Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms/Archive1

Major exception

I cannot understand what relevance the "major exception" is, or why what is described should constitute an exception at all. Eric119 07:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I am going to remove all mention of the exception. Eric119 16:48, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Get rid of this guideline!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

Grammarians

What does the sentence "Sometimes, experienced grammarians who know the meanings of prefixes, infixes, suffixes, and other -fix words might make articles about those words." have to do with neologisms?

I believe the intended meaning is "A word that is formed by taking an existing word and adding an appropriate suffix or prefix such as 'non-' or 'anti-' is not necessarily a neologism, even if that particular combination of root word and prefix/suffix doesn't get many Google hits. For example, if there was a philosophy called Fooism, which had equal numbers of supporters and detractors, it would be unfair to give Fooism its own article but insist that Antifooism is a "neologism" and shouldn't have an article. -- 192.250.34.162 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Dicdefs

Shouldn't this page make some reference to the fact that articles on established, verifiable neologisms are often still inappropriate for Wikipedia, as they turn out to be dictionary definitions? NickelShoe (Talk) 03:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I am appalled

I have just read this guideline page on neologisms and have been deeply disturbed by what it said. This guideline is anti-invention, anti-thought and anti natural-selection. It posits a hard strategy for dealing with new words that is quite merciless really. "Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have realistic evidence of existence via verifiable usage data..." is plain nonsense because the fact that someone has created it provides it with realistic evidence of existence. To then throw away these words because they are not popular or someone is trying to force them to be popular needs to have set limits. Wikipedia is in danger of stifling thought as thought depends on words and new thought depends on new words; if we are to communicate these new thoughts using language they are critical. So its an important issue to consider. Note I am only talking about new words describing new phenomena. Also would a wikipedia article that I start creating about an imaginary novel whose name is even a neologism be pulled because there is none of this evidence for the existence of the novel that you require? Wikipedia IS the evidence! This guideline is almost Orwellean or New speakesque in strictness when the actual wikipedia entry of neologism speaks quite glowingly of the things. Neologisms are "..especially useful in identifying inventions, new phenomena, or old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context." or neologisms occur "...in situations where there is easy and fast propagation of information.". Now, telepathy aside, if any new conceptual framework needs any new words to convey it from one person to another, then are neologisms critical for the development of thought and so expand consciousness? Was 'wiki' not once a neologism to you? Dont you realise most of humanity would have no idea what you would mean by 'wikipedia' as it is a complete neologism for them? If they worked by the guideline proposed here, global humanity would delete the wikipedia!

Post not complete

Please check out WP:NOT and WP:V. We can wait until a word isn't a neologism before putting it here, though there are plenty of places where neologisms are acceptable. Please also sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ for an automatic username/date stamp. NickelShoe (Talk) 05:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Please also understand what post not complete means before you comment on the post ;) Thanks for the links.

From your links I see all that wikipedia is not and agree with it though the wikipedia must still be wary of snuffing information. So where do we identify inventions, new phenomena, and old ideas which have taken on a new cultural context? Cyclotron

Again, please read WP:V for policy about this. We identify through verifiability, which means citeable references in published sources, evidence of notability, etc. We are not trying to be ahead of the curve and we can't possibly "snuff" verifiable information: if it exists outside Wikipedia, we haven't snuffed it, and if it only exists within Wikipedia, it's not verifiable and Wikipedia isn't the place for it. (Please sign with four tildes, which inserts a timestamp rather than just your username). Phr 11:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Adding reference to WP:OR

I wrote something similar to the following passage in response to a discussion over in an AfD and thought it might actually be useful if something along these lines was included here in the guideline. If there is no objection I'll try to incorporate it into the page:

Some neologisms and protologisms can be in frequent use and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet. It may be natural, then to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, but this is not always the case.

It must be remembered that Wikipedia eschews original research and that support for article contents must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth; as such we must cite reliable secondary sources like books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this is original research.

Neologisms and protologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic.

What say you all? -- cmh 23:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Further to this, the current guideline actually seems to contradict policy. WP:OR specifically says it is original research if an article introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. Yet this guideline says Wikipedia does not accept articles on fan-made neologisms unless they have ... at the least, search engine hits. Search engine hits are not a reputable source. I am going to draft a new version of this guideline for discussion. I'm going to try to keep the spirit of this guideline (as found here on this talk page) but make it more clear. -- cmh 23:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a big gap between the official policy: "cite reputable sources" and practice: use large number of Internet search engine hits as correlation to whether something is notable. I think the page should say: if it has no Google hits it's almost certainly not to be included; if it has a ton of Google hits that suggests it might be notable, but is not proof. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-12 07:54Z

Well, that was probably the intent...using search engine hits is to make a guess about notability, which is a separate consideration from original research. But when it comes to neologisms, verifiability is often harder to come by than notability (unlike with people, for instance). NickelShoe (Talk) 14:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The fact that a term is in widespread use does not guarantee that it is clearly defined or even that its meaning is stable or lasting. Why should Wikipedia be on the leading edge of the definition of these terms? After all, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- cmh 15:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new version of this guideline

Your comments are requested on the following rewrite: User:Cmh/Neologisms. The goals are 1) to clarify the distinction between writing using neologisms and writing on neologisms; 2) to incorporate Nickelshoe's concerns about dicdefs; 3) to clarify the position of WP:OR on neologism pages such that just doing a google search is not enough; 4) to respond to the kinds of arguments that I've seen in AfD in support of neologisms. -- cmh 00:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Looks pretty good. I think you could leave out the part explaining that neologisms are OK on talk pages and project pages. It's true, but in my opinion unnecessary and perhaps a little confusing to the neophytes who get pointed to this policy. The difference between namespaces can be covered elsewhere. More to the point, I'd also eliminate the exception for knowledgeable grammarians. Wikipedia measures contributions by merit, not contributors by qualification. For the rare cases where it might be ok, let it be hashed out in case-by-case discussion, not anticipated by policy. In most cases anything that would be accepted as valid by a grammarian would already be in use enough to pass one of the other qualification. I appreciate making the distinction between articles and article text. --Dystopos 03:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your constructive comments. Both the talk/project and grammarian parts were moved from the current page. I agree with you on both counts. I'll have a go at these areas, perhaps tomorrow after a few more comments may appear here. -- cmh 03:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it a lot better than the current version. It actually explains the problems with neologisms and references important policies. I made a slight edit getting rid of the word "eschew". Sometimes the users we refer to this page don't have the best vocabulary, and the meaning isn't entirely clear from the context if you aren't already familiar with the policy. NickelShoe (Talk) 03:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the page should be rewritten to reflect Wikipedia is not a dictionary, of which this is just a special case. If the article is about a word or term, delete it (perhaps after transwiking to Wiktionary). If it is not about a word, but about a thing, then the notability of the thing is what is important; the article can be separately renamed to the most prominent name. This page should only exist as a reminder of two core Wikipedia policies/principles: 1) Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and 2) notability. Neologism = dicdef + not-notable, two reasons to delete. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-12 08:00Z

I like the emphasis on original research better than notability, which is not really a core principle. This guideline also says not to use neologisms in articles, which is a separate concern from WP:WINAD. A reference to notability could be added, but since we don't have a neologism notability guideline, I think the original research thing is best at giving help at what to actually do. NickelShoe (Talk) 14:36, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Quarl. I don't think dictionary prohibitions are strong enough. This article, for example, is more than a dicdef, but is still an article about a neologism. Sources are cited showing its use, but the article, which pulls together its meaning out of those uses, is original research. This is because WP:OR says it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication... and also because there is no secondary source to attribute the meaning to. That's what I'm trying to get at with the clarifications here. -- cmh 15:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, true, original research is another reason to delete articles that happen to be about neologisms. In my mind original thought is analogous to non-notable thought :) —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-13 12:01Z

As for the T14 AFD, I'm not sure I agree with your position and the outcome to delete (I saw it just now and haven't had time to think about it). The idea of a first tier of law schools is legitimate and non-original, even if this particular name for the top tier is new; only part of the article was about the name itself. Also I see 80,000 Google hits for "top 14" law, and all the ones I looked at were relevant; the term does not look "too new" to me. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-13 12:01Z

I read Leiter's blog entry and based on that I now think that 1) the "top 14" idea is relatively new, and probably believed more by pre-law students than by past law students / lawyers / judges / et al; but widely known enough that there is a growing counter-reaction to it, and 2) there's a pre-existing idea in the law community that about 15 schools are in tier 1 and a couple more in tier 1.1. The Top Fourteen article was missing the counter reaction and info on the pre-existing idea. So information on all of the above is valid, whether in the law school article or in a separate article named say "Top tier U.S. law school controversy". I don't think "avoid neologisms" should be used to justify deleting T14; use WP:NOR if anything. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-04-13 12:15Z

Fair enough. I don't want to rehash the AfD here, I'm happy to go with your reasoning on T14. However, it remains that the current Neologism guideline is vague and directly contradicts NOR on the question of support. Having thought about it some more, would you be willing to support the new wording? -- cmh 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Editorial note: although I hoped to keep discussion in one location, there is more discussion over at User_talk:Cmh/Neologisms. -- cmh 14:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

New version installed

I am installing the new version of this guideline that has been discussed here and at User_talk:Cmh/Neologisms. Thanks to all who contributed to the rework, especially User:NickelShoe for lots of assistance. -- cmh 05:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

For how long is a neologism a neologism?

Assuming a neologism sticks around and doesn't die, for how long is it considered a neologism? Шизомби 17:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no set time period, nor would such a time period really matter. Neologisms are not generally in dictionaries, although I suppose we'd still call them for neologisms for a time. Without the reliable sources described in the guideline to support their use they are not really a good idea. -- cmh 19:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:NEO states that it very clearly. For all articles about neologisms, all article claims must be sourced to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term Reliable sources must be be cited about the term - its etymology, and so forth. Sources that merely use the term are insufficient. CyberAnth 11:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

"Islamophobia", "Islamophobic", "Islamophobe"

The neologism "islamophobia" is being frequently used pejoratively to inhibit rightful criticism of Islam and critics are wrongfully being labeled "islamophobe" or their views are referred to as "islamophobic". Much like the term "terrorism" this word is highly charged. There is currently a bit of a drive to make this word a standard word for regular utilization on Wikipedia (see this request for mediation and this category for deletion discussion). In my view in accord with the Wikipedia guidelines Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and to maintain Wikipedia's neutrality, this word should not be used when writing articles outside of direct quotes and citations of its use. What are the views of others who frequent this talk page? Netscott 08:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Stop supporting hatred and bigotry against Islam. Islamophobia is more than just criticism of Islam. Hate crimes, discrimination, and persecution of Muslims are also Islamophobic. Criticism of Islam usually degrades and insults Islam or Muslims, rather than being constructive criticism. Yes it may be a neologism. But so are "Islamofascism", "war on terrorism", and "Islamism". How come you don't object to those articles? To me, it seems like you are trying to defend anti-Muslim bigotry and limit a word that has a legitamate and widespread use. Faz90 00:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is false to accuse me of "supporting hatred and bigotry of Islam" when nothing could be further from the truth. What's a bit unfortunate is that you're illustrating perfectly why I have the stance that I do about this term: "Islamopobia is more than just critcism of Islam. Hate crimes, discrimination, and persecution of Muslims are also islamophobia." You have verified what I am saying in that the term "islamophobia" is used against critics of Islam, this is very wrong. When I see individuals like the former muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali frequently labeled with this term I take issue. This term is bad for discourse when used to shut down critics of Islam (as it frequently is used to do). I don't take issue with the concept of "Islamophobia" but merely the false utilization of the term and as such just like the term "islamofascism" it should not actually be used by Wikipedia outside of quotes and citations about it. Netscott 09:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Similar to your accusing me of "supporting hatred and bigotry" I could accuse you of supporting terrorists against Israel. Hopefully you'll understand this and actually apologize for your false accusation. Netscott 09:16, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to respectfully request that this discussion be moved to article talk pages, or your personal talk pages. Spreading the debate throughout wikipedia will not help to resolve this issue. If you require assistance, consider request for comments as a mechanism. Thanks. -- cmh 15:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose you are correct as this talk page is more for determining guidelines/policy of utlization of neologisms rather than discussing the actual neologisms themselves. Netscott 16:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Irony

Given that there is not now, nor has there ever been a great divine linguist who bestowed upon man the words we speak, given that words have no inherent meaning, and given that every word ever spoken by any human, anywhere on the planet, at any time in the history of man's time on the planet has been a neologism, what the hell is the big deal? The purpose of language is to communicate. We make up words as needed. We have always done so, and we shall continue to do so. •Jim62sch• 23:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I gather that there is a problem with individuals making up words and then adding them to Wikipedia before anyone outside of their group of friends actually starts using it, and then the word dies but we are stuck with the article and clutter and inaccuracy results. Articles are not supposed to create words, they are supposed to document existing words. Words that have only a short lifespan are also generally not notable. -- Beland 00:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Fast-Changing Disciplines

There are fast-changing disciplines that tend not to be documented in formal publications. Computer technology is natorious for this for at least two reasons:

• It changes so rapidly that significant trends may already be in place before there are sufficient publications.

• The technology and changes tend to be documented on the Internet and often in informal ways because heavy technology users tend not to purchase printed materials or subscribe to formal publications.

Rather than out-right deletion of content that may reflect rapid change, perhaps a pre-set disclaimer could be applied so that the reader knows they are in uncharted territory.

(I put this in the main content originally, and realize that is a mistake. I apologize.)

I think the problem is, though, that these are still subject to the problems of neologisms, particularly that of verifiability. NickelShoe (Talk) 19:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Notability

I just proposed Santorum for deletion, since I don't think it meets the notability criteria. However, it apparently does have citable articles about it; see that article or Savage Love. It was coined as a political act (quite openly) and was, I suspect, reported on by the mainstream media primarily because it is intended to outrage. This certainly makes it a successful political act, and it is described in that way in the Savage Love article (Love helped facilitate the coinage). However, does that make it a notable neologism for our purposes? I think it doesn't; the secondary source policy we're defining here is intended to establish that the neologism has currency as a neologism, and the citations should be to sources such as a dictionary of neologisms that include it. Not to say that the political act should not be mentioned; just that the neologism doesn't need a separate entry if it is not verifiable in usage as opposed to a well known act.

I don't know if there are other words that could fall into this category, but if so some clarification of the policy here might be appropriate. Mike Christie 04:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, an article about the political act is verifiable if there are news citations. The word 'santorum' is clearly an integral part of that act, and its usage and meaning within the context of the political action is verifiable from the news sources. However, it would not be OK to go around adding santorum as a technical term within articles on, say, anal sex (although again mentioning it within the context of the political act would be ok). After all, there are lots of words made up as, say, company names etc. that are technically neologisms; we use them because their meaning is verifiable but only within the context setup by the discussion of the company. I think the guideline as it is now is sufficient to support this reasoning so I don't think we need to change it. -- cmh 15:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying when articles are okay

Right now, this guideline is used often - for better or worse - as a way to eliminate articles on neologisms. The issue is that this guideline has some information on when it is permissible to have an article on a neologism. Is anyone opposed to simplifying/clarifying when such articles are appropriate, and maybe moving them up to a more useful point in the guideline? I thought I'd float it out here before just restructuring boldly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this needs to be clarified. Neologisms are sometimes notable. The response to the question "For how long is a neologism a neologism?" shows the current confusion: since neologisms are "words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities," either it all boils down to dictionaries (do Wiktionary and the Urban Dictionary count?), or the time period behind this so-called recent coinage really matters. That is, unless we're given a clearer idea about when "Avoid neologisms" reaches the edges of its usefulness as a way to decide the notability of words and terms. IEdML 21:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need to make changes to the guideline at present. The reliable sources section (which is prominently referenced in the other two sections) clearly says: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. This should be sufficient. There's no point in duplicating this information elsewhere in the guideline just because people aren't reading it. It will not make those people stop if you move it, as they aren't really reading this guideline anyway. -- cmh 21:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're right that the problem boils down to people not actually reading the guideline. It seems that they read the title, "Avoid neologisms," and take that to heart. What about renaming it Wikipedia:Notability (neologisms)? IEdML 12:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this a guideline?

Hi, I'm wondering if the editors of this page consider this to be a full guideline. The tag at the top is different from more accepted guidelines, and that makes me wonder. One thing i'm proposing is that you use the Template:guideline, rather than the tag you have now. Please discuss it here (i'll be posting this message on other pages that have this same tag). Thanks! Fresheneesz 20:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Need for a NEO tag

This is a response to "Clarifying when articles are okay", above.

If neologisms are a distinct problem under the subset of OR, I think WP should create a "no neologism" tag that redirects here. The problem with tagging articles on neologisms as OR is that while yes it's technically OR, the terms being written about do have some real world existence (even if that's limited to a particular TV fan base or whatnot). Labeling it as OR without further explanation that it's OR not because WP denies its existence, but because it's a neologism, would clarify the situation especially when someone RfD's such an article.

I think this was precisely the problem that led to mass confusion and anger over at the AfD discussions for Chuck Cunningham syndrome, Cousin Oliver, Darrin Syndrome, and the like. Wl219 08:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Examples

I propose that this article should include some well-known recent examples of neologisms, as well as neologisms perpetrated or attemptingly perpetrated via Wikipedia. elambeth

You mean, for example, Australian cleavage (a redirect to Cleavage (breasts))? Removal of the term from that article was reverted and actively fought. The term also appears in Liv Lindeland, Chocolate and Cheese and Crop top that I know of. It's a neologism that is being actively held in place in spite of being considered derogatory and/or insulting by at least some Australians. --AliceJMarkham 00:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Okay. It's 3 months on and this same neologism (protologism?) is still being actively kept in the Cleavage (breasts) article. A google search essentially only shows up matches that quote the phrasing of some version of the wikipedia article, with or without attributing it to wiki. Is there a way of getting a clear ruling on a neologism failing the reliable source requirement? --AliceJMarkham 11:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can terms created by Wikipedia become notable if others start using them?

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kryder's law (second nomination). An article was created for a "law" that didn't really exist; it was just the title of a magazine article. After the Wikipedia article had been around a while, the term started to be used by people. Now it is failing a deletion attempt because people have started using it, mimicking the Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article itself says that the term did not exist prior to itself. — Omegatron 16:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Protologism

Protologism is quite the protologism itself and it seems rather silly to instruct writers not to use neologisms and "protologisms," all the while using "protologism" as if it itself were not such a word. I'd think it'd be best to strike use of protologism from this document, except perhaps as a footnote or parenthetical if you wish to acknowledge it's existence. RedSource 21:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The point made by this user is very important. A Wikipedia guideline should not actively use a word that breaks any Wikipedia guidelines. Therefore, I am removing the usage of this word in the guideline page. 23:26, 29 June 2007.

I won't miss the bit about protologisms, but I would like to point out that this guideline doesn't apply to pages in the Wikipedia namespace, so it wasn't self-contradictory. NickelShoe (Talk) 11:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

All the same, symbolism is everything. The message is "We can use this word, but you shouldn't. Do as I say, not as I do". It's one thing to give a list of examples of words not to use, but it's quite another to introduce protologism in the lead paragraph of the article as if it were an important topic, only to then immediately ban its use. Introducing so prominently a word that most people have not heard of will almost guarantee many people will now start using it who would not otherwise have done so. If "its use should be avoided", we should model that behaviour and actually avoid using it. We should have a guideline called "WP:Don't give negative instructions". -- JackofOz (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Neologisms vs. phrases

Am I correct (on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ghost ramp (second nomination)) that ghost ramp is a neologism but unused highway isn't? "Unused highway" is a phrase with an obvious meaning, while "ghost ramp" needs neologistic interpretation to say that it's not a sloped surface that ghosts use. --NE2 23:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It's still a bit of a problem to use it as an article title, because it can make it sound like a specialized term. But all else being equal, I'd go with "unused highway." The problem, of course, is being sure that all else is equal. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This guideline in a nutshell

This guideline lacks a "nutshell" caption. I propose the following:

Just because a term or set of terms is in wide use by certain communities does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. An article about a neologism must cite reliable secondary sources that have the neologism as their subject, not that merely use the term. Wikipedia should never be the first place an article appears about a neologism or set of neologisms.

If there are no objections or improvements to this, I will add it after a while.

CyberAnth 11:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems a bit long. How about something like:

New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term. Just because a term is widely used doesn't mean it must appear in Wikipedia.

cmh^TC 15:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't italicize "about" since it's not clear what it's being contrasted with. The long explanation can distinguish between primary and secondary sources. Honestly, just "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term" seems sufficient to me. NickelShoe (Talk) 15:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The second version of the nutshell doesn't state the standard is for articles about a neologism (as opposed the use of a neologism in an article which should have a lower hurdle. So the nutshell I'd suggest is similar to the first suggestion:

An article about a neologism must cite reliable sources that have the neologism as their subject, not that merely use the term. Just because a term is in wide use does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia. Neologisms used within an article should be linked to their definition in wiktionary, even if one hasn't been written yet

.

The standard should also show how to link to wiktionary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghosts&empties (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

New terms should not have articles in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term.

It would be over the top to put the part about Wiktionary in the nutshell, but it can be mentioned in the page itself. NickelShoe (Talk) 20:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Nickelshoe's original is best. The guideline is not just about articles for neologisms, it also says that generally they should not be used within articles: New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term. It is a nutshell after all, not a replacement for the full text. -- cmh^TC 04:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think Nickelshoe's is a bit too brief and does not contain enough of the core essence of this guideline. How about this:

An article about or containing a neologism must cite reliable sources that have the neologism as their subject, not that merely use the term. Just because a term is in wide use does not mean it belongs in Wikipedia.

CyberAnth 08:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

About the term means "as their subject not merely that use the term" only it takes five less words to say it. NickelShoe (Talk) 17:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

.

This guideline should not treat neologisms as the subject of an article the same as neologisms used in an another article. It's reasonable to expect new articles about a neologism to undergo enough research to find a reliable source that has the neologism as its subject. But many expressions that would be a valuable addition within an article will never have a reliable source written solely about them or finding such an article would pose too high of a hurdle for minor additions. Such a guideline for new terms within articles would stiffle the use of contemporary speech in WP and would justify deleting a huge amount of good existing content. The existing guideline sets a different standard for use within articles and so should this one. A good guide for use within an article would be an entry in wiktionary. H Bruthzoo 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

All we're talking about here is a summary--not changing the guideline itself in any way. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on the fact that discussion seems to have died out, I've posted NickelShoe's version. If there is sufficient interest this can be reverted and we can go back to talking. -- cmh^TC 01:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This content guideline should be brought to a larger audience of policy wheels, although everything I have to say on the topic is right here. My concern is with the use of neologisms within articles, not neologisms that are the subject of articles. Specifically, I see the policy for deletionists to use this guideline to justify quashing words that have become fairly established, possibly including usage in mainstream publications. Demanding that all neologisms in WP have an reliabe source specifically about the term sets a high hurdle for new language. Neologisms in some subcultures (e.g. the drug world) are not well documented in reliable sources. More importantly, many very well established neologisms could be deleted because it would be tough to find a reliabe source about them, particularly if they are pre-internet.

The purpose of this guideline is to eradicate slang kruft, not to police language. Many word lovers especially love neologisms, otherwise William Safire would be out of business. Just say no to neo(logism)-nazis. H Bruthzoo 00:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're proposing. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletionists are concerned with articles about neologisms, not language within articles. Regarding within-article language, the standard is high, yes, as this is an encyclopedia, not a corpus of newspeak. In general the encyclopedia must use accessible language in order to be readable worldwide, and to ensure everyone will be able to understand the terminology. Regarding your specific example of drug names, likely the encyclopedia should not refer to drugs with local slang terms anyway; should there be a need to use these terms there are plenty of news magazines that likely can be used as sources. If the terms haven't appeared in these kinds of sources then they are precisely the terms that should not appear in wikipedia. -- cmh^TC 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Question

I have a question, when it says that a book or article is needed to prove the usage of the word, would that include a reference work, such as a dictionary? If so, I believe that should be explicitly indicated. TSO1D 15:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a dictionary could be a reliable source, but it couldn't include enough information to dodge WP:WINAD concerns, and it wouldn't speak that well for notability, since dictionaries (though conservative) don't have the same inclusion guidelines we do. NickelShoe (Talk) 16:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary

I added a note that while Wiktionary welcomes new definitions (and some WP:OR), it is not a reliable source for our purposes. I'm certain there have been attempt to introdude definitions there, and cite them here--and that ought to be clearly stated as a no-no. --EngineerScotty 23:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

In a nutshell

I was thinking of revising it to "New terms don't belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources about the term. Something you invent on the spot won't be accepted. Mbralchenko 15:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

www.urbandictionary.com

Was thinking of adding this as an unreliable source. But I need your input. BuickCenturyDriver 11:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of "about"

There's been someone claiming on a recent AfD that this phrase:

"To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term."

Should be taken to mean that there must be entire "books or papers about the term" - that is, primarily dedicated to a discussion of the term. This clearly is ridiculous to me, for it would set a standard for sourcing far higher than any other subject on Wikipedia. Can we clarify this somehow? - Merzbow 03:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this request. I'm trying to prove Cryokenesis and Pyrokenesis are not NEO but I'll be darned if I'm gonna find an entire book about a made-up comic book power. Padillah 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

How would that be greater than the guidelines for other subjects? The notability standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I don't see how a complete lack of books or articles about a term would constitute "significant coverage". Croctotheface 11:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge to Manual of style

I propose that this guideline be merged into the manual of style. Part of this page deals with the use of such words in articles, which is clearly within the purview of WP:MOS. The remaining discussion of neologisms as topics for articles is redundant to other guidelines such as WP:N and no original research. --Kevin Murray 19:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I take your point, but my first reaction is that there's no real benefit to such a merge. Debates about neologisms seem to occur quite independently of other MoS issues, often in the context of determining if an article about a neologism is appropriate. The section on the use of neologisms within articles is certainly an MoS issue, but the subsequent section is not, so I'd suggest that it's just as well to leave this as it is. Despite the slight illogicality of organization, the fact is that people trying to resolve both questions ("Can I use neologism X?" and "Is neologism X worth an article?") will probably come here via the WP:NEO shortcut, and this version answers both those questions.

I think you're right about the discussion being, in theory redundant to OR and N guidelines. Practically, though, I think this page exists not only because OR and N don't explicitly answer the questions about neologisms, but also because the people who ask those questions don't think to look there. Mike Christie (talk) 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well put! The issue in my mind is weighing the value of an additional guideline WP:CREEP against the benefits you so articulately outlined. I think that we should exercise caution in both directions--Kevin Murray 02:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Considering the *CAT:MOS is quite large, is there any page in particular you want this to merge to? >Radiant< 08:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • My thought is Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --Kevin Murray 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
    • I rather think that that page is too long and should be split. >Radiant< 08:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Title of article versus content of article

The word "Gun fu" is a neologism or protologism (search google to check this, a few slang mentions of it but nothing "formal" or "widespread"). But the article called Gun fu is not about the word as such, its about a certain style of gunplay seen in films. So the article subject is notable, but its title is a neologism.

The article throughout uses the term gun fu just as a quick shorthand to refer to this style, which would otherwise have to be referred to with a long unwieldy name, such as "John Woo-inspired close-quarters gunplay in film" or somesuch.

What should be done in a case like this? Should the word gun fu be enclosed in quote marks throughout the article? Should the article be renamed? Should the words "gun fu" be replaced with something else throughout the article?

Thoughts here please Talk:Gun fu#quotes around gun fu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.93.198 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Where do we ask neologism questions?

I have a question regarding the clasification of a particular word as a neologism. Where would be the appropriate place to discuss this? Here? In some other talk page? Padillah 18:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Rename

I object to this page being renamed from "Avoid neologisms" to "Manual of style (neologisms)" because the new title is less clear. It is not true that every page in the *CAT:MOS has to have a title starting with "Manual of Style". >Radiant< 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Per the edit summary on the move, there was a discussion of the name change -- can someone point me at that discussion? Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I haven't seen any discussion on this. >Radiant< 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

If I don't see any indication of a discussion, I'm inclined to put a {{move|Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms}} tag on this per WP:RM#Requesting a potentially controversial page move. I can't see a good reason for the move and agree with Radiant that it's less clear. I also think per the discussion further up the page that the contents of this page do not all belong in the manual of style. Mike Christie (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

I have requested a move back to the original name. This section is for the discussion of that move. Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• Put it back. A title that's a title is what it should have. Mangoe 15:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
• Move reverted per the objections here. >Radiant< 09:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Which Template?

I know neologisms are a speedy delete, but which catagory of speedy do they fall under? I seem to remember some debate about this before. Is it db-spam or db-nonsense? Somercy 22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms are not themselves speediable, and definitely not as patent nonsense. See WP:CSD#Non-criteria NickelShoe (Talk) 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Requesting clarification

I think that this guideline needs to be clearer, particularly this sentence: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term." What qualifies as a secondary source about a term? My reading is that a book or paper about a term is devoted to discussing that term and that nearly all of the content in that source will be related specifically to the term. For instance, this column on "truthiness" or this one about "metrosexual" would qualify as sources about the term. However, this article would not qualify as a source about "Friedman unit" because it discusses the term for three sentences and spends the rest of the article on other material, some related, some not.

If this last source would qualify as a source "about the term", then I would suggest changing the wording to something like, "We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers that write about the term, its definition, and its usage -- not books and papers that use the term." Croctotheface 18:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the three sentences would go for verifiability but not do so much for notability. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Neologisms and protologisms that have notable usage

In these modern times new concepts emerge quite fast. This is reflected by Wikipedians and visitors adding these to the Wikipedia. Yet this guideline Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms says to avoid the usage. This results in pages being created, time invested in and deleted and resurrected when the time is more ripe and/or relevant external links/references are available. Considering the time people spend on these neologism/protologism articles and the usefullness of knowing about the new concept helping to understand current society I'd propose to be less deletionist as far as this guideline is concerned, i.e. when a neologism/protologism is widely used (no relevant sources/references yet) on notable websites (websites with an article on wikipedia etc.?) - this must be referred to in the article by a link to the usage on a notable website - the neologism/protologism can keep its entry on wikipedia but will have a new template on top stating "this article is on a neologism/protologism that has proven notable usage and is in need of references/sources" (or some other wording). Before starting a proposed guideline - e.g. Wikipedia:Used neologisms - as one of the Category:Wikipedia proposals (or rather a modification Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms?) I'd be glad to hear your feedback and further (related) ideas.--Brz7 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

In favour This would include e.g. the article Indie electronic (and many other interesting articles currently deleted) in Wikipedia since All Music Guide is a notable website referring to the music genre. --Brz7 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I would oppose this idea, as it seems an unacceptable exception to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Even if the notability can be established, how can we write an article about something which no one else has yet written? NickelShoe (Talk) 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia articles on neologisms/protologisms can be written by Wikpedians on the basis of their knowledge of the particular topic. They are ahead of the traditional press and researchers, an avant-garde. While these members of the avant-garde contribute to the article, slowly a consensus article on the topic emerges that reflects what is more commonly (though not yet wide spread) meant by the topic at hand. This information could then be used by the traditional press and researchers as a source since the article reflects a shared view on the new topic. The information in the article could possibly be better than the journalist or researcher could have gathered alone. The article at least inspires and shows (new) ideas. The fact that there's an article on Wikipedia shows relevance of the topic, especially when there are a lot of Wikipedians contributing to the article (though this is not as important as notable usage, which would be the most important basis for the article to exist on Wikipedia).

User generated content in the form of neologism/protologism is something to cherish: the new ideas have great relevance to understand contemporary society; society is progressive, encyclopedias - being online, almost in direct contact with current developments - should be more progressive too; the time invested in the article is valuable (no disappearance of creative work, no discouragement among contributors). When there's notable usage of the term and when the reader is alerted by a template the content is a neologism/protologism in need for citations the article should have a place on Wikipedia.--Brz7 11:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying we should use Wikipedia to publish original research? It's not clear to me why neologisms should be exempt from WP:OR. The same arguments you make could apply equally well to other topics. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! Of what is stated on WP:OR as original research the line "It defines new terms" overlaps with "It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source" so indeed "new terms" (and (arguably) names for new theories) would be included in the idea proposed above. The proposal is - in the case of new terms - to be more soft on WP:V, by allowing references to notable usage of the new terms like in the example of Indie electronic I gave above: I would not label such cases as original research since there are verifiable sources to check its usage on a notable source, in this case a notable website.

"Psysics cranks" [1] will not get articles on Wikipedia, unless there's sufficiently notable usage of the new theory - which is unlikely to happen since the theory will not be referred to in reputable publications.

The phrase in WP:NEO "This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." would (in this proposal) be rewritten to e.g. "In case there are many examples of the term in use on notable (/reliable) sources, the article can stay but will have to have a template message stating the content is a neologism/protologism/new term in need for sources".

From WP:NEO: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." This phrase would also need to be rewritten in this proposal as notable usage of the new term would be sufficient. --Brz7 21:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that what you're suggesting runs counter to the founding principles of Wikipedia. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to be ahead of secondary sources or publish new ideas and original thought. There are plenty of other online resources that do that, and I'd suggest you seek out one of them. Croctotheface 13:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment! Well, there are soft and hard approaches vice versa the founding principles of Wikipedia. At the time of the creation of Wikipedia the influence of User Generated Content (UGC) was still limited. Advanced insights show the importance of UGC and Wikipedia in contemporary society. A more progressive online encyclopedia would include neologisms/protologisms/new terms in case of notable usage. --Brz7 21:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Notable usage" would imply that the terms are already described in notable sources. If it was not noted anywhere other than blogs and chats, let the word remain there or in urban dictionary. `'юзырь:mikka 14:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

TY! With notable usage I here do not refer to description of the new term in the notable source (notable website, notable print media etc. - not (notable) chats or blogs), but the usage of the term without explicitly describing what the term means. The proposal is to allow/leave the above mentioned articles in Wikipedia. Brief mentioning in Wiktionary or Urban dictionary does not suffice I think, since these sites do not have place for longer articles. --Brz7 17:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How is what you are proposing different from the current guideline? Croctotheface 17:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The current WP:NEO (and WP:OR, WP:V), as quoted above (see the line "The phrase in WP:NEO" and further, within the context of the response), does not allow articles on Wikipedia that are dealing with topics that have notable usage.--Brz7 14:37, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) Are you referring to usage of the term or a brief description in an article on a different topic? In general, the latter type of sourcing is generally considered insufficient to establish notability (as opposed to [[WP:V|verifiability]) of ANY topic, let alone a neologism. Croctotheface 18:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, that's an interesting remark. The article on the new term (i.e basically any topic as I stated earlier. The discussion was started here in WP:NEO but could be moved to another talk page?), on the basis of this proposal, should have notable usage and indeed another criterion would be addedt: the new term should deserve a separate article (which is not the case for e.g. pyrophobia in -phob-: the links on this term is redirected to the article itself since there's very few information on the topic in question - but it is expected more will be added later?).--Brz7 00:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Require numerous sources

Should we make it clear that articles on neologisms require a large number of reliable secondary sources to establish notability? Usually, in the context of most Wikipedia articles, about two or three sources is considered enough to establish notability, but in the case of neologisms, it seems like the required number should be much greater. This would ensure that a) the neologism is in widespread usage, and b) the neologism is well-established enough that there is sufficient information to offer more than merely a definition. - Chardish 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really so much different than other types of subjects. You need a lot of sources if the sources aren't in depth, but if the coverage is fairly complete in a small number of sources, that should be okay. I don't think there's any need to mention this in the guideline, as it requires discretion in a case-to-case basis. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Google test"

I also think that we need a sentence establishing that the "Google test" (see WP:GHITS) is not an appropriate indicator of notability. I know this is Wikipedia policy in general, but I see Google hits being counted in nearly every neologism-related AfD, and that's not the way to do things. - Chardish 14:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think adding a sentence here would change the way things are done at AfD. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible neoligism problem

There is a thread on this at Talk:Irish_Football_Association#Cumann_Sacair_na_h.C3.89ireann

I apologise for placing this in the wrong place, but I cant think of anywhere else where I can find people with the collective expertise exhibitted on this page!

In the Irish FA article, the Irish language name has been added, it has been suitably referenced with a link to the regulatory body of the langauge Foras na Gaeilge. However the Irish language names for the Irish FA, which governs football in Northern Ireland, and The FA of Ireland which governs football in the Republic of Ireland have IDENTICAL translations, which to me would suggest that the term is not used by native speakers. The FAI use an Irish language name in their website, however the IFA do not, could someone have a look at the Irish FA article? The Fashion Icon 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nonstandard use of a term

Can somebody help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned? Thank you. --NE2 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate some help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. People are defending the use of the neologism "decommissioned highway" because other clearer terms are "awkward". --NE2 00:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed change

Since policy is what we do, we need to either change this to allow neologisms when a WikiProject decides it can define it, or change what we do. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#"Decommissioned". --NE2 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to change the policy. Contraversial word choices should be decided by consensus, and failing that there are other systems in place (like WP:RFC for example) to help sort these kinds of issues out. -- cmh^TC 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed addition

"There are sites dedicated to neologisms or protologisms like Addictionary.org, and thus perhaps more appropriate for recording emerging or non-authenticated words and phrases." was added to the text by an unregistered user. See diff at [2] I don't specifically object to the addition, but I do object to IP users making undiscussed changes to policy pages. --Kevin Murray 03:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New words?

Are neologisms just "words and terms that have recently been coined"? I was trying to figure out what was wrong with the article Skygazing, the title and article cover a topic that "does not appear in any dictionary", is "not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people", and seems to be supported by a great deal of Google generated original research. In other words, it seems to be a neologism but that slang term has been around for a very long time. Or is it an editors recent atempts to create such an article around a word what can be classified as "recently coined"? 69.72.2.71 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

i dont know who to report this to..

but many firearms articles on wikipedia are using the neologism "battle rifle" to describe assault rifles that are not controllable in fully-automatic fire. this is giving people visiting here wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.185 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Can a "list of roadgeek terms" be used to "back-door" a neologism in other articles?

See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Any use?. --NE2 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Section added on 'Articles wrongly titled as neologisms'

I've added a small section on 'Articles wrongly titled as neologisms'. I feel this addresses a situation that has come up many times, but that has not before been documented in the guideline. Hopefully this can both spare the deletion of notable articles with bad names, and prevent articles from being poorly named in the first place. On example here would be Liberal revolutionary movements in post-communist Eastern Europe, an article I started before before the term "color revolution" was popularized in the international media.--Pharos (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You wrote: Articles wrongly titled as neologisms: In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.

• First it would be good to give an example. I can't think of any.
• Also, section name not quite right. I think you mean: "Do Not Create Neologisms for article title"

Carol Moore 11:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Examples I can think of would be Liberal revolutionary movements in post-communist Eastern Europe and cyberpunk derivatives (which was titled with the neologism "Literary punk genres" until recently). The reason I did not title it "Do Not Create Neologisms for article title", is because I wanted to emphasize that some articles with bad names can be fixed, by just changing their names (rather than deleting them).--Pharos (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Redirects?

I was just wondering if this policy applies to redirects as well as articles? There is currently a redirect on RfD that has this as a potential issue. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

If it's a jargon word being used by a small subculture, I don't see any harm done by an extra redirect. But if it's just a silly made-up word, then that doesn't belong anywhere.--Pharos (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll mention it in the RfD. If anyone who's familiar with this guideline wants to weigh in on the discussion there, I'm sure it would help us reach a consensus. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

articles for creation

I am wondering if it would be desirable for the AfC wizard to redirect users to some other wiki (hopefully, not uncyclopedia) where neologisms are accepted? 69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No concensus for change

I made a series of thoughful edits, with specific comments, which were undone in a blanket revert by a new user. I am going to revert this, and ask that any disputed edits be edited individually with comments to further discussion. Dhaluza (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're trying to edit this page to agree with your definition of neologisms in response to the deletion of Dismissiveness. These POV edits will be reverted without a strong consensus on this page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I am trying to clean-up the page, without appreciably changing the meaning, other than to remove absolute statements and replace them with more general ones. If you review the edits individually, and they were broken down to bite-sized pieces to facilitate this, you will find that many are simply clean-up type edits. If you object to specific edits that change the meaning in some way that you object to, then please revert these specific edits so we can discuss them on the merits. Your blanket reverts are counterproductive. Dhaluza (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I object to all your revisions, since they cloud the definition of "neologism" and shift this guideline from being restrictive towards articles on neologisms to being permissive and providing exceptions to the rule. This is unacceptable and will result in the creation of many new unencyclopedic articles on neologisms that would fail the current guideline. Do not reinsert those revisions again until you have established a strong consensus on this page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK, I'm going to WP:AGF and take your comments at face value. First, by individual edits, you will see that I made several separate edits, each with a specific edit comment. I request that you make changes in a similar fashion, so your objections to the specific changes can be noted to facilitate a compromise. Second, WP guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and this has wide consensus. No narrower consensus at this page can override this. So your assertion that there can be no "exceptions to the rule" is simply untrue (as is stated in the header template). Finally, the concensus principle that WP is based on is a give and take process, not a one-way process as you describe. For example, when you say you object to all my edits, what do you object to in this one? Dhaluza (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• There is nothing objectionable about that edit and I have restored it. I apologize for overlooking the detail. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• OK, now would you please restore the rest of the edits you do not dispute so we can get to the ones you do. Dhaluza (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

• Do not reinsert any of the edits you've just made without a strong consensus to do so here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• That's not how WP is supposed to work. Editing and discussion happen in parallel, and concensus is reached through discussion and compromise. Your reversion of these edits to preserve the status quo without any attempt at compromise is counter-productive. Dhaluza (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia also works because we have comprehensive, well established policies which guide our decision making process. Currently, the guideline on neologisms is stable and well established, but you have attempted to revise it in accordance with your views. The changes would radically alter this policy and cast the (currently) well understood guideline into dispute. This would disrupt many of the discussions at AFD and would inhibit the smooth functioning of this encyclopedia. I strongly disagree with those revisions and I don't believe any revision is necessary in this case, since, again, the guideline is well established and very well understood. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)