Talk:Recursive acronym

Older discussion

TINT was the first recursive acronym I ever heard of when I invented the name. But that doesn't mean it is the earliest by any means. Surely others have thought of the idea before. TedAnderson 02:45 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Indeed, the ubiquitous VISA (credit card) appears to predate it, standing for VISA International Service Association since 1976. --Delirium 00:14, Aug 22, 2003 (UTC) Visa was originally named for the thing that a government issues allowing a person to travel internationally. It became an acronym later.71.109.154.100 (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The first similar thing like this I found was a cheap coloring/puzzle book. On one page, there were four pictures, and you were supposed to take the first letter of the name of each animal in the pictures to spell out the answer to "What do you call a baby sheep?" The first picture was, of course, a lamb. 153.42.168.136 20:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Nominations for list

• WISC - Wisconsin Integrally Synchronized Computer 1954 https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_onrASurveyomputers1953_8778395 pp 96

• MAC - Macintosh Apple Computer - MACintosh apple computer
• Should YAML be on this list? Tjdw 02:11, 5 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• CAVE does not stand for CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment. It is Camera Array Virtual Environment. I'm a new editor to Wiki, but I'm removing it from the list. If I do anything wrong, please let me know on my talk page. Bigdavesmith 12:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• BIRD - BIRD Is Recursively Defined 22:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.209.63 (talk)

Question on Cygnus

Moved this question from the article: question: (is this Cygnus Solutions?) —Frecklefoot 16:19, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Were all these made to be recursive?

I'm a bit confused.. Linux is from Linus Torvalds forename, right? Or is Linux an official "more recent effort" as it says in the start of the list? Or is it just a "more recent effort" by a wikipedian who was bored and added it for fun? Same goes for e.g. "Pika", but *not* e.g. GNU. Shouldn't it be more clear what's made up and what's not? It seems bad to just mix them all together. It is indeed mentioned what's unofficial in some cases, but not always. Personally I think we should just get rid of everything unofficial, or I could just as well add a dozen of acronyms I've made up. :-P Jugalator 14:24, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Removed these two lines from the list, since they aren't recursive acronyms:

• Linux - Linux Is Not UniX

• XML - XML Meta Language (backronym, just made it up)

-- Khym Chanur 02:48, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Along this train of thought, I also removed:

• PNG (Portable Network Graphics) file format unofficially also stands for "PNG is Not GIF"

--Avochelm 07:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Linux Is Not UniX" is (whatever the origin) a commonly known acronym/bacronym for Linux. It is also at least as recursive as many on this list. Re-added. 216.135.32.188 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Linux is definitely not a recursive acronym. In interviews Linus Torvalds constantly refers to it as a contraction of Linus and Minix or Linus and Unix. It is not a matter of matching the ones on the list as it is the actual factual origins. Re-removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.227.254 (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Linus is not Linux. What he says/thinks "Linux" means/doesn't mean isn't authoritative. Linux Is Not Unix is a commonly used acronym and is recursive. Re-re-added. 216.135.32.188 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Linus is Linux. He and he alone made version 0.01. and he has never refered to Linux as an acronym. While it may be commonly used, it is not the history behind the name and should therefore be considerd at best as a recursive bacronym. 212.224.251.232 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

TTP and Dilbert

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

http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/1994-05-18/

) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doronve (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

PHP

Didn't this originally stand for "People Hate Perl"? Md25 23:24, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Personal Home Page," actually.

But the current PHP means Hypertext Preprocessor, not PHP Hypertext Preprocessor. It is not recursive on it self because the first P is there to denote the pre part of the processor. Literally, PHP is Pre Hypertext Processor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.136.67.159 (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not "Pre Hypertext Processor" or "Hypertext Preprocessor" without the preceding "PHP". According to one popular resource:

PHP originally stood for Personal Home Page, but it now stands for the recursive acronym PHP: Hypertext Preprocessor.

— PHP, Wikipedia

How's that for recursion? 😉 --Lance E Sloan (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Among the list of examples, PHP is said to originally stand for "Personal Home Page Tools". However, when you look into the source of that information it clearly states "Personal Home Page Tools" was often referred to as "PHP Tools", hence PHP stood for "Personal Home Page" rather than for "Personal Home Page Tools". This is correctly stated on PHP's article. I'd appreciate it if someone could verify this information and edit this article if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:18B4:A000:CD80:167C:A207:9366 (talk) 18:22, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a recursive?

BASS — Bass Anglers Sportsman Society? Given that the second Bass dosen't stand for the name rather it stands for the fish? => Not circular. I came accross this beacuse at the RESPECT Page we were discusing whether it is a recurcive acroymn. Some one suggested that it isn't for the same reason I have given for BASS. (i.e. the R stands for the concept of respect rather then refering to the name RESPECT)--JK the unwise 10:36, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

(Lack of) Circularity

I don't really see how any of these are circular or recursive. They all refer to their own name, but can only do so once. Once they've refered to their own name, than name can't be unfolded a second time or the sentence no longer makes sense. e.g.

• CAVE --> CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment --> CAVE Automatic Virtual Environment Automatic Virtual Environment
• Cygnus --> Cygnus, Your GNU Support --> Cygnus, Your GNU Support, Your GNU Support

Neither make any sense, nor do any of the others. Thus, while the acronyms refer to themselves as a word, they don't refer to themselves as an acronym, as that acronym cannot be unfolded a second time. Thus it's neither circular nor recursive, it's merely self-referential.

The only example of a recursive acronym I've seen is in Hofstadter's GEB, where one of the characters asks a question to GOD. GOD stands for "GOD, Over Djinn", and so we get

• GOD
• GOD, over Djinn
• GOD, over Djinn, over Djinn
• GOD, over Djinn, over ..., over Djinn

... and so on, leading to an infinite number of Djinns over which stands GOD, or, in other words, more infinite Djinns.

I was going to put this in the article, but then figured that if I wrote than none of the examples are really recursive acronyms, some would get narked, so I figured I'd raise the question here first. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 12:10, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The acronyms are circular because they are not complete in their "definition", but refer to themselves. Thus, in the case of GNU, the definition "GNU is Not Unix" is not a rigorous one, since the term GNU has not been expanded fully and, thus, the term has only been explained in terms of itself. It does not matter that the expanded (infinite) definition isn't grammatically accurate.--Swift 18:20, 14 August 2005 (UTC) [edited: 09:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)]

What I've been told is that When someone asks you "what's GNU?" you tell them "GNU's not unix", so they ask again "but what is GNU?" so you answer again: "GNU's not unix" and so forth and so forth until one side tires. And that is why these acronyms are considered recursive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.132.77.158 (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not certain why you think a recursive acronym has to be circular or make sense. According to Merriam-Webster, recursive means:

1) of, relating to, or involving recursion <a recursive function in a computer program>

2) of, relating to, or constituting a procedure that can repeat itself indefinitely <a recursive rule in a grammar>

In neither case did it mention that a recursion has to make sense. In programming, a recursive function is a function that calls itself. For example, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion_%28computer_science%29#Recursive_programs. Hence a recursive acronym does not have to be circular or make sense.202.73.1.98 (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

References

PINE

The mention of PINE being "Pine Is Not Elm" conflicts with the Pine (email client) entry, which cites the original author Laurence Lundblade insisting PINE was never an acronym. The PINE entry is someone ambiguous to this point, but it does specifically mention that PINE has no mention of Elm. Tlshd 20:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. PINE as an acronym is seems to be a myth. I have removed it from the list. If anyone wants it in, I'd suggest an "Unofficial acronym" section (though I'd personally dislike it as it might just open up a whole can of worms ...) --Swift 09:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

My impression is otherwise, and I think the issue here is that the UofW in turning PINE into a registered trademark and using that as a tactic to defend their semi-free software (there was a long conflict with Stallman on the matter, don't get me started, but they certainly used bully tactics in the matter) they needed to clean up their story, which means their trademark should stand out as depending on something else. -- Egil 09:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. So you are saying that Mr. Lundblade changed the name to make it more original? Are there any sources for this?

According to the FreeBSD Hypertext Man Pages, PINE was listed as "pine - a Program for Internet News and Email" in all versions that I checked (FreeBSD Ports 4.7, Slackware 3.1, Red Hat 4.2 and SuSE Linux 4.3) --Swift 22:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've often seen PINE interpreted as "PINE Is Not ELM" and as "PINE Is Nearly ELM". Unofficial these may be, but they seem to be widely accepted. 86.134.126.50 22:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Moving technical examples

Does anyone else feel that the long list of technical examples would fit better in its own category (to go along with the Non-Technical Examples)? I feel that by doing so it would better the flow of the article and have it conform more to the generaly accepted style/standards. Ravidgemole 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the whole article could do with a big cleanup. So, sure, go ahead and be bold.--Swift 05:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This topic should be renamed to "Recursive Abbreviations"

Several entries on the list are not acronyms, but rather abbreviations. For example, PLD, PNG, RPM, & TRM. Since acronyms are abbreviations (but not the inverse), the topic could be more appropriately named "Recursive Abbreviations". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.84.67.230 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the topic should be named "Recursive abbreviations," but I must raise two small points. First, "PNG" is pronounced "ping," so doesn't that make it an acronym? Second, I think you might have meant to write "several entries on the list are not acronyms, but rather initialisms." To say that "several entries on the list are not acronyms, but rather abbreviations" is like saying that several people in a room are not women, but rather human beings. :-) --69.231.236.73 08:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the word "ping" existed long before the graphics format, so "PNG" is not an acronym but an acrostic. 86.134.126.50 22:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some of the terms listed are, indeed, initialisms, but should we perhaps rather create a new page for initialisms? There is a merger debate going on at Acronym_and_initialism which we might want to wait to end before moving on this. --Swift 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Is PNG the opposite of a backronym?

PNG says that 'the acronym PNG was originally recursive, standing for "PNG's Not GIF" ', implying that it was later changed to portable network graphic (making it the opposite of a backronym). The controversy over the LZW patent which gif imploys makes it credible that they initially made it different just to avoid the patent, but then made it sound more official.

What does LISP have to do with anything?

Ok, so LISP is a recursive programming language, what does that have to do with recursive acronyms? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.103.142.226 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 June 2006.

Good point. Does anyone feel it is a valuable contribution to the article? --Swift 20:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess not. I've removed the section. --Swift 23:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

SPARKS

A recent addition by 212.159.203.213 introduced SPARKS as "Smart Programmers Are Required To Know Sparks". Googling it only turned up one result which is in Turkish and seems to list it only as a secondary explanation (the primary being "Structured Programming A Reasonably Komplete Set"). Is this an actual acronym? Does this really warrant an entry? Could we have some references, please? --Swift 21:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The reference was removed by User:ViceroyInterus on 22:34, 17 June 2006. Thanks! --Swift 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Added the reference back in, with a citation: Fundamentals of Data Structures, by Ellis Horowitz and Sartaj Sahni, 1976, Computer Science Press, Inc (Computer Software Engineering Series). ISBN 0-914894-20X. The reference is on page 9, explaining the pseudo-language used in describing the algorithms in the book. As the name, SPARKS, preceded its expanded form, the acronym is also a retronym. However, it is in fact a bona fide recursive algorithm, and it has priority over the others cited. --Fader (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Did I say algorithm? I meant acronym, of course. Fader (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

EINE/ZWEI

Eine isn't one in German, ein is. Although eine could be placed for a female, like an in for instance Eine frau aus Die Niederlande which literally means One woman from the Netherlands, the more normal translation would be A woman from the Netherlands so it doesn't refer to the number 1. So I propose, this is taken from the article. --Uhro87 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur and shall remove it now. --Islomaniac 973 15:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please respect our lovely grammer: Eine Frau aus den Niederlanden. The number 1 is called Eins in German. - Matthias.

NINJA

NINJA Is Not Just Air (It's dust-slaying Nano-shurikens of doom)

NINJA is an electronics duster sold by ThinkGeek, and it is a great example of a recursive acronym; a rather witty one, in fact. It was reverted with the comment "can't see this as anything except product placement." Does the fact that something is a brand name of a product prevent it from being included in this article? There's a whole section of corporation names. It seems unlikely (to me at least) that the person who originally added it to the list would be advertising it or affiliated with ThinkGeek. I was about to add it myself, and I'm certainly not advertising anything. 68.9.90.28 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

BUMP

afaik BUMP means 'bring up my post', not 'bump up my post' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.112.138.219 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

even if it does mean Bump Up My Post. It's not recursive since Bump is a word. Unlike GNU.69.87.160.2 (talk) 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gnu. Wikipedia begs to differ. JordanRL (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

BWIA should not be included because it is only accidentally recursive, due to the politically-induced name change of the airline.

Change into a category

This article mostly just links to lots of other articles that have recursive names. Therefore, I think it should made into a category instead of just being an article. I think this will also make maintaining the article easier and more decoupled. This way when someone makes a new article about something that has a recursive acronym as its name, they do not need to go to this atricle and edit it in, and instead can just add [[Category:Recursive acronym]] at the bottom. Also, with this being a category it could be made a subcategory of the existing category: acronyms. If people really want to keep an article about "recursive acronyms" it could be merged into the existing acronym article, since the body of this article that actually explain WHAT a recursive acronym is, is only a couple of lines long. If noone opposes to making this into a category, I will move it over and make it into a category tomorrow or the day after. --DFRussia 07:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This cannot be a move request, because you are advocating deleting the contents of this page. Secondly, I would oppose such a change; the article format enables much more information to be given, including about acronyms that we haven't (yet) got articles about, and giving the expanded form of the acronym, none of which woul dbe possible with a category. There's nothing to stop us having a category as well, but there's no good reason to delete the article. --Stemonitis 05:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I see what you're saying Stemonitis. Hmm, ok, are you for making just a category for it then and keeping this article as is? Also... umm, about the whole "this page provides the expanded acronym thing", the articles this page links to, also provide the acronym inside... we could just eliminate some of the redundancy and maybe just list some of the most influential or notable recursive acronyms here... Just throwing ideas out there --DFRussia 07:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Due to the nature of the English language...

Okay, could someone please explain what is meant by the statement referenced above? Are there other human languages which would not allow recursion, or where such a thing would not make a circular definition? Or, is this just a computer scientist joke, comparing the English language to a computer language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.95.235.254 (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That is what I thought too. Also, it isn't a complete sentence. It is made of two clauses. I am removing it.

"Due to the nature of the English language, which would infinitely recurse left-recursive phrases, recursive abbreviations are circular definitions." is being removed--Michael miceli (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Humorous use of the term "recursive"

Is it just me or is the whole concept not really recursion? By the wikipedia entry, these aren't recursive as there is no base step. 206.83.76.35 (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A algorithm without a base case which invokes itself is still recursive. It won't terminate, which makes it less than ideal as an algorithm, but it is as recursive as the day is long. Recursion requires only the self-reference, which a proper recursive acronym has, so this is a correct usage of the term.

--Fader (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "recursive acronym." The recursion is meaningless. If PHP means "PHP Hypertext Preprocessor," as some people say, then the "PHP" part of the acronym is just meaningless. "PHP" is just a Hypertext Preprocessor that is arbitrarily, or for historical reasons ("Personal Home Page"), called "PHP". You can add a meaningless letter to the front of any acronym and call it "recursive." It's silly.

--Majorsheisskopf (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Remember that humor is an important part of this concept. As the beginning of this article states:

In computing, an early tradition in the hacker community (especially at MIT) was to choose acronyms and abbreviations that referred humorously to themselves or to other abbreviations.

— Recursive acronym, Wikipedia

(The additional emphasis is mine.)

I enjoy recursion even when it's pseudo-recursion. --Lance E Sloan (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Correction to date

The statement "The term was first used in print in April 1986" is false. Douglas Hofstadter used it in GOEDEL, ESCHER, BACH in 1979. After explaining that GOD stood for "GOD over Djinn" (quoted above), the Genie says "Aren't you acquainted with recursive acronyms?" If Hofstadter invented the term he should get credit for it; if not, there must be an even earlier use somewhere. Either way the 1986 date should go out. CharlesTheBold (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

More than just examples?

I came to the article to find out why these kind of recursive names are so popular, but all I got was a long list of examples. Would it be possible to add some discussion of the history, nature or context of these acronyms? 84.249.50.87 (talk) 09:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Go find some info on the history and add it to the article. We're not your personal interns... if you see something in Wikipedia that is lacking, the correct procedure is to add it to that article. JordanRL (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi im new to wikipedia and just added Respect – The Unity Coalition because i think it is a recursive acronym. I thought that this would be an easy first edit, but I see from the note above that some think it is not recursive , how do we resolve this user:Viktor Belash —Preceding undated comment added 09:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC).

Shabbat

Shabbat is not a recursive acronym. As an acronym, it's not the "sh" sound that sounds for Shabbat. It's the "b" sound in בשבת. So you can't recurse the acronym. M Pinck (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tautological phrases that include an acronym

Should this article discuss acronyms that are often used as part of a phrase that redundantly references part of the acronym, like "LCD display" or "ATM machine"? B7T (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those are human failings that aren't recursive- just redundant. tedder (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with tedder. Recursive acronyms are just as redundant as "ATM Machine." We should either say "ATM" or "AT machine." As with PHP being said to mean "PHP Hypertext Preprocessor," the "PHP" part is redundant and meaningless. There's nothing recursive about it. The initial "P" is just completely meaningless. It's just a hypertext preprocessor with a meaningless "P" added to the front of the acronym to differentiate it from HP computers. --Majorsheisskopf (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Where's BING?

It might be a coincidence, but I'm pretty sure someone invented BING as BING Is Not Google. (Bing (search engine) says it's easy to spell and remember, "so that's why".) Joepnl (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The listed page doesn't currently say anything about "not google". There are no reliable sources indicating it was purposefully named that. tedder (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

It may not be the source of the name - I doubt very much that it is, personally, without any evidence to support my doubt - but it could be seen as a retro-acronym, and it's certainly recursive. --Fader (talk) 05:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ICE is not a recursive acronym

ICE : Ice, compress, elevate

It's not a recursive acronym.

ICE the abbreviation is not the same as the ice that is referred to in the definition (which is the h2o kind of Ice) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.153.232.57 (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

These don't refer to themselves either:

• Respect – The Unity Coalition - Respect Equality Socialism Peace Environment Community Trade unions
• CARD - Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009
• MOMS Club — Moms Offering Moms Support
• OIL - Oil India Limited

They all should be deleted. Joepnl (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, definitely a case of WP:SOFIXIT. tedder (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. Joepnl (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Nested & Multiply Nested Acronyms

The notability of this page might be enhanced beyond its present disputed status if it were better known that its content has been sampled and discussed by one of the world's leading science magazines for the general public - the British weekly New Scientist – and on several occasions, the most recent on 10 July, 2010.

On that date, the mag's lighthearted weekly feature Feedback noted that Wikipedia's Recursive Acronym page told us that TIARA (Tiara Is A Recursive Acronym) is one of these, and "is so recursive it points to nothing in the world except itself". It went on to deal with "nested acronyms" and "multiply nested acronyms", a topic frequently broached there, but surprisingly not one of the innumerable acronymic variants domiciled here in WP (unless I've missed it). If it has not been defined here, it should be as it arguably more interesting and notable than some of the acronym subsets that DO currently reside with us. I am willing to provide a couple of paragraphs describing them if that is the case. I think such material would belong in the main acronym page, and not here because these acronyms are not recursive even though they are nested.

Briefly, nested acronyms possess some letters which refer to other acronyms. New Scientist's Feedback page gives the example SECS, which stands for "SEMI equipment communication standard" where SEMI stands for "Semiconductor equipment manufacturing industries". Feedback's readers had been invited earlier to send in "multiply nested" acronyms, ones in which the second order acronym itself points to another one further down in the hierarchy. One reader did much better and contributed a (fully documented) specimen which is a "third order, or arguably fourth order, nesting". RARS we learn, is the "Regional ATVOS etransmission Service", ATVOS is "Advanced TOVS", TOVS is "TIROS operational vertical sounder" and TIROS is "Television infrared observational satellite". Fully stretched out, this beast is something to really make you hold your breath. Comments are invited.

You can read the whole Feedback page here . --Myles325a (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Since I posted the above, I've found out that these nested acronyms are termed macronyms. So I will add some of the above material to the Acronym page and not here, as macronyms / nested acronyms are not recursive acronyms. Myles325a (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

RAS

RAS is not a valid example. RAS does not stand for RAS Acronym Syndrome. RAS stands for Redundant Acronym Syndrome and is not recursive. The redundancy is in the name RAS syndrome, because the S in the acronym and the word after the acronym both mean Syndrome.71.109.154.100 (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Renault?!

Someone want to tell me how you pull "Renault" (or RENAULT, Reno, Renau etc) out of "Régie Nationale des Usines Renault"? At least without either having a needless pronunciation-altering R on the end, or giving up on the normal acronym idea and using a non-initial letter from the appended name? 193.63.174.10 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure. I'll remove it until someone can explain. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here though to look up Louis Renault? Number774 (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

JOE: Joe's Own Editor

Struck this one. Clearly not a recursive acronym. If GNU expanded as "Gnus never underestimate", it would be a similar case. Recursive means self-referential, not reference to a homonym. --Fader (talk) 03:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Bing and Phing

There are already quite a few "is not" acronyms here, but for consideration:

• Bing - Bing Is Not Google (not officially but commonly used)
• Phing - PHing Is Not Gnumake

References

Discussing Edits on Talk Page

Beyond my Ken asked me to discuss my recent edit here. I wonder why, but ok. Please let me know if you don't agree with one of them, and why. Thanks! -91.10.17.238 (talk) 01:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. Your BOLD edit was challenged by another editor (me), and I REVERTed them. Next, according to WP:BRD, your proposed edits are DISCUSSed. That means you discuss your proposed edits here, BEFORE you make them, and the article stays in the original state until there is a consensus for your changes.

So, please explain, specifically, why you want to make each of the changes you made, because they don't make any sense to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, did you read the explanations? Are they all equally incomprehensible to you? Which ones are not? --91.10.17.238 (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss ALL your proposed edits here - why you think some need to be deleted, etc. That's the way this works. YOU are obligated to get a consensus for your edits, since they have been challenged. Please start that process by describing each change you wish to make, and the reason you wish to make it. That seems pretty clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

My edits have been clearly explained, you dismissed them outright, apparently without even taking notice of the explanations given. Do you think this helps Wikipedia? Ken, you are damaging the project, and I'm not playing your games. If you want to have a defective article instead of implementing my changes, have it your way. You "win", because your defective version of the article stands. Congratulations!! -79.223.0.90 (talk) 18:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I've given you every chance to explain your edits, and you have refused. Perhaps some of your changes were good, and I just didn't understand your reasoning. You have here the opportunity to set me straight, but instead you're playing some kind of game, which is unfortunate.

If you'd like to reconsider, this is the place to explain your edits. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Lies, nothing but lies. My explanations are there, you just don't want to read them. But that doesn't matter, I already said, that the defective version of your article will be kept safe. You win, even though Wikipedia is poorer for it. --79.223.0.90 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that you have sufficiently explained your edits, but let's assume for a moment that you have, and I am just particularly dense. What you are saying, then, amounts to the reality that your concern for Wikipedia is such that you'd rather an article be inaccurate than to take a couple of minutes out of your busy life and explain your edits again to a slow-witted person (me). I'd hardly call that a good attitude to approach participation here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Projecting much? You are the one who changed the article to the damaged state.

Honestly, I don't know what you are still on about. You win, the defective version of your article stands. You rule supreme! -79.223.0.90 (talk) 22:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Review

It's probably worth reviewing what is and isn't a recursive acronym. A recursive acronym is one in which the acronym appears in the acronym, and does not mean anything there except the subject of the acronym itself. The classic example is "GNU [is] not Unix". "GNU" in the acronym stands for the GNU operating system, and does not have another meaning. For an example of an acronym which can be mistaken for being recursive, but is not, take one I just deleted, "OIL" meaning "Oil India Limited". In this acronym, the word "Oil" has a separate and distinct meaning -- crude oil from which petroleum products are derived -- and does not stand for the acronym. Thus, the acronym does not include itself, and therefore is not recursive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Reference link URL changed

The original ref link for HIME, https://github.com/caleb-/hime/ seems broken. I searched Github and it looks like it has moved to: https://github.com/hime-ime/hime Sorry, but I'm not sure the rules on how to change links, especially since it has a specific access date? Can I go ahead and change it, and should I update the access date? Thanks~ ZeniffMartineau (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Other Acronyms

SLAC: SLAC Linear Accelerator Center RACRECIR(from GEB): Recursive Acronyms-Crablike RACRECIR Especially-Create Infinite Regress RACRECIR backwards is RICERCAR, another name for a fugue, is also a recursive acronym at the end of GEB: RICERCAR: Reentering Introduction Creates Endlessly Rising Canon, After RICERCAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.51.115 (talk) 05:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

None of them. BMK (talk) 09:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

SLAC is not recursive. Currently the full name of the research facility is SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory. SLAC used to an acronym for Standford Linear Accelerator Center, but I am not sure if it stands for anything at the moment.202.73.1.98 (talk) 08:04, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

References

Deleting my edits?

Why are my edits getting deleted? My edits are verifiable as a put links in... Another resource : NewGRF Acronyms in themselves - Transport Tycoon Forums — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30a:2c54:d2b0:24c6:7bc1:19cc:c137 (talk) 09:35, 31 January 2016‎ (UTC)

1. You put them in as external links rather than in the body of the article\
2. Are any of them real? They all appeared to be made up. BMK (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Some examples aren't quite examples (in a specific way)

For example, FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting), FARM (Farm Animal Rights Movement) and JOE (Joe's Own Editor). They certainly seem to follow the same form as the others, however, on closer inspection, they simply don't refer to themselves.

For example, with FAIR, the word 'fairness' does not mean 'FAIRness' (where FAIR is the organisation), it clearly means the pre-existing, already defined English word fairness (root word fair, adjective).

Perhaps these pseudo-examples(?) still deserve a place on this page. The defining trait being that the acronym expansion uses a pre-existing word (this could even be another proper noun), and the whole acronym spells out that same word. However, importantly, the acronym is not attempting to define the pre-existing word, but something else.

The point here is that it's important to distinguish between two words made of the same letters: FAIR and fair are two very different things (note that this has nothing to do with the different case: that is only so we can easily tell them apart here). Similarly, JOE (a program) and Joe (a person) are two different things.

Also note there are possibly cases where it is ambiguous, and could be interpreted as both a real example and a pseudo-example (I'm just putting that out there, I don't see any cases of this in the examples).

Edit: I see that someone else made this same point (regarding JOE) 9 years ago!Lukeuser (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

TiLP redirect to French Wikipedia?

This raises several questions. Why DOES it redirect to French Wikipedia? Why French specifically? Why isnt it on English Wikipedia? Aknip (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Edited the link to en, reverted when I realized there was no English version. Wayback machine shows that there was a page there before. Was it deleted? Ahartry87 (talk) 15:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)