Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms

Understanding of WP:NEO

I'm not looking for a deletion review, but rather if the authors of this guideline can tell me if I'm missing something about it. For instance, I really thought both of these should be "slam dunks" in terms of articles about neologism: NRE and Higher Power. What am I missing? -- Scarpy (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

• You're not and they are but there is a growing subset of users on this encyclopedia who will fight tooth and nail to save every piece of text ever written about any subject. It's becoming a growing frustration on AFD. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Foreign terms

I think there should be a specific mention in this guideline about the translations of foreign words and phrases, because some people who contribute to this encyclopaedia in English and who's mother tongue is some other language, can easily do this in good faith without knowing that they are creating a neologism. For example translating "négationnisme" into negationism, or Macedonism (not to be confused with Macedonianism) was an an article name the content of which was eventually merged and redirected to Macedonian nationalism. Here is a fist cut at text that could be added to this page:

Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in Wikipedia articles.

Comments and improvements to the text are welcome.--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

misconception of syn

"An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). " This is simply not correct. The research we do to establish that something is notable is not the forbidden OR or SYN. We do this all the time, for every article. If one finds that something is widely used as a concept -- not merely a word -- by examining the web and collects that information, and there is sufficient in the materials to discuss it more than a dictionary, it's notable and appropriate I suggest deleting the sentence entirely. DGG (talk) 00:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Everything you say after "The research we do to establish..." is correct, but does not negate the part of WP:NEO that you quoted. WP:NEO forbids articles on neologisms, not articles on concepts. The collection of usages of "foo", plus the conclusion that "foo" is a neologism, is original research of the kind that is forbidden on Wikipedia but permitted on Wiktionary. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
  • couldn't disagree more about the OR part. I think you are usingmuch toowide a meaning of OR, and I see this will need an explanation, and more general discussion and probably the most visible place is the OR Noticeboard. Encyclopedias are made by assembling material and writing a suitable account based on it. It isn't synthesis until one uses the material to reach a new synthesis or conclusion. How else do you think we do it? (I wont have time to really start this at ORN for a few days. I also think your definition of the difference between wiktionary and Wikipedia is no longer usually upheld at AfD--encyclopedic information about a word is now sufficient for an article here,. Policy pages as written tend to lag about 6 months behind policy as it actually is. We rewrite the policy to fit changing conceptions on what we want the encyclopedia to be. DGG (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
    • OK, let's set WP:WINAD aside for now. It seems to me that we agree on what NOR means: collections of information are permitted, but novel conclusions are not. Right? So WP:NEO is just saying that it is original synthesis to extrapolate from usages of "foo", that "foo" is a neologism. How is that extrapolation not an original conclusion? 160.39.213.152 (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding redirects

I really think there should be mention somewhere in the guideline about whether this applies to redirects as well. For example: Divitis, a previously deleted page because it was a neologism, now also transwikified, could still be a useful redirect to Span and div#Overuse. Would this be OK to do? Or should these kinds of redirects from neologisms to related articles be discouraged? -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 00:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

protologisms

Why use this if it's incorrect to use it? It just confuses the topic by talking about some other subject. I deleted the reference in the first paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.63.242 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you appear to have confused the article even more: the term is used later and now has no definition... I'll see if I can rescue this removed section. --Jubilee♫clipman 02:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Need to define terms on this page

This contents of this page will be completely over the head of anyone who does not know what a "neologism" or "protologism" is. These terms need to be defined at the very top of the page, with an example or two of each. --CaritasUbi (talk) 12:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't think the bolded link to Neologism is enough you can go ahead, Be bold, and do the honors. -- œ^™ 21:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

More examples and clearer language needed.

I think we could do with having some clearer examples of especially seemingly borderline cases, could anyone point to afds where NEO was argues successfully? Unomi (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Protologism OR?

I re-introduced the definition (see above), but put it later on in the article. However, it struck me that no one other that the Wiktionary community ever uses the term: is this word, in fact, not actually the very essence of a neologism? It is without any accepted defintion (the Wiktionary definition was actually removed), therefore attempting to define the term and use it could actually be OR. Thoughts? --Jubilee♫clipman 03:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You are quite right. I actually wonder if it was meant as an ironic joke: use an extreme example of a neologism in an article saying don't use neologisms. It is interesting that the user who put teh word in followed it with "to use a neologism", which has since been removed. In any case it is entirely unnecessary, as it is easy to convey the meaning in plain English. I have removed it. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Consolidation?

Please note that this page has been nominated to be consolidated with the primary Manual of Style page. Please join the discussion at the MOS talk page in order to discus the possibility of merging this page with the MOS. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 14:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Taskforce audit

There does not appear to be any good reason for this page to exist. The instruction to avoid the use of neologisms in articles can be conveyed in a single paragraph in WP:Words to avoid or a revamped Expressions to avoid. The instructions relating to articles on neologisms do not belong in a style manual and, to the degree they are necessary at all, should be subsumed under Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary and Wikipedia:No original research. Does anyone believe that this page benefits the project and its contributors as a stand-alone entity?—DCGeist (talk) 17:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this view. A draft guideline merged with several others is here. Tony (talk) 02:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not just a matter of style. WP:NEO is often invoked as a content guideline at AFD. For example, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communicating in small groups. The claim that this phrase is a neologism seems quite absurd but such misconceptions are so common that it seems necessary to have clear advice about the scope of the guideline and appropriate action in such cases.

My impression is that the practise arises from the link at WP:NOTCSD. The shooting gallery types at WP:NPP look for reasons to delete articles. They see that they can't speedy an article for WP:NEO and so take it to AFD instead. The idea that they should just reword the neologism perhaps never occurs to them because they are not in the business of editing and improving articles.

Merger might resolve this issue as it might make it clearer that it is just a matter of style, not content, but the new text should make this clear. The draft suggested by Tony is currently inadequate.

Colonel Warden (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have merged the parts about suitability for inclusion into WP:NOTDICT under WP:NOTNEO, and I've stolen the redirect from this page, since it was most often used to refer to the inclusion suitability guidelines, not the style guidelines. Gigs (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for this style guide

A proposed replacement for this style guide can be found here Gnevin (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This page should not be an isolated, stand-alone MoS guideline

Could Wolfkeeper explain her/his revert of Gig's attempt to rationalise the styleguides, please? Tony (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion over at WT:NOTDICT. Gigs (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Rock the !Vote!

Please read WP:Words to watch, then weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Words to watch#RFC. You can determine the future of this page.—DCGeist (talk) 08:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2010 (UTC)