Talk:cowtastrophe

RFD discussion: October 2019–March 2020
"A catastrophe involving cattle" - this is just an obvious pun which has been used a few times over the years. I don't think we want all nonce puns which have arisen independently over the years. - TheDaveRoss  12:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Not too bothered either way but I am almost tempted to say keep: I would want to see adequate citations without the hyphen, though. This search finds some possibly similar existing entries: . Equinox ◑ 12:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)


 * And I believe that a cat-astrophe is a disaster involving cats, right? Mihia (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - stupid words are still words. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not the problem. The problem is that this word is not a real "trend": it's not being picked up by a speaker, then another, etc. We're simply lumping quotes together to fulfil the CFI, but this is artificial. Canonicalization (talk) 19:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep I'd say it's the opposite; it's saying that this is a fundamental part of the language, not just a random artificial trend. It's like when the first Nintendo Wii came out, people probably talked of Wiis without asking what the plural of Wii should be. That a catastrophe involving cows is a cowtastrophe isn't quite as fundamental, but it's still a real aspect of the language as it is used.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the Wii, is also a user-created "pun" and not an official name. The only difference I feel about this "cowtastrophe" is that it's very vague: it could be any kind of cow catastrophe, probably quite different in each situation where the word is used. Equinox ◑ 18:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * cowtastrophe is a fundamental part of the English language? Clearly fundamental has a very different meaning for you than it does for me. Nonce terms should be excluded because they are not fundamental, the usage of this term is both random and artificial, it arose a few times independently for humorous purposes. I use puns all of the time in my daily life, and most of them are dumb and obvious and highly likely to have been used many times before, even though I am inventing them for my own situation. They don't, for the most part, deserve to be recorded in the dictionary.
 * Sure, but that argument is meaningless until you have defined what a word is, if you have a broad enough definition there is nothing which shouldn't be included. - TheDaveRoss  12:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Like other words, cowtastrophe has a spelling, a pronunciation, a semantic sense, a grammatical category, and (as evidenced by the citations in this case) is used by language users in conjunction with other words to create meaningful sentences. I don't think this is an unwarrantedly broad meaning of word. The fact that cowtastrophe is formed via simple punning does not disqualify it as a word. As Trench said way back in 1857, a dictionary is not a delectus verborum and it is not the job of the lexicographer to pick and choose those words that do or do not please him or her. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The formation of the word "cowtastrophe" is a fundamental part of the English language; if it wasn't, it couldn't have arisen a few times independently in the same sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense at all. There are plenty of towns named Essex, and many of them probably have a water department, so the fact that more than one place has called their water department the "Essex Water Department" does not mean that the name didn't arise independently in each of those cases. It isn't like they all named their departments after the first one, it is just an obvious construction. - TheDaveRoss  12:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And Place Type "Department" is a pretty fundamental form of phrase construction in English, and if it formed one spaceless word, it would get an entry at Wiktionary.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There are any number of similar reused puns and wordplays, both in the animal realm and other realms: amoosing, on porpoise, paw-fect, purr-fect, panda-monium, just for the halibut, and so on and so on. I don't know what our policy on these is or should be. Mihia (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As long as we keep eye dialect and similar non-standard spellings, certainly at least alternate spellings for words should be kept. Google Books reveals endless citations for purrfect; deleting it and not alwuz seems weird.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Sonofcawdrey. I know other words have scraped by at RFV even though it seems clear that each of the three users was forming it anew based on e.g. an Ancient Greek term (as in the case of gyneconome, which I am a little surprised I can't find an RFV discussion of, maybe I am just remembering having trouble citing it myself without RFV being involved). AFAICT this is what we have for; add it to the hundreds of words in Category:English nonce terms. If it meets CFI, I don't see a basis for deleting it just because uses are humourous or repeated nonces. - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Found the discussion I was looking for: Talk:cœnæsthesiæ. - -sche (discuss) 09:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * RFD kept: no consensus for deletion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2020 (UTC)