This category is within the scope of WikiProject Categories, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of categories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This category is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
How new does a word have to be to belong in this category? I see "Britishism", and I suspect that the only thing "neologistic" about that is spelling it that way instead of "Briticism", an "Arabization", which I doubt was coined in the last few decades. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:59, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
all results found cite Wikipedia or its sister projects (see playware);
the only additional (or perhaps any additional) references are to lists of neologisms (see sheeple and backronym);
This "rule" allows us to gauge the popular use of the term by seeing whether it is referenced in any of the large group of dictionaries searched. For an example of a term that is currently in the category who fails all three of the above criteria, see homophobia. This is referenced by more than 10 reputable online dictionaries. Similar search results ought to be sufficient to warrant removal from the list.—Red Baron 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
When it comes to phrases, this "rule" does not always work because dictionaries often do not have every common word combination. Determining the newness of these types of entries is difficult. One must make a judgment whether an entry is different enough from its parts to become new and different, and whether this new idea is a neologism. This must be on a case-by-case basis, I guess. I have a hard time figuring out how to formulate this evaluation. Help would always be welcome.—Red Baron 19:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)