Talk:Neologisms
From Homestar Runner Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
It's dot com (Talk | contribs) (why these are interesting) |
(→Delortion: reply) |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
::::::Potential, possibly, but do we have to list every made up word, some of them products? It seems to me that those exist [[Glossary|here]] (Or [[Items|here]], in the products case). {{User:Bluebry/sig}} 18:48, 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 [[Glossary|here]] (Or [[Items|here]], in the products case). {{User:Bluebry/sig}} 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". — [[User:It's dot com|It's dot com]] 18:56, 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". — [[User:It's dot com|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) {{User:Bluebry/sig}} 18:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 18:59, 29 December 2006
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)
- 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)
- (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)
