User talk:SMcCandlish/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

February 2009

List of Merriam–Webster's Words of the Year

Resolved

 – Sourcing issue cleared up.

Hello, SMcCandlish. I am Dem393, the main editor of List of Merriam–Webster's Words of the Year, an article you recently delisted as a Featured List. First of all, I shall say that I appreciate the criticism that you provided on the discussion page. Rest assured that I'm not holding any grudges against you for what you call my "sacred ox" or something... I am now at that age in which it takes me a semester of a high school English 3 class to realize that my writing sucks.

I want you to know that I do intend to renominate this list for Featured List. I just realized that the 2008 list of Words of the Year was published recently, so I shall update the article as soon as possible. Now let me take the time to address some of your concerns.

• In my opinion, a list of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year can stand alone as an article. I say this because the list has been discussed in several news outlets, and I think that the abundance of discussion about this list makes it fairly notable. Why would a topic that has been discussed so much, has appeared on several blogs, and has been mentioned in several news outlets not be notable?
• As for my use of non-Merriam-Webster definitions of the words, I would like to direct you to the peer review and the FLC. My peer reviewer, Ruhrfisch, said that I should "depend less on the primary sources from Merriam-Webster." This is why I relied on Dictionary.com, a third-party source, to provide my definitions. Is it not a Wikipedia policy to avoid using primary sources in your articles? Wouldn't the use of Merriam-Webster's definitions constitute a bias? I defend my use of tertiary sources in this list because I need to show that the definitions are not the creation of only Merriam-Webster, an organization who gains publicity with every publication of the Words of the Year.

I would be happy to discuss any other issues you may have with the article. As for the proposed merge, I don't think that that's necessary.--Dem393 (talk) 00:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge/stand-alone: There does not appear to be any particular (much less particularly strong) rationale for this being a separate article. Having to read multiple articles on the concept of "words of the year" will simply confuse our readers and not help them in any way.

Sources: I think your earlier reviewer was simply confused. Dictionaries are not primary sources, period. They are tertiary, just like encyclopedias are. It doesn't make any sense at all to use definitions from one dictionary and apply them to an article about those words as they were defined by another dictionary. That's a bit like using sources about the Superman comic book hero to source an article on Nietzsche's concept of the "superman". We have no idea at all if what M-W thought of as notable about these words is in any way captured by other dictionaries' definitions, nor (if so) to what extent and how applicably. My sense is that M-W's "award" to these words has to do with their patterns of usage, not their definitions per se, anyway.

In short: I don't have anything against the material in general, I think it is simply being presented in an overspecific, M-W advertising manner that is not helpful to readers nor typical WP practice, and that the sources being used are questionably applicable to the material. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! You have cleared up many questions I had about your objections to the article. I shall begin to revise the list soon, and I'll get back to you when I'm done!--Dem393 (talk) 23:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. If anyone gives you trouble about using [what is not really] a "primary source" again, feel free to quote me, or if I have time I can make the argument again in person. I really do feel that that the primary sources maxims are being misread in this case. I honestly still don't see a reason to have this be a separate article, but that aside I would be oppositional to failing the article on a claim of improper sourcing; such a claim would be faulty if the article were actually quoting M-W as to the words they are giving the "award" to, for the reasons I've outlined. As I say, I have nothing against the material itself; it seems to be well written and researched. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

NCSP

Resolved

 – Opinion given, as requested.

I'd like your thoughts on the dab of (CFL football player). I rather prefer (CFL player). Canadian Football League football player is pretty redundant. It reminds me of another pet peeve amongst Canadian grammarians: people who say NDP Party. DoubleBlue (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I think CFL player works fine. It identifies the person as a person, not an activity, per WP:NCP generally, and it is sufficiently disambiguatory per WP:DAB. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I just wanted to bounce it off of you first. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)