Talk:PSS

RFD discussion: July 2019–July 2020
A misconstruction of PPS. I don't see why we would want any misconstructions. --Pious Eterino (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * We should want them included if they are common enough (see WT:CFI) that users may plausibly look them up – precisely as for common misspellings. Send to RfV? --Lambiam 07:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Misconstruction. Maybe it is just a typo and you should just delete it according to the recend motion about misspellings that are typos, for it is not motivated by certain considerations but by a slip. I would ask how you would even see that if somebody writes PSS he actuallly means PPS and it is not just a typo. Most people here cannot even understand texts of the field to distinguish the chemicals, I think. Maybe ask  who created it. Fay Freak (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If someone adds a postscript labelled “PS”, and then adds a second postscript labelled “PSS”, and this happens just once, it can be a typo; but if an author makes a habit of this, it is a misabbreviation. The recent proposal sadly failed, so it is not a strong ground for deletion. --Lambiam 19:11, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * back when people used to write paper letters, i definitely learned the acronym as "PSS", "PSSS", etc. and evidently my friends did too. i remember reading online a few years ago that it was "correctly" supposed to be "PPS" and was quite surprised as i had never heard that form. i don't think it's a typo so much as a common misconception, or perhaps a correct form given how often it is used. --Habst (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * keep very famous alternative form of PPS. per the doctrine of descriptivism, if a mistake or "misconstruct" is repeated enough then it becomes an alternative form, and this is one i've seen (and used) many times:  (search for "pss pps" for more).
 * interestingly, the wiki page Postscript states that PSS stands for "post-super-scriptum" without a reference. it could be a backronym, but it's worth looking into. either way, definitely not a delete. --Habst (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - TheDaveRoss  15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: no CFI-relevant rationale provided; "don't see why we would want any misconstructions" makes no sense especially since we keep some misspellings per WT:CFI. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Kept. bd2412 T 18:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)