Talk:granfalloon

RFV discussion: April–October 2015
Same as - needs citations that aren't just direct references to Vonnegut. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I kind of feel that this is a different kind of word. It originates in a work of fiction, but is not a fictional object (like a lightsaber or tricorder), but a word used to describe a real-world phenomenon. I grant that I have yet to find a use that does not mention Vonnegut in connection with the word, but I think that this is similar to the difficulty in finding references to the sociological concept of anomie that don't mention Durkheim, or the theory of relativity that don't mention Einstein. bd2412 T 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Will these 3 do? --Droigheann (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Despite the use of the search term "-Vonnegut", an individual search for "Vonnegut" in each of those works shows that it does appear in proximity to an explanation of the meaning of "granfalloon". bd2412 T 02:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I know. And? So the authors explain the word for the uninitiated, then use it for their own purposes, not like a nonce word. (Incidentally, the second example uses the word on p 18 and only mentions Vonnegut and his definition on p 37, having in the meantime on p 27 felt the necessity of explaining what "innuendo" means.) So what? I can understand there are some rules to enable editors fight hoaxes, but if the advert on the Main Page about "all words of all languages" allows keeping eg brekekekex, Jabberwocky or... this thing, why not granfalloon? --Droigheann (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * came across its claimed use a journal, in a citation in, someone might like to check the citation
 * someone might like to check the citation.--KTo288 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for deleting it; I think that it should be kept despite the tendency to include it with reference to Vonnegut because it is not a "fictional" thing, but a name given to a real thing, albeit in a work of fiction. bd2412 T 13:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Lots of authors do that, though. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights trilogy is set in a sort of alternate universe where things have different (etymologically plausible) names, e.g. "anbaric (electric) light", "gyptians" for gypsies. They're still not words used outside of the work itself and direct references to it. Equinox ◑ 15:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a little different to use a variant name in fiction for something that already has a name in the real world. I don't think there is another word that means quite the same thing as "granfalloon", which is why nonfiction writers discussing nonfiction topics use the term. I think that such use it is more in line with the way writers use terms invented by sociologists or physicists, with reference to the person who coined the term. bd2412 T 15:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the crucial thing is not whether the author mentions Vonnegut to explain the meaning of the word, but how the author actually uses the word. If it is used to refer to some real-world group, and the mention of Vonnegut is only to provide context for the use, then it is like any other use vs. define situation. Kiwima (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the crucial thing is not whether the author mentions Vonnegut to explain the meaning of the word, but how the author actually uses the word. If it is used to refer to some real-world group, and the mention of Vonnegut is only to provide context for the use, then it is like any other use vs. define situation. Kiwima (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * RFV passed. More than three citations using the word, which appear to be independent, are present at Citations:granfalloon. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 19:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)