Talk:RAS syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RAS syndrome article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] "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 superapathyman 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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" → "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".

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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#Other_forms. 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Honourable mentions

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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 <table> and its contents really do come after "References". Is this a new Wikimedia bug? — Wisq (talk) 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. superapathyman 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. superapathyman 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? superapathyman 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. mikm 13:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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. [1] 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). —QuicksilverT @ 21:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CIA agency

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. mikm 15:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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! TINYMark (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. —QuicksilverT @ 21:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OR tags assume bad faith

So I replaced the instance here with a {{fact}} 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 {{or}} just caries an added connotation. Even if the tag is considered legit (I'll discuss that at {{or}}, 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)