Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] "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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

cmhTC 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. -- cmhTC 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. -- cmhTC 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. -- cmhTC 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] www.urbandictionary.com

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

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/v/o/Wikipedia_talk%7EAvoid_neologisms_0a5d.html"