Talk:Protologism

message: Note: This is currently a cross-namespace redirect, which is bad.  The AfD vote concluded as delete.  It makes most sense for it to be a cross-reference to Wiktionary. --Cedderstk 22:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006

message: 2009 Update-  Protologism now widely used word.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.45.129 (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 2009

message: The section to which this term used to redirect to was removed. Here is the diff to the original content:  -- œ™ 04:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 2011

message: I removed this material. The first source merely cites Wiktionary, which as a user-generated website is not considered reliable; the second source mentions the term only in passing (in a translation from French), and so would not seem reliable as a general source on the meaning of the term in English. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen it used elsewhere, but it has nothing to do with this article, and if it's included at all, it would be a subtopic at Neologism (which would also be an acceptable fate for the present article).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've removed it , where it was inserted using the same source as above. Besides being a translation from French, the source doesn't explicitly define the term, but merely uses it in passing:  Using this source to define the word paleologism requires citing it out of context, verging on original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paleologisms 

message: —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Added to article here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional source 

message: This material () seems dubious, or at least poorly-sourced. I suspect some editorial synthesis to be at work (). Any help verifying this material would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: December 2016 additions

message: Why is the title italicized? Sangdeboeuf says MOS:WORDSASWORDS doesn't not require that titles for terms be italicized, but that doesn't convince me, especially because I've personally only ever seen italicized titles for things like films, rather than for terms like neologism, whose article notably isn't italicized. Furthermore, WP:ITALICTITLE says italic titles should be used for articles about "taxonomic names, the names of ships, the titles of books, films, and other creative works, and foreign phrases." This article doesn't fit any of those. (I would also imagine that the introduction should put "protologism" in boldface, rather than bold italics, just as the neologism article does.) AutisticCatnip (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the word protologism itself, as per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, not protologisms as a class of words. Cf. , , and . ( is a different case, as that article is about the class of words known as "neologisms".) The examples under WP:ITALICTITLE are just that – examples – and are not necessarily comprehensive. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah. That does make sense. Thanks for the explanation! AutisticCatnip (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Title italicization

message: Peter O. Müller also claims "Ėpštejn" coined the term in 2003. Wiktionary has articles that predate the 2005 claim, e.g.  
DAVilla (talk) 10:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year of coinage