Talk:bigotgate

RFV discussion
Contributor defined it as a proper noun. Any applicable standards other than attestation? DCDuring TALK 01:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe it falls under Criteria for inclusion. My vote is to delete it, given that it's not even a year old, but if people do want to keep it, it could potentially be cited from . (I haven't investigated to see whether any of those are refereed academic journals, but it seems plausible that at least one is.) —Ruakh TALK 02:31, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I was going to delete it as a protologism - but it is already in some UK dictionaries. SemperBlotto 07:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have recently read somewhere that Collins (I think) is now making it a policy to include some neologisms in new print editions to increase timeliness, thereby providing timely material for press coverage of the new editions. I'd think we'd want to include any otherwise includable neologism that already has dictionary coverage. Attestation might be particularly worthwhile for these to make sure that we capture the actual meaning in use and avoid copyvio. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds quite vile. "Ooh, maybe the kids will give a crap about our boring word-book if we include some words that were invented yesterday." (Update: I mean to criticise the apparent Collins policy, not what you said specifically!) Equinox ◑ 21:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Desperate times (especially in the book business), desperate measures. DCDuring TALK 22:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm particularly upset by "itexticated" (distracted while texting on a mobile phone), which they seem to have invented out of whole cloth. I can't find one match on Google that isn't bragging about the dictionary improvements &mdash; not even a solitary blogger complaining about its non-existence as a result. Equinox ◑ 01:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. I didn't think they would stoop so low as to coin promotable terms. Then we'd better submit all of their new coinages to attestation test. Let's make sure that we have a report of the failed attestation searches in Talk:itexticated. It would be interesting to see whether incorporation of a term in a "reputable" dictionary leads to popular uptake. I'd bet against "itexticated" being around in ten years, but not against it being attestable in two years. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In their defense — some news stories say they added, but others say they added . The latter might actually meet our own CFI: there's a Usenet post from February '09 using it, and there may be recent durably archived news articles using it. Even if they did add , I'd rather assume "mistake" than "fraud". —Ruakh TALK 13:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, intexticated is a horse of a different color. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Although not yet part of CFI, we have a working if dusty framework for keeping such neologisms. According to Votes/pl-2007-12/Attestation criteria, five newspaper articles that used the neologism "independently" would suffice. Even if the word hasn't made it into books, I'm sure that proposed rule must be possible to do in this case, and I would vote to keep. DAVilla 17:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh TALK 16:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * (But citations should be moved to -gate:. < class="latinx" >Ƿidsiþ 18:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC))