Wiktionary talk:Neologisms

Unstable neologisms
I have no real objection to the first two, but the third "unstable" seems to be defined by rather arbitary criteria. --137.222.10.58 20:16 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Do you mean you don't like the existence of options to add non-widely accepted words, or do you just think the criteria should be refined? If the latter, by all means, I'd love to hear or see suggestions - Brettz9 22:03 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)

Also, were you aware that there is now a page existing for the unstable category with further elaboration on criteria? See neologisms:unstable if you haven't seen it yet and are interested. - Brettz9 22:06 Mar 7, 2003 (UTC)


 * I don't think that they should be in wiktionary, at least the main part of wiktionary. I have no objection to say having an "unstable:" namespace which would include these words, which when and if the words come into use they can be transferred over to the main namespace.


 * All right, how about I convert the unstable category to a namespace, with possibly a few namespace subpages to aid in categorizing the words for easier viewing, but we only allow short definitions such that many words can be fitted together on a page? This way, with subpages, people should be able to add words in a way where they can at least be viewed by topic, alphabetically, etc. (by putting these different views on a few extra namepaces), but it should not consume a lot of space or become integrated into the rest.  Though I see the latter as a disadvantage, I am of course ready to give in if that is the consensus.  Brettz9 05:15 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Definition, or Wiktionary page?
This page seems more of a definition, and thus should be in the neologism space, and less of a statement of how Wikitionary treast neologisms as I would expect to be in the Neologisms space. I came here wanting to know whether it's ok to put in a section in a word on its use as a neologism.

--zandperl 04:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree – I came here looking for a clear statement of policy and do not see one. I guess since protologisms are on the list of specifically excluded content and neologisms aren't, then neologisms are presumably OK. Peter G Werner 06:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The information was outdated and has now been completely replaced. You don't mean "space", you mean the neologism page versus the Neologisms page. The first is in the main namespace, the second in the Wiktionary: space. DAVilla 07:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Newly coined?
What does newly coined mean? How does one know why a given term has been declared such? How is such a determination reviewed? DCDuring TALK 23:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See the last paragraph. It's kind of silly — our standardized criteria for "newly coined"-ness have absolutely nothing to do with newness. —Ruakh TALK 01:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh. Silly me. I thought the lead-in was meaningful. So the better we are at attesting terms that other dictionaries don't have, the more we should insert neologism warnings. I'll have to put that right on top of my to-do list, immediately after I prepare the Appendix:WikiJargon/Misnomers page.


 * Silly you, indeed! What would be the point of being a dictionary, if we didn't get to redefine words arbitrarily and without notice? —Ruakh TALK 03:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)