Talk:Malamanteau/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Proposed redirect Seriously, I just googled "malamanteau," there's about a dozen articles about it already. How is it (and the hubbub surrounding it) not relevant at this point? I honestly can't imagine anyone's current objections to the article stemming from anything but bitterness over their original stance not being honored. (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Now I remember why I don't tend to get involved in discussions here...Captain Biggles (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Early comments

Malamanteau: The word that started the spontaneous self implosion of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Colacadstink (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Candent shlimazel (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the Wikipedia mods likes it or not they should consider the following:

  1. This article does not collide or overwrite any other original content
  2. It would be no different than any other article referencing a made up term used in pop-culture on Wikipedia
  3. Visitors are more likely to donate or become more involved in the community
  4. There is no such thing as bad publicity [at least in this case, it is harmless] Unpixie (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  5. Profit!
There is bad publicity. Wikipedia already has a reputation for being petty and unreliable, far too eager to jump on the latest internet fad. This does not help the cause at all.-- (talk) 02:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this page should be a redirect to xkcd. Gemini6Ice (talk) 04:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Or we could rename this talk page to malamanteaualuealuealeuale.rone (talk) 09:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out rule 35 of the Internet: "If it does not exist, make it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjleo (talkcontribs) 02:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully you meant rule 34. (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau DOES have at least one mention prior to the May 12 XKCD comic. [1] (talk) 04:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it deserves a wikipedia page. It's one stupid joke on an irrelevant page on an unused website. No one who didn't just read the XKCD "comic" is going to be looking up the term on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I just did that. And I found the page to be deleted. Check yourself, bud.
Ahh, so we should all use Wikipeda for punclines now? (talk) 03:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
did that too... found it deleted, checked the discussion, found out somebody tells me i do not exist... :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
A couple hundred revisions in under a few hours. You might not like it, but people /do/ read XKCD and lookup the things mentioned. Just Google "died in a blogging accident" or "strip iterated prisoner's dilemma" and see for yourself. I would argue with this much traffic there is enough reason to recreate the page. Maybe not with it's original text, but as a page saying something along the lines of 'used in an XKCD comic, used to say ----" (Apparently I don't exist either.) -- (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is ignorant to call MetaFilter 'unused'. Polarix (talk) 18:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I just checked it on wikipedia to see if it existed... Quite disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's one stupid joke on an irrelevant page on an unused website. Huh? Is he saying Wikipedia is unused, or XKCD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Neither, they said the ask.metafilter website is unused. Einstein runner (TC) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It will be notable soon enough —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If Misunderestimate is considered valid, Malamanteau should be even more so. BIGELLOW (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is gone. It was linked from the XKCD, yes—that's why there's traffic here, and it was a pretty pointless article. Remember, Wiki has quality to maintain, and removing frivolous articles helps maintain that quality.Cycomachead (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. We sure wouldn't want Wikipedia's credibility as a source of Sonic the Hedgehog information, not to mention the reams of detail on minor japanimation details, to be sullied by a **frivolous** entry! The world could very well end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If you want to propose deletion for those frivolous articles you just mentioned, feel free. I'll certainly stand behind the proposal. Zaku kai (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is there no revision history for this article? Just so I can get the joke? You ruined xkcd today. (talk) 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I would very much like to see an answer to the above question. Why is there no revision history for this article? Just so folks cannot get the joke on xkcd? I understand the motivation for deleting it even if I disagree, but what is the motivation for stopping me from viewing what got deleted so I can evaluate whether it should have been deleted? Guy Macon 16:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that metafilter is unused. We might as well create a page for red spiders since they've shown up on three times as many XKCDs as the word "malamanteau." And "misunderestimate" isn't valid. We don't have a page devoted to that word, the closest we have is "Bushisms." Considering that several books of Bushisms have been collected and sold I'd say that they deserve a wikipedia page more than some word that Randall used a few hours ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Saying that metafilter is unused is pretty funny given that it has more registered users than my city has people and other recent statistics. If you want to make an argument that the word is not notable, make it in good faith. The fact that you're not familiar with a site doesn't make it non-notable. For the record, I agree that a dictionary definition of such a recent neologism has no business here. Tarheelcoxn (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing it was a knee-jerk reaction, since it seems there's more to it than JUST an XKCD article. Rather than redirecting it to the XKCD page, make it a stub with a blurb, and reference the ask.metafilter link I gave and the XKCD comic. (talk) 04:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A kneejerk reaction? Are you kidding me? IT's a useless article that has no business on wikipedia. It makes the article on pigs in popular culture look reasonable. And we didn't ruin the joke because there is none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I detect a bias. Just saying.Mzmadmike (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If this is "one stupid joke on an irrelevant page on an unused website", how come it wasn't deleted until XKCD comic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You have to be kidding me; you deleted it because it was referenced on XKCD. Y'all need to rethink how this site is meant to work. If it was really not a worthwhile page then why was it only deleted now. Does anyone have a history so I can at least read what the page USED to say before someone got a bee in their bonnet about this. (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A) Sign your whining. B) Unclench your bum and try to control your hatred for the webcomic in question. C) Rather than assuming that just because it was mentioned on XKCD makes it inherently unencyclopedic, why not attempt to find more sources, and, should none be found, then we can all agree that it's an amusing comic but not one of encyclopedic value. (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the page was actually created until the xkcd comic was posted... which is why it was likely deleted. (talk) 05:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The reason it wasn't deleted was because it hadn't been created until this comic had been put up. Ludwig Van's fans aren't crazy enough to make a wikipedia article for every stupid thing s/he says. This article is completely useless and should not be on wikipedia.-- (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

While we're here, I think this would be a good time to remind everyone to please read WP:XKCD, especially the xkcd fanatics who insist on editing pages any time something is mentioned in the comic. Thank you. (talk) 05:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Fiascos like this, and I refer a little more to the reaction of the humorless editor-punishers, is a big reason why Wikipedia has plateaued. I used to be an active, registered user (I might still have access to my admin powers), but the unconstructive actions of other self-righteous editors in incidents like this really burned me out. We do bite newbs, and we the block them and semi-protect their pages because we can, not because we should. -- (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I read a clause on your site that specifically states that Wikipedia is neither trying to be intentionally humorous nor intentionally trying to devoid itself of humor. If the word was removed because it was referenced by XKCD and now seeing it is funny then the reasons for deletion were INVALID. Also how do I sign around here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, it was ADDED because it was referenced by xkcd. There are no notable sources on the word, thus there is no need for the article. Articles are signed with four tildes. (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The only reason this thread was created was to be "funny." It's not funny, but even if it was, it still doesn't make anyone more knowledgeable. I personally want this article deleted because it's nothing but vandalism, not because it's funny. As I've said earlier, I didn't even think that it was funny. If you want to make joke articles then go to uncyclopedia or something, but leave wikipedia out of this.-- (talk) 05:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I just realized something, do the people who support the article really think that it existed before the XKCD comic? It didn't (or if it did, then Randall only made it a few minutes before he put up the comic). No one decided to make an article dedicated to a word that has apparently been used a total of four times by three people in one thread.-- (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So you don't really know whether the article existed or not but decided to give your opinion anyway? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: " still doesn't make anyone more knowledgeable" I didn't know what some of those words meant so I had to look them up to get the joke. Therefore this joke does have some value here. If Randall Monroe made up the word for his comic then a fan made the wikipedia page after it makes sense that the page be explicit that this is not a real word but not deleted. I've read here that there are "no" references anywhere to this word... the comic references this word. Are all webcomics to be banned as references or just xkcd?-- (talk) 16:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Muggle is a fake word. You still have an article about it. Jesus, Wikipedia sucks. This is why I get all my useful knowledge from ED. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing any future donation to Wikipedia foundation. (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


I would like to start a vote on whether or not this is a real word. I vote "YES". Timeroot (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There are so many things wrong with that:
  1. Wikipedia decisions are done by consensus, not voting. See WP:VOTE.
    • That page is so contradictory that it's hilarious. It's done by consensus, not voting. Okay, so how do you determine consensus? Also, after consensus is reached, it mentions that it might not be the best option. WTF? Sounds like someone has no idea what they are talking about, or just get pissed off when they want something one way, but everyone else (the definition of consensus) says that they want it one way, so they made up WP:VOTE. You can't vote, but you need to achieve consensus. How the hell do you make consensus? Voting is the basis of Democracy, it seems like Wikipedia is more of a Communism. Consensus of the Admins, not consensus of the people. (talk) 12:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Consensus is what you're left with when enough people lose interest that only those who agree remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. Even if this was a real word, it probably wouldn't be notable.
  2. Even if it was a real word, and it was notable, it would not belong on Wikipedia as Wikipedia is not a dictionary. See WP:NOTDICT.
  3. Even if it was a real word, and it was notable, and somehow everyone forgot about NOTDICT, and this was an act of attempting to gather consensus instead of voting, and a huge amount of people actually agreed with the idea that it's "good" and should be kept, yelling about it on the talk page would accomplish nothing.
Okay? --Yair rand (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So to summarise what you're saying, "1) Wikipedia decisions are based on consensus. 2/3/4) No they're not, they're based on pre-defined rules, so everyone should just shut up about it." Thank you, that's been most informative. (talk) 06:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of people who would even be actively looking for the word will be biased towards keeping it. So "NO!"-- (talk) 05:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, did you know that 100% of people searching for anything on Wikipedia are biased towards the article they searched for existing? It's true! It's also why WP:N is rubbish. Maurog 12:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That isn't true. Just because I look up an article on some politician doesn't mean I support him or am biased towards him. On the other hand, somebody looking up this page is almost definitely biased towards keeping this page because they came here from xkcd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Surely you WOULD be biased towards KEEPING said article on said politician? kibibu (talk) 00:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

NO. (talk) 05:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No. See my comment above under the Google results section. Malamanteau requires a bit of work to be a valid Wikipedia page. Just posting the definition from the comic doesn't mean the word exists in vernacular. Oddible (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

In that case I'm sincerely sorry. I thought "consensus" was determined by voting; I guess I was thinking of VfD. I'll agree, then, that under those circumstances it wouldn't be created, but don't you think that it would still be good to include at least a mention of it, mostly about it's appearance on XKCD and how it spread from thereon? I can imagine someone having a but of confusion over it. Even if it isn't notable in the sense of being well known, things on XKCD often become memes elsewhere so easily that I highly doubt it will be used only among circles that already know the word. Timeroot (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest holding a vote on whether it's appropriate to consider voting, but I think that would violate WP:BEANS. Wait, what? -- Narsil (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I second the stationary. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote Yes, keep the article. Malamanteau is a perfectly cromulent word.--NewCanada (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote yes, My criteria are based on the WP:XKCD section which specifies how to "decide if an xkcd reference is appropriate."

  • Has the subject acknowledged the existence of the reference? yes, the comic reflects the refrence
  • Have reliable sources which do not generally cover xkcd pointed out the strip? Not yet, but they will today ;)
  • Did any real-world event occur because of the reference? yes, it is self fulfilling prophecy, created by the comic as it takes a jab at wikipedia.

According to the WP:XKCD "If you cannot answer "yes" to at least one of these, you are adding mere trivia. Get all three and you are probably adding valuable content." 2/3 with the third coming soon to cnn. Mgaldzic (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

A Reliable Source has appeared. Polarix (talk) 18:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia =/= Urban Dictionary. No. (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote redirecting to this page. -- Resuna (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

  • And adding a Wikipedia entry for "Verbogeny"... after all it has thousands of hits on Google.
    • Note, this is a joke. Given this discussion, I thought I should have to point that out. -- Resuna (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Note, redirecting to this page isn't a joke.
    • Well, it is, but only if it's actually done. -- Resuna (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. At this point, this word, and its subsequent argument on wikipedia are becoming a notable discussion. [1]Loganis (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Ironically the word is notable because of this discussion about it's notability. The page should have the definition given by Randall Munroe but also explaining how the word came to be and all this discussion about it. Graphnode (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. The act of deleting it seems to have made it notable. It now has 10's of thousands of hits on google. It is clearly notable. Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

YES. Malamanteau is a word. See there, I just used it. This issue is THE PRIMARY problem with wikipedia. There are no ways to get "non notable" entries and have them burble up to becoming fully fledged entries. Lots of people are talking about Malamanteau, more will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I did not come to this wikipedia article because of the xkcd comic (which I haven't read yet because I am at work). I have come to it because of an article in the "Slashdot Tech News" feed. If it's in the news it must be notable, n'est-ce pas? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Previous Revisions

Malamanteau page history.jpg

I understand perfectly that this is not appropriate for Wikipedia, but shouldn't there be a revision history for this article? I find it hard to believe that all revisions of an article disappear after it gets deleted. (talk) 05:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

They don't, but not everyone can see them. Below is the creation information. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not everyone can see them? And they (that is, WP:BURO) say this isn't a bureaucracy... (talk) 06:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hence why I posted it. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No, only members of minitrue can see them aparently. (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why only certain people can see the revision history of the page. That doesn't seem right. - Nyr3188 (talk) 6:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's deleted. And protected from recreation. Most users can only see the edit history of (non-deleted) edits. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Keeping the revision history universally visible would defeat the purpose of deleting it, now wouldn't it? (talk) 06:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That depends on what the purpose for deleting it is. If it is removing article contents from view so the decision to delete them can not be reviewed anymore then yes, it is satisfying that purpose. -- (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
OF COURSE it would defeat the purpose of deleting it; because the purpose of deleting it is to keep information hidden from me, I absolutely want to defeat that purpose. People who look for the article will still see the "this article was deleted" message, but what is so secretive about the revisions that they have to be removed too? especially when we know the article wasn't deleted for any legal reasons? (talk) 05:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Which is what we call censorship in this world. I hope that is what this discussion is about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This discussion is about cleaning up vandalism, not censorship. If you want to spam definitions of random neologisms on the internet, feel free to do so on your own website. (talk) 06:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. Oh, BTW, this IS our own website. I mean, that's the whole point of Wikipedia, yes? There should now be a page for this, if only for the reason it WAS on a comic. Else, then many articles on Wikipedia should be deleted. I mean, is it because it was mentioned on xkcd? Does this mean that any other media that mentions Wikipedia can't be included on Wikipedia? Yet another example as to why all the "mega-editors" that have power here should be flushed every 2 months or so. Should only be temporary position. -- (talk) 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There is no discussion about vandalism: that should be cleaned up. To outsiders however, there is no proof anymore of vandalism as the whole evidence had disappeared. If the article is "protected from recreation" the revision history should be visible. Otherwise this whole discussion -will- be about censorship. Personally i would like to see the revision history, but now it contains only three lines. Noone can prove to me this is the original revision history. So it would be easy to accuse the deleter of censorship. My advice would be to be as open as possible and in the end everyone can laugh about a good joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
See WP:DEL#Access_to_deleted_pages (talk) 07:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, i was not aware of that possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have uploaded a screencap of the article history here at the top of this section. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So what? this page *wasn't* deleted because of legal reasons, so that link is irrelevant. Why didn't someone flip the bit that makes the revision history public yet? (talk) 19:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Neologisms, eh? This is becoming fairly ironic, considering that the comic is lampooning the amount of words that end up being described as neologisms on wikipedia. (talk) 07:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there an easier way to refer to a newly-created word that may be in the process of entering common use, but has not yet been accepted into mainstream language? I don't see the criticism about overuse of a word as valid if the word is being used correctly and there is no simpler and/or more accurate way to describe something. I have not yet seen proof that the word is being used incorrectly.LesterRoquefort (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"Protologism". I had just invented it, but then I tried Googling for it first, and it already existed. >:-S Timeroot (talk) 23:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Nonce word is what you are looking for. (talk) 17:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

original text and creation information

18:06, 11 May 2010 . . ThomasSixten (talk | contribs | block) (170 bytes) (←Created page with 'A Malamanteau is a neologism for a portmanteau created by incorrectly combining a malapropism with a neologism. It is itself a partmanteau.<ref>')

^^That is incorrect sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the posting, I forgot to "nowiki" the "ref" so that it is seen. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed article (IMPROVED!!!)

A malamanteau (plural malamanteaux) is a neologism for a portmanteau created by combining a malapropism with a neologism. It is itself a portmanteau of "malapropism" and "portmanteau". In a less strict definition, a portmanteau of a malapropism with another word can also be considered a malamanteau. The contained malapropism must typically be a common one, in order to be able to regain the meaning of a malamanteau.

A malamanteau can be created when somebody tries to use a neologism (alternatively, an idiom) but mistakenly confuses the word with another one. However, unlike a malapropism or an eggcorn, the fumbled word is not completely replaced, but merely transfixed to the new one. A famous example is: "misunderestimate" which was popularized by the 43rd President of the United States, George W. Bush. Probably it was intended to be "underestimate" but mistakenly jumbled with "misunderstand."


  • Somebody describes his misunderstanding of what someone was saying by stating, "I misconscrewed it up."
  • Somenone explains his inability to talk while being upset by saying he was "flustrated."
  • A meaningful malamanteau is "ambiviolent," as in: "Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill was ambiviolent. She didn't know who to kill first."

-- (talk)

  • From the Malapropism entry, Archie Bunker says, "The hookeries and massageries...the whole world is turning into a regular Sodom and Glaucamorra." This could be considered a Malamanteau because it's both a portmanteau of Glaucoma and Gamorrah as well as being a malapropism. (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
While a good effort, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That sort of thing would go to Wiktionary. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 11:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fails WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:V. Delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Come on, at least give him credits for the effort. It was pretty cool, :) You should consider applying those skills in articles with better survival chances, though. --Waldir talk 19:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, actually, a malamanteau is one of the terms that would be described by an encyclopedia, for the same reason portmanteau has a Wikipedia article. Most nouns are encyclopedic - dictionaries exist to identify them; encyclopedias exist to describe them. The real (and only) reason this shouldn't be an article is because it's not notable (i.e. what HypnoToad said). --Zarel (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Here's my attempt: Talk:Malamanteau/Draft. I would also like to see this talk page become a featured article (it is a wonderfully amusinable discussion), and to say that this is probably not article material. jonon (talk) 23:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
PS Beatrix Kiddo in Kill Bill was an idiot if she didn't know who to kill first. What was the name of the movie for cripes' sake? She should have been paying attention. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thoses are pretty good starts. As it is now it should either have an entry or be deleted entirely. The redirect is confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fippy Darkpaw (talkcontribs) 22:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative meaning

A brouhaha, confusion, turmoil over a minor cause. Example use in a sentence: The XKCD author Randall Munroe created a malamanteau in the English Wikipedia over a fictive Wikipedia entry and the resulting deletion discussions. - (talk) 17:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Life imitates art

How about a redirect to ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Execpt, xkcd took the word from wikipedia. xkcd used it to poke fun at wikipedia, so wikipedia removed the word. In any case, the article never belonged here really, more a wikinary thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect. The article was created on Wikipedia *after* the XKCD posting. See my screenshot of the edit history. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
that screenshot does not mean anything. how do i know it is not photoshopped? imo, history should be available to everyone. deletion is not a tool of censorship. it is to keep out the irrelevant stuff. revision history being hidden is just simple censorship. can anyone advise me how can this policy be changed? (talk) 05:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the word "Wikipedia" itself a portmanteau? And isn't the word "portmanteau" just a neologism invented as a joke by Lewis Carroll? (no signature)

No, "portmanteau" was a perfectly good word for "piece of luggage", specifically, for the sort that opens into two parts and is therefore good for carrying cloaks or overcoats. Lewis Carroll used it metaphorically to describe a certain class of neologism, and that meaning became so popular that it replaced all other meanings in day-to-day use. John W. Kennedy (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

More likely the linguistic meaning has simply outlived the original one (rather than muscling it out). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What I am truly enjoying is that this discussion is actually turning the word into such an event. I wonder if we will eventually have a "The Malamanteau Controversy" page.--Aonyx (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The word is relevant now on a large scale

The more it is debated, the broader the recognition of the word. Reddit picked it up, so it will be on Digg tomorrow. Continuing the debate only strengthens the argument to keep the word in wikipedia, as more attention is drawn to it. Bagehi —Preceding undated comment added 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Hence, there needs to be a page for it. A simple page, stating the simple facts gathered here on the talk page: that it never existed in common use until the xkcd comic, and that its only known previous reference is on that metafilter site. Please note the word: until. Now that it is in common use (thanks to xkcd), it should have a page, or at least a stub, something other than "what you're looking for existed once, until someone shat on it with the delete button". People shouldn't be looking for (or at) a deleted page on Wikipedia due to some political drama. Just put the damn page up already. I'm not that experienced with Wiki creation (don't even have an account to post with), hence why I haven't already done it myself... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I think the article should read: A word referenced in a popular webcomic, xkcd. Its the truth and has no reason to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Exactly, although I think the Wiki nazis are trying to beat this one down by saying that it's not popular enough to warrant a page. Well, that's kind of a self-fulfilling prophesy now, isn't it? And especially with an entire internets behind this talk page, I think that could be considered "popular enough"... this is probably Wikipedia's most active page at the moment, and it isn't even directly linked by xkcd. (talk) 10:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It should be popular "enough" by the end of the day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
its currently the #4 most popular google search —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
By and large, we aren't saying the word isn't "popular", we're saying it isn't "notable". Lots of things are popular without being notable, and vice-versa. And don't call me a Wiki nazi. My grandpa died in Normandy fighting the Wiki nazis. Well, not my personal grandpa, but I think the principle applies. -- Narsil (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Straight from "notable":
"Significant coverage": reddit, slashdot, digg, etc. and 50k+ google hits. Check.
"Reliable" those websites are widely considered reliable news sources. Check.
"Multiple sources are generally expected." Check.
"Independent of the subject" Check.
Fippy Darkpaw (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Godwin's Law Athox (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The BBC has picked up the story now. Prepare for Notability. Captain Biggles (talk) 13:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

xkcd isn't going to make your word popular. Do you have reliable sources? Any third-party coverage? News sources? Mentions outside the topic? This is never going to be an article and I suggest you stop hanging around waiting for it to be. ALI nom nom 10:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

By the end of the year it sure will... may as well get a head start, amirite. (talk) 10:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The word isn't relevant, it's just a joke. The word is not worthy of a page in an encyclopedia. Every time randall munroe does anything there does not automatically need to be a wikipedia article about it. There isn't an article on every single garfield comic and that was a hell of a lot more popular than some webcomic. I would suggest the admins make Malamanteau a redirect to xkcd and then fully protect the page so no-one can start up another stupid page. This talk page should remain and if people still want a malamanteau page in a few months time then they can try and go for it then. Coolug (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Much as you may not agree with the guy, Randall Munroe is a name that deserves capitalization... also, there isn't an article for every single xkcd comic (although I'm sure there is, in some way, something relating to each comic, in the same way as there is for every Garfield comic as well - which should also be capitalized BTW). But there is an article for nearly every episode of every popular TV show. How is this any different? Especially considering as language is a very dynamic subject, and new words can be legitimately created by simply putting them to common use. (talk) 10:27, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine, if the word gains significant usage, it should be added on Wiktionary. If its entry into the language becomes significant in an encyclopedic sense, then it should be mentioned on Wikipedia. Let us know if either of those happen. — PhilHibbs | talk 10:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC) go to
If this isn't a call to action for xkcd fans, I don't know what is. (talk) 10:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The word is relevant now on an increasing scale. However Malamanteau, including its meaning and usage is definitely not relevant enough to deserve its own page. However, the word has been in discussion before the xkcd reference (see [2]), so, given the increased interest on this word now, it might deserve to be mentioned in a subsection of Portmanteau. Considering the increasing number of google hits on this word, imho it also makes sense to give reference to xkcd comic. -- Wilfried Elmenreich (talk) 10:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of adding a little section to the Portmanteau article.

Anyone who believes this word deserves an article needs to read up on our notability policies. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The word is relevant now on a large scale. In a week, no one will care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If the word truly is relevant, then relax, wait a week or two and then if you still really feel that wikipedia needs this article, start it in your sandbox. Don't forget lots of reputable sources. Coolug (talk) 13:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

If nothing else the word deserves a page here--or a topic like it--where people play meta-games with Wiki. /This/ discussion here is what makes the comic hilarious but I think points to a social activity where those with an audience play with wiki editors. Colbert has done it too.YuriPup (talk) 13:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Correction: this discussion is what makes the /readers/ of the comic hilarious. Or rather, laughable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Some of them yes. Some of the Wiki defenders look equally foolish. However I do think there is something going on here that does deserve a page--though a name for it would be nice--the truthiness/malamanteau effect. YuriPup (talk) 14:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think wikiality is close. Right now, that's just a subsection of Cultural impact of The Colbert Report, but I could see it being expanded to a general article about the way references to WP change it. But even if that does happen, I don't see "malamanteau" being a great example--not even the most significant XKCD example. (He's made other jokes about Wikipedia that have had more impact.) -- Narsil (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No to a page on the word. Popularity of the word doesn't mean anything when its popularity is overwhelmingly due to "Wait, is that a real word?" (it isn't, yet) rather than people actually using it (which would make it a real word). Popular versus "in popular usage".
Iffy about a redirect to xkcd. The notability amounts to "it made trouble on Wikipedia" (which is a WP self-reference) and very few sources (though it might grow, but ONLY a little, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball).
I like the idea of a page on references to Wikipedia. Well, there's this: Wikipedia in Culture. It can have a section on how these references affect Wikipedia. -- (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Fictional References

Wikipedia has articles relating to fictional characters and so on. Would it not be an idea to just have a stub stating that it was a made up word on a web-comic and a brief explanation as to what it means? Fair enough, XKCD fans do tend to spoil it a bit by making "stupid" edits, but there are plenty of articles that reference something from (for example) an episode of Star Trek that was only ever seen briefly in one episode that has no business being an article. It is a 100% valid argument that this word could come into mainstream use in the near future because of this comic SpunkyLM (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpunkyLM (talkcontribs)

And if it does, we can have an article on it then (provided it's worth it. Otherwise, see Wiktionary). I don't support the creation of a stub just to please xkcd fans (of which I am one) when it is a) satire and b) unlikely to ever move on from a stub. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 11:20, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Third Party Usage

So what happens if the word gets picked up and used independently of the XKCD comic? For example, if journalists start incorporating "malamanteau" in their articles would that count as third party usage? (talk) 10:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

What would happen if Rupert Murdoch bought Wikipedia? rone (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That would be like truthiness (which is another stupid article that should be deleted).  Grue  11:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Your mission is clear. Become a journalist. Use the word - a lot. Get it on Wikipedia. Good luck.Coolug (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes! That's the best suggestion I've seen yet! All xkcd fans should go get a job! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The term is already in the Urban Dictionary: Z9z8z7 (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, put there by xkcd fans. Urban dictionary is not a reliable source. ALI nom nom 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I bet uncyclopedia has one too by now (no, I don't say this mean the article should be on wp). DarkoNeko x 13:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Urban Dictionary is the worst source on the internet, sorry. (talk) 16:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I thought that was Wikipedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The term was recently added to —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, mom!
Definitions of "malamanteau" also in and (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Calm down.

I personally was very disappointed to find that a page called "malamanteau" actually existed on wikipedia (although, after clicking on the google result, it proved to have been deleted with a heated discussion attached to it..)

If all XKCD did was find funny articles on wikipedia and turn them into comic strips, or if someone turned into reality everything in his comics, they'd lose their humour - most of his jokes rely exactly on the improbability that something like that actually happens.

I am not an austere knobhead, nor am I a fanatic XKCD fan (although I enjoy his comic strips a lot). I just wanted to put this out there, and to make sure people don't just support things for silly reason. ¬ jujimufu (talk) 12:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki article was created after the XKCD comic, and I took it down very quickly thereafter. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So rather than providing some meaningful information, ie encyclopedic content, we just leave millions of people looking/googling in the dark? Sure you might mark it for deletion in a month when the fad has passed, but to not have the article at all seems a bit pointless and makes the whole purpose of wikipedia flawed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. We provide information on notable content in an encyclopedic format. If you want, go off and start your own xkcd wiki. ALI nom nom 13:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little suprised no-one hasn't already done that. After all, anyone can start their own wiki on wikia (and make the great leader a few bucks in the process) - an xkcd wiki woul solve all kinds of problems.... Coolug (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wrong, you provide a great deal of false and unverifiable information that people take as gospel truth! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Such a wiki already exists: I just added Z9z8z7 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It is worth noting that the Wikipedia article (based on the revision history image that was posted earlier in the shows that it was created at 18:06 UTC on May 11th, while the XKCD comic was posted no earlier than 04:00 UTC on May 12th (Midnight EST). The article preceeded the comic by at least 12 hours. (rescinded comment due to image showing inaccurate times) I'm not arguing that it should remain, but I would think that Wikipedia's volunteer editors would have better things to do than troll for borderline worthy articles to delete. At this point, however, I would argue that the deletion of the article itself (as well as any article that isn't purely derogatory or ubiquitously offensive in nature) is a violation of WP:NPOV as such deletion is the result of a bias of the opinion of value. In my opinion, it would be of far greater value to the community as a whole to place a notice in the article that the article does not meet the standards than to redact the entire article based on the opinion of a subset of the community (i.e. the editors) -- (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on! So now I have invented sutrendrerseder which is a new type of food. Ok, please make an article about it, as it's mentioned on a webpage that lots of people are looking at. I love xkcd, but agree on the fact that Wikipedia does not have to cover all of the minor facts that happen in the world.Nico80 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC).

Proposal: recreate as redirect to xkcd article

I'm recreating this article as a redirect to the xkcd article (a la WP:BRD) (nope...protected) I propose that we recreate the article as a redirect to the xkcd article. It seems to be fairly obvious that the word doesn't have much notability aside from xkcd's reference to it, but a redirect never hurt anybody and it will satisfy the xkcd viewers expecting to find something at this article name. ...comments? ~BFizz 14:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Despite common belief, redirects _do_ hurt people. The target article holds no relevant information on the term, thus converting this to a redirect will only serve to confuse. XKCD readers already know this originated there, thus with no relevant information on the target article, the redirect is purposeless. Non-XKCD readers who somehow find the term and search it won't find any information on it at all, and will only become more confused. (aka: "Why does a word redirect to this page? This makes no sense.") Personally I would take this to Redirects for Discussion if it were recreated, it would not be a helpful redirect. --Taelus (Talk) 14:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Listed at RfD per above. You may participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#Malamanteau. Regards, --Taelus (Talk) 14:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
agree - stick with the redirect and keep it protected so no-one can start another silly article. I would suggest anyone who really, really feels that wikipedia needs an actual Malamanteau article makes one in their sandbox and let's things go from there. Coolug (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree with Coolug, but with an addition: as suggested elsewhere, add a section to the XKCD page explaining the whole malamanteau thing. --Special Operative MACAVITYDebrief me 16:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree - perhaps we can swing in a line about wikipedia, specifically the malamanteau article under the Inspired activities section - Deathsythe (talk) 17:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree - Otherwise, we're creating a malaredirectmanteau. See also: Don't taze me bro.--Louiedog (talk) 22:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
EDIT: The inner nerd in me does hope this discussion page becomes notable enough to warrant its own article.--Louiedog (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest redirecting to the xkcd page, and adding a paragraph there detailing the usage of the word. Then it's still being explained, but the admins and editors don't have to bust a cap trying to erradicate urbandictionary-type references —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes the redirect is more confusing. It should have an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fippy Darkpaw (talkcontribs) 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh my God everyone what are you doing?!

Thank you so much. I was genuinely not expecting to wake up to this; I figured someone would probably try to make the article, someone else would delete and protect it, and that would be the end of it—Wikipedia has gotten pretty good at handling that kind of potential abuse. I had no idea I'd wake up to this cavalcade of hilarious opinionating, but it's definitely brightened my morning.

Yes, I made up the word (although I didn't Google it until moments before the comic went up; like many nonsense words, it did have one use in a discussion thread somewhere). No, it shouldn't be an article. Yes, a clarifying article would be helpful. No, you shouldn't be helpful in this situation, because it's not your job.

Apologies to all the editors who are trying to keep this discussion under control. I know you have better things to do (like carefully documenting every public mention of Wikipedia, even offhand ones, in the Wikipedia article). Also, just so you know, nobody used the word 'disambiguation' until you people showed up. <3 --Xkcd (talk) 14:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Randall

"I made up the word, even though like most made up words, someone else had made it up first." (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This can't be the real Randall. Behold - "For those of us pedantic enough to want a rule, here it is: The preferred form is "xkcd", all lower-case. In formal contexts where a lowercase word shouldn't start a sentence, "XKCD" is an okay alternative. "Xkcd" is frowned upon." ( —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
At least when I created my account, Wikipedia forced this. It also, for a long time, forced the xkcd article to be "Xkcd". --Xkcd (talk) 05:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, all page names, usernames, etc. are required to begin with a capital letter. The article Xkcd actually begins with a capital letter, in only looks lowercase in the title because the page uses the template {{lowercase title}} to change how it looks. (You can change a signature to show whatever you'd like, though. See WP:CUSTOMSIG.) --Yair rand (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Since when does the creator of something get to determine or even have a vote on whether or not it shows up on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Who on earth is more qualified to decide if something is important that the important person who created it? If President Obama thinks Thailand's cooked rat is important, and comments on it, it more than likely will end up on a page somewhere. If an artist states "such and such is my most important work", would we discount that just because the critics like another work better? Get real.-G (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You know what you should do? A strip about Summer Glau: Wikipedia Editor! That would be awesome! -- Narsil (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry Randall, as much as I like your comic I disagree with you, I think the article should exist, as a redirect to the XKCD article where a small section on this 'incident' would be added. People will be looking for this page. Wikipedia ought to offer something a bit better than "sorry, nothing here!", even if only out of common decency. Even if this article was not worthy of an article up to this point, now that this discussion page exists the issue of how wikipedia deals with other sites commenting (cynically?) upon its activity, and how articles get to be created and/or deleted in such unusual circumstances has been raised. (it's not JUST a joke, now is it? it's a comment too). To ignore this fact is counter to the spirit (if not the rules) of wikipedia. --Inkwina (talk · contribs) 15:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, poeple will be looking for this page--but when they don't find the page, they'll likely come to the (correct) conclusion, "Ah, XKCD made it all up." Which they probably knew already, but they get more evidence. So... they come to Wikipedia, they learn something true, everyone is happy! -- Narsil (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The joke is that Randall made a strip about a Wikipedia article that did not really exist. Finding a page on Malamanteau only enhances the joke if it actually existed prior to and independent of the joke being made. Making Malamanteau into an article after the fact kind of defeats the purpose of the joke, doesn't it? I very much like xkcd, and I feel like creating an article here actually detracts from the spirit of the strip. QiZhe (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not Wikipedia's job to enhance jokes. If they're notable enough, it's Wikipedia's job to document them. I think this joke is notable now, and there's quite some stuff to document about it already. ( (talk) 08:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC))
Yes Randall, you do still have power over a legion of fanboys. I don't know what else you could have expected. Anyway I know you have better things to do like add a shirt to the xkcd store —Preceding unsigned comment added by LesterRoquefort (talkcontribs) 16:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The word disambiguation was used long before Wikipedia, as a cursory search of Google Books before opening your mouth would have revealed. (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"Moreover, I took some measurements, and my mom barely sits halfway around the house! I'm starting to suspect you're not an entirely reliable source on these matters!" --Xkcd (talk) 17:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That is the exact kind of thing you would put in your godawful comic. (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Not true. It's missing an arbitrary reference to some science topic he's glanced at on Wikipedia. How could the readership possibly feel smug without one of those? Well-formed ideas? Pah! That's not conducive to t-shirt sales. (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That's pretty rich, considering the site we're on. (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Okay, apparently that was the wrong place for banter. Let me try sincere: I'm really sorry if I've offended any of you; I was just trying to joke around a little. Obviously 'disambiguation' is a real word (I was joking about how Wikipedia seems to be the main user of it lately) and I don't know your mom. I just thought it was funny that you took my comment literally and seemed to get so angry about it. And by the way—if you think I draw comics for t-shirts, you don't know how frustrated the xkcd store guy is that I never get him t-shirt designs and never want to link them at the top of the site; whenever I do (like right now), it's because he's bugged me about 20 times about it. I really don't enjoy the merchandise part of this job; it's why there were no new t-shirts for like a year a while back. I'm just a guy who likes doodling jokes about whatever I'm reading or thinking about or whatever project I'm working on, and I try not to think about how many people read them. I'm sorry if my comics aren't funny enough. I do my best to draw what makes me and my friends laugh; it's all I can do. And I'm sorry if I was rude earlier. --Xkcd (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
HA HA, I want an XKCD Malamanteau t-shirt now. Then I'll create a Wikipedia page about wikipedia inspired cross-site merchandising.-G (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
IMHO: those of us with a sense of humor got the joke and had a nice chuckle. The OP you were responding to needs to lighten up a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unquist (talkcontribs) 17:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the people who were so bitter and mean are just jealous because being bitter and mean isn't nearly as popular as being funny. Omnifarious (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Man, you had to know this was going to happen, didn't you? I mean, if you didn't, you don't know Wikipedia well at all. Dissecting every joke and pop culture reference to the point that no one can make sense of anything is where this site THRIVES. Where does it go from here? Well, maybe some tech news sites will pick it up, maybe not, but either way this goes down on Wikipedia's long list of embarrassing I-can't-believe-they-did-it-oh-my-god-they-acutally-did incidents. (talk) 19:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I had gotten the impression that lately my fans had calmed down a little and Wikipedia had gotten better at handling this kind of situation. I genuinely didn't expect this clusterfuck of a talk page. I sincerely apologize for all the trouble it seems to have caused. --Xkcd (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Don't be a tool, Randall. Comments like "like carefully documenting every public mention of Wikipedia, even offhand ones, in the Wikipedia article" make you a tool. Stop douchebagging around like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow. Uh. I meant that as a loving jab at this place I hang out all the time. I love Wikipedia and I totally devour those lists and I'm as much a contributor to the problem as anyone. I was just trying to be a little lighthearted about it all; I meant what I said about you guys having better things to do seriously; I really appreciate the work done here. That was intended as a little mockery between friends; sorry if it didn't come across that way.--Xkcd (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA No personal attacks, please. Candent shlimazel (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, but ad hominems about wikipedia editors are just fine? Great. 08:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
I completely agree. He should have realized Wikipedia editors have no sense of humor and stopped joking. Don't worry, I think he got the point by now. (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, for fuck's sake. Settle down, Francis. ~~
As a general observation—that some Wikipedia editing activity borders on the obsessive—I'd say it's fairly accurate, and it's an observation that a lot of people outside Wikipedia make. Just because it hits a little close to home doesn't make him a tool. In fact, it makes you and the community here (for however far you represent Wikipedia) look over-sensitive and unwelcoming of criticism, which is another observation about Wikipedia many people make that you do no one any favors by reinforcing. (talk) 00:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No, the observation alone doesn't make him a tool. Even if it did hit close to home, that wouldn't make him a tool. What's toolish about this is that it's both irrelevant to the discussion at hand and a dig at Wikipedia editors who have a lot of work to do cleaning up vandalism by his fans. (talk) 08:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Deleting an article over and over again, while complaining about the users who create the article being led by a douchebag is what I would consider being a tool. I think I will add that to Wikipedia. "Tool, an obstinate Wikipedia editor with delusions of grandeur. " (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I am too late to mention this, but I feel bad about how the creator of this word got jumped on and made to feel unwelcome. That is not the spirit of Wikipedia people. Please don't jump on me for mentioning it. I was just sayin! Nesnad (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I would go as far as saying that the vast majority of this talk page is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Until now, I wasn't aware that mentioning XKCD in some circles brings out the spittle-spewing brigade with such vigor. It seems as if the entire thing is being used as an excuse to personally flame the author of a comic that some people apparently feel a burning and insatiable hatred for.
I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of most talk pages on most Wikipedia articles are "not in the spirit of Wikipedia". People on Wikipedia really need to get off their high horses, calm down, and learn how to have reasonable discussions (the author of the original message to which I am replying is a good example of somebody who understands this). (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OMFG —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the idea for a redirect to Wikipedia Culture? I thought I might bring it to your attention, but don't want to comment on whether you should weigh in on the topic, let alone on which side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If this was really Randall Munroe, and he really wanted to put a stop to it, couldn't he put something about it in his blag? That would A. confirm his wishes and B. spread them. On the other hand, it would be stuffing beans up his nose. Timeroot (talk) 00:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Timeroot, the account Xkcd (talk · contribs) is confirmed to be Randall Munroe. ALI nom nom 14:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking to this page

XKCD did NOT link to this page; people just searched for it on their own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Portmanteau

I would recommend that this page redirects to Portmanteau. Most people probably do not know the definition of that word, and that article would probably be the most helpful to people who are looking up Malamanteau to "get" the joke on XKCD. (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be entirely too reasonable for the OCD rule-nazis who have completely lost sight of the function and utility of know, the ones who take loose guidelines invented almost solely for wikilawyering on controversial pages, by people with censorship agendas, and turned them into absolutes that must be applied to the most trivial entries and details. Yes, this entry is obviously silly, but it's not like someone trying to add Clintonista and reference it in the William Jefferson Clinton in the Hillary Murdered Vince Foster section. It is reasonable to delete it...but NOT reasonable to get in a big uproar about ensuring this happens ASAP and "defending" us all from the damage that is obviously being done to our wikutation. Or maybe I haven't been editing long enough to have developed a properly healthy degree of anal-retentivity and hatred of cleverness. --Kaz (talk) 16:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"That would be entirely too reasonable for the OCD rule-nazis who have completely lost sight of the function and utility of Wikipedia" - The function and utility of Wikipedia is not to give meaning and relevancy to poorly drawn webcomics, no matter how much help they need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
"...poorly drawn webcomics..." Is that not a personal attack, directly insulting the ability of the comic author to draw? (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Munroe doesn't draw only stick figures (e.g. (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You're right, he also draws squid with googly eyes, sea vents that look like giant clams, and various other minimally detailed things.LesterRoquefort (talk) 05:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I just find it awesome that Wikipedia editors are throwing stones (from their glass houses I might add) at a college graduate with a physics degree who worked on NASA contracts. I mean, do you really want to go down this road, guys? You don't sound at all bitter. (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wow, no fanboy worship there! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"Fanboy" as a slur is a dodge, and at least twice as annoying as any actual fanboying that may or may not be occurring here or anywhere else. (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I am a casual reader of the comic, yes, and I like it, so far, but I've never been on IRC/forums/their wiki/whatever. I just find the lack of self-awareness and/or extreme projection that is being thrown his way by the Wikipedia crowd to be, I don't know, delicious? (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
What, when a bunch of kids come to your house, poop all over your lawn, and say they have a right to do so because of a tiny blog and a link from Slashdot, that counts as lack of self-awareness on our part? The crazy selfishness being exhibited by all the xkcd fanboys out there is proof that parents aren't beating their children enough anymore. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is public. It is not "your lawn". Deal with it. (talk) 01:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It's absolutely OK to shit anywhere that's not a lawn.-- (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Vote for this. Polarix (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
agree, joke understood now, thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Make it a disambiguation page

Malamanteau can refer to

  1. A neologism created by Randall Munroe on XKCD
  2. A great talk page on Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fixman (talkcontribs) 16:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
More like a neologism created by ludwig_van on metafilter. (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Malamanteau is worthy of an article of its own now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:V. Won't even survive a csd:a7. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sure, blind us with jargon hypnotoad. That way we can see you're wikipedia cool. Dstanfor (talk) 20:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's not for teenagers.[citation needed] The article will have as much chance of surviving as the ones about your favourite Menzobarranzan characters or your local indie rock bands. I suggest you check out MySpace - they like Twilight over there. PS, show us your tits. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You're kidding, right? I really did not think the comments here could get any less self-aware. Wikipedia is overrun with teenagers, mental and/or actual. It's just that instead of your comical envisioning of what teenagers do, they are nerds who are out to exact revenge on the world for high school. (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This article should be made: it's notable it's.....ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD.--Louiedog (talk) 22:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
So, "Wikipedia's not for teenagers."? What happened to the "anyone" part in "[...] the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit [...]"? I need a citation for that fact. Graphnode (talk) 21:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I guess it should stay then since my favourite Menzoberranzan characters both have pages. Jarlaxle and Drizzt_Do'Urden don't look like they're getting deleted any time soon. (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Compromise solution

Malamanteau should redirect to Gags that aren't funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Seconded! (talk) 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Agree, but Gags that aren't funny should redirect to Gags that are hilarious.--Louiedog (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
You guys have absolutely no clue. Anyone who takes Wikipedia seriously at all should find it hysterically funny, especially the hysterics that it incidentally generated. The only think that's funnier is the "cromulent" comment. --Kaz (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
The most hysterical thing about this whole thing is the wikipedians absolutely losing their shit over it. There's no need for personal attacks and jabs at the webcomic or its readership, or jabs at Wikipedia and its jackbooted.. right.. no personal jabs. If, 18 hours ago (or whenever this nonsense started), the whole topic would have been ignored, nobody would have cared in a few days, it calmly gets deleted, end of discussion. Instead, it's turned into one of the more hilariously angry talk pages I've ever seen, and people will be pissed off for a while. XKCDers who want to see a real article: start using the word in your regular lives and if it catches on well enough, it'll eventually be here. Wikipedia exists to document things that are already notable, not to make them notable. That's simple WP:NOR and WP:GNG stuff. Wikipedians: Calm the heck down. Seriously. We know Wikipedia is SRS BSNS, but there's dedication and then there's fanaticism and blind hatred. (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
srs bsns here ^ (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
hurf durf im gonna impress randall by sticking it to the wikipedia editorsLesterRoquefort (talk) 23:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
That's cheap and you know it man. But then again, funny to see this comment on a comment that asks people to remain calm and cut the jabs. Are you being ironic? Sorry, too late to decide. -Taramul (talk) 00:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Let's not forget WP:NPA. I can point out various conductive policies too. (talk) 00:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


There's nothing funnier than a goddamn edit war in a Wikipedia talk page. Hilarious. I've got two points to make.

1. The entry for Malamanteau should either give a brief meaning of the word and reference the comic, or redirect to Portmanteau. This is a word which I suspect will rise in popularity of the next few days or months and given the attention it has gotten and will get I think it deserves a small article.

2. You Wikipedia editors need to get off your high horses. You think you're so great and important to be in charge of editing the "largest general reference work on the Internet" when in reality all you do is censor the stuff that doesn't need to be censored and let go the stuff that needs to be deleted, all while maintaining a disgusting level of hypocrisy on a supposedly free website whose reliability and quality is rapidly spinning out of control. Stop being so arrogant and maybe you'll learn that your job isn't that important and you're not doing it that well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You sound like a six-year-old. Seriously, you apparently think that wikipedia should be some sort of free-for-all? Grow up, stop being such a goddamn baby.-- (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

He wants more inclusion and also better reliability and quality. Everybody work harder! --Explodicle (T/C) 01:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Then let's make an article for Tails the Straight. He's got more substance behind him than malamanteau does. I'm just trying to be inclusive. Do you think that a stupid meme (not even a meme, really) deserves its own wikipedia page? NO! It doesn't. Where does it end if we make room for a word that no one will ever use.
Deserves its own page? No. Will people be searching for it on Wikipedia? YES - so if you want wikipedia to be perceived as a reliable resource, you'll at least put SOMEthing in place for a "Malamanteau" search. I would suggest an XKCD redirect. (talk) 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Rickroll Hromada (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

BEcause, let's face it, we won't use malamanteau in conversation. It just doesn't come up that often and when it does we won't go ahead and label it. Academics aren't going to use it because they have class. It's not a real word, let's just get rid of this stupid page.-- (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

and you use every word of the dictionary in conversation? an 'academic' has never used a dumb word (like dumb)? thank you for proving it; wikipedia's rules of inclusion aren't exactly awesome. let's not talk this up like scholarly minds from established reference organizations had a conference over this. outside wiki, its all arbitrary, and a reasonably logical case could be made for the inclusion of damn near everything, because we're not cataloging concrete reality or naturally existing things, we're also cataloging the whim and fancies of man. this is one of them. (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any entries for every word in the dictionary. I'm not advocating for every word in the dictionary having a wikipedia article. I'm not being at all inconsistent for saying that malamanteau shouldn't either.-- (talk) 01:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

An idea for a redirect

Would redirecting this to Wikipedia in culture work? We could place a relevant entry on that page explaining the origins of "malamanteau". (talk) 01:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's actually a really good idea. You should be ashamed of yourself. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Look at this page... the Wikipedia in culture should link to this discussion page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I vote for this as well. (talk) 02:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, that's brilliant, I'm voting for this as well. By far the best redirect suggestion made. ⌘ torpy (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • SupportCwolfsheep (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Myrkabah (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Also suggest a link from ??? --there's a term I can't recall right now for a word that only exists once in the written record of a language. This would make for an excellent meta commentary on that article (how documenting it makes it not that), if I could only recall the term. I read about it on WP. Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I've just read the XBMC comic and wanted to check if the article really exists. Since the word isn't relevant to anyone not reading XBMC a redirection like this would've been great. And far better than just landing on an empty page! (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This hilarious brouhaha reached a level that's... well, notable. JCCyC (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I'm with JCCyC. Bdevoe (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support As it's obvious the WikiNazis won't allow it to stand on its own or to redirect to XKCD (with a relevant bullet in that entry), this idea is the most appropriate. Ziwcam (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support At least it's something. Qwilleranfan (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support It's funny and I like it. If the internet and culture are going to create one another this sort of thing is going to happen. Hopefully we can handle it better than the trolls on 4chan.-G (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is the most sensible solution in the long run. That being said, I really wish the editors had gotten in front of this early on with a meaningful response other than the simple deletion, which comes across as contrarian. Would it have hurt to temporarily put up something akin to "Good one. That was very funny! We are a project that lives and dies on the contributions of our users. You just demonstrated how quickly people on the internet can be motivated and organized to a single goal. We're hoping some of that energy can be directed towards making Wikipedia a better place. Thanks. -- The Management" while a permanent solution was being discussed? Enderandrew (talk) 05:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current solution of redirecting to a relevant section of xkcd is far better. --Zarel (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Support This is by far the most-supported and most logical proposal on this whole talk page, and I think adding a sentence or two to Wikipedia in culture would cause much less controversy than adding to xkcd; as it stands right now, this redirect is totally pointless, as it links to a section of the xkcd article that doesn't even mention it at all. Mario777Zelda (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Is this even a constructive discussion?

Despite the fact that everyone and their brother seems to have an opinion on the subject, I hardly feel that any of this discussion has been focused or constructive. Therefore, I believe some rules need to be laid out. First, make a section compiling the merits of keeping the article, whether that be as a redirect or an actual page. Second, make a section compiling the dismerits similarly. Else, as evidenced already in the discussion directly above mine we will find ourselves swimming in Godwin's Law (and for the uneducated, that is also a xkcd reference). Kehrbykid (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Godwin's Law is its own thing. It existed long before xkcd. For the love of God. (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Jesus Christ man, if you are going to actually reference it in an argument to reference the illegitimacy of an argument you should at least get it right. :( -Deathsythe (talk) 12:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The purpose of my reference to xkcd and Godwin's law was that xkcd references Godwin's law, not that xkcd origninally defined Godwin's law. Otherwise it would obviously be called Randall's Law or Monroe's Law. But that is not the point! If people don't grow up and start having a legitimate discussion about whether this word should be included in Wikipedia this whole talk article is just going to be pointless. Kehrbykid (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Probably not Des1974 (talk) 20:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm writing this comment just so I can be a part of a hilarious bit of Wikipedia history. I have no opinion on the matter. Felix woz ere.
Felix Dance (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea, im writing a comment to be part of the funniest shit i've ever read on wikipedia. (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If it's so fleeting...

Let the xkcd fans have the page for a week, until Munroe draws something else. Then the calmer heads can stick around and discuss the two or three good ideas that have been mooted on the entirety of this talk page. Personally, I think a three line stub would be fine if it would avoid conflict and inform those that chose to read the article. Remember, 7daysahead (talk) 09:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a dangerous suggestion. In the one week that Ron Paul's election campaign was being taken semi-seriously by the NY Post and the silicon valley neocons, his Wikipedia article ballooned into a 150,000 word monstrosity. The lesson we took away from this: once you let internet fanboys have their way, you have to dedicate an entire server farm to them. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As of May 13th, this talk page by itself now takes up approximately 18,000 words. Also, the average length of a word in English is 5 letters. If each letter comes out to about a byte, then that should be 750,000 bytes for the Ron Paul article -- three quarters of a megabyte, or the amount of space taken up by a single medium-largish image file. (Somewhat more, if you count whitespace characters.) Is that so bad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
In the case of Ron Paul, yes. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't put the word back

Like it or not the word now 'exists'. It may not go on to be used again... but then maybe it will. Maybe in 10 years someone will 're-discover' the word and it's origin will be a matter of (albeit trivial) importance.

I do not see the harm in having the word here. I think more harm comes from the APPEARANCE of wikipedia being the arbiter of what is 'worthy' and what isn't. There are many many articles relating to similar topics, and again like it or not xkcd has a large readership, and has at least as much a reason to exist as something like Scooby-Dum.

--Frank Gaillard (talk) 12:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The word has not been written about in independent third-party sources, so the article fails WP:RS. The word is not notable, so the article fails WP:NN. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so the article fails WP:DICT. You can't write an article about the word without it being entirely original research, so it fails WP:OR. On Wikipedia, we don't just make shit up and write articles about it; the article also fails WP:MADEUP. This isn't TVtropes. Once the internet kiddies lose interest and move on to the next fad, this article will be deleted and all of this consigned forever to the dustbin of history. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Redirects do not fall under the juristiction of WP:NN. A common misconception by even most power users in this discussion. And also it has been written about on other third-party websites including BBC America. -Deathsythe (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Redirects to outside wikipedia? Isn't there a policy against that? It's certainly well outside the scope of wikipedia in two ways. First, wikipedia isn't the rest of the web, nevermind the rest of the world, it only describes some of all that in a somewhat encyclopaedic fashion. Second, wikipedia can hardly point elsewhere for the full tale, refusing to as much as provide an encyclopedic overview of the matter. It's either the latter or nothing at all. And nothing at all has become all but impossible. Oh, and then there's the fact that wikipedia itself now has of necessity become entangled as a primary source. You can claim all sorts of policies on this one, but that's the crux, and there's no policy for that. It means wikipedia is basically looping on its own event horizon, going boom most spectacularly. And there can hardly be a policy on that, nevermind a sensible one. Oh dear. I had to laugh so hard, I could hardly write this. Well done indeed that man! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the word has now appeared on both Groklaw and Slashdot. Of course, that's actually the discussion of the wikipedia article (and a references to this discussion, which means it is starting to recurse), so that may not qualify as "independant third party sites", since it is discussion of this discussion (of this discussion). Give it another 24 hours, and discussion of this discussion (of this discussion [of the original word]) will likely be on The Register, which will be extremely sarcastic about the entire thing. And still not likely count as (the now recursively recursive) discussion of the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to Inspired Activities

I have taken the liberty to add a line to the Inspired activities section of the xkcd article. I feel like this is a decent compromise for all parties. You cannot deny the outcry and the stir that it has caused. That itself is worth mention, however it should be mentioned in the xkcd article and does not warrant its own. That in mind, Malamanteau should probably now be turned into a redirect to that section, and kept protected for a few weeks while everything dies down.
I am aware that the line I added isn't exactly great, but I haven't had my coffee yet this morning, so you will have to forgive me. Please someone beef it up a bit and edit it for style.
Also - this talk page really should be preserved to help cite/note the history of this whole shenanigans. -Deathsythe (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I left the part which mentioned the discussion caused here, but removed the part where you seemed to predict the future by giving the result of this discussion. However, I do support the motion to make the page redirect to the xkcd page, possibly directly to a section about this joke. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, my bad about that. I was hoping that we had reached a consensus when I made that edit, should have checked first. Well given the creation of that bullet point, can we table all of these shenanigans and get a decent discussion about seriously just redirecting to that section now that there is an actual point in place? -Deathsythe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC).
I think there should be a table of opinions at the top of this talk page as to whether the article should redirect to xkcd, to Wikipedia in culture, or be deleted. However, given the volume of senseless edits to this page, that may be difficult to maintain and I'm not sure if it's normal policy. Still, wikipedia does say be bold... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this talk place is the wrong place for such !votes. See the box at the top for the various formal discussions. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the information. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

A possible solution? (Seriously)

I guess that there are a few things we can say about this word that would allow it to exist as a short article:

  1. Where does it come from, xkcd, metafilter, blah, blah.
  2. The heated discussion that it sparked.
  3. Related topics: portmanteau and a few more.
  4. Links to xkcd, metafilter, etc.

To be honest, I guess that it's accumulated enough notability. Furthermore, you have at least one source: xkcd. I admit that I don't read that comic, but I would count it as a source. Now, can someone make a draft that doesn't make anyone upset? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's another possible solution. XKCD is a website, no? Let them set up their own Wiki. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
They have one. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Is an article allowed to cite it's own talk page? (talk) 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No idea. I don't think that ever happened before either (or it wasn't notable enough). This is so very meta. Graphnode (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy gaining mention on 3rd party websites

Even the BBC is reporting on it. I think that in itself warrants at least a redirect to Xkcd#Inspired events if anything. If not even a whole section regarding the Malamanteau controversy or something.
There is a decent amount of people searching for the term, I know that is how many unsigned commenters managed to come here. If not for nothing, wikipedia should at least showcase some little bit of information regarding the word/controversy.
Like it or not, all the stir that it created has flowed over the wiki walls and spilled into the rest of the internet. -Deathsythe (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:DENY. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The BBC report doesn't even mention XKCD or the Wikipedia dispute going on here. All it does is comment on how it's been searched for lately, and explain that it's not a read word. And I agree that this is a case of WP:DENY. ALI nom nom 13:51, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As stated in this news article regaring the term, Within the last few hours there have been numerous searches going on about a strange new word called malamanteau. Most of the searches are for the meaning of the word because apparently no such word exists in the English language at the moment. We have a civic duty to enable those who search for the meaning or at the very least the origin of the word. At the very least a bullet point in the xkcd article and a redirect to the section is warranted. As many of those commenting on this talk page have said, the whole reason they are even here was because they were searching for it. Who are we to deny them even the littlest shard of information? Yes, xkcd has their own wiki that houses information on the term, however the wikipedia article is one of the first results, even higher up than the xkcd comic that started these shenanigans in the first place!
If you need to understand something, or find the meaning of something, the first place you go is Google. Google in turn 9 times out of 10 directs you to Wikipedia. By putting a dead end with us, we are hindering those who seek information. -Deathsythe (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This is hilarious.--Louiedog (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but is an actual arm of the BBC? There are far too many ads for it to be legitimate, and all the articles are posted by somebody named 'liyana.' There is nothing to indicate that it's related to the actual BBC outside of the domain name, not even a logo.LesterRoquefort (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
bbcnewsamerica seems to be a blog.  f o x  14:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many fake Indian spam news sites you find, the word isn't going to become real. Randall is not going to be your bestest ever friendy-wendy for doing his bidding. (talk) 15:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that completely childish response Graphnode (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, that isn't the BBC. Oh wikipedians you are clueless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Kwyjibo Precedent

This is certainly not the first time a fictional word has been submitted to wikipedia. Famously created by The Simpsons, the word Kwyjibo now redirects to the page about the episode where it was first created. The obvious solution is to redirect this page to XKCD. -agjimenez (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If we have a precedent like that on the books already, than I think that is argument enough for the redirect to be created and pointed to Xkcd#Inspired activities with the bullet about Malamanteau restored. -Deathsythe (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
^That's an excellent idea. Seriously, I think the whole notability and verifiability thing that wikipedia has needs to be rethunk. I get that pages need to concise, but there is nowhere near enough caveats posted on pages that the information represents only very narrow bands of opinion which can be considered mainstream among those interested only in representing a certain status quo. When I read an article I need to be reminded that these are thought police vetted documents at all times, then you can go ahead and do whatever. The encyclopedia could be seen as misrepresenting itself as an open source of information.
What, for example, would happen to an article about feminine decency quoting only reputable sources from Islamic countries? Who is notable? Only people who you care to note? XKCD is more notable to me than CNN, BBC, FOX and MSNBC combined.DubhGlass (talk) 15:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Why do you feel it is more notable? LesterRoquefort (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That wasn't directed at me, but, lack of corporate bias for one. If XKCD says something, it's more likely than not going to be funny, witty, or if none of the above, lacking commercial interest. I wouldn't trust any of the major news orgs to give me the proper time of day. +1 to the notion that the notability guidelines around here are in serious need of overhaul. TheGreatTK (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Interesting notion, agreed, but isn't that a risk of becoming too self referential? -G (talk) 14:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
There's a difference between a single comic that takes two seconds to read (and then another ten seconds to reread a few times because you aren't sure that you got the joke and then you finally give up because you realize THERE IS NO JOKE) and a tv show that isn't readily available and even if it was is still 23 minutes long. Redirecting to the XKCD article is fine, but no article for this word.-- (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Strange, that is not the reaction I had when reading the strip in question; I immediately grasped that the joke was about Wikipedia's use of large, unwieldy (but unarguably precise) words like Portmanteau, and Malapropism, and the tendency for the tone and word choice of editors towards these kinds of words, rather than more common English like "A combination of" in place of "Portmanteau", such as "the word Automagical is a combination of Automatic, and Magical; The word implies concepts of both, in that any process termed to be "automagical", or to "Automagically happen", occurs both automatically, and transparently, as if by magic." For the strip in question: I read it one time, laughed heartily, and moved on. I did NOT "Read it once, Re-read it a second time, re-read it a third time, and then realize there was no joke." I realized right away what the joke was: Wikipedia's word choice coupled with it's own sense of self-importance and academic hubris. Judging by the behavior of several maintainers on this discussion page, I can clearly see why many of them would simply "not get" the joke. I however, am not one of them, and caught it right away. Apparently, your mileage my vary. (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Additional examples - "frood" and "cromulent" both have redirects. Some fictional words were found on a Slashdot article [3] MichaelUrvan (talk) 06:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 13 May 2010

{{editprotected}} shouldn't it at least redirect to the right comic? (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not possible to redirect to an external link, and there is no article on the comic itself. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It does now: [xkcd] Bagehi

Discussion on XKCD page

Can we at least decide if Malamanteau even deserves a place in the Xkcd article itself first before arguing the schemantics of adding a redirect to it?

I started a discussion here regarding it. Can anyone who is willing to entertain a serious discussion please head there? None of this random sockpuppetry and blatant trolling. As we all learned in grammar school english - back up your ideas with well thought out responses and references.

-Deathsythe (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Is "schemantics" a malamanteau? (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also remember when Wikipedia was fun? -Deathsythe (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to predict that in about three years, "Malamanteau" will be added to the Oxford Dictionary. Online journalists will write about invented words, mostly from the Simpsons, that have been added in the past. And people, let's have some perspective. Every word in every language was invented by someone. They need to be used more frequently to make them "real." -- (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Reddit and Slashdot both have picked up on this (link to the latter), not to mention there was a column in the Long Island Press published as well. Can we say that we have enough reliable 3rd party sources yet to add a bullet point into the XKCD article regarding the word and controversy? -Deathsythe (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Correlations with Truthiness

Just like truthiness, attempting to delete this word from wikipedia made it notable. It has been discussed on popular news sites:

There is no choice but keep it now. It is unquestionably notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

bbcnewsamerica has nothing to do with the BBC. It is a spam blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Proof. Slashdot got suckered. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

152,000 results in Google

Notability is now well established, shall we make this the article, make a new article or what? This talk page is a core part of the phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely good criteria(!) What is the fascination with wedging xkcd into Wikipedia wherever you can? Maybe some people (who may well donate to Wikipedia) aren't interested in your childish fan club. IP 90 219 166 214 (talk) 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
"What is the fascination with wedging xkcd into Wikipedia wherever you can?" I don't know, but maybe it's the same fascination that allows full-blown biographical articles on fictional characters? Same difference shown in lack of guidelines for editing/relevance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, both are incorrect. I think people would do well to remember that an anti-xkcd-inclusion stance is not the same thing as a pro-everything-Wikipedia stance. IP 90 219 166 214 (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This is about the number of google results, not a pro-xkcd rant. Feel free to take it elsewhere.
Number of Google hits doesn't matter. Present sources. Not the fake "BBC" guy. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I've made computer games that have over 150K results on Google. Can I put those on Wikipedia too? No? GOOD. Same goes for your favourite comic. IP 90 219 166 214 (talk) 02:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
And your point is? There are tons of "freeware"/"shareware"/download websites that will link to your game to increase the number of hits. Then other sites link to those sites and so on increasing the number of results. Those are basically link farms unlike the Google results from this word where it shows people are actually looking for the word and it's meaning. Graphnode (talk) 09:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Some editor is WRONG on Wikipedia

Duty Calls -- (talk) 20:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Train wreck at Montparnasse 1895.jpg
I'm pretty sure that this stopped having a point some time ago. Now we're just having a loud, lively argument because a loud, lively argument is getting people's backs up. No doubt this illustrates some fundamental truth about humanity. How do we stop it, though? The last time I encountered something as WP:LAME as this, I called it silly, declared a picnic break, decorated with a number of images about picnicking and nature, and offered tea. This inexplicably worked. We could try some similar stunt, but this time around there's an ongoing deletion discussion to inject URGENCY! into the matter, making sure that people find it srs bizns. --Kizor 21:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Redirect to xkcd#Inspired activities

{{editprotected}} So now that there's an entry about malamanteau on xkcd#Inspired activities, I request that the redirect destination be changed to there. --Zarel (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there's not an entry there. In fact, there is an ongoing discussion about why there shouldn't be an entry there. rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, that's no reason to go about editing my comments. :| There's a perfectly reasonable {{tlf}} template for that. And for the record, at the time I added the request, there was an entry there, it was just immediately reverted by Rjanag. --Zarel (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia: where all contibutors are equal, except some are more equal than others. (talk) 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
We can safely say that the point's been made, 134.
Wait, does that rhyme? --Kizor 21:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Second try

{{editprotected}} Even though the entry about "malamanteau" is controversial and currently not there, malamanteaus are clearly more relevant to xkcd#Inspired activities than to xkcd as a whole, so if we're going to redirect anywhere, I request that the redirect be changed to there. --Zarel (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If malamanteau is not even mentioned in that section then it seems a bit pointless to redirect there. In any case I suggest we let the RfD play out before making any changes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is what's wrong with Wikipedia

Wikipedia would have more editors and more users if not for absurd incidents like this. I don't mean the frivolous article. I'm talking about the self-righteous administrators railing about what God intended for Wikipedia. It seems like every two-bit 90s Usenet troll now lords over his own little Wikipedia fiefdom. It's why I don't edit articles, and probably why you don't either. Instead of more lock-downs and more admin powers. They need less. What happened to free information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Where do you see administrators on this page doing what you described? UtherSRG is an administrator, and he originally shut down the malamanteau page, but get this: the article was posted six minutes after the comic was posted. What he did in locking the page was entirely reasonable, because the comic was absolutely not notable six minutes after it was posted. It was a sound defense against the inevitable flood. You can complain about it and argue that it is notable now, but that's an entirely different thing than complaining about administrative power. Make good arguments and find evidence that the existence of this article is worthwhile, and maybe you'll convince people that it belongs. LesterRoquefort (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
As it stands now, the defendants are the people who need to provide evidence against notability (see 152k google results above). However it started, it is now de facto worthwile, both as a cultural phenomenon and within wikipedia subculture itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You can't make an article out of Google hits alone. It's up to the people who want an article to find sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Your arguement is inconsistent with how GHITS is applied in practice. Lack of google hits alone is regularly used to disprove notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Bullshit. I work on AfD all the time and that argument never holds water once someone actually finds sources. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I think this is a prime example bike shedding. It's such a trivial issue, everyone has to have an opinion. The original article was a one liner, that would have been snickered at and moved on. However, the discussion page is growing rapidly. The debate grows heated. If it's about storage space or time, that's been blown on this discussion. If it's about some standards, well those are subject to interpretation. If it's about keeping a lid on insane amounts of bike shedding, then locking the page and letting people vent in this discussion area makes perfect sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Malamanteau on page Xkcd

At the moment, there is no mention of the word Malamanteau on page xkcd, so a redirect to that page is pointless. (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Continue to list articles here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's now notable

The argument can now be made that this is in fact notable, therefore deserves a page.

1. Media Coverage: BBC:
2. Google results: 97,000 results.
3. There is even a T-shirt on Cafepress

Mordred42 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC) isn't related to the BBC. It's one dude's Wordpress blog. LesterRoquefort (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, number of Google hits doesn't matter and you can make a Cafepress shirt out of anything. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Your arguement is inconsistent with how GHITS is applied in practice. Lack of google hits alone is regularly used to disprove notability.
This is a paradox of history, if we say this is history, and worth noting. Then you can make the statement that any attempt to save all history results in more history which has to be saved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
See above. --Explodicle (T/C) 00:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Give it enough time for the paper-press to get onto it, and it will become notable. This happened ~18 hours ago, traditional media is yet to be able to come up with a reply that quickly. Just saying. glasnt<3 22:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Continuing to list articles here. Notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I had never heard of XKCD, I'm here and this is interesting. Don't care much for the the word itself, but the backlash and wikipedia eating itself part is pretty neat. I think this talk page should be linked to, as a reference in the article. Anyway, the word now exists in the mind of many people, and the minds of people are a part of reality, so the word exists in reality. Just because it's a strange jumble with complex layers of meaning, what it means, what it represents, it's all a mash, but you can't pretend it doesn't exist. An encyclopedia should just document what exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Apropriate entry for Malamanteau in Wikipedia

Manamantelau: (1) word invented by xkcd author Randall Munroe for use in strip for may 12. 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hymer2 (talkcontribs) 22:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(2) A Brouhaha, i.e. confusion, turmoil, etc., esp. a broil over a minor or ridiculous cause. Use in a sentence: The xkcd author Randall Munroe created a Manamantelau in Wikipedia over his creation of the word Manamantelau in an article about words in Wikipedia.-G (talk) 14:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
And of course, "Manamantelau" is a malamanteau of malamanteau with itself. (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This article does not warrant existence

I think what people need to understand is that though the "word" may be popular now, it won't be in a couple months. Right now, mostly die-hard XKCD fans, are begging for the article to be kept in all it's glory, but come the future in a couple months, hardly anyone will even give a passing thought to this article or even the "word" itself, besides new reader of the XKCD comic who stumble upon said comic. Most of this discussion page entails why the article should not be created, and the rest is of persons crying "the article does warrant existence; look at this discussion page, baw baw!". Looking at the future, when this heated discussion dies down, the article will lose all right to it's existence, and just be (or should be) deleted again. May as well not even create it at this point, especially since it's already been determined not to warrant existence.
In short, though the "word" may be notable now, it wont be in the months to come. People need to understand that. -- (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you need to understand that encyclopedias contain words, events, facts, ideas, places, persons, etc that once were notable but now forgotten, only mentioned in ...that's right, encyclopedias. The malamanteau controversy is a notable event that will be remembered. If you want to find really realy obscure stuff to delete, look at a few hacker culture related articles.

The popularity of the word will fade if and only if people stop trying to kill it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias were traditionally written by experts, they usually contain little or no referencing and obscure topics which may represent the work of a single individual with no notability may find inclusion long before well-known but trivial events. Wikipedia is kidding itself if it thinks notability and verifiability an encyclopedia makes. What you need, and apparently lack here, is an editor with a good eye.DubhGlass (talk) 03:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Under what reading of Wikipedia:Notability do you extract this requirement of gazing into the crystal ball to determine whether a subject will be notable in three months? This seems to be a clear case of moving the goalpost. -- (talk) 04:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess as my last bit of info, I'll clarify better: the only reason this "word" has any bit of notability to it is because of this heated discussion, and ONLY because the discussion is heated, not because there is discussion at all. In a few days, to weeks, to months, to years even, this discussion will die down (hey, look, a new XKCD comic; now everyone will surely forget about Malamanteau much faster), and the mere shreds of notability will disappear. The whining fans need to stop whining and accept and face the facts; it doesn't matter how difficult it is to do so, it needs to be done. Also, if you REALLY must, ask yourself this: "What would Randall Munroe do?" Randall Munroe wouldn't plague Wikipedia with this foolishness like you and his other crazed fans. Though I do not, and will never personally know the man, I'm sure he is a sensible and understanding person, and would agree with the Wikipedia Administrators; after all, it is their site (a counter, to a previous stated point where someone tried to claim this site belongs to us/everyone, when in fact, as clearly stated on the 'Wikipedia' article, this site is maintained by 'volunteers'; we in no way own this site such as the administrators (and Jimmy Wales namely) do), they are free to do what they wish with it. Either way, Malananteau in no way contributes to knowledge of any kind (unlike 'hacker culture' articles do; at least with those, I'm actually learning something; Malamanteau, I get nothing but users bickering), and has none to little notability to it's name. When this discussion dies down, the only glimpse of notability will with it. This can all probably be simply considered my opinion, but it's also all, as much as I can make it, logical, and seemingly inevitable. I suppose I will see you in a couple days, weeks, months, or years. -- (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia already covers this

So there you have it, it's a perfectly valid stunt word and this mess of a discussion more than proves it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Colbert's completely fabricated word "Truthiness" is perfectly fine for an article; is it because XKCD isn't owned by a large corporation means that its made-up words are less important? Xvedejas (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much. I believe the official justificattion is that XKCD is an "unedited" and "direct" form of communication, whereas The Colbert Report ostensibly undergoes some kind of editing process. (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


The fierce opposition from the rule-nazis here at Wikipedia about how this doesn't deserve an article has generated so much attention it's become notable enough to deserve an article. Stay classy, Wikipedia. --Calibas (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaaaand there we go, Godwin point. The discussion is now moot. Cybik (talk) 22:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You fail. Calling someone a "something-nazi" (eg, grammar-nazi, fashion-nazi) does not invoke GL, as it is merely a mild insult, not a specific comparison of that person's work with that of the historical Nazi regime.
It's called Godwin's law, FYI. And the comparison to Nazism is perfectly valid as they were very keen on removing information they deemed inappropriate. Not that I was trying to make that point originally, perhaps you should update your dictionary with the modern slang: nazi - derogatory term for a person who is fanatically dedicated to, or seeks to control, some activity, practice, etc. --Calibas (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Also, the original user's point is perfectly valid in that this entire mess never would have happened were it not for obsessives wiki-lawyering, proving a lot of anti-Wikipedians points. Good job, wiki staff. >_> Overlord11001001 15:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

malapropism \mal"a*prop*ism\, n. [From Mrs. Malaprop, a character in Sheridan's drama, " The Rivals," who makes amusing blunders in her use of words. See Malapropos.] A grotesque misuse of a word; a word so used. [1913 Webster] [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


Eight appeals to "it's not notable". There's a rule that says that's not a reason for deletion. WP:JNN We have articles about a train station in the middle of nowhere in Scotland and a word some guy made up and people spent a whole day flame warring about on Wikipedia isn't notable?

If it's not notable, then why do you have to spend so much bandwidth proving to people you've never met it's not notable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha. What a bunch of Jabberwocky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, what a Malamanteau. Please use the new (2) definition. ;)-G (talk) 14:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, there appears to be siginifcant WP:VAGUEWAVE from the pro-deletion camp. -- (talk) 04:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


George Orwell once wrote "First they came for the people who created an article about a joke in xkcd, thus ruining the joke of that xkcd in the process, but I did not speak up because I was not one. Then they came for everyone else and killed them because they work for the Ministry of Truth and they only want to censor our opinions."

Think about it. Freedom of speech is at stake here. WAKE UP, SHEEPLE! -- (talk) 23:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I call Godwin's Law on that. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No, she's right, just because it doesn't involve any people being physically killed doesn't mean that trying to regulate thought isn't comparable to mass genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Godwin #2. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
And? It's not like it's a fallacious argument. --Calibas (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
No offence intended, Hypnotoad, but this seems like pretty good evidence that you're lacking a sense of humor. If you couldn't see it for the obvious trolling that it was, i suggest you step away from the argument for a while and cool off. (talk) 00:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No, freedom of speech is alive and well, thank you, or did you miss the WHOLE FREAKING DISCUSSION ABOVE?. Anyone is free to put up their own page (call it a thought provoking discussion, or a rant, it's your right!) about Malamanteau, Wikipedia editors, xkcd, and whatever the heck they like. No one is making it a punishable offense to talk about it, write about it, or have the word tattooed on their bums if they so wish. There are places for people to express their *opinion*. Wikipedia, however; is not and never should be one of these places. So keep discussing, nurture freedom of speech, but don't let Wikipedia become a muddled mess in the name of free speech.User:pacWiki —Preceding undated comment added 23:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC).

Nice sentiment. Also hopeless IMHO.-G (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Orwell? Aren't you trying to quote Martin Niemöller? -- (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What is up with this?

Whatever happened to the rule that said people could ignore rules if the article improves Wikipedia, because as insignificant as this may seem, it could at least be made into a simple article taking up hardly any of Wikipedia's precious space while still pointing out some information.

Ignore that rule. -- (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki mostly ignores that rule now. Wikipedia is decaying into bureaucracy and obeying rules has trumped common sense. --Calibas (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
How does this article make wikipedia better? The only people who have heard the term malamanteau will be able to get just as much information from the XKCD comic as they can from any article. Maybe in a month when the word has some sort of history besides "Randall made it up to make a strawman argument about overusing words on wikipedia" an article will serve some purpose but for now we really don't need it.-- (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It improves wikipedia in the simple sense that an article that people expect to find there does in fact exist. Even if the article stated that the word doesn't officially exist, I fail to understand how the existence of this article would harm wikipedia. Not every article has to have 50 references and 20 sections. This drive for quality over quantity has gone completely overboard and has betrayed the spirit in which wikipedia was started. Explain to me how over 90k views and 60 watchers doesn't warrant an article. It's an ego thing, nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't take anything away from Wikipedia. What is taking away from Wikipedia is wasting all this energy on trying to remove the article. --Calibas (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The real discussion is about "WP:Notable"

Malamanteau is not really the issue here, the flame war and interest this word are a symptom of a much larger and problematic issue: the WP:NOTABLE policy.

Storage is extremely low cost now, there are open source tools like hadoop and hypertable, for managing 100s of TB of data. A couple more TB of text doesn't really cost that much. It is ridiculous (in my opinion) that Wikipedia rulemongers still perseverate about "notable" while technology could eliminate the issue. While the policy has extremely strong reasons to exist, and with other policies, makes for very high quality wikipedia, this policy is now hampering the usability of the service.

There is an easy solution that maintains the notability of published articles, yet allows for other articles to be created and used. I've been saying this literally for years now. Simply allow all articles except trash and spam (create policies for exclusion, not inclusion here), but put non notable (new) ones in a different, lower class or harder-to-access category. As things/articles become "notable" BY QUANTITATIVE METRICS (read: no human decisions) have the software automatically graduate articles into the mainstream encyclopedia. I've said this over and over and over - but no one at Wikipedia seems to care to fix the obvious and glaring reason that Malamanteau is an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmd2121 (talkcontribs) 23:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of Wikipedia's notability policy, I don't see why we can't agree that this is not notable on its own. Put it under xkcd, add a redirect, and call it good. The only reason this should "need" its own page is because the xkcd mockup exists, which is silly. Nick Vanderweit (talk) 00:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This response is exactly why WP:NOTABLE is such an issue, as a fundamental and ingrained problem with the people involved with editing and maintaining Wikipedia. I came to WP to find the article on this word. Lots of people are, and WP is completely failing them. I wanted to know what it meant, it's origin, and all the other great things WP can provide about words. Instead I have 25 pages of flaming rants and argument over a policy, wasted time by hundreds of people, and no article at all. Jmd2121 (talk)
There isn't really a history. Randall made it up. Go to his blog or something if you're that curious. WP is nice, but it's not supposed to explain every unfunny joke. If this becomes a recurring theme in XKCD then it might deserve its own section on the XKCD page, but not its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Jmd2121, I know you want information on everything and expect Wikipedia to provide that, but that doesn't mean everything needs its own page. Just because a word got made up on a webcomic doesn't mean everyone needs to rush to Wikipedia to make a page on it. Make a section or blurb on xkcd, and add a redirect. Nick Vanderweit (talk) 01:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Frankly I don't care if this word has a dedicated page or not. A page, or a reference, or coverage, or redirect to the right place, the organizational solution is not the issue for me. The issue for me is that the WP:NOTABLE is a hammer used regularly to prevent information from being in WP, at all. Useful, accurate, and verifiable information that people want. Given that we are now a few *days* in and this particular word is still unresolved is the perfect example of the issue. The issue is that WP:NOTABLE policy *creates* controversy; it wastes people's time arguing about what is notable and what is not. It allows admins to censor. Nick: What's the problem with having pages on any topic people are interested in, as long as the page is presented in the correct context? Why does information have to have history to be useful and relevant? In fact, having information available in a central, group editable form quickly, within a matter of hours is far more valuable that having days and days of arguments over an arbitrary policy. Ending WP:NOTABLE and replacing it with technology solutions would be a nontrivial change in how WP works. I'm not suggesting that all pages would be equal were WP:NOTABLE ended, but rather different pages have different status levels that correspond to the correct level of importance. It's not like pages cause causes a serious IT issues.Jmd2121 (talk) 02:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've never posted before. I'm not a member of your "community." But I use Wikipedia regularly, and I can no longer keep silent. I for one am extremely tired of wanting more information on a topic only to find that the topic has been deleted from Wikipedia because it is not "notable" enough. If I want to learn about something, it's notable to me, and I don't understand why people expend time and effort deliberately preventing me from having that information by deleting articles. This happens to me with insulting frequency, and is certainly not limited to xkcd. I can only see these deletions as insulting to me even more insulting to the people who spent the time and effort creating the article in the first place. Clearly the topic was "notable" to the author, and clearly it is "notable" to me, the reader who is looking for information on the topic. That so many of my interests are not "notable" enough for Wikipedia comes with the condescending implicature that I'm not good enough to be considered a member of the intended audience of this site. (talk) 11:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Clearly nobody is listening to what I'm saying and is just acting like I'm of the opinion that the information should in no way be on Wikipedia. That is not what I am saying. My point is that it's not notable enough for its own article. Like I've said, if you want that information, there should be a redirect to xkcd. There is no reason why this needs its own article. I'm guessing you won't read this either, so you'll reply with something about how you want information and you won't be able to find the information, thus again missing my point entirely. Nick Vanderweit (talk) 13:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Who cares how many articles there are? This is an online encyclopedia and I see people more and more treating it like it was a dead tree one. (talk) 15:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Nick, I'm sorry I can't stick around to follow up on the discussion, but I've watched and used Wikipedia for years, even watched individual articles, and one of the most annoying things I've seen is the loss of information that comes from merging pages. Usually, it goes something like this:
  1. A page on a topic is created.
  2. For one reason or another, the page gets merged into a more general page in the same field; often it'll become a subsection on the new page.
  3. Someone sees that massive new subsection on the target page, is annoyed that it's disproportionately bulky or dense, and whittles it down to a dense bit of core information. At this point, we've got a small set of points, with no supporting or interrelating information, and it may not have any meaning to anyone who didn't already have the necessary context in mind.
  4. Still later, someone else sees that seemingly out-of-left-field subsection and removes it for it being unimportant, out of place, or simply badly written.
I don't know if that's what those other guys were thinking, but that's the result I've seen and expect to see when pages get merged. Whether this has any useful bearing on Malamantau or not, I couldn't say, and I won't care past next week. I'm only mentioning this because I'm not sure you've noticed that page merging and redirection on Wikipedia is a kind of lossy compression. --Short Circuit (talk) 15:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I am reading what you are saying, and you are right. It would be entirely acceptable to redirect to xkcd with a notation of this event and the word. Or redirect to another page where this topic is already set-up, and this is just another example. However, someone keeps deleting the reference when it is mentioned on other pages. The cited reason for deleting it off xkcd and Streisand Effect? WP:NOTABLE. You are entirely right, giving it its own page is a bit much, and it can find a home on Wikipedia. And yet people still use WP:NOTABLE as a weapon to delete what they just don't like, even at perfectly reasonable comprimises to the subject. Without the flag of Notable to clothe yourself in, a lot of these editors would be shown as just being censors because this event makes a lot of people look bad (not you, Nick. Your words seem quite concise and well thought). -- (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Streisand Effect

Given the flame wars here, and all the mainstream media coverage now, if the page for "Malamanteau" remains deleted, you might as well delete the entry for the Streisand effect while you're at it. (talk) 00:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Or, maybe, we could include malamanteau as part of the Streisand Effect? I honestly don't see any reason for this page to exist.-- (talk) 00:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The only place on Wikipedia that mention of Malamanteau belongs at the current moment is on the XKCD article. And some people don't even want it there. It's not even about notability or wikipedia policy anymore. This is a personal vendetta between XKCD fans and XKCD-haters-with-wiki-accounts and it's getting ridiculous. (talk) 00:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Considering that this page never should have been made in the first place, I think it's silly to assume that everyone who doesn't want this page to exist is an XKCD-hater. If people are complaining about its inclusion on the XKCD page, then I doubt that they're XKCD haters, why should they care about what goes in that page?-- (talk) 00:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
rʨanaɢ's contributions to the discussion at the XKCD page seem to paint him as a hater rather than a concerned wikipedian. And I'm 71.197 up there, I decided to register, because apparently some rules don't apply otherwise, just to head off the OMGSOCKPUPPET crap before it starts.AKB10 (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
So, because one of the editors doesn't like XKCD that means that we all are only doing this because we hate XKCD? Maybe I should assume that the only reason that anyone who is advocating for the article a a frothing fanboy then.-- (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You mean the same guy who, multiple times, opposed adding a link to a blog critical of xkcd? Yeah man, definitely seems to hate xkcd blindly. LesterRoquefort (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I see a definite anti-xkcd tone in a number of comments. Stuff like "You idiots need to stop bathing Randall's <censored> with your tongue." (I'm paraphrasing, of course) sounds like hater-talk to me. As for the article, I don't care one way or the other. InitHello (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Most of the editors here got involved because they read xkcd on a regular basis. They saw Wednesday's comic, thought, "Oh, hell, somebody is actually going to try this," and ran over to stop the article from being created. ALI nom nom 01:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think specific reference should be given in Striesand effect to the increasing occurrence of Wikipedia's meta-notability issue. This is certainly not the first time a Wikipedia reference in popular media has cause one of these lame deletion wars. In fact, i think xkcd has been responsible for at least one of them. I like the term Wikipedia effect, for when an institution with a notability standard becomes big enough that other institutions start referencing even the arguments about notability, thus increasing their notability. Of course, there may be a better existing term for this. On that note, perhaps there should be a mention of this effect in euphemism (or dysphemism, as it is part of the process of the evolution of language. (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is a workable solution - I just added a (rudimentary) bit to the Streisand page myself. As hilarious as I find this page, there is no justification for the "malanateau" getting its own page. The most notable aspect of the whole incident is this heated discussion, and that is worthy of a two-line reference on the Streisand effect page, nothing more. (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, though simply redirecting to xkcd should really be sufficient if there's a brief explanation of the events. I also can't see why this event isn't notable enough for a line or two in Wikipedia in culture, since there's a whole section devoted to Wikipedia references in webcomics anyway. (talk) 06:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

BBC America? Not THAT BBC America...

Now that this is buried, I doubt how helpful another post will be, but did anyone actually try to vet that "BBC" page? You could simply click through to the page and realize that it's not related to the British Broadcast Corporation by:

  • The style is that of a blog, and definitely not similar to that of any other British Broadcast Corporation venture
  • The text reads like that of a highschooler
  • If that doesn't convince you, it's domain registration is some company called Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

My point is that so far as I know there are no legitimate news sources reporting on this aside from Digg/Reddit-style link aggregatorsJosejuan05 (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's sad that people get fooled by these garbage news sites. Nick Vanderweit (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It's even sadder that very few people can appreciate a nice sundae. Malpercio (talk) 02:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Notable Event

I have a question, even though arguably the word may not have warranted an article or a redirect page does the fact that this has made news in the blogosphere and beyond now warrant an entry?

And who will be the first to draft it? Then, by proxy, we'll have to stick a redirect here to be thorough! (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Cromulent and embiggen have had far bigger impact and they just redirect to the article on the episode that they originated from. This should redirect to XKCD and there should be a link to the strip in question.-- (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau is a strange loop

Just pointing it out. Mac Davis (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Definition of Encylopedia: An encyclopedia (also spelled encyclopaedia or encyclopædia) is a type of reference work, a compendium holding information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge., from Wikipedia. So is the existence of Malamanteau and it's resulting discussion information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Very Yes. Also, glad i'm not the only one who noticed that, Mac (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely information —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure its information, but is it useful information? -- (talk) 08:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is to judge what is useful? You o.ô... most words are redundant, such as the different types of cheese that are out there, but they are mentioned in encyclopedia anyway. The millions of readers of xkcd like it. That should be enough. (talk) 08:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's very simple

If you let this fancruft in, you have to let all fancruft in. Trying to paint the editors who are just applying the rules that have always existed (for the benefit of the Wikipedia project) as ridiculous bureaucratic idiots just because you can't get your favourite thing added is extremely childish. You wouldn't be concerned about somebody's Twilight fan-fiction being deleted from Wikipedia, and this is no different. You already have a repository for xkcd content; it's accessible at the URL If you want to share the content of the comic with other people, then please take advantage of the blogs, forums and social networking sites that are accessible on the Internet. IP 90 219 166 214 (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the fact that there is plenty other fancruft already on Wikipedia. Malpercio (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
And it should be deleted. Its inclusion isn't a double standard, it's just a case of there not being enough manpower to clean up the whole of Wikipedia. It's certainly not a good reason to allow more bad content. IP 90 219 166 214 (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
A comic that actually shows a Wikipedia article about a made-up word is not the same as a made-up word with no Wikipedia-related context. Fancruft is one thing, but pointing curious readers in the right direction (that is, a redirect to the xkcd article) is not the same. Fraxtil (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the thing bothering people isn't the in/not in question as much as the rude and dismissive attitude of some of the editors here. I could quote, but just scroll up and you'll see what I'm talking about. (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

There is very little sense in trying to hold Wikipedia to account for this as a single entity. That reaction can best be described with the word "tantrum". Nobody is going to tell Wikipedia off for being a big meanie, the effort is wasted. IP 90 219 166 214 (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
They didn't get dismissive until they had to delete the article for the second time in an hour and were being insulted. The very first posts were nothing but insults against the mod who deleted the article.-- (talk) 03:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Best put on Slashdot

It would entirely okay with the idea that fictional things do not belong on Wikipedia, period. No fictional characters, no fictional places, nothing.

But that's not the rule. You can find, for example, 'Sunnydale California' on it, the setting of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

But I'm sure there are plenty of TV shows that don't have their setting on there, and if you tried to put them on there, you'd be removed for notability reasons. Why one fictional place is more notable than the other, I don't know.

The problem with Wikipedia is that the rules are totally arbitrary about what is and isn't on there. And enforced in a completely random manner.

Well said Slashdot —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're being disingenuous in calling the rules "totally arbitrary" and claiming they're enforced "in a completely random manner." Many people claim this, and I have yet to see actual evidence of this conspiracy outside of somebody who's sad his article got deleted and wants sympathy. Delude yourself as much as you want, but Wikipedia does have procedures and logical rules in place (no matter how many people will quote that and LOL without providing a rebuttal), and an article about a word that was invented six minutes ago shouldn't have been created. This controversy is fallout from somebody jumping the gun in making the article, and a few other like-minded people following suit. LesterRoquefort (talk) 04:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Then lets change those rules. Is there a wiki page for them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dittsn (talkcontribs) 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Change the rules over a discussion about a made up word? A better solution would be to just contact Randall Munroe and ask him to not reference wikipedia in his strips due to the shit it creates. Frequen-Z (talk) 11:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That's practically highway robbery. A man loves Wikipedia and what do you do? Mac Davis (talk) 13:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You want links to Wikipedia's rules and guidelines? LesterRoquefort (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is inefficient.

The amount of human effort that has gone into this discussion page would have been better spent on more productive and important activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Any ideas on fixing things? -Kizor 04:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Only way to stop it is to let one side win, at least for the time being. I say let the article stay for a week or so until people calm down, then judge the article on how much has been written. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC).
Nice try. ALI nom nom 10:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That would've been a productive idea on the 12th. Good eye. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that this page stopped having a point some time ago. Now we're just having a loud, infuriating argument because a loud, infuriating argument is getting people's backs up. No doubt this illustrates some fundamental truth about humanity, but until that's figured out, it's just annoying. The last time this happened calling it silly, declaring a picnic break and offering tea inexplicably worked, but that was on a casual issue. Now there's a deletion discussion around to inject URGENCY! into the matter, making sure that people find it srs bizns. For the same reason the ever-more-attractive option of closing the page from editing until people grow up and agree to play nice is unlikely to work. --Kizor 17:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey, I tried to bring this topic a nice ice cream sundae break, but no one went for it. Except for that one guy who exchanged compliments with me. He was very nice. Malpercio (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Nope. There were less productive and indeed destructive activities that were prevented by this malamanteau.14:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggb667 (talkcontribs)
I don't know what you mean by that rather aggressive comment, Ggb. But it definitely has something written all over it, and it's not chamomile. Care to explain? ALI nom nom 14:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
And they say Wikipedia doesn't have a sense of humour. I find that most pages I go to at the wikipedia: namespace are full of a generous helping, seconds even, of humor, the sixth sense. Sorry this edit isn't about "improving the article". Huw Powell (talk) 02:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

delete discussion, not speedy

Especially because it may be a short-lived hype, no immediate action should've been taken. Speedy deletion or the current replacement with a redirect is just as much an over-reaction as the creation was in the first place. Why not step down from the admin powertrip for a second, put up a delete request and wait until the hype has died down when you can delete it with nobody caring? Sometimes, it's as if all these deletion flame wars are intentionally created.

All the immediate actions should be limited to clear-cut cases of vandalism and spam. For everything else, the community ought to be able to see the edit history and have time to discuss and come to a consensus. Seriously, don't you see that this is why more and more people consider Wikipedia an intransparent dictatorship? -- (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is starting to sound more and more like Carnival from Logan's Run (talk) 15:13, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Deletion has made this notable

Oh, the irony! The irony! A humble little mention in an xkcd comic has brought to the surface a simmering firestorm over how Wikipedia is run.

Wikipedia has become extremely important in our culture. Unfortunately, Wikipedia editors have come to attach that importance to themselves. Wikipedia now strives to preserve its "purity" -- a purity that any sane observer will note is a joke. The very joke which the xkcd strip was jesting!

Because the point is, Wikipedia is full of such things. No amount of panic censorship will fix it (and invoking "speedy deletion" in this case is plainly panic censorship).

I believe Wikipedia's polices are wrong. Wrongly applied here, and wrong in conception. Wikipedia's highest goal should be to be useful. Not to replace commercial encyclopedias, using outdated, or even updated rules of intellectual rigor. "I looked it up in Wikipedia" is a standing joke, precisely because while there is an enormous amount of highly rigorous material, there's also an enormous amount of mundane trivia, that nonetheless, is the answer to somebody's Google query.

That's not a bad thing. Wikipedia is at times highly rigorous. At times, it is manipulated for political ends. At times it is a platform on which we struggle to present a consensus view of reality. And sometimes it is not.

Wikipedia will never, ever, be a single thing. As a result, merely citing a Wikipedia article will never prove a point.

But an article may lead you to that point. Despite all its flaws, and I do mean all of them, Wikipedia continues. But not on the supposed strengths on which it prides itself.

Rather, it is useful to people asking questions -- most often, I expect, via search engines.

xkcd is here to stay. The notoriety of a single mention in this strip is sufficient to lead people to ask the question "what is this word". The answer WAS simply, "a neologism invented as a joke about Wikipedia itself". And there was never any harm in the existence of such an article! Despite it failing to support the pretensions of the WikipedElite.

But instead, it has caused Wikipedia's autoimmune disorder to flare, and brought out the antibodies (editors) in force. While I believe things will die down, this whole thing of "temporary" is an illusion. Email I sent in the 1970's still floats around the internet.

A hundred years from now, historians studying the explosion of human knowledge will write articles about this word, and what this word reveals about Wikipedia governance, the role of Wikipedia in our society, and the battle between those who would impose order on culture, vs the raw power of culture itself.

I hope they cite it as the day when Wikipedia wakes up, and realizes there has to be a better way to deal with these things than "speedy deletion".

A more useful way. Bob Kerns (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I know you think that Randal farts rainbows, and poops unicorns. That does not make something relevant. If the discussion that's important to you, I ask that you provide another non XKCD related discussion that is archived and categories, not because of the content of the main article, but for the content of the discussion. (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I really don't see how assuming that User:BobKerns thinks "that Randal farts rainbows, and poops unicorns" is relevant to your argument at all. You could be completely wrong, and the user may actually not reverently follow xkcd and Randall's works, and may actually be posting a coherent, useful post. He brings up several good points and you just call him a fanboy and glaze over the rest of it, declaring that this is not the place for the discussion, when really he hits it right at home, it's what this entire thing has boiled down to (minus the incessant flaming between parties, such as the quote from you I provided above.) And for what it's worth, I agree with User:BobKerns.Malpercio (talk) 02:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Completely leaving out any Wikipedia policies, and I mean speaking on a logical level, I think it was perfectly acceptable to delete an article about a word that was created six minutes before the article was created, even if it was featured on a popular comic. The only reason lots of people looked it up was because they missed the point of the comic and thought it was lampooning an actual article, or because they read xkcd and wanted to see if a part of their culture, xkcd, was added to a popular encyclopedia. Anyway, I don't see how an article on Wikipedia would do much outside of verifying those two things, that 1. xkcd fans are persistent in adding references to Wikipedia, and 2. The word was created by xkcd comic #whichever, which people searching for the term would know already, because they almost 100% likely saw the word on xkcd. If they didn't realize that xkcd was making fun of Wikipedia and that it wasn't an actual term, then having no article, and no search results, would show them that it isn't a real term, and thus, that xkcd created the word. Redirect? Maybe, that would definitely get the point across that xkcd created the term, even though I really don't think it deserves much mention on the xkcd article. LesterRoquefort (talk) 03:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm, no, it's just funny.  :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you. I don't understand why these Wikipedians are taking such extreme measures to protect "their" Wikipedia. XKCD created a new word, that created a controversy. This controversy has made the word notable. Create a good article about it, and go along with your lives. Is Wikipedia not a place for knowledge? What's wrong with xkcd causing the creation of an article? I hope some supermod who isn't stupid decides to end this backlash by confused Wikipedians and allow the creation of this article.Iamjp180 (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
User:BobKerns certainly the best post in the entire talk page. I wholeheartedly agree, and always have. Mac Davis (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Aiyaiyai. xkcd is definitely notable. Words made up for the comic are not notable enough to have their own article, particularly not if that article is nothing more than a parody. The word itself is not a notable encyclopedic subject. Keep it on the xkcd wiki. ALI nom nom 14:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You don't understand. The word is, and I quote, "a notable encyclopedic subject" not because how it came to be but because of this discussion we had. That is just it's origin (that should also be put in the article so that later generations know how it came to be). Graphnode (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Bob's comment could not be more dead on. Funny that a wikieditor/enforcer would prove his point by continuing to regurgitate the exact same protocol-worship as a response. And some of the editors that posted on here have shown exactly why wikipedia is declining by mindlessly posting seventeen policy references every time someone tries to engage in an actual human discussion. I hate to make an over-generalization, but can wikipedia editors actually *think*? Sure, some do, but they're vastly outnumbered. I'd like to see more intelligence and reason in such a group. This page speaks for itself. The insecurity and bitterness of some editors is remarkable and I can't help by notice. Certainly they're totally objective (sorry, "NPOV") with comments like "all xkcd fans should get a job!" and the dozens of other similar comments I witnessed in the past two days. Just following protocol, right? Sad that wikipedia devolved into the counterproductive and self-important police state that it has become. I am glad that their efforts to suppress the dangerous "Malamanteau" are short-sighted and ironic, and look forward to the day that it becomes commonplace due to their efforts. The wit of that comic is so much greater now... even he probably couldn't have imagined how much that comic would have to say about wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HansGrundlemann (talkcontribs) 16:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
The wit of the comic that pointed out that Wikipedia overuses "neologism" and "portmanteau" when there are only 1,410 and 2,025 results, respectively, out of 3.2 million English articles? The comic that, after criticizing the use of the word portmanteau, failed to explain how better to describe a portmanteau than with the word portmanteau? I'm sorry if I don't see the wit. LesterRoquefort (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Then yes, you are one of those who did miss the wit and point of it. Do I seriously have to explain why? It wasn't *literally* about the overuse of those two specific words... uuughh. I'm not going here now. This is draining. Things aren't really funny if you have to deconstruct them to explain them to someone. Anyway, thanks for continuing to prove the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HansGrundlemann (talkcontribs) 16:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Also interesting was the choice to ignore absolutely every point in the above discussion except the minutiae about those two words. I'm wondering if this could be somehow more ironic? It's almost as if wikipedia editors are actively trying to enforce the negative stereotype. The levels of irony are piling higher and higher...
Please stop associating everything anybody says to you on Wikipedia with Wikipedia editors in general. It really makes you seem super paranoid. LesterRoquefort (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not paranoia if they're really out to get you. Graphnode (talk) 21:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Bob! Well done, sir! What this has brought to the surface is the different interpretations of what Wiki is to each of us. For some, it is a collection of all things they could be interested in researching. For others, it is a repository of knowledge and information that is vetted, accurate, and correct. I concur that the issue is not the word; it is the discussion and schism that it's evidenced. That we've now spent 3 days debating the numerous possibilities (including a proposal to rectify the problem), the debate rages. Why? Because fundamentally the users of Wikipedia have different goals. The "powers that be" are following rules established to insure that Wikipedia continues to be a "respectable enough" site for people to learn, quickly, about a particular topic. I would argue that the vast majority of users, however, believe that it should be a collection of all knowledge. Including information about Pokemon.
That said, let's focus on resolving the problem at hand (malanateau). The broader discussion about the "meaning" behind Wikipedia will be much more involved, much nastier, and far longer than this debate. Bob's got the right of it. And let's keep it classy, folks. "Don't be a dick". No personal attacks about fan-boys or Wikinazis or whatnot. Let's keep the debate focused on the topic, not the people behind it. Just my $0.02. Bdevoe (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Kinda going off on a tangent, but part of the issue here is whether the term "malamanteau" enters long-term use or fades into obscurity. Something which might help sway the debate, and which might become an interesting feature for Wikipedia, would be a counter for each definition, showing the hit rate (hits per hour perhaps) over 24 hours, a week, a month and even a year. The data collected could also be used to compile a "most popular" page for the site. (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This already exists: Colorred (talk) 16:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

A solution appears?

Can we try this;

Restoring this edit.

  • A comic "Malamanteau" (591) about a nonexistent Wikipedia article named Malamanteau prompted a Wikipedia discussion over whether the comic was notable enough to merit an article about the word. [3]

And then directing the redirect of Malamanteau to that point. It was well put together sentence and refernced by a non-user contributed website (read:digg/reddit/slashdot). We are talking like 300 characters at most. It should satisfy all sides, and then maybe we can put this whole business to rest and work on more important articles instead of continuing these shenanigans.

Also worth note, not that GHITS has been used to determine notability in a long time, but searching for "Wikipedia Malamanteau" returns "About 70,500 results". We do not need to debate the use of WP:NN for a single sentence do we? It is a mere bullet point in an article, not an entire article itself. Notability applies to whole articles, not redirects, nor bullet points within articles. And like it or not, the controversy that was stirred up as a result of this kinda makes it "notable" in on itself. (I know that is circular logic, but it still makes sense when you think about it) If we have enough opinionated contributors and commenters on both sides of the field, willing to fight this out tooth and nail (it seems at times) for several days after the article in question was taken down, doesn't that say something about it? It isn't quantifiable by any of the WP:NN means, but that in itself is really not a quanntifiable method of determining notability anyway! -Deathsythe (talk) 13:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense to me. If the debate is about setting up an independent page for Malamanteau, just make an edit to the XKCD page and redirect to it. The debate itself is notable enough for a mention within the article, especially since that was the whole point of the strip to begin with.
Everybody needs to take a step back, breathe a little, and realize this is is not the most important thing in the world to get upset about. Captain Biggles (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Normally, I'd say this calls for a tautology club reference, but I fear that that would bring some fierce outrage down upon my skull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
That edit actually has two sources - the other one's the Long Island Press. I agree that this is a good idea - I've been saying for a long time that two reliable sources and multiple other Google hits is far more than enough to merit a single sentence (disclaimer - I wrote that edit).
Sadly, if it were a solution, it would not have been reverted in the first place, and there would be no need for Talk:Xkcd#What was wrong with this edit --Zarel (talk) 16:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikibroidery is a perfectly cromulent malamanteau to describe this discussion

Or shall I say wikibroglio (the proper portmanteau)?

Seriously: the short definition as is in the xkcd wiki belongs at Wiikitionary. Much like the portmanteau word, which deserves a page because of its curious genesis and place in literature, this discussion already warranted it more than enough to have its genesis and place in pop culture registered, which is, to my understanding, one of the goals of Wikipedia. This discussion itself is to be part of the wiki page.

Although the word has been just coined, it also makes sense and has a definite meaning, so it is useful to teachers, grammar nazis, and to have fun.

This is also being linked by countless news sites, getting more notorious by the minute.

Brazilian Joe (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this one of the modes of which a language expands? Not saying it's a particularly good expansion (method can be abused, perhaps too easily). Coining a new word or altering a definition does not have to be as involved as SouthPark (episode on bikers and the word "fags"). It can and in most cases should be a organic change to the language as a whole. (well except for French for some reason...) Jcforge (talk) 16:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, liking a web-comic really hard is how language expands, as opposed to the new word actually being used in any capacity(!) For future reference, a language doesn't expand "of a mode". You mean "by which". (talk) 20:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi, can anybody tell me about the ontological and semantic properties of malamanteau? How does one determine the validity or existence of a word? I believe "Notability" is not an irreducible primary of a rule, but simply a manifestation of our mutual wishes to have a wikipedia of articles of verifiably valid, existent concepts. If this is true, we would want to step out of the traditional framework and come to an agreement on the validity or existence of the word, not simply if other people have talked about it—unless that is what creates a word. In this case malamanteau is notable only for being a strange loop. All else follows. Mac Davis (talk) 13:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Do we need to invent a neopropism or portlogism for Organized/Gang Stalking to get attention here?

This is a fascinating (and humorous) glitch in the Wikipedia disinformation matrix. If a made-up word with an amusing and self-referential definition can make it into Wikipedia through sheer force of memetic noteworthiness, why is an alleged covert & global whistleblower and dissident torture/eradication program not worthy of inclusion? Surely Organized Stalking can at least redirect to a page about organized stalking? Jeremystalked (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia?

As a place for the masses to attain information, not having an article on something that is clearly being sought out is a disservice to users.

This has nothing to do with providing unreferenced information, the information in the article should clearly indicate what someone would need to know about "Malamanteau" (who created it, discussion of it, supposed meaning) so that if my grandma happens to search for it, she can quickly see whether it's important to her or not.

One argument someone came up with was "it may be notable now but it doesn't mean it will be in 3 months". That argument disregards the fact that IF something does become irrelevant in 3 months it can be deleted, we can't see in the future, so no need to speculate. Because I can assure you, many things on Wikipedia won't be very notable in 10 years (who draws the line in time?).

As it stands, Wikipedia is doing a horrible job at fulfilling it's promise for this article. The admins serve for the masses not to the masses. Given true information with references, people are perfectly competent to make their own decisions.

As the web gets more dynamic, connected, and faster, things will become notable and irrelevant faster -- wikipedia needs to factor this in when thinking about what information to provide to users. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The Wiki overlords will decide for you which information is important. --Calibas (talk) 19:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I think that's a neat good point... does Wikipedia (do we, should I say?) pretend to summarize all the knowledge of "our times" -including every trend and meme-, so that every forthcoming citation could be found, or to serve to a higher purpose for generations to come, filtering which contents are "here to stay", just like classic Encyclopaedia? Time to choose? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
This is just silly. Not everything anyone could possibly search needs its own article. I agree that Wikipedia should be "a place for the masses to attain information," but you act like the only way to do that is to have an article on everything. I'm still firmly of the opinion that we need a redirect to xkcd, and the aforementioned article should contain a brief blurb on "malamanteau." Creating an article just because somebody with a webcomic made a mockup of it doesn't improve the quality of Wikipedia. Nick Vanderweit (talk) 04:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

How to handle this in the future

First, don't delete the article. If it's something that's gonna attract a whole lot of attention, don't do anything at first. Let the article stand and people can waste time discussing whether or not it should be deleted and what should be done. Once the debate has finally died down, wait another month or so, then very quietly delete the article or merge it with another article. Take a hint from the politicians and don't touch a controversial topic until the furor has died down.

People keep saying that nobody's going to remember the word malamanteau in a couple months, so wait until it's forgotten to delete it. Wiki's admins would do well to learn from this fiasco. A lot of people think they're rule-crazy nuts (one of the reasons I stopped contributing much to Wikipedia) and they've done nothing here but reinforce that idea. --Calibas (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

This is wise advice. There's nothing gained by giving an entry the bum's rush unless it's clear vandalism. · rodii · 20:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Another option is not to treat your community's in-jokes as golden and cry when they aren't treated as an exception to Wikipedia's rules. (talk) 20:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of deleting from the backlog of 2-year old garbage instead of new stuff. Much less drama that way. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Score, Explodicle! Without a doubt, it is the recency of this deletion and "edit" war that's caused the hubbub (plus my comments above about the expectations of what Wiki is). It's just sad that work is going undone because of the need to get one more snipe in on the "slavish fanboys" or the "Wiki censorship overlords" (paraphrased, not quoted). Bdevoe (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Work is going undone because of the massive time sink that occurs whenever Q Random Internet Denizen discovers Wikipedia's notability policy for the first time and feels the need to try to get it overturned on the basis of whatever he saw on a webcomic the other day. This isn't the first or the worst time that this has happened. Hell, it's barely the worst example to do with this particular webcomic. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Application of Event notability guidelines

While perhaps the Malamanteau article was not notable, at this point, the Malamanteau-on-Wikipedia-event may meet the notability criteria for events. Its background section seems an approximation of the arguments of the keep and delete camps. That guideline's Breaking news section warns that WP is not a crystal ball and recommends "that editors start a section about the event within an existing article on a related topic if possible, which may later be split into its own article if the coverage suggests that the event is independently notable." It would appear, then, that adding a line to the xkcd article to encapsulate and reference the Malamanteau event is entirely compatible with notability guidelines.

Further, although redirecting Malamanteau to that line is not strictly conforming with WP:NN, it would be entirely compatible with WP:IAR in the sense described at both WP:WIARM and WP:UIAR of "If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should be ignored." (quoted from WIARM, ibid.). Specifically, redirecting Malamanteau to the article text describing the event would make the encyclopedia work better by directing inquiries from whatever segment of the readership makes them to the information they're seeking. It is admittedly an incremental improvement over direct search, but it is an improvement.

Finally, the events notability guideline suggests, "Articles about breaking news events [...] are often rapidly nominated for deletion. As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary." This advice has been supplied independently and repeatedly, above. The cited guideline appears to recommend the existence of a Malamanteau page describing the Malamanteau event (that is marked for eventual deletion, pending resolution of the event's notability).

Thus, three proposals seem to follow from WP:EVENT:

  • Add a malamanteau line at xkcd -- already seems to be done, although its retention is under discussion. I've reproduced the relevant portion of the above argument at Talk:Xkcd#What was wrong with this edit.
  • Adjust the current malamanteau edit at Xkcd#Inspired activities to include a link target (Template:Anchor) and redirect article Malamanteau to that anchor.
  • Restore article Malamanteau, mark it for deletion, and wait a bit.

-- (talk) 03:54, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not yet finding enough information online to indicate that the controversy has gained much notability. An odd word here, an odd word there, but that's really about all there is, near as I can tell. It seems to be pretty well in-house at the moment. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 08:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Let the webpage be built

Can you please let it be built. Randall isn't going to say "Oh my now I can make a new word every week and fill up Wikipedia forever!"

At the least forward this to a new page like Creations of xkcd and give it a section for, malamanteau, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Malamanteau doesn't appear on the XKCD Wiki. Because of that, there's no reason to add it to Wikipedia since not even XKCD fans consider it notable enough to put it on their own wiki. -- (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Malamanteau is there: (talk) 15:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that's not the official xkcd wiki. --Scgtrp (talk) 11:01, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
What's "official"? (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

All that matters: the General Notability Guideline

Wow, this is too funny. Monroe must be having a ball. But seriously, let's keep our heads. The fundamental basis of wikipedia is the GNG. A subject deserves an article if it has been the subject of multiple secondary sources. So on that basis, Malamanteau will not have its own article, ever, because it's not a real word, and is supremely unlikely to become one just because of this joke. Malamanteau controversy might get itself over the line if this keeps up, but that's unlikely. Once again, it would have to satisfy the GNG in its own right. XKCD and other "high traffic sites" are not reliable sources. But a redirect? Well, maybe. It should link to an example on life imitating art or Wikipedia culture rather than XKCD, in my opinion. Personally, I read the cartoon, thought "there can't possibly really be a Wikipedia article on that", and here I am. It'd be nice if this talk history were preserved!

This reminds me of an event a few years ago where the Aussie government got some bad press because someone in their department had reverted some mild and inoffensive vandalism on a politician's page. I think it ended up being a mention on a "Issues with Wikipedia" type page, but obviously the "nickname" didn't belong on that person's page, reliable sources or not. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

There's also Wikipedia is not news. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That too, you're right. This article has an awfully high bar to clear. It should probably end up getting salted. There's a lot of fanboyism and gaming going on here. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
That's all very nice, except for the minor thing that this isn't an article, so WP:GNG (and everything else you've said) doesn't apply. Try WP:R. I'll put money on that this redirect stays, though I'm not sure where it'll end up redirecting to.
P.S. WP:R#KEEP trumps the delete rules, and this redirect satisfies provisions 2, 3, and 5. --Zarel (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I do not see WP:R#KEEP 2, 3, or 5 being valid in this case. #2 talks about accidental linking, and #3 talks about aiding in searches. However, such a redirect needs a valid target that discusses the term in the first place. If the redirect goes to xkcd and that article has no mention of "malamanteau", then the redirect actually causes harm because it circumvents the native search utility which would find the term in other articles. In addition, if "malamanteau" does not exist in any article, then there better not be a redirect for it. #5 talks about someone finding it useful to them. I don't believe I've heard anyone say it is useful to them, and I have given reasons that deleting it would be more useful to more people. No reasons left to keep, then WP:R#DELETE comes into play. QED - UtherSRG (talk)

C'mon people, get over it

The problem with this stance, which indeed affects most user-generated content based websites is that no one has a final say about anything, so people just go and bitching and ranting their asses off all day, rather than coming to an eventual consensus. Someone should step in and either lock the article for good or leave it be. I for one see no harm in keeping a page that is mostly harmless, specially since the discussion thread has already escalated to unimaginable levels of stupidity, but if that's not acceptable just hold a poll or whatever. Otherwise this talk page will just keep on sponsoring free rides for trolls or acting as a scapegoat for people's frustration over the inadequacies of the editing standards of Wikipedia.

Required Background Reading / Finding the correct place to voice your concern

Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not
Wikipedia: Notability ( WP:NN, WP:N, WP:NOTE )
Wikipedia: General Notability Guideline ( WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV )
Wikipedia: Ignore All Rules ( WP:IAR, WP:IGNORE )
Wikipedia: What "Ignore all rules" means ( WP:WIARM, WP:IAR? )
Wikipedia: Understanding IAR ( WP:UIAR )
Wikipedia: Notability (events) ( WP:EVENT, WP:NEWSEVENT, WP:NNEWS )
Wikipedia: Deletion policy ( WP:DP, WP:DEL )
Wikipedia: Deletion guidelines for administrators ( WP:DGFA )
Criticism of Wikipedia
Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia

If you find yourself in the position of genuine frustration with the way this (non-)article was handled and feel obliged to do more than adding a snarky comment, please make sure that you have sufficient understanding of the (non-)bureaucratic workings of Wikipedia and voice your concern in the correct channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. ^ Reference Reddit Article
  2. ^
  3. ^ Pareso, Brad (13 May 2010). "Nothing But Net: The Net at 10 a.m.". Long Island Press. Long Island. Retrieved 2010-05-13.