Talk:Malamanteau/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Malamanteau. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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 81.157.132.14 (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)

Okay. For provision 2, having a redirect to xkcd will make the creation of a "Malamanteau" article less likely. The xkcd article does mention malamanteaux, so your argument is invalid.

For provision 3, it would aid a search of "malamanteau".

For provision 5, it would be useful to me, and I'm sure it would be useful to many other people.

I haven't heard any of your reasons why deletion would be more useful. Could you restate them (or link me)? --Zarel (talk) 23:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Typical of wikipedia again.

Just as off-topic as the last one. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here we go, entire discussion I was part of was deleted. I give up, and I move on, at this point this isn't an open project anymore. With all this aggravation there's no point even continuing for me to use this site. Once the herd is culled and it's rules reviewed perhaps people will return. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.235.51 (talk) 05:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion you were part of wasn't about how you could make the article better, it was whining about Wikipedia's policies, much like you are doing now. LesterRoquefort (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

This is all the more reason to keep a section in this talk page to redirect people to the necessary background reading, including policy statements and the proper channels for discussing how to fix it instead of painting over it with a thick brush as quickly as possible to hide all evidence. This discussion is not over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.18.92.181 (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice the links at the top of the page. Your notification has been there for quite some time. Don't blame anyone but yourself if you got caught up in the drama. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

"Malamanteau" is NOT notable. My take on the matter.

I was reading the archives over the past few days (actually, since about half an hour after the discussion began), and I must say, I found it hilarious. On one hand, I agreed that there should be something somewhere referencing the word, but really, "malamanteau" didn't, and still doesn't deserve an entire article in and of itself.
The initial main argument (other than, of course, for teh lulz) for it is that, apparently, there are other cases of minor things that have been turned big ("Truthiness", for example). However, as noted on that page, it's not just a random word that some person made up (I have made words up myself, for example "wei", which means "we excluding you", whereas "we" means "we including you"), but rather it's an example of a random word that some person made up that became popular through, not just coverage, but usage in other media. If "malamanteau" were to be used in the New York Times and on Eyewitness News, for example, for the sake of the word itself, THEN it would warrant its own page.

The initial (and still current) main argument against it is that it's just not notable and violates about a dozen guidelines for making new pages. Now, by all means, Ignore all rules, but there is the realization that the 23-word article (plus the 3 words that can be inferred at the end of the second sentence) completely fails to improve or maintain Wikipedia in any sort of way. As someone mentioned before, the entirety of the article can indeed be found here. If it ever comes to the point that "malamanteau" gains usage outside of the xkcd community (perhaps by Social Osmosis), then perhaps it can garner its own section in the xkcd page, or eventually its own page in the astronomically unlikely event that the usage actually becomes widespread. It currently exists as a passing comment in the xkcd's themes section for References to Wikipedia, but only because of the incredible insistence of people here.

The newer argument for having its own page is that apparently "malamanteau" has gained notability in this argument, to which the response is NO IT HAS NOT. The meaning of the word "malamanteau", or examples of it, have barely four or five times been mentioned in the 60+ sections in the archived discussion, and most of those in reference to the single location where it was used elsewhere. In fact, the word "malamanteau" is wholly unremarkable in and of itself -- the word "frood" has been used more times in unique contexts than "malamanteau" has, and yet take a look at the redirect for Frood -- it goes to the page for The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which doesn't once mention the word "frood" or "hoopy" or any of the other couple dozen words that Douglas Adams has invented in his works.
Instead, the controversy has gained MINISCULE notability by nature of this argument. And by "miniscule", I mean "noticed by people who don't follow xkcd or who are Wikipedia moderators/administrators". Again, there has been no significant coverage of the debate by anyone's standards.

What does this mean? It means that this argument really never should have existed in the first place if people used their senses. "Because I want it" is not now, nor has ever been, any sort of valid argument for anything, and "malamanteau" has not gained actual notability because of what it means. If people want the Wikipedia page for it, then make it notable. There are enough xkcd fans out there to start something. I believe that if people decided to spread the word about it, come up with uses for it, examples in everyday life, and made people NOTICE it, then perhaps "malamanteau" could earn its own page.
But therein lies the problem; nobody here really wants to, nobody here takes the initiative to do it, nobody wants to take the time to do any of that, because in the end, we all have better things to do with our time than make popular a fake word that Randall Munroe made up on a whim.

tl;dr: In the immortal words of Ishizu Ishtar on Yugioh The Abridged Series: "Because shut up."
My $0.02 (before inflation).JoeMoron2000 (talk) 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well said sir! - UtherSRG (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Methinks that Wikipedia has a thin skin, and a now proven inability to take a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.129.27.169 (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

An excellent summary of this hilarious issue. The main reason we're even keeping the redirect is to satisfy xkcd readers who would otherwise try to create it.

And to whichever anon just wasted their contribution to give me an edit conflict, Wikipedia isn't a joke encyclopedia. Go have fun over at Encyclopedia Dramatica. ALI ^{nom nom} 16:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for proving Anon's point, ALI. I don't think Wikipedia should be a joke encyclopedia, and I'm happy with the outcome, but language like "to whichever anon just wasted their contribution" is unnecessarily inflammatory. There's no need to get up in arms like some editors did when Randall had the audacity to make a joke on the comments page, and that's part of the reason why the Wikipedia culture handled this event so poorly.

This should have been a simple redirect and lock from the very start, but then some people got offended that we weren't taking Wikipedia seriously enough and argued that even a tiny redirect was too big a concession, and so began the train wreck that was the last talk page.

The other problem this event has highlighted is that Wikipedia culture is somewhat schizophrenic. We proudly proclaim "Anybody can edit!" but when somebody tries to, we tell them to go away until they read dozens of guidelines. --Skrapion (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right. I've been frustrated with the comments and attention paid to this whole issue, and I reacted stupidly. ALI ^{nom nom} 19:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I find your words unnecessarily inflammatory. A significantly large proportion of the sections of the archive were along the lines of "LOL Wikipedia contributors are losers because they think this is important" and they were equally annoying. Even now, what I read from this is mostly gloating. No, malamanteau isn't notable, that's why it's a redirect and not an article; get over it. I, too, have gotten my desired goal of a redirect to the xkcd article and a mention of malamanteau in said article, but writing several paragraphs gloating is simply bad form. --Zarel (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Zarel has hit it spot on. Part of the stupidity of the whole talk page was that Wikipedia gives numbered IPs the opportunity to post "you guys are fuckin ghey heheheh" comments whenever we point out that we're trying to run an online encyclopedia according to certain well-established and debated-out rules. If these numbered IPs were editing our articles in the same spirit instead of posting on this talk page, they'd have all been blocked for disruption and vandalism by now. For what it's worth, the article didn't deserve a redirect, it deserved a csd:a7 and a salt. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Malamanteau" is QUITE notable, albeit perhaps not as a word. Another take on the matter.

I think the assumption many commenters have made that the M-word is merely a joke because it appeared in a comic is both premature and superficial. Rene Magrete's "The Treachery of Images" (reproduced in the WP page on "Self-reference") was similarly dismissed by critics who didn't get the deeper ontological point. The vast number of articles and blog entries, not to mention the record of this very discussion, provides evidence that quite a few people have sensed that there's more here than just a made-up word. Ultimately I think the real issue isn't whether or not to admit the M-word to Wikipedia, but simply that we aren't yet sure what to make of this lingua-topologic oddity. That strikes me as poor justification for trying to deny its existence, whether we wind up understanding it as a word or perhaps as an item of performance art. We obviously can't hide behind the technicality that there are no outside references anymore, and beyond that I'm hearing little more than a pointless squabble of personal prejudices. 99.182.125.96 (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC) (Art Botterell)

Malamanteau resulted in a lot of articles, but a huge number of them were simply linkspam. Now that it's not the number one search, you'll see that the results in Google have shrunk from ~220,000 at its peak to ~132,000 as of this edit, and I really don't see the popularity of the word increasing much from here. Of course, though, the Google results don't determine if an article is worth making -- but you will also notice that there have been very few important and/or professional articles about the word. There was basically just the Slashdot article, which itself used as the basis of the story the fake BBCNewsAmerica site, and the internet column of The Long Island Press. Honestly? I think there were lots of blog posts and results about the word because lots of people like xkcd and lots of people use Wikipedia, not because the word was particularly brilliant or anything. Also, the blog you linked to looks like just another personal blog. LesterRoquefort (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

All you say is true (except for your speculation about other folks' motives, which is your own)... but so what? The point remains that something unusual and, in a number of peoples' opinions, significant has happened here. That there's hardly been time (72 hours?) for scholarly papers to appear doesn't justify closing the books preemptively. The line of argument seems to be that because *I* don't see any significance in something, nobody else's perception can possibly be valid... presumably because *I* can't possibly be mistaken. (And besides, those other folks are just comic fans and we all know how *they* are.) That just strikes me as intellectually impoverished and spiritually sad. As does the rigid insistence that the word is just a pipe... I mean, just a word. 99.182.125.96 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC) (Art Botterell)

My argument is that I haven't seen much notable coverage of the word and that it doesn't have much use, as its definition is so limited in scope. Yes, you can consider it some sort of performance art, but I don't understand why you insist that it is an oddity... I mean, Colbert, who also has a large internet following, has combined words and called people to arms against Wikipedia, and numerous people have done the recursion/self-referencing thing, so I don't see how unique that is. And yeah, apparently all comic fans are a certain way, just as the guidelines of Wikipedia are "Wikipedantic" and the editors "take Wikipedia way too personally," according to your blog post. You are part of the pointless squabble you decry.

Anyway, the comic has been out since midnight on May 12th. There were no significant news articles about it when it was at the height of its popularity, and as for discussion and analysis of the word, well... Language Log posted an article about it, but with no analysis of the word, nothing praising its originality, nothing except to note that Language Log was referenced in the title text of the comic. I still haven't seen much real analysis, but I have seen lots of people attempting to make the word popular by referencing it in a memetic fashion. LesterRoquefort (talk) 05:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's been a good five days and there have been a whopping zero actual news stories about it. Ronnie James Dio died yesterday morning, by the way (I got tired of linking every word, so I stopped at six). Just because only five days have passed doesn't mean that it's gonna get lots and lots of coverage later.JoeMoron2000 (talk) 07:51, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

"Spiritually sad"? We're using Ouija boards for notability now? What we need are reliable, published sources, and we need them before the article gets written. Not some vauge "a number of peoples'"^[who?] who think it's important. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm now getting 300,000 results from Google. And I have found definition/example posts among them. Examples: flustration, confuzzled, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.236.100 (talk) 12:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Lots of blogs. All non-notable. Try finding something in the New York times, CNN, MSNBC, The Wall Street Journal, OED, etc. You know... something notable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Just contradicting the claim that Google is now showing fewer results than it was a few days ago, and the claim that all are merely about the "controversy with no real reference to the word. I agree that there are currently no known "notable" uses or appearances. I do feel that this may change as malamanteau has a rather broader scope than I had initially believed and could actually be useful as a technique. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.236.100 (talk) 01:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're correct about the Google results. My search settings must have been off. Anyway, is confuzzled really an example of a malamanteau? The words "confused" and "puzzled" don't sound alike. LesterRoquefort (talk) 06:21, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Working for a large dutch publisher/news network I could create, or ask a colleague to make an article on the topic that abides to "notability" rules. Will a website linked to a government run public television network be notable? I laugh at you arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.31.232.166 (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Keep in mind that multiple detailed sources are required, though. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... when the page on Wikipedia was created was there an external definition of "Wikipedia"? Which reliable sources defined what a "Wikipedia" was? This is, of course, the ontological chicken-and-egg that makes Malamanteau a noteable event in the evolution of WP. 99.182.125.96 (talk) 03:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC) (Art Botterell)

The earliest version I can find of the Wikipedia article is predated by this New York Times source. Even if we did have an article before the source,

Wikipedia's inclusion standards have become much more strict since 2001,
That particular page might merit an exception for project coordination reasons, and
Malamanteau is completely inconsequential in "the evolution of WP" and has not changed anything whatsoever.

Hope this helps. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Various noteworthy references to Malamanteau

Pleas keep this updated as more noteworthy references should eventually lead to an article

Rocketboom segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcK1m79fkRg
writediteach.com: http://www.writediteach.com/blog/?p=111
xkcd: http://xkcd.com/739/
BBC news: http://www.bbcnewsamerica.com/malamanteau-wikipedia.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.97.215 (talk) 15:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None of those are reliable secondary sources. Especially the "BBC news" thing, it's not the real BBC News. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Please see the consensus at the top of this talk page. Message from XENU^{complaints? leave me a message!} 20:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the stuff at the top

Hmmm, it's not an article to discuss Malamanteau, but to improve the entry. Which, of course is a redirect. Hmmm, how can I suggest to improve a redirect? Maybe with an article. — 69.245.56.215 , — (continues after insertion below.)

Yes, and we that's why we allow suggesting articles. You could also suggest to change the redirect target, if you wanted. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 00:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, the note that the current article is a consensus. Judging by the debates I've read so far, there is not a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.245.56.215 (talk) 18:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A few complaining xkcd fans on this talk page don't override the consensus on Wikipedia as a whole that articles need reliable secondary sources. If you can suggest sources that meet our requirements, we can have an article. --Explodicle (T/C) 22:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You make it seem like xkcd fans arn't "wikipedians". Why are you so damn contemptuous? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.210.118 (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a total elitist jerk. ~~You should totally stick it to me by posting some awesome sources.~~ --Explodicle (T/C) 19:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone did. :-P --Explodicle (T/C) 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

So is the criterion "consensus," however that's measured, or is it meeting "our" requirements? — 99.182.125.96 , — (continues after insertion below.)

Wikipedia has a consensus on its requirements, they are one in the same. --Explodicle (T/C) 04:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention the persistant stereotyping and prejudice about "xkcd fans"? For all the pseudo-rigor affected here, there seems to be a shortage of basic intellectual honesty. — 99.182.125.96 , — (continues after insertion below.)

Indeed. --Explodicle (T/C) 04:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

(And BTW, if we're all being so precise and humorless, what's with the made-up user names?) 02:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC) (Art Botterell) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.125.96 (talk)

User names only appear on talk pages. They're prohibited on the actual encyclopedia section of the site. --Explodicle (T/C) 04:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Still going

This week's "The Word" column in the Boston Globe talks about this word: http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/05/30/one_day_wonder/

21:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuhm (talk • contribs)

It looks like it may meet our notability guidelines.[1] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Would anyone object if I requested unprotection? --Explodicle (T/C) 13:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That looks like a good source for a one-sentence mention in the xkcd article. LesterRoquefort (talk) 14:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. There's never going to be an actual article on Malamanteau, but this source looks good for the main xkcd article. ALI ^{nom nom} 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That boston article can support several paragraphs. Sounds like it doesn't really depend on notability, people just don't want this article to exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, what exactly is notable about this whole issue? That a lot of people read xkcd? That they went and put up definitions on open online dictionaries very quickly? That it parodied Wikipedia? That there was a dispute on Wikipedia about it? I love xkcd too, but Malamanteau is just a stunt word that Munroe made up as a joke. ALI ^{nom nom} 16:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an XKCD guy. Notability is purely based on coverage in secondary sources. See WP:NOTE. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, then, WP:NOTE#TEMP. Let's see if it gets anything more. The only news source we have now is this opinion piece. We can wait. ALI ^{nom nom} 16:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This looks no better than some random blog to me. Just because some random writer for The Boston Globe happens to be a xkcd fan doesn't make it notable. Grue 18:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The author is a lexicographer who is also on the advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation. I don't think she's just "some random writer". --Explodicle (T/C) 19:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

"who is also on the advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation"? The plot thickens! Grue 19:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If we were allowed to write an article with the sources available now, I bet it would pass AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I suspect there would still be a number of WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTNEWS arguments. --Tothwolf (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Those are the arguments they'd use, but if we're not sure, shouldn't we let the community look at the article and decide? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Who's "they"? Personally, I think we've got all the basic information on the xkcd page. Status as an article is irrelevant as long as we've got the redirect pointing to the information. There's not a lot of new things we could include in an article that we're not including in the redirect. What extra info would be in an article that's worth keeping?

...Actually, that might be a good idea. Why don't we try drafting a Malamanteau article somewhere out of mainspace, to see what it would actually look like? That's my main concern. ALI ^{nom nom} 14:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Someone who cares should start a sandbox version somewhere to see if looks worthy. Huw Powell (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's one. Fivexthethird (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Check it, Malamanteau is a word.

Apologies, I dunno how to properly link a link. So here it is. From The Boston Globe. http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/05/30/one_day_wonder/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.226.250 (talk) 12:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

See the above section- we already got it. Thanks! ALI ^{nom nom} 15:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Should be it's own article

Give it a a little time, and "Malamanteau" will be well known enough to warrant its own article, so why don't we just let it have its own article now?

I would explain the word as follows:

The term "malamanteau" is a neologism (new, but not yet commonly used term) for a specific type of portmanteau (blend of two words). It refers specifically to a blend of two words where one of the words is a malapropism (misused, but similar sounding word), and one of the words is a neologism (new, but not yet commonly used term). The term "malamanteau" itself is a malamanteau, being a blend of a malapropism (misused word) and a neologism (new word). The malapropism (misused word) part of "malamanteau" is formed by substituting "neologism", the intended word, with the similar sounding, but misused word, "malapropism". The neologism (new word) part of "malamanteau" is the word "portmanteau", which is itself a neologism. Thus, the word "malamanteau" is indeed a portmanteu (combination word) of a malapropism (misused word) and a neologism (new word). The malapropism part is "malapropism", misused in place of "neologism", and the neologism part is "portmanteau", a neologism (new word) meaning "combination word". "Malamanteau" is a neologism (a new word), and a portmanteau (a combination word), and is formed by combining those two words, albeit, the word neologism is replaced with the similar sounding, but misused word malapropism, making that part of the word a malapropism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelDick (talk • contribs) 05:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it but WP:NOTCRYSTAL hits this area. It's not notable currently, not verifiable, and flys in the face of the current "consensus". To my understanding the following roadblocks are standing in the way of inclusion. 1. Other than "controversy" articles, this word does not have any notoriety. 2. it doesn't have reputable sources 3. The article will need to be more than a stub to get the redirect choice reversed and allow this article to be a full article. Once we have done that I suspect that the community will accept the improvement beyond just the XKCD Reference. Hasteur (talk) 15:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

1) We can have an article which covers mostly controversy (a,b,c). 2) This source is reputable. 3) No one wants to write an article that requires consensus approval by this cabal before appearing; we want open participation and a centralized AfD if its utility is disputed.

I guess when protection expires in a few days this will be a moot point, but I think lifting it even this early would be beneficial. --Explodicle (T/C) 16:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines, coupled with the fact that Wikipedia is not a news source and |Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I doubt an article on the subject would survive AfD, and unless the sourcing improves enormously this ought to remain as a mention in the xkcd article. Hut 8.5 17:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe the Boston Globe article constitutes significant coverage. Since it was written weeks after the publication of the comic, that constitutes enduring notability for WP:NOT#NEWS. Since this source also describes context and controversy (not just the definition), it passesWP:NOT#DICT. But don't take my word for it - let's give the community a chance to write an article. We'll never know until we try. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It was published weeks later. It might have been written at any time before that. Huw Powell (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary

As amusingly entertaining as all this is, whatever problem exists is solvable by simply moving the article to Wiktionary, labeling it either a neologism or protologism. (see following): http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:List_of_protologisms

Reflexive efforts to ban situations resultant from recursion in Wikipedia, surely a real phenomenon, ought to be moderated by more discussion. Such discussion as exists remains nascent at time of this posting.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, you're going to find "Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year" for this word. Not likely. --Yair rand (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I am specifically calling for a suspension or exemption of enforcement of that rule insofar as it is enforced on Wiktionary, for the categories of "neologism," and "list of neologisms" and only for those entries, at this time. The reason being, much like a reporter is taught to write up incidents which occur to the reporter herself in a certain style: (e.g.,"A New York Times reporter on the scene was also injured by pieces of the wreck."), reports on the doings of Wikipedia ought to be seen as "in a popular internet website." I'm rather sure that some sort of Facebook phenomenon might be reported faithfully in the backwaters of Wikipedia, so I don't understand why Wikipedia is any different. Objections related to recursion have not been examined except most indirectly. Mydogtrouble (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that the terminology is "A New York Times reporter", not "a reporter from a popular newspaper". Why, then, should we say "in a popular website" rather than "in Wikipedia"? The rule is to be neutral and detached, not to be intentionally vague. --Zarel (talk⋅c) 10:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)