Acronyms you don’t know the meaning of

[Max Rockatansky]

Almost all of these cited above are initialisms, not acronyms. Acronyms are pronounceable, like SCUBA.

This is a distinction that's never been borne out in actual usage, though.

Worth noting, the glossaries I mentioned above define everything as acronyms even though are plenty of examples of initialisms also.

[J N Winkler]

Almost all of these cited above are initialisms, not acronyms. Acronyms are pronounceable, like SCUBA.

This is a distinction that's never been borne out in actual usage, though.

I can remember discussing this before, but I can't find where.

We've definitely had this discussion before.  Rather than dig it up, however, I'll note that the Wikipedia article on acronyms cites the OED, which explicitly includes initialisms in its definition of the term.

[wanderer2575]

If nothing else (and sometimes one has to wonder), our government legislators are great at coming up with snappy acronyms for the names of proposed laws.  A prominent example is that enabler of security theater, the Patriot Act.  Which actually is the USA PATRIOT Act.  Which is an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

NFSW is used for people on Twitter. Something tells me it's not directions on a compass either.

I guess that's a thing too, but much more common is NSFW.

Actually, if you think about it, Not For Suitable Work sort of almost means the same thing.

[skluth]

One benefit of this thread is I've learned some new acronyms that I didn't know before. 

[Scott5114]

Wikipedia back-end discussions are a horrific mess of acronyms and initialisms, driven mostly by the "WP:" pseudo-namespace that auto-resolves to "Wikipedia:". This WP: pseudo-namespace is filled with shorthands that redirect to various policy pages and discussion forums. As a result, the fundamental Wikipedia policy is WP:5P, which is made up of WP:5P1 (which covers the core policy WP:NOT), WP:5P2 (WP:V, WP:NPOV), WP:5P3 (WP:OWN), WP:5P4 (WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:CIV), and WP:5P5 (WP:IAR, WP:BOLD). Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD, WP:ANI, or, worst of all, WP:RFAR.

The really surprising thing is that there is probably someone besides me reading this, nodding their head and going "Yeah, that all makes sense". I'm surprised how much of that still makes sense despite the fact that I haven't been active there on a day-to-day basis in something like a decade, although any time I engage with the community I come across a deluge of new ones that hadn't been invented the last time I was there.

[LilianaUwU]

Wikipedia back-end discussions are a horrific mess of acronyms and initialisms, driven mostly by the "WP:" pseudo-namespace that auto-resolves to "Wikipedia:". This WP: pseudo-namespace is filled with shorthands that redirect to various policy pages and discussion forums. As a result, the fundamental Wikipedia policy is WP:5P, which is made up of WP:5P1 (which covers the core policy WP:NOT), WP:5P2 (WP:V, WP:NPOV), WP:5P3 (WP:OWN), WP:5P4 (WP:AGF, WP:POINT, WP:CIV), and WP:5P5 (WP:IAR, WP:BOLD). Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD, WP:ANI, or, worst of all, WP:RFAR.

The really surprising thing is that there is probably someone besides me reading this, nodding their head and going "Yeah, that all makes sense". I'm surprised how much of that still makes sense despite the fact that I haven't been active there on a day-to-day basis in something like a decade, although any time I engage with the community I come across a deluge of new ones that hadn't been invented the last time I was there.

You called? 

[US 89]

Corporate America also loves acronyms.  If you're lucky, you work for a company that maintains a glossary of common acronyms, and everyone agrees on what they mean.  If you're not lucky, you work for a company where people pull new acronyms out of their rear ends every day.

What I detest is how, in legal writing, most attorneys think it's acceptable just to "define" acronyms in parentheses and quotation marks whenever they so happen to use a term for the first time,* regardless of how buried in the middle of a brief it may be, and to expect the court and opposing counsel to both notice and remember it even if it first shows up in, say, a footnote on page 20 and then isn't used again until page 40. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has an excellent rule (Circuit Rule 28(a)(3)) that requires parties using acronyms or abbreviations–aside from things that are in everyday use like "IRS" or "NFL" or the like–to provide a glossary "defining each such abbreviation on a page immediately following the table of authorities." It frees the court and opposing counsel from the need to search an electronic copy of the brief to figure out what the random cryptic acronyms mean because it allows them to print off that one page (or to set that page aside when reviewing a hard copy) for reference.

This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.

[hotdogPi]

Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD

Most Wikipedia users don't have articles about themselves.

[LilianaUwU]

Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD

Most Wikipedia users don't have articles about themselves.

That's WP:UFD's job, then.

[Scott5114]

You called? 

Who do you think I had in mind?

Failing to comply may result in being brought to WP:AFD

Most Wikipedia users don't have articles about themselves.

You can be coerced into participating at WP:AFD if you write an article while ignoring WP:NOT, WP:V, or WP:N. (I suppose in theory one could simply ignore an AFD discussion of an article they wrote, but in practice this is seldom a seriously-considered option.)

[CtrlAltDel]

Corporate America also loves acronyms.  If you're lucky, you work for a company that maintains a glossary of common acronyms, and everyone agrees on what they mean.  If you're not lucky, you work for a company where people pull new acronyms out of their rear ends every day.

What I detest is how, in legal writing, most attorneys think it's acceptable just to "define" acronyms in parentheses and quotation marks whenever they so happen to use a term for the first time,* regardless of how buried in the middle of a brief it may be, and to expect the court and opposing counsel to both notice and remember it even if it first shows up in, say, a footnote on page 20 and then isn't used again until page 40. The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit has an excellent rule (Circuit Rule 28(a)(3)) that requires parties using acronyms or abbreviations–aside from things that are in everyday use like "IRS" or "NFL" or the like–to provide a glossary "defining each such abbreviation on a page immediately following the table of authorities." It frees the court and opposing counsel from the need to search an electronic copy of the brief to figure out what the random cryptic acronyms mean because it allows them to print off that one page (or to set that page aside when reviewing a hard copy) for reference.

This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.

Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.

[citrus]

This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.

Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.

This is because academic articles have strict word lengths, and making lots of things acronyms is a straightforward way to cram more in the article.

[Scott5114]

This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.

Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.

This is because academic articles have strict word lengths, and making lots of things acronyms is a straightforward way to cram more in the article.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried making the article body one massive acronym, then put what it resolves to (which is the actual content of the article) in the footnotes.

[1995hoo]

If nothing else (and sometimes one has to wonder), our government legislators are great at coming up with snappy acronyms for the names of proposed laws.  A prominent example is that enabler of security theater, the Patriot Act.  Which actually is the USA PATRIOT Act.  Which is an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

My two favorite examples of that were both failed legislation.

First, the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act. A congressman from New Jersey introduced the "BOSS Act."

Second, a proposed statute that would have expanded the definition of presidential records to include social media posting: the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically For Engagement Act of 2017, also known as the "COVFEFE Act."

[Big John]

One reversal was the Single Point Urban Diamond  (SPUD) to Single Point Urban Interchange (SPUI).

[CtrlAltDel]

This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.

Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.

This is because academic articles have strict word lengths, and making lots of things acronyms is a straightforward way to cram more in the article.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried making the article body one massive acronym, then put what it resolves to (which is the actual content of the article) in the footnotes.

Usually the word count includes the footnotes, so they're on to that at least.

[Max Rockatansky]

Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO

Also U-220: I-99?

I still haven't heard what this is supposed mean.

[Takumi]

Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO

Also U-220: I-99?

I still haven't heard what this is supposed mean.

Do us all a favor and f...

[Max Rockatansky]

Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO

Also U-220: I-99?

I still haven't heard what this is supposed mean.

Do us all a favor and f...

I see, kind of the long side just to tell someone to F-off. 

[abefroman329]

If nothing else (and sometimes one has to wonder), our government legislators are great at coming up with snappy acronyms for the names of proposed laws.  A prominent example is that enabler of security theater, the Patriot Act.  Which actually is the USA PATRIOT Act.  Which is an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act.

My two favorite examples of that were both failed legislation.

First, the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act. A congressman from New Jersey introduced the "BOSS Act."

Second, a proposed statute that would have expanded the definition of presidential records to include social media posting: the Communications Over Various Feeds Electronically For Engagement Act of 2017, also known as the "COVFEFE Act."

Just recently, a bill was proposed that is known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments Act, or PELOSI Act.

[1995hoo]

This is a thing in formal scientific writing as well. I wish journal articles had to come with a glossary for every acronym they used.

Humanities as well, and it is probably the best evidence possible that acronyms suck.

This is because academic articles have strict word lengths, and making lots of things acronyms is a straightforward way to cram more in the article.

I wonder if anyone has ever tried making the article body one massive acronym, then put what it resolves to (which is the actual content of the article) in the footnotes.

Usually the word count includes the footnotes, so they're on to that at least.

While judicial opinions aren't subject to word count limits, that reminds me of Fisher v. Lowe, 333 N.W.2d 67 (Mich. App. 1983). (The opinion is widely available, but I selected that particular link because it includes an image of the relevant page in the North Western Reporter, which shows that the West editors got into the spirit of the court's opinion when they wrote their summary and their headnotes. If you don't know how to read the legal citation "333 N.W.2d 67," that link also tells you what it means. The opinion itself begins in the image's right-hand column where it says "J.H. GILLIS, Judge.")

[hbelkins]

Here's a classic from the MTR days: DUAAFAFO

Also U-220: I-99?

I still haven't heard what this is supposed mean.

Do us all a favor and f...

I see, kind of the long side just to tell someone to F-off.

It was the classic opening line to a Tom From Ohio screed. He always opened his humorous blasts at other MTR posters with that phrase.

First, the Better Oversight of Secondary Sales and Accountability in Concert Ticketing Act. A congressman from New Jersey introduced the "BOSS Act."

Shouldn't that be the "BOSS ACT Act?" 

[JoePCool14]

I'd like to propose the "Complete Legislation that Ends and Always Restricts Viability of Introducing Expensive Waste Act".

AKA, the CLEARVIEW Act.

[formulanone]

Reduce Improper On-sign Text act

[J N Winkler]

Reduce Improper On-sign Text act

1 Geo. 1 St. 2 c. 5.