Wikipedia talk:Avoid neologisms/Archive1

message: 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)
thread_title: Major exception

message: 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)
thread_title: Grammarians

message: 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)
thread_title: Dicdefs

message: 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)
thread_title: New version installed

message: Assuming a neologism sticks around and doesn't die, for how long is it considered a neologism?  Шизомби 17:27, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  WP:NEO states that it very clearly. For all articles about neologisms, <U>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.</U> Moreover, per the section "Reliable sources for neologism" mentioned, <U>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</U> 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)
thread_title: For how long is a neologism a neologism?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Islamophobia", "Islamophobic", "Islamophobe"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Irony

message: 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)
thread_title: Fast-Changing Disciplines

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Clarifying when articles are okay 

message: 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)
thread_title: Is this a guideline?

message: 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)
thread_title: Need for a NEO tag

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
thread_title: Examples

message: 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)
thread_title:  Can terms created by Wikipedia become notable if others start using them? 

message: 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)
replies: text: I won't miss the bit about protologisms, but I would like to point out that this guideline doesn't apply to pages in the Wikipedia namespace, so it wasn't self-contradictory. NickelShoe (Talk) 11:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the same, symbolism is everything.  The message is "We can use this word, but you shouldn't.  Do as I say, not as I do".  It's one thing to give a list of examples of words not to use, but it's quite another to introduce protologism in the lead paragraph of the article as if it were an important topic, only to then immediately ban its use.  Introducing so prominently a word that most people have not heard of will almost guarantee many people will now start using it who would not otherwise have done so.  If "its use should be avoided", we should model that behaviour and actually avoid using it.  We should have a guideline called "WP:Don't give negative instructions".  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Protologism

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Neologisms vs. phrases

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wiktionary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  In a nutshell 

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

message: There's been someone claiming on a recent AfD that this phrase:
"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."
Should be taken to mean that there must be entire "books or papers about the term" - that is, primarily dedicated to a discussion of the term. This clearly is ridiculous to me, for it would set a standard for sourcing far higher than any other subject on Wikipedia. Can we clarify this somehow? - Merzbow 03:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this request.  I'm trying to prove Cryokenesis and Pyrokenesis are not NEO but I'll be darned if I'm gonna find an entire book about a made-up comic book power.  Padillah 18:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: How would that be greater than the guidelines for other subjects?  The notability standard is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".  I don't see how a complete lack of books or articles about a term would constitute "significant coverage". Croctotheface 11:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of "about" 

message: The word "Gun fu" is a neologism or protologism (search google to check this, a few slang mentions of it but nothing "formal" or "widespread"). But the article called Gun fu is not about the word as such, its about a certain style of gunplay seen in films. So the article subject is notable, but its title is a neologism. 
The article throughout uses the term gun fu just as a quick shorthand to refer to this style, which would otherwise have to be referred to with a long unwieldy name, such as "John Woo-inspired close-quarters gunplay in film" or somesuch. 
What should be done in a case like this? Should the word gun fu be enclosed in quote marks throughout the article? Should the article be renamed? Should the words "gun fu" be replaced with something else throughout the article?
Thoughts here please Talk:Gun fu#quotes around gun fu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.27.93.198 (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Title of article versus content of article

message: I have a question regarding the clasification of a particular word as a neologism.  Where would be the appropriate place to discuss this?  Here?  In some other talk page?   Padillah 18:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where do we ask neologism questions? 

message: I object to this page being renamed from "Avoid neologisms" to "Manual of style (neologisms)" because the new title is less clear. It is not true that every page in the *CAT:MOS has to have a title starting with "Manual of Style". >Radiant< 13:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the edit summary on the move, there was a discussion of the name change -- can someone point me at that discussion? Mike Christie (talk) 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. I haven't seen any discussion on this. >Radiant< 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I don't see any indication of a discussion, I'm inclined to put a  tag on this per WP:RM#Requesting a potentially controversial page move.  I can't see a good reason for the move and agree with Radiant that it's less clear.  I also think per the discussion further up the page that the contents of this page do not all belong in the manual of style. Mike Christie (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: I have requested a move back to the original name.  This section is for the discussion of that move. Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: I know neologisms are a speedy delete, but which catagory of speedy do they fall under? I seem to remember some debate about this before. Is it db-spam or db-nonsense? Somercy 22:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neologisms are not themselves speediable, and definitely not as patent nonsense.  See WP:CSD#Non-criteria NickelShoe (Talk) 13:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Template? 

message: I think that this guideline needs to be clearer, particularly this sentence: "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."  What qualifies as a secondary source about a term?  My reading is that a book or paper about a term is devoted to discussing that term and that nearly all of the content in that source will be related specifically to the term.  For instance, this column on "truthiness" or this one about "metrosexual" would qualify as sources about the term.  However, this article would not qualify as a source about "Friedman unit" because it discusses the term for three sentences and spends the rest of the article on other material, some related, some not.  
If this last source would qualify as a source "about the term", then I would suggest changing the wording to something like, "We must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers that write about the term, its definition, and its usage -- not books and papers that use the term." Croctotheface 18:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the three sentences would go for verifiability but not do so much for notability. NickelShoe (Talk) 13:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting clarification 

message: Should we make it clear that articles on neologisms require a large number of reliable secondary sources to establish notability? Usually, in the context of most Wikipedia articles, about two or three sources is considered enough to establish notability, but in the case of neologisms, it seems like the required number should be much greater. This would ensure that a) the neologism is in widespread usage, and b) the neologism is well-established enough that there is sufficient information to offer more than merely a definition. - Chardish 14:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's really so much different than other types of subjects.  You need a lot of sources if the sources aren't in depth, but if the coverage is fairly complete in a small number of sources, that should be okay.  I don't think there's any need to mention this in the guideline, as it requires discretion in a case-to-case basis. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Require numerous sources 

message: I also think that we need a sentence establishing that the "Google test" (see WP:GHITS) is not an appropriate indicator of notability. I know this is Wikipedia policy in general, but I see Google hits being counted in nearly every neologism-related AfD, and that's not the way to do things. - Chardish 14:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think adding a sentence here would change the way things are done at AfD. NickelShoe (Talk) 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Google test" 

message: There is a thread on this at Talk:Irish_Football_Association#Cumann_Sacair_na_h.C3.89ireann
''
I apologise for placing this in the wrong place, but I cant think of anywhere else where I can find people with the collective expertise exhibitted on this page!
In the Irish FA article, the Irish language name has been added, it has been suitably referenced with a link to the regulatory body of the langauge Foras na Gaeilge. However the Irish language names for the Irish FA, which governs football in Northern Ireland, and The FA of Ireland which governs football in the Republic of Ireland have IDENTICAL translations, which to me would suggest that the term is not used by native speakers. The FAI use an Irish language name in their website, however the IFA do not, could someone have a look at the Irish FA article? The Fashion Icon 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible neoligism problem

message: Can somebody help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads#The new "multiplex": decommissioned? Thank you. --NE2 21:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would appreciate some help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways. People are defending the use of the neologism "decommissioned highway" because other clearer terms are "awkward". --NE2 00:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonstandard use of a term

message: Since policy is what we do, we need to either change this to allow neologisms when a WikiProject decides it can define it, or change what we do. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Highways#"Decommissioned". --NE2 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a reason to change the policy. Contraversial word choices should be decided by consensus, and failing that there are other systems in place (like WP:RFC for example) to help sort these kinds of issues out. -- cmhTC 16:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed change

message: "There are sites dedicated to neologisms or protologisms like Addictionary.org, and thus perhaps more appropriate for recording emerging or non-authenticated words and phrases." was added to the text by an unregistered user.  See diff at  I don't specifically object to the addition, but I do object to IP users making undiscussed changes to policy pages.  --Kevin Murray 03:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed addition

message: Are neologisms just "words and terms that have recently been coined"? I was trying to figure out what was wrong with the article Skygazing, the title and article cover a topic that "does not appear in any dictionary", is "not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people", and seems to be supported by a great deal of Google generated original research. In other words, it seems to be a neologism but that slang term has been around for a very long time. Or is it an editors recent atempts to create such an article around a word what can be classified as "recently coined"? 69.72.2.71 (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New words?

message: but many firearms articles on wikipedia are using the neologism "battle rifle" to describe assault rifles that are not controllable in fully-automatic fire. this is giving people visiting here wrong information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.31.185 (talk) 08:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  i dont know who to report this to.. 

message: See Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Highways 2/Proposed decision#Any use?. --NE2 16:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Can a "list of roadgeek terms" be used to "back-door" a neologism in other articles?

message: I was just wondering if this policy applies to redirects as well as articles? There is currently a redirect on RfD that has this as a potential issue. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 14:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a jargon word being used by a small subculture, I don't see any harm done by an extra redirect.  But if it's just a silly made-up word, then that doesn't belong anywhere.--Pharos (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I'll mention it in the RfD. If anyone who's familiar with this guideline wants to weigh in on the discussion there, I'm sure it would help us reach a consensus. Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 07:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects? 

message: I am wondering if it would be desirable for the AfC wizard to redirect users to some other wiki (hopefully, not uncyclopedia) where neologisms are accepted?  69.140.152.55 (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  articles for creation 

message: I made a series of thoughful edits, with specific comments, which were undone in a blanket revert by a new user. I am going to revert this, and ask that any disputed edits be edited individually with comments to further discussion. Dhaluza (talk) 10:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *You're trying to edit this page to agree with your definition of neologisms in response to the deletion of Dismissiveness. These POV edits will be reverted without a strong consensus on this page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I am trying to clean-up the page, without appreciably changing the meaning, other than to remove absolute statements and replace them with more general ones. If you review the edits individually, and they were broken down to bite-sized pieces to facilitate this, you will find that many are simply clean-up type edits. If you object to specific edits that change the meaning in some way that you object to, then please revert these specific edits so we can discuss them on the merits. Your blanket reverts are counterproductive. Dhaluza (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well, I object to all your revisions, since they cloud the definition of "neologism" and shift this guideline from being restrictive towards articles on neologisms to being permissive and providing exceptions to the rule. This is unacceptable and will result in the creation of many new unencyclopedic articles on neologisms that would fail the current guideline. Do not reinsert those revisions again until you have established a strong consensus on this page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, I'm going to WP:AGF and take your comments at face value. First, by individual edits, you will see that I made several separate edits, each with a specific edit comment. I request that you make changes in a similar fashion, so your objections to the specific changes can be noted to facilitate a compromise. Second, WP guidelines are supposed to be descriptive, not prescriptive, and this has wide consensus. No narrower consensus at this page can override this. So your assertion that there can be no "exceptions to the rule" is simply untrue (as is stated in the header template). Finally, the concensus principle that WP is based on is a give and take process, not a one-way process as you describe. For example, when you say you object to all my edits, what do you object to in this one? Dhaluza (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *There is nothing objectionable about that edit and I have restored it. I apologize for overlooking the detail. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, now would you please restore the rest of the edits you do not dispute so we can get to the ones you do. Dhaluza (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Do not reinsert any of the edits you've just made without a strong consensus to do so here. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * That's not how WP is supposed to work. Editing and discussion happen in parallel, and concensus is reached through discussion and compromise. Your reversion of these edits to preserve the status quo without any attempt at compromise is counter-productive. Dhaluza (talk) 11:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wikipedia also works because we have comprehensive, well established policies which guide our decision making process. Currently, the guideline on neologisms is stable and well established, but you have attempted to revise it in accordance with your views. The changes would radically alter this policy and cast the (currently) well understood guideline into dispute. This would disrupt many of the discussions at AFD and would inhibit the smooth functioning of this encyclopedia. I strongly disagree with those revisions and I don't believe any revision is necessary in this case, since, again, the guideline is well established and very well understood. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No concensus for change