Talk:Neologisms
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Delortion
Hmm...This article seems to have only two "examples", one of which is a product name, and probably not a neologism. I dunno, I just don't think this article has much potential... Bluebry 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- I say delete it. It's not that helpful and it's stupid. --TheYellowDart—(t/c)
- (1) Neologisms might include fake product names. (2) This is just the type of thing TBC will continue to do. (3) Calling it stupid is insulting and we should not tolerate that on the wiki. In summary, running gags require 3 instances, but nothing else does, so with but 2 instances, there's no reason to deny a current and bourgening area of H*R comedy a page. Keep. - Qermaq - (T/C)
03:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be insulting, it's just my opinion. Good point though on keeping it... but I still lean towards deletion. --TheYellowDart—(t/c)
- This article has definite potential, and it's already up to four entries. Keep it. — It's dot com 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article merits as being a real article, because of it's many examples. It has a good description as well. I say keep.--Giskard 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Potential, possibly, but do we have to list every made up word, some of them products? It seems to me that those exist here (Or here, in the products case). Bluebry 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- To answer your question, yes, we should list every made-up word. That's the point of the article. It doesn't matter that these items are on other, different pages. Not all of the things in the glossary are made up, and neither are most of the items. What makes these words interesting is that they're not even close to actual English words, unlike the portmanteaus and things like "arrow'd". — It's dot com 18:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm...I see your point. Well, if this page's gonna make it, it'll need some work. I guess I'll vote keep. (grumble) Bluebry 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wait wait wait, hold on. On Wikipedia's page for neologisms, it lists some. (Not the greatest sentence I've ever written, but...) Anyways, if neologisms are invented words that don't resemble other words, why are there words on there like "black hole" and "beetle bank"? Those do resemble English words, in fact, they are English words. I suggest a move to Invented Words, and I also suggest we drop the neologisms link. Bluebry 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Hmm...I see your point. Well, if this page's gonna make it, it'll need some work. I guess I'll vote keep. (grumble) Bluebry 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- To answer your question, yes, we should list every made-up word. That's the point of the article. It doesn't matter that these items are on other, different pages. Not all of the things in the glossary are made up, and neither are most of the items. What makes these words interesting is that they're not even close to actual English words, unlike the portmanteaus and things like "arrow'd". — It's dot com 18:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Potential, possibly, but do we have to list every made up word, some of them products? It seems to me that those exist here (Or here, in the products case). Bluebry 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article merits as being a real article, because of it's many examples. It has a good description as well. I say keep.--Giskard 18:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- This article has definite potential, and it's already up to four entries. Keep it. — It's dot com 18:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to be insulting, it's just my opinion. Good point though on keeping it... but I still lean towards deletion. --TheYellowDart—(t/c)
- At first, I thought this was a great page with tons of potential. But after looking at the glossary article, I think that all of the items here/could go here would fit just as nicely in the glossary. It even has a nice little note at the top: Most of these are not real words, and exist only in the H*R Universe. With this being said, I think that we should perhaps forget about this page (*tear*) and work on improving the surprisingly meager glossary page. kai lyn 19:15, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Prior to 1968, "black hole" merely meant a hole that was black. Today, it means much more than that. That does not mean these are not neologisms. I still say keep. - Qermaq - (T/C) 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- But it does mean pretty much all of the Glossary is neologisms, which if correct means that this page is useless. Bluebry 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Now I change my mind. Keep this page. It has potential. --TheYellowDart—(t/c)
- But it does mean pretty much all of the Glossary is neologisms, which if correct means that this page is useless. Bluebry 19:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- Prior to 1968, "black hole" merely meant a hole that was black. Today, it means much more than that. That does not mean these are not neologisms. I still say keep. - Qermaq - (T/C)
- (1) Neologisms might include fake product names. (2) This is just the type of thing TBC will continue to do. (3) Calling it stupid is insulting and we should not tolerate that on the wiki. In summary, running gags require 3 instances, but nothing else does, so with but 2 instances, there's no reason to deny a current and bourgening area of H*R comedy a page. Keep. - Qermaq - (T/C)
Move
As I have said above, I suggest we move the page to Invented Words because a this is a page describing all invented words that don't resemble an English word, and neologisms can resemble an English word. Therefore, these words are Neologisms, however so are most/all of the words in the Glossary. Thoughts? Bluebry 03:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I feel kind of bad, because this is the first page that I've encountered which I think we don't really need. Basically, I think that the contents of Neologisms/ Invented Words can all comfortably fit in the Glossary, because the Glossary is specifically disposed towards the Homestar Runner Universe's invented words anyway. I feel that this page would just be redundant. kai lyn 04:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
