Category talk:Neologisms

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Neologisms category.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles

Culture

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture 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.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles

question re: eligibility for inclusion

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)

Proposed rule for inclusion

I propose that a simple search of the given word at the online dictionary search engine OneLook.com should produce a useful criteria. A word is a neologism if:

no results are found (see plutoed);
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Allowed?

I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to have articles on neologism per WP:NEOLOGISM? Deamon138 (talk) 15:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of multi-word phrases

I'm concerned about the number of multi-word phrases that have been placed in this Category -- particularly in subcategories such as Category:1950s neologisms. Many of them are catchphrases from popular culture, advertsing slogans, quotes from movies, passages from literature, etc.

Examples: Charlie Brown, you blockhead; Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids; The name's Bond... James Bond; Have you no sense of decency; Nadir of American race relations; Do not go gentle into that good night; What's good for General Motors is good for the country.

Those were just a small sample. I just don't see how these phrases can *properly* be considered neologisms -- they are merely phrases (consisting of commonly-used words) that happen to have become popular during a certain period of time.

Frankly, it is incomrehensible that so many of these phrases have been added into Categories intended for neologisms. I am happy to do my share of the work removing these improperly categorized articles, but I can't take on the whole job myself. Can I count on folks here to help out in a big way? Regards, Anomalous+0 (talk) 06:32, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]