Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) m fixed link |
redirect per successful merger |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Wikipedia does not document the usage of neologisms]] |
|||
{{style-guideline}} |
|||
{{policy in a nutshell|align=center|A new term does not belong in Wikipedia unless there are reliable sources specifically about the term — not just sources which mention it briefly or use it in passing.}} |
|||
'''[[Neologism]]s''' 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. |
|||
__TOC__ |
|||
{{Style}} |
|||
==Using neologisms within articles== |
|||
The use of neologisms should be avoided in Wikipedia articles because they are not well understood, are not clearly definable, and will have different meanings to different people. Care should be taken when translating text into English that a term common in the host language does not create a neologism in English. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is not only impossible, it is [[WP:OR|original research]] as well—we do not do that here at Wikipedia. Articles that use neologisms should be edited to ensure they conform with the core Wikipedia policies: [[WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]], [[WP:OR|no original research]], and [[WP:V|verifiability]]. (See ''Reliable sources for neologisms'' below for more on supporting the use of neologisms.) |
|||
Created terms that add common prefixes or suffixes (such as non– or –ism) to existing words can add clarity, and this may be acceptable in some cases. If not done carefully, however, this practice can result in new terms that are misleading, ambiguous, offensive, or that lend [[WP:NPOV#Undue weight|undue weight]] to a [[WP:NPOV|particular point of view]]. (For instance, adding –ism to a word can sometimes be offensive, implying a belief system or political movement. It may also lead readers to believe there is an established school of thought on a topic where there is not.) Where editors disagree about the use of these neologisms it is best to err on the side of not using them. Editors should generally use established words instead of neologisms, unless the neologism decreases the complexity of the sentence or increases the clarity of the sentence. |
|||
==Articles on neologisms== |
|||
In some cases a concept has sufficiently widespread coverage to be notable, and a fairly newly coined term may be the simplest and most natural way to refer to the concept. In this case that newly coined term may be the best title for the article, provided the use of the term is verifiable. |
|||
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, and this is sometimes but not always the case. Some of the reasons why articles on (or titled with) neologisms may not be appropriate are: |
|||
* Wikipedia is [[WP:WINAD|'''not a dictionary''']], and so articles simply attempting to define a neologism and document its use are inappropriate. |
|||
* Articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not [[WP:V|verifiable]] (see ''Reliable sources for neologisms'', below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and [[WP:OR|original research]] and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use. |
|||
In many cases, articles on neologisms get deleted (either via [[Wikipedia:Proposed deletion|proposed deletion]] or [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|articles for deletion]]). Articles on neologisms that have not yet caught on widely are commonly deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. |
|||
As [[Wiktionary]]'s [[wikt:Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion|inclusion criteria]] differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. If you are interested in writing an article on a neologism, you may wish to contribute it to that project instead. |
|||
==Reliable sources for neologisms== |
|||
Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]]. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of [[WP:V|verifiability]], not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable [[Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C_secondary.2C_and_tertiary_sources|secondary sources]] such as books and papers ''about'' the term, not books and papers ''that use'' the term. (Note that wikis such as [[Wiktionary]] are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.) |
|||
Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles. |
|||
An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that ''use'' the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require ''analysis'' and ''synthesis'' of primary source material to advance a position (which is explicitly prohibited by the [[WP:OR|original research policy]]). To paraphrase [[Wikipedia:No original research]]: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner. |
|||
==Articles titled with neologisms== |
|||
{{main|Wikipedia:Article titles}} |
|||
In a few cases, there will be [[Wikipedia:Notability|notable]] topics which are well-documented in [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable sources]], but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. |
|||
==See also== |
|||
*{{tl|Cleanup-articletitle}} |
|||
*{{tl|Neologism}} |
|||
==External links== |
|||
*[[wikt:Wiktionary:List of protologisms|Wiktionary:List of protologisms]] |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia notability|Avoid neologisms]] |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia content selection|Avoid neologisms]] |
|||
[[Category:Wikipedia style guidelines|Avoid neologisms]] |
|||
[[Category:Content (Manual of Style)]] |
|||
[[eo:Vikipedio:Evitu neologismojn]] |
|||
[[fr:Wikipédia:Évitez les néologismes]] |
|||
[[id:Wikipedia:Hindari neologisme]] |
|||
[[ru:Википедия:Избегайте неологизмов]] |
|||
[[sr:Википедија:Избегавајте неологизме]] |
|||