Talk:ADAP

ADAP
Is there any CFI for acronyms and initialisms? I don't quite get why we'd allow these in the main namespace if we wouldn't allow the things to which they refer. —  [Ric Laurent] — 11:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a wide reaching precedent for them. Oftentimes the meaning is SOP but the acronym is not discernible in the same manner. ADAP is one of the world's largest prescription medicine programs so I think its reasonable someone might want to know what it stands for when using wiktionay while having that in mind, we are not paper and have the room.Lucifer 12:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with Luciferwildcat about inclusibility, but there's strong precedent for them. Oftentimes, the expanded phrase is SOP — but the acronym, of course, is not. While the acronym still needs to satisfy our attestability requirements (including for brand names, etc., as applicable), the idiomaticity requirement is pretty much taken care of automatically. (Of course, one can argue the opposite: that every acronym is SOP and that users will look for them in an encyclopedia rather than in a dictionary. I don't take that stance.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 14:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we've ever got very far on the inclusibility of acronyms and initialisms other than mere attestation. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, thinking about it some more, I realize that three cites for an abbreviation is very few if the abbreviation is used alongside its expanded form. Perhaps we'd need a special rule for them — in addition to the regular rules — along the lines of "but cites don't count if they use the abbreviation's expanded form". So a newspaper article that starts "The Knights of Columbus met.... "Blah blah," said John Smith of the KofC" would not count for KofC. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would introduce special CFI rules for them, or at least some of them, those meaning companies, etc.: a number of independent attestations 'not originating from the company itself. The reason is that anybody can create any number of companies, with associated acronyms, and use them in ads, etc. This does not make them elements of the vocabulary of the language, if they are never used by anybody else. But initialisms should be welcome, and some dictionaries dedicated to them already exist. They might deserve special recommendations: there may be hundreds of senses in a page, it's not easy to find what you want in such cases without an appropriate organization of the page. Lmaltier 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, major program, not a company, and easily cited. The current CFI covers acronyms, three attestations that show actual use.Lucifer 20:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cannot be determined from the four letters, but is widely used (see Google Books) and would pass an RFV easily. Initialisms are useful to have, and most or all major dictionaries have a lot of them, even for organisations like RSPCA. Equinox ◑ 21:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Liliana • 10:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)