Talk:Neologisms
From Homestar Runner Wiki
Contents |
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.--H*Bad 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.--H*Bad 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)
- ...Actually, SBLOUNCHKD! is the only word on this page that isn't in the Glossary. And I honestly don't feel that it needs to be in the Glossary. Bluebry 04:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, I'd like to find it in the Glossary. When I first found this wiki, one of the first pages I visited was the Glossary, because at the time I was also new to H*R, and was looking for some quick explanations, (I still am new, mind you, but I consider myself a little wiser at this point). I remember being surprised, (even a little depressed), at the small amount of entries on that page. I guess I don't know... what... I'm trying... to say ... I 'spose, if it's okay, I'll try working on the Glossary a bit more... Wow, I guess I've accomplished nothing with this, and I'm just leaving this paragraph here to remind myself to add to the Glossary... I mean—WHGT! JGTH! YES I'M AWESOME! kai lyn 05:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- ...Actually, SBLOUNCHKD! is the only word on this page that isn't in the Glossary. And I honestly don't feel that it needs to be in the Glossary. Bluebry 04:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say it's fine being left in the Glossary. This page doesn't need to be here. — Lapper (talk) 20:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge with Glossary?
Just noticed that the current function of the Glossary seems to be to define HSR-invented words. It seems to me that the two pages should be merged. 
Trey56 01:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- No, the only word on here not in the Glossary is SBLOUNCHKED!! (don't care how I spelled it). In my opinion, it'd be too weird/hard/useless. Sorry, but no. Bluebry 01:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, reading the above comments I see I'm not the only one who has thought of this... Trey56 01:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, reading the above comments I see I'm not the only one who has thought of this...
This still here?
Ummm.... I think this page should be deleted approx. now. Once again, the Glossary is itself a page of Homestar-specific neologisms (plus more!). Doesn't need to be merged. Just deleted. (Sorry). kai lyn 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think this should be merged with the Glossary. There are too many templates, Clanky... too many. --TheYellowDart—(t/c) 19:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm not sure if the good people of the wiki forgot about this page or what, but it should have been gone a long time ago. Get a sysop or two in here and we should be able to seal the deal. -Brightstar Shiner 22:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm all for a merge with the Glossary, but that page is not quote ready yet. I propose putting the whole thing off for a week until the cleanup is done. I'm removing the other template, as there seem to be a consensus about the merge. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 09:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- {replying to Qermaq's comment first} What I meant by "get a sysop or two in here" was "get someone who can generate a little more attention for this page and actually delete/merge it with Glossary if we reach concensus to do so in here". {back to normal now} I'll help out with the Glossary cleanup if you guys want me to. I've got not much better to do at the moment. -Brightstar Shiner 21:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- While working on Glossary, I realized that all of the neologisms on this page are also at the Glossary. They have almost exactly the same wording, too. Therefore, we wouldn't be doing much by "merging" this article with that one. Just saying. -Brightstar Shiner 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- Since the glossary is all cleaned up, I'm making this page a redirect to it. — Elcool (talk)(contribs) 07:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- While working on Glossary, I realized that all of the neologisms on this page are also at the Glossary. They have almost exactly the same wording, too. Therefore, we wouldn't be doing much by "merging" this article with that one. Just saying. -Brightstar Shiner 22:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
