Talk:rationalization hamster

Added to requests for deletion. Please comment there if you feel that this is not a protologism. Blowfish 06:37, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

RFV
Seems like a clear protologism. Blowfish 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It sees some use online, but I can only find one durably archived cite (which I've now added to Citations:rationalization hamster). If this does happen to pass, which I rather doubt, I think an RFC is in order. The phrase has a mostly sexist POV, but we should find a way to define it that distances ourselves from that POV. Also, the phrase seems to be figurative, in that many uses treat it as an actual hamster (e.g., speaking of how fast it's running), and/or refer to it simply as a "hamster" after first introducing the concept. Our definition ignores that, making the expression seem more like an opaque idiom than like the metaphor it really is. —Ruakh TALK 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed; has only one durably archived citation, and that citation is for a different capitalisation. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I really can't believe that this entry was deleted because of the "durably archived" crap. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That may be, but as long as the "crap" remains policy, this will be deleted again if there aren't three citations of it that meet WT:ATTEST. Only one of the three citations currently on the citations page does: the other two are just blogs. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did you hear that blogs are not valid sources of attestation?
 * Regarding "durably archied" - is meaningless as a policy because that phrase means nothing in the context of Web.--Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:42, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Ivan Štambuk, he edits here, while you don't anymore. That's where he heard it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please point where exactly are blogs forbidden per current attestation policy? The citation page edited by Ruakh and "-sche" contained two blogs. Ruakh deleted this page with an excuse that the blog was not available at this moment, which was easily fixed by linking to the permanent copy at the Internet Archive. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Two of the most recent discussions of the oft-beaten, still-dead "Internet Archive" horse are BP and Beer parlour archive/2012/March. Although you should (re)read those discussions for all the details, the gist is that Usenet is durably archived because it is not centrally archived, and books are also durably archived because they are distributively archived (in multiple libraries). In contrast, websites can be taken down (and one of the websites you cited was), and when domain ownership changes, it is not uncommon for new domain owners to erase archived versions of the website from the Internet Archive, hence the Internet Archive is also not durable. - -sche (discuss) 22:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting interpretation, but I don't see WT:ATTEST explicitly supporting it. Links to Usenet posts on Google groups are just as perishable as any other URLs. Your argument is essentially of increased likelihood of archive durability, single vs. multiple points of failure over the long run. With Wiktionary providing a local copy of the relevant citation in the Citations: namespace, and editors (who created them) verifying them at the creation time, I find the entire discussion on durability simply ludicrous. TBH, this whole durability argument seems to me like a lame excuse to exclude millions of words not written by professional writers, journalists or academicians. Reeks of elitism, prescriptivism and other odious manifestations of "we decide what real langauge is" mentality. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We might as well not have admins and become Urban Dictionary where anyone's made-up word can be kept, eh? I don't agree. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Three citations - should we restore it?
Equinox ◑ 18:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Restored. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ...and while you're at it maybe write a definition that doesn't disparage half the human race? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The old def was nasty but I think now we are missing the (perhaps unpleasant but true fact) that this is used almost exclusively to refer to women and not men. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)