Talk:lukkedoerendunandurraskewdylooshoofermoyportertooryzooysphalnabortansporthaokans

Other than that they were coined by James Joyce instead of George Lucas, J.R.R. Tolkien, Gene Roddenberry, or J.K. Rowling, I don't see how these two words meet the requirements of Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes. Delete or move to an Appendix for Finnegans Wake. — Carolina wren discussió 18:43, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet the CFI. Razorflame 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I strongly favor amending WT:CFI to eliminate the "well=known work" exception to our normal attestation standard. Shakespeare, Milton, Joyce, Nabakov, Burgess, Tolkein, and Pynchon are among the authors whose bad coinages are given a free pass. In this context "bad" means not taken up by anyone else (mentions in literary criticism doesn't count.). I'm sure that if we looked harder at some of our contractions we'd find some that exist only because they satisfied the need a well-known poet for a word that fit the meter. DCDuring TALK 19:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. I would approve such an amendment to the CFI.  Razor</b><b style="color:#696969">fl</b><b style="color:#808080">ame</b> 19:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Mostly useless, but also mostly harmless, and well within current (and long-standing) policy. At least, I have a hard time imagining a definition of "well-known work" that wouldn't include Finnegans Wake.  Therefore keep, without prejudice to the general policy question. -- Visviva 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The rationale for the well-known work exemption, as I understand it, is that a complete version of Wiktionary should leave no word-sense questions unanswered for someone reading Shakespeare, Milton, etc.  This seems reasonable enough to me, though the flip side of that is that we are currently missing thousands of words and word forms that appear even in respelled modern editions of Shakespeare.  (I have some lists, if anyone is interested.)  On the other hand, this particular need could arguably be better addressed in Concordance: or Appendix:-space, though that approach also has problems.  That said, if we eliminate the exemption entirely, we need to replace it with a more nuanced approach to languages that are poorly-attested (Homeric Greek, Eteocypriot, Cia-Cia) or unstandardized (Middle English, Middle Korean, actually almost any Middle/Old language).  "Well-known work" gives us an loophole for including forms that appear only in the Homeric hymns, or that are found in a particular spelling only in Chaucer.  This is unsatisfactory, of course, since it still excludes less-known writings; but I don't think the well-known-work issue can be addressed before the poorly-attested-languages issue. -- Visviva 05:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy if we just did it for English. Other high-use modern languages might merit the same treatment. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * About Ancient Greek, if approved, would require only one attestation for an Ancient Greek word. (See Beer parlour archive/2007/April.) —Ruakh <i >TALK</i > 13:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * As much as I don't like it a lot, keep per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, as neither of those has any chance for another two citations unrelated to Joyce's work. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 20:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Kept per WT:CFI, change that before renominating. Conrad.Irwin 13:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)