Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Consarn (talk | contribs) at 17:29, 25 July 2023 (→Should PUBG: Battlegrounds join the list?: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Linguistics C‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: no consensus, 20 June 2009, see discussion. no consensus, 18 July 2008, see discussion.

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 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 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)

• C-Class Linguistics articles
• Unknown-importance Linguistics articles
• WikiProject Linguistics articles