| Revision as of 17:29, 25 July 2023 editConsarn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,035 edits →Should PUBG: Battlegrounds join the list?: replyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 14:09, 12 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:RAS syndrome/Archive 2) (bot |
| (24 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ⚫ |
{{WikiProject Linguistics |class=C |importance=}} |
|
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{talkheader}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|result1='''no consensus'''|date1=18 July 2008|page1=RAS syndrome|result2='''no consensus'''|date2=20 June 2009|page2=RAS syndrome (2nd nomination)}} |
|
{{Old AfD multi|result1='''no consensus'''|date1=18 July 2008|page1=RAS syndrome|result2='''no consensus'''|date2=20 June 2009|page2=RAS syndrome (2nd nomination)}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Linguistics |importance=}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
== DC Comics (vi) == |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 0 |
|
|
|algo = old(90d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:RAS syndrome/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mention "Ambiguity" in the linguistic advocation == |
|
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". ] (]) 04:46, 2 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
: See ] and ]. (In case you're the same person who previously ]ed this talk page: If you do it again, you'll be blocked again.) — ] (]) 08:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TODO phrase linguistically: |
|
;DC Comics STILL isn't a redundant acronym |
|
|
|
in many contexts the "IP" might mean both Internet Protocol and Intellectual Property, so using "IP protocol" resolves the ambiguity potential. ] (]) 14:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
'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" ] (]) 00:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Both sources describe the extra "Comics" as redundant. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 01:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:i really don't think we need consensus to ignore what sauces say ]<small> • ] • ]</small> 11:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::Both ] and the IP user {{RPA}} 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. ] (]) 20:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{tq| I am an administrator by the way currently unable to log into my account}} I'm sure. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 21:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::"''{{tq|I am an administrator by the way currently unable to log into my account.}}''" -lolz... good one. - ] 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" |
|
|
:::<small><sub>i'm fully aware that i could get blocked for this reference</sub></small> ]<small> • ] • ]</small> 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 '']'' 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. ] (]) 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 ]<small> • ] • ]</small> 11:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::There is that does just that. (But this )<p>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, ], especially after so many years. If people are in favour of adding a few more examples, then so be it. (jmho) - ] 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 ]<small> • ] • ]</small> 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 ]<small> • ] • ]</small> 17:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC) |
|
TODO phrase linguistically:
in many contexts the "IP" might mean both Internet Protocol and Intellectual Property, so using "IP protocol" resolves the ambiguity potential. 147.161.250.196 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
