| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 09:40:49
This topic has come up before, but there is no harm in discussing it again.
I recently had "U.S.A. is S.B.C.'s la-Borat-ory" rejected as being over four words, so I submitted "U.S.A. is Cohen's la-Borat-ory" (although I didn't agree with the ruling). The latter has just been approved (along with Sludge's later "USA, comedian's laBORATory", which has gained two votes).
'S.B.C.' simply should be allowed as one word, in my opinion, in parallel to many, many other sets of initials on the site, including 'U.S.A.', 'J.F.K.' etc. This fits with the only equivalent thing I can think of - what counts as one word in word counts for academic work etc. I know that 'S.B.C.' is a less common abbreviation than those two examples, but he does get referred to by it, and also commonness shouldn't be a determining factor here. |
| 7 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| benj clews |
Posted - 11/25/2006 : 09:14:04
I declined this on the first pass because I didn't believe SBC had instant recognition of JFK or USA or even J.Lo (but only because that's actually her stagename/ nickname/ whatever). I know it's a thorny subject, but yes, if like Sean said we don't consider familiarity, anything will potentially be a goer, which craps all over the skill of crafting a four word review.
The alternative, of course, is to not allow any of these in, so whilst this is yet another highly debateable subject, the MERPs really are trying to give a bit of lee-way here  |
| Sean |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 20:21:50
quote:
Originally posted by Beanmimo
I see your point Sal.
Maybe it was the -'s that put them on the More Than Four Word trail?
Don't think so, as it passed 2nd time when "SBC" was replaced with "Cohen". "Laboratory" is one word even if you put in some "-" for emphasis on the "borat" bit.
Salopian, I think commonness inevitably is going to have something to do with it. Otherwise people will sneak in all sorts of obscure abbreviations that nobody has ever heard of. I think this is going to come down to editor discretion as it will be impossible to pin down common vs uncommon abbreviations.
I've heard of all of Chocky's examples, but haven't heard of SBC (haven't seen the movie mind you). But perhaps 350,000 Google hits should be enough to give it validity. |
| Beanmimo |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 16:52:16
I see your point Sal.
Maybe it was the -'s that put them on the More Than Four Word trail? |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 11:41:09
That's just the same as not recognising a word - it's not a reason for rejection unless it makes the review incomprehensible to them. This review didn't get 'Do not understand'; it got 'Over four words'.
On the commonness of these particular initials, Google returns 345,000 hits for sbc borat, so it's not really obscure! |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 11:24:41
But... if the MERPs don't recognize the initials... ?? |
| Sal[Au]pian |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 10:40:31
I don't think that commonness is really something to do with it, unless the rule is that only exceptional sets of initials are treated as words, which I really don't think it ever has been. The full stops are just a style preference issue, and should not make the difference. (There are many instances on the site of initials having them.) And I've never heard of POTUS, so if that is allowed... 
I should also mention that we've had this discussion before (with my review here given as a key example. The consensus then was that initials were fine as words, and I don't think familiarity of a term was raised as an issue. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 11/24/2006 : 10:22:13
Hard to tell. I'd say things like NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CIA, FBI and POTUS are okay, since they're very recognizable. However, I'm thinking that SBC isn't yet ready - but... what if you take the periods out? |
|
|
