Category talk:Fanciful 19th century American coinages

RFD discussion: August 2016–March 2017
Eh? What is this, I don't even... A very fanciful category for sure, but it seems silly and rather subjective. And if this is kept, for some reason, it should be renamed to include the language name "English". —CodeCat 22:27, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's necessarily subjective. I would move the appendix to the user namespace because the red links might prove useful. Straightforward delete. Not sure what else to say. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's kind of a high-falutin' handle for some of the items Mencken has recorded in The American Language. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as stated and referenced at Appendix:Fanciful 19th century American coinages, these are largely recorded in the Dictionary of Americanisms (1848), by, some surviving until The American Language (1919) by Mencken. I appreciate that the category discombobulated CodeCat, but I think the multiple reliable references are quite a sockdolager. I don't mean to hornswoggle anyone into anything contrary to our policy and norms, and keep bloviation in check. I just hope this group isn't forced to skedaddle ;(
 * Move the appendix to userspace per Renard, or incorporate its redlinks into WT:RE. Delete the category. - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep in some form; is appendix appropriate/sufficient?
 * This is a distinct group of words, and are of interest to readers: someone reading about may reasonably be interested in, as a contemporary American coinage of the same, fanciful type.
 * Appendix:Fanciful 19th century American coinages is well-referenced, and demonstrates this exact group is of linguistic interest; most dramatically, the etymology and usage of and its context is of historical interest for understanding the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
 * This certainly deserves some grouping in Wiktionary, though I don't know which form: I created a category as standard grouping mechanism, but perhaps an appendix with a list and links to the appendix is more sufficient and appropriate.
 * To emphasize, this is not a personal list (I'm at best vaguely familiar with the words), and should not be relegated to a user page: it's a referenced collection based on multiple, reputable sources by professional linguists.
 * Quoting World Wide Words: "Absquatulate":
 * The 1830s — a period of great vigour and expansiveness in the US — was also a decade of inventiveness in language, featuring a fashion for word play, obscure abbreviations, fanciful coinages, and puns. Only a few inventions of that period have survived to our times, such as sockdologer, skedaddle and hornswoggle. Among those that haven’t lasted the distance were blustrification (the action of celebrating boisterously), goshbustified (excessively pleased and gratified), and dumfungled (used up).
 * Absquatulate, meaning to make off, decamp, or abscond, has had a good run and is still to be found in modern American dictionaries.
 * To summarize: this is of interest to casual readers, this is of interest to linguists, and this is well-referenced. It deserves to exist in some form, to help these users.
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * What are the criteria for inclusion in this category? 19th century and coinage are clear enough, but what does 'fanciful' mean in this context? Hw fanciful does something have to be to be included? What happens when you think something is fanciful and I think that it isn't? What next Category:Interesting 20th century English coinages? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, of course, because this is as silly as it is subjective, and really is more of a personal logophilic project than under a dictionary's purview. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete in favour of an appendix. It’s still interesting, but doesn’t really deserve an entire category (in my opinion). — (((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 05:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)