Talk:atgnat

I've seen this word being widely used, and was surprised to see that few dictionaries defined it. TCav 17:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you quote any of these dictionaries? Bogorm 21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I said that few dictionaries defined it, because I couldn't find any, but I didn't do an exhaustive search. I can't quote those dictionaries because I couldn't find any. Since I could create an entry for atgnat in this dictionary, I did. If you want an example of the word in use, see . This is not the only place where the word is used, but it's the only place on the internet I have found where the word is actually pronounced. TCav 03:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

SemperBlotto changed the entry from my initial 'Noun' to 'Initialism'. I have subsequently changed that to 'Acronym'. TCav 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

There is also a related word, atgnwt, for 'All The Good Names Were Taken', but atgnwt suffers from a shortage of vowels, making it difficult to pronounce, and therefore, not a very good acronym. TCav 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We are looking to see whether the word has become part of the language. The process requires that we find citations of the word in use (not a mere mention) recorded in verifiable, durably archived sources. That is considered to exclude ordinary websites and blogs. Books, scholarly articles, newspapers and magasines, and usenet are considered acceptable. I've looked and not found much except a couple of usernames, which don't count. Give me some ideas where I might find this in use. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerry Pournelle has responded to an inquiry I made, stating that he used the word 'atgnat' in one of his columns, though he cannot be certain that he originated the term. I beleive I remember it from one of his columns in InfoWorld some time ago. Would that be sufficient for "instances in durably archived media"? TCav 04:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We need the quotation itself, with the usual citation info. for three quotations. Infoworld is plenty good enough. I wasn't expecting The New Yorker. DCDuring TALK 04:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV — failed
I've not seen this before. Any takers? (I've changed it from a noun to an initialism) SemperBlotto 17:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, I think I might have invented this independently. I definitely remember using it (with reference to IRC channels/nicknames and domain names) some years ago. But there's practically zero evidence on Google, let alone G.Books or Usenet. I'd say delete it. Equinox 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 'Atgnat' is all over the place. There's a band named 'Atgnat' ( despite countless excellent contributions by Dave Barry. :-) ). There's a media company called 'Atgnat' (whose website defines and even pronounces 'Atgnat' as an acronym, not an initialism, btw.) There are multiple DJs that include Atgnat in their monikers. It is also a very popular screenname. It clearly meets the criterion of Clearly widespread use. 'Atgnat' has appeared many times over the years, but perhaps the clearest evidence of its use spanning at least a year is the WHOIS record for the domain 'atgnat.com', which indicates that the domain was "Created on: 07-Aug-07". 'Atgnat' means something, and therefore should be defined somewhere. TCav 14:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Because it is not colloquial one would expect to find instances in durably archived media. We usually reserve the "widespread use" for especially hard-to-distinguish uses, for almost entirely colloquial usage, and to save labor (often where the rfv is arguably mistaken). I think this needs some citations to show it has truly "entered the language". DCDuring TALK 16:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I sumbit that 'atgnat' has entered the lexicon, but with the general usage as a proper name, and most people exposed to the word are unaware that it actually means something. I think that, all by itself, should be enough reason to keep it here.TCav 23:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should it be considered a proper noun? Also we have no rule that makes proper nouns automatically eligible for inclusion. Please see WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jerry Pournelle has responded to an inquiry I made, stating that he used the word 'atgnat' in one of his columns, though he cannot be certain that he originated the term. I beleive I remember it from one of his columns in InfoWorld some time ago. Would that be sufficient for "instances in durably archived media"? TCav 04:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If it appeared in the print magazine (not just the Web-site), and was actually used (not just mentioned), then that would count as one such instance. But we'd need the actual quote, so that we (and our readers) can see how it was formatted (was it atgnat:, or ATGNAT:?), how it was used (was it really the entire sentence, or was it used like a noun?), and so on. —Ruakh TALK 06:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "If it appeared in the print magazine (not just the Web-site) ...". I dropped my InfoWorld subscription about 18 years ago, so its appearance would predate the World Wide Web (clearly discounting Equinox' claim to have invented it. :-) ) TCav 00:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "... But we'd need the actual quote, so that we (and our readers) can see how it was formatted (was it atgnat:, or ATGNAT:?), ..." Is that relevent? After all, radar: was once RADAR:. TCav 00:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's relevant. NASA: has not become nasa:, and BYOB: has not become byob:; not everything that can happen, does happen. (There might actually be uses of byob:, but obviously it's not supplanted BYOB:.) So it's important that our documented examples show (among other things) how it was actually formatted, not how it could be. (Arguably a citation that puts it in all-caps wouldn't even count for the lowercase entry, but I'm not a hardliner on that point. As long as they're clearly the same word, I for one am prepared to be flexible on that, but we do need to be honest with our readers.) —Ruakh TALK 00:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I regret to say that Jerry Pournelle has not responded since our initial exchange, InfoWorld's on-line archives do not go back far enough to include the reference to 'atgnat' that I remember, and I haven't been able to track down or solicit any additional citations. TCav 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Deleted with a sad backward look. Equinox ◑ 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)