pointing out that it doesn't belong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.202.230 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Again, where are your sources? We don't base content on personal opinions (also known as original research, which is all you've offered so far. That and "Bora Bora", which is not being used as a acronym. If Bora Bora Island became known as "BBI", and then people called it "BBI Island", that would be an example of RAS Syndrome). You've repeatedly removed sourced content, without consensus, against the edit-warring policy, and the widely accepted practice of not changing disputed content while there is an active discussion. You've just been warned about this by another editor, and yet you persist. I suggest you self-revert, and follow the guidleines of this project while you contest this content. Otherwise you might find your access blocked (which follows you to any IP address or account you use) and/or this page being protected against further edits by you. - wolf 04:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I've been offering definitions straight from Webster's. Unless it was officially renamed "BBI Island" in which case it would not be a redundancy, just like DC Comics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.202.230 (talk) 04:49, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide a linked quote from Websters that directly supports your argument here? Also, if "Bora Bora Island" were to become known as "BBI Island", officially or informally, it would be a redundancy, as it would mean "Bora Bora Island Island". The second "island" is redundant, or according to Merriam-Webster;

1. exceeding what is necessary or normal : SUPERFLUOUS
2. characterized by or containing an excess
   specifically : using more words than necessary
3. characterized by similarity or repetition

The same applies to "Detective Comics Comics". - wolf 05:26, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@97.112.202.230: This discussion has run its course. You still don't seem to understand how "DC Comics" is a case of RAS syndrome. That's unfortunate, but, well, it happens. In cases like this, it's best to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Please also read WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY, which I think is a really helpful and well-written essay. Thanks and good bye! (I agree with everything Thewolfchild has said above, and I probably won't respond to any other comments in this thread.) — Chrisahn (talk) 08:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DC Comics: ?

Having looked at the archives, I somewhat understand why some people feel strongly about keeping "DC Comics" in the RAS syndrome#Examples - "not technology related", "not a three-letter acronym", and so forth. The fact remains that it is an arguably less clear-cut and demonstrably more controversial instance than the rest. The reason is that while there is no doubt that "DC" stood for "Detective Comics" in the past, and conceivably still stands for "Detective Comics" in some present uses, it does not follow that "DC Comics" is itself such a present use: etymology and meaning are not the same thing. The pair of Screen Rant articles blithely ignore that distinction... I could speculate as to why, but that's neither here nor there, really.

Anyway, are there objections to putting a tag on the example, to acknowledge this situation? If is already too tendentious, I suppose a would suffice too.

- 2A02:560:42DC:8200:C0FE:BF30:5F72:AEBF (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a need for either the tag or the note. As you yourself just made claer; It most definitely was an example, even if you don't agree it is now. This is not just a list of "current" examples. As you also pointed out, his entry is supported by sources, you're disagreement with said sources is basically original research. And finally, just as you've noted, this has been discussed already, and you haven't really presented anything new, other that you don't like it. Do you have any reliable sources that clearly DC Comics isn't, and never was, an example of RAS? - wolf 18:12, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd say that to qualify as OR, one would have to try and include it among the counterexamples at the bottom, along with "LASER light" and "OPEC countries". Removing content doesn't need a source, just consensus. Which there isn't, in this case. Which is why I'm suggesting something less drastic. Think about it this way: Wouldn't a note make it less likely for previously uninvolved editors to boldly remove the example, based on the notions that it does refer to the present and, at present, doesn't qualify - as has been happening and is bound to continue to happen? Wouldn't that be a good thing? Obviously, the content of such a note would be subject to verifiability in turn - in the case of the tag, on the other hand, I'm not clear on how much substantiation is needful, I'm afraid.

- (OP) 89.183.220.243 (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I never said sources were needed to remove content. But the example you're railing against is supported by sourcing, which is how Wikipedia works. If you want to build a consensus to remove sourced content, you should know that consensus isn't a vote, it's not about straight numbers, but the quality of each argument. Such arguments in this case may need to be supported by more than just personal opinion. As for the note to create a discussion, I again don't really see a need for it, there is already a discussion taking place. Again. So apparently such stimulus is required. (Also, you're not the ip-user that debated this recently with Chrisahn above, are you?) - wolf 00:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Proposed additional example

International Student Identity Card - as demonstrated by the article itself, invariably referred to as "ISIC card". Pro: Four letters! Con: A lot less common than "DC" and "HIV" and "LCD"... same holds for "UPC", though.

- 2A02:560:42DC:8200:C0FE:BF30:5F72:AEBF (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Or how about "FBI investigation"...? There's all kinds of examples out there. What number do you suggest the list of examples be expanded to? And why? - wolf 18:25, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The head of "FBI" is "bureau", not "investigation", so that's along the same lines as the counterexamples already mentioned. I like the point you repeatedly made that the current list sort of suggests that TLAs in particular suffer from RAS, which isn't the case. Counting the three examples in the lede, they account for six out of seven, IIRC - less than half, so at most three out of seven, would be preferrable, IMO. Then again, it's quite possible that TLAs are overrepresented in the first place, among acronyms generally and/or among the most common acronyms, so that may be a naive target. As for the total, I'd definitely keep it in the single digits, again counting the three or so in the lede. So seven sounds fine to me, but a couple more or less would still be fine. To justify more, they'd need to demonstrate different subtypes of the syndrome, or some such. IMO.

- (OP) 89.183.220.243 (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

So if someone were to say "this is an FBI investigation", which is the same as saying it's a "Federal Bureau of Investigation investigation"... you claim that is not a example of RAS? (And feel free to clarify; "Bureau" is "head"? And "TLA'?) And of all the acronyms listed in the article, which ones are you claiming are not examples of RAS? (And then there's OPEC, which the article states is and isn't an example... but I think that was mentioned before). This seems to be about more than just single example... - wolf 23:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional example — John Ellis ("Jeb") Bush

John Ellis Bush is a prominent American politician who is best known by the nickname/initialism "Jeb Bush," which demonstrates RAS Syndrome. All of the current examples are ordinary acronyms. An additional example of a different form may be helpful/interesting to some readers.

2600:1016:B129:684F:752E:F22C:B4C9:77C7 (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Guest Editor from West Virginia

References

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds: Battlegrounds

PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG) apparently rebranded itself PUBG: Battlegrounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:cb00:8ed:3200:1d24:941e:5829:2b11 (talk) 14:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Cited from this source: PUBG is now officially PUBG: Battlegrounds for some reason Blake Gripling (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Additional example proposal: RAT test

Additional example proposal: •RAT test (rapid antigen test test)

citation: [12] 103.139.104.233 (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me too. --184.63.205.119 (talk) 01:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Jeb Bush

“Jeb” is an acronym for John Ellis Bush. Thus, “Jeb Bush” is short for John Ellis Bush Bush. 2600:1700:37A9:4000:2C15:BBD6:EF78:A78C (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

proposal for additional example: PDF format

Arguable one of the most frequent examples would be

• PDF format

(obviously expanding to Portable Document Format format). — MFH:Talk 10:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

DC Comics

'Detective Comics' is the company name, comic books is a product they sell. If the company Ford put out a car model called the Ford then it would be the Ford Ford, and not redundant as that would be make and model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.217.211 (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

This has all been covered already in previous discussions, see Talk:RAS syndrome/Archive 4#DC Comics. - wolf 21:03, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't covered, it was ignored. It's not a redundant acronym. There are tons of actual RASes that can be used as examples. This isn't one, at all.

'Detective Comics' = company

comic books = product they sell

Ergo 'DC comics' is not redundant. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 23:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

That's your opinion. We don't base content on personal opinions, we base it on sources. That was covrered in the previous discussion. I suggest you read it again, but also, I strongly suggest you read the guidelines that have been cited for you on your talk page, in response to your editing. Then, when your block expires, if you still wish to pursue the changes you were trying to make, here and elsewhere, you can discuss them collaboratively on their respectlive talk pages first. - wolf 23:58, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not a matter of opinion. It's a fact by the definition of 'redundant'

((of words or data) able to be omitted without loss of meaning or function.

"our peculiar affection for redundant phrases")

If you omit 'comics' from 'DC comics' then all you have is the name of a company that puts out dozens of products. the 'comics' bit is necessary information.

Again, there are dozens of undisputed RASes, just use one of those.

If you need a source, here's my source for the definition of 'redundant'

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundant

So, it is definitively NOT an RAS 97.112.217.211 (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is all your opinion, except the part where you claim Merriam-Webster as a source. But if you read the previous discussion, you'd see I also quoted M-W, along with several other actual sources. Look, I get it... you don't want DC Comics listed as an example, but it is, it has been for some time now, and it's supported by sourcing and consensus. Perhaps it's time to to let this go. - wolf 04:15, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It was never a matter of opinion. It is not a redundant acronym, by definition of redundant. It's not supported by sourcing and support by consensus is a terrible way to build a library of knowledge.

Content not in anyway useful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's Not A Re Dun Dant A Cro Nym

I'll 'let it go' when right finally prevails instead of a bunch of petulant children who just want their way because "B-but that's just the way it's always been". 97.112.217.211 (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying mistakes that have slipped by for years should get to stay, just because of legacy? That, again, is a horrible way to compend a library of knowledge. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

So which part of it not being a redundant acronym are you not understanding? 97.112.217.211 (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Someone even got the point in non-examples

"Similarly, "OPEC countries" are two or more member states of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, whereas "OPEC" by itself denotes the overall organization." 97.112.217.211 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

DC = the company

comics = a product they put out

DC comics = the company and a product they put out. It's not redundant because 'DC comics' differentiates from other products they put out. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 12:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok well if you're just going to ignore my points, I'm going to go back to editing the page based on the fact that I'm correct. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You know, even though you were blocked, C.Fred, permitted you access to talk pages so that you could discuss edits collaboratively, not so that you could badger and bludgeon threads, with a battleground mentality, posting more personal attacks, and complaining about how Wikipedia has been built over the last 20 years. This hostile, I didn't hear that and I don't like it approach will accomplish nothing. Simply repeating "It is not an example of RAS!! It is not an example of RAS!!" does not make it so. Refusing to recognize previous discussions of the same content does mean that they suddenly do not exist. Consensus plays a significant role in how Wikipedia is built, and you can't just pretend sources that don't support your position also do not exist. And, you can't just repeatedly try to remove sourced content, just because you don't agree with it. Threatening to resume your edit warring once your block expires, or actually doing so, will likely result in you facing a longer block. - wolf 17:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I've explained in detail as to why it's not a redundant acronym, even citing the page itself and the 'non-examples' section which lists an example exactly like the one I'm referring to.

OPEC countries is not redundant because 'OPEC' is an organization, 'countries' are members of that organization

DC Comics is not redundant because 'DC' is the company, 'comics' is a product they sell.

Though you're right, I got a little agitated. I apologize, let's get back on track. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you keep repeating the same point, over and over. This has already been covered, hence the reason I directed you to the most recent discussion on this entry, and made note of the both sourcing and consensus. All points you continually ignore, while repeating the same opinion. Wikipedia content isn't built on opinions, nor is it changed because of whoever was able to wear out their opponents with the most posts containing the same repetitive arguments, or with most number of reverts. - wolf 18:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

But it hasn't been covered, it's been ignored. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's quite literally a fact that DC is the company name, and comics are a product they sell. Where is the opinion exactly?

I'm not trying to change based on opinion. I've provided sound logic as to why it doesn't apply. I keep repeating it because you keep ignoring it, it's objectively correct every single time I post it though. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's often the case that people think they're right, they've "shown it", they've "proven it with their logic!". This is where verifiability, not truth may come in handy. - wolf 18:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok where am I wrong, or employing opinion?

Detective Comics is the company

Comics are a product they sell 97.112.217.211 (talk) 18:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Here's my source and verifiability: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundancy

"the part of a message that can be eliminated without loss of essential information"

You cannot eliminate 'comics' from DC comics when referring specifically to comic books because DC is the company and they have many products aside from comic books. When referring to their action figures, the company name does not change to 'Detective Action Figures'. When referring to their apparel, the company name does not change to 'Detective Apparel'. etc. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

You're again trying to use the same source, that was already used in the previous discussion, for an opposing purpose. Meanwhile, the entry has other sources attached, and if need be, additional sources can be added. - wolf 20:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

My sources are the dictionary and the wiki page itself. You haven't addressed any of that, at all.

>Similarly, "OPEC countries" are two or more member states of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, whereas "OPEC" by itself denotes the overall organization.

Same principle. The C in OPEC stands for countries, but it's still not considered redundant. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 23:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

There, I think that's a fair compromise. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

But it's not the same, and Wikipedia articles can't be used as sources (have you even read any of the relevant guidelines here?) We've already gone over the M-W "source"; you want to use it to support removal, but it's also been used to support inclusion. Along with that however, the entry has other sources attached, and if need be, even more can be added. But see, again you're just leading this discussion into circles... you keep repeating yourself, and now you've got me repeating myself. This isn't accomplishing anything. - wolf 01:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It's not accomplishing anything because you're refusing to concede that you're wrong

It's not redundancy because you can't remove the 'comics' bit without removing meaning/information. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

You can add all the incorrect sources in the world, they're still incorrect

Content also not in anyway useful.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It Is Not A Redundancy.

97.112.217.211 (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

ANEW notice

Both editors involved in the discussion above should stop editing this page for the time being. Leave it to others to sort things out for now. You can return and discuss the matter further in the future if you think it warrants it. For now, stop edit warring. I am reporting this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Cnilep (talk) 02:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The other editor has self-reveted. They also wanted to add a note about the entry being disputed. I have changed that to the correct tag, linking this talk page thead. I'm satisfied with that for now and see no need for any further edits. - wolf 03:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Post tag-removal

You reverted the disputed status because of no reply?
I was the last one to comment....
Lol. So by that reasoning, and due to no response from you, I deleted the DC entry again 97.112.206.67 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Hilarious. But that's not how it works. The tag was added to see if it would solicit comments from other contributors, to perhaps add additional sourcing or build a new consensus. That didn't happen, and there was therefore no basis for your edit. Despite being blocked twice in as many days, you still continue this disruptive and tendentious editing. Perhaps it's time for you to finally let this go. - wolf 01:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I was the last one to reply to the discussion, so you were the one who would've needed to reply to dispute it.

You were also the one who edited the agreed upon reversion and entry 97.112.206.67 (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

As far as letting it go, I'm not the one that keeps reverting my valid edits. Try practicing what you preach maybe? 97.112.206.67 (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made a solid case as to why DC Comics is not a redundant acronym. There are even non-examples listed on the page itself that are identical in principle, IE OPEC Countries

"Similarly, "OPEC countries" are two or more member states of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, whereas "OPEC" by itself denotes the overall organization."

>

Similarly, "DC Comics" are a product sold by Detective Comics, whereas "DC" by itself denotes the overall organization. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

You certainly seem to believe you have a solid opinion, but content isn't decided by opinions supported only by discrepant analogies, as opposed to sourcing and consensus, and certainly not decided by edit warring to force your opinion in, all the while evading a block. On one of your ip accounts, you are currently on your third consecutive full block for edit warring on this specific page, while on another account you have been partially blocked from editing this specific page. You need to either wait out those blocks, then pursue this matter the correct way, or you need to go back to each of those accounts, request to be unblocked, and if you are, then pursue this matter the correct way. You can't just continue to disrupt pages becuase you think you're right. - wolf 15:57, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Few more examples

Since it seems that the main article does not need more examples, here is my collection for anyone interested:

• ATM machine (automated teller machine machine)
• DC Comics ("Detective Comics Comics")
• AC current / DC current (alternating current current / direct current current)
• HIV virus (human immunodeficiency virus virus)
• LCD display (liquid crystal display display)
• UPC code (universal product code code)
• PDF format (Portable Document Format format)
• DVD disc (Digital Versatile Disc disc)
• DLL library (digital linked library library)
• TSB Bank (Trustee Savings Bank bank)
• HDMI interface (High-Definition Multimedia Interface interface)
• LED diode (light-emitting diode diode)
• PMR radio (private mobile radio radio)
• LAN network (Local Area Network network)
• UHF frequency (ultra high frequency frequency) (also applicable to other frequency ranges)
• PIF film (public information film film)
• NTFS file system (New Technology File System file system) (also applicable to some other file systems)
• UDF format (Universal Disk Format format)
• UFS storage (Universal Flash Storage storage)
• BASH shell (Bourne-Again Shell shell)
• RAM memory (random access memory memory)

Hope I could help. 😁 K1703 (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

DC comics is not a redundant acronym. DC is the company, comics are a product. If Ford put out a car called Ford, it would be the Ford (make) Ford (model), and not redundant. 198.70.2.200 (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is that it is: see Talk:RAS syndrome/Archive 4#DC Comics. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Reality does not work by consensus 97.112.208.74 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia does. — Czello ^(music) 00:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

You forgot mentioning the one in plain sight: HTTP protocol (Hypertext Transfer Protocol protocol), as well as "RAS syndrome" itself. Another one is SMPS power supply (switching-mode power supply power supply), which also applies to LPS power supply (linear power supply power supply). 2001:9E8:AB34:E300:58E3:D148:11A0:9326 (talk) 06:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Separate page

Hi again, everyone! I am building a separate Draft:list of redundant acronyms. Enjoy!

Contributions would be appreciated. K1703 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

When will the link work? Thanks. AndreasNV (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

There you go. - wolf 17:14, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Nice one. AndreasNV (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

DC Comics between quotes

Is there any reason for the quotes outside Detective Comics Comics, or should we remove them? FunLater (talk) 15:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Nope, they're gone now. - wolf 23:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

DC Comics (vi)

DC doesn't stand for anything and it hasn't since 1977. The name of the company is DC Comics inc. It was founded as Detective Comics inc. in 1937 but changed the name in '77 to DC Comics. Therefore I don't believe this should be listed under "Examples" I think it should be omitted or maybe moved under a new tab labeled something like "Examples of Misattributions of RAS". Lastfleeb78 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

See #DC Comics and Talk:RAS syndrome/Archive 4#DC Comics. (In case you're the same person who previously WP:BLUDGEONed this talk page: If you do it again, you'll be blocked again.) — Chrisahn (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

DC Comics STILL isn't a redundant acronym

'Detective Comics' is the company name

Comics are a product they sell

So, no, DC comics is NOT a redundant acronym

If you got the newest issues of Superman and Batman you wouldn't say "I bought some DC" 97.112.208.74 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Both sources describe the extra "Comics" as redundant. — Czello ^(music) 01:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

i really don't think we need consensus to ignore what sauces say cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Both User talk:Czello and the IP user (Personal attack removed) should both be blocked. Both of them should have taken their dispute to the talkpage and not engaged in this mindless drivel. And P.S. I am an administrator by the way currently unable to log into my account. 2603:6000:A403:5800:34A2:97B7:1A58:2550 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I am an administrator by the way currently unable to log into my account I'm sure. — Czello ^(music) 21:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

"I am an administrator by the way currently unable to log into my account." -lolz... good one. - wolf 01:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

i should add that to my user page. i love demanding people's respect while calling them "disrespectful and nuts"

_{i'm fully aware that i could get blocked for this reference} cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:18, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Should PUBG: Battlegrounds join the list?

PlayerUnknown's BattleGrounds, after years of being unofficially shortened to "PUBG", has been officially renamed PUBG: Battlegrounds in mid-2021.

It's both a very blatant example ("PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds: Battlegrounds") and a fairly recent one, showing this practice is nowhere near over. Medinoc (talk) 08:17, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

if there are any sources that go "behold, pubt: battletoads is a redundant name", i think it'd be fine cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 11:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

There is this one from TechSpot that does just that. (But this isn't the first time this example and source have been mentioned)

But beyond establishing this as a clear example, the question may arise from some as to whether any more additions need to be added. Several years ago (6? 7? ...dunno), someome determined that the list should be capped at four entries. I'm not sure if there was a consensus for that, but regardless, consensus can change, especially after so many years. If people are in favour of adding a few more examples, then so be it. (jmho) - wolf 16:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

i don't think having a cap this low would work now, because there are a few more than 4 notable examples

if there's a source for this one, i see no problem in adding it, and will be doing this specific action once i'm done checking the source cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 16:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

i skimmed through the archives (not sure why 3 and 4 are there if they're currently empty), and saw a lot of complaints about there being too many examples or the quality of the examples, but nothing actually estabilishing consensus about a specific cap. as far as conversations seemed to care, the cap was just there

i got rid of it entirely, but i think a limit of "not too many" examples would be fine cogsan • (give me attention) • (see my deeds) 17:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Self-Contradiction (RE: OPEC Countries)

Hi, I'm brand new to editing Wikipedia, but I noticed that this article seems to contradict itself. "OPEC countries" is seemingly given as an example of this phenomenon in the "Reasons for Use" section but is later explicitly listed as a non-example. I unfortunately don't have a solution to offer, but it seems like the article could be improved by resolving that. Chollasequoia (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Chollasequoia: The entire "Non-examples" sub-section is unsourced and has been for at least a year now, meaning anyone can just remove it at any time. - wolf 22:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

The SIIMA does not follow the other examples

Instead of abbreviation redundant added word (explanation), it’s abbreviation (explanation) redundant added word. 188.149.105.238 (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed — Czello ^(music) 07:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)