Appendix talk:English portmanteaux

Various
I don't think this article needs to be deleted. Portmanteaux words are the best of English language, and a list of these is a great idea. However, I can see that the list is actually full of bad choices: assgasm and Blackanese are both bad portmanteaux words, and I could provide plenty more from this list. It would be better if the list were compiled of Joycean and Shakespearean portmanteaux words, not language scraped from the gutters of the internet.
 * And what makes assgasm less of a "valid" word than one made up by the Bard? This list is about showcasing the adapting of language to fit undescribed ideas, not documenting the work of specific authors.
 * Either way I don't understand why it was nominated for deletion. The continued study of language and words is kinda what an open content dictionary is about, no? Besides, I've already used it as a valuable reference on multiple occasions. -- Randall00 19:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I vote to keep it. It is a valuable reference and one if only such resource.--67.188.15.235 15:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed a couple words that, while conceivably portmanteaux in origin, are synchronically indistinguishible from non-portmanteaux words. Eg, "feminoid" is perhaps indeed from feminine+android, but it certainly looks like it's simply the stem femin- (as in "feminine", "effeminate", etc) plus the derivational suffix -oid (as in humanoid, trapezoid, etc). 85.8.12.78 11:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for deletion/Others - kept
Kept. See archived discussion in RFDO running in May 2007 to October 2007. 09:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Restoration
I have restored this list of portmanteaux AKA blends, so it may serve as a source of Wiktionary entries. The appendix may be further cleaned up.

If the consensus becomes that this appendix is no longer a useful source, it can be deleted again after a new RFDO, but please, then also remove the section "Blends" from Things to do. --Dan Polansky 12:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

i agree that this article should be deleted.
This article should be deleted, or have ~90% of the entries trimmed. so many of these are plain stupid and made up on the spot, and the ones that weren't have never been used seriously. Wariooooooooooo (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC discussion: November 2019
Many folk etymologies, uses of prefixes/suffixes and just complete hogwash entries here. I tried my best to clean some of the worst offenders. &mdash; surjection &lang;?&rang; 09:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Appendix:List of portmanteaux
(Kept before in a RFD in 2007)

Even if this page were cleaned up, it would be redundant to Category:English blends, but in its current form it's worse, as it's filled with terms that aren't attestable per the criteria for inclusion, and contained (and probably still contains) complete nonsense (such as compounds and utter folk etymology trash for words that aren't even close to being blends) for quite a long time and is presently only edited by a small group of editors who are obsessed with the idea (and are also active on on en.wp) but who really do not know the idea of quality control and don't care if the stuff they add is wrong. My point is that right now the list is filled with crud and even if cleaned up wouldn't serve much of a purpose. &mdash; surjection &lang; &rang; 18:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Some parallels to this vote (at least in my view): Appendix talk:English idioms (likewise a list redundant to a category), Appendix talk:Fictional characters (open-ended list appendix that developed into a shambles), Appendix talk:Palindromic words (list appendix with unattestable terms). &mdash; surjection &lang; &rang; 18:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ultimateria (talk) 03:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are quite a few red links that definitely need cleaned up, but the list still serves a purpose. Most people don't want to look through all of Category:English blends and see every possible case and alternative spelling. Also, some of the blends are less obvious, so simply seeing it listed in the category doesn't help with knowing the etymology. Enix150 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the redlinks aren't worth pursuing, and that isn't even addressing the straight up wikilinks and other issues (folk etymologies etc.) I talked about. For some context, Enix150 belongs to that "small group of editors" I was talking about in my original message. &mdash; surjection &lang; &rang; 12:04, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. If you look back to 2007 when the RFD decided the page was to be kept it didn't have any redlinks, however many of those words were present although unlinked. At some point links were added. I'm not sure which looks neater, but I agree that many if not all of the redlinked words need to go. Also, if a word is linked to the title of a Wikipedia article, then that means the word is in common use and probably needs a Wiktionary article too. 2600:387:6:807:0:0:0:BB 01:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. 73.157.135.57 00:44, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All the stricken votes are by the same person, whose main account is now permanently blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I guess  delete then Ffffrr (talk) 20:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

RFD-deleted. If anybody is interested in the contents (there are a few redlinks), leave a message on my talk page. --Fytcha (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)