Appendix talk:Protologisms/Long words
Add topic
The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Originally, the Appendix:Protologisms/Long words/Titin/German was tagged for RFV by User:Irekoto, but I took the liberty to change it to RFD, because the creators of this Appendix entry knew that it wouldn't pass CFI, which is why it was placed in the appendix, labelled as "protologism", so an RFV discussion would be pointless. Irekoto may have an issue with the entry being here; in which case, it'd be more consistent to say that everything in Appendix:Protologisms/Long words should be deleted, since they all seem to be there for the same reason. That's why I moved it to the main page, since it'd be more consistent to be against all of them than only one.
We fairly recently had a deletion discussion for Appendix:List of protologisms, a relic of ancient Wiktionary which was essentially a place for users to make up or choose whatever words they want that didn't pass CFI, and list them there with definitions. That discussion resulted in a deletion.
However, I think the case for these particular long word protologisms to be kept is unique, because 1.) They were not just made up by us, like most of the items at LOP were (as it says, the three appendix entries are "notable long words which were formed systematically, or which are mentioned in authoritative sources, but which do not yet meet Wiktionary's Criteria for Inclusion.") 2.) The fact that they are so long and that there aren't many examples of them makes them lexically interesting, and to delete them would be a bit of a shame.
I do wish that the long word entries for titin had a source, however, so as to justify the claim that they are "mentioned in authoritative sources".
I vote keep, but only started the discussion to honor the tag, as RFV/RFD templates are supposed to be starters of discussions. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:36, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
- Delete this and its subpages. "Would be a bit of a shame" isn't reason enough to keep something that would fail RFV. Wikipedia has a page for the German law at least. Ultimateria (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
- Keep. - -sche (discuss) 08:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete.
- Delete Appendix:Protologisms/Long words/Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz as there is Citations:Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, so nothing will be lost anyway.
- Delete Appendix:Protologisms/Long words/Titin and Appendix:Protologisms/Long words/Titin/German as there aren't any sources.
- @PseudoSkull: Those lists surely also contained some words not created by us but found somewhere. So following 1), we then could have new protologism lists but with a new rule: A source must be provided, which could also be a blog not durably archived. Regarding 2): See above, there's only one example which is also on a citation page.
- @Inqilābī: The deleted lists were harmless too but got deleted.
- --Myrelia (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- Can't it be a category, if we must have it? Equinox ◑ 00:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, including the nonsense subpages. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 03:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - it may be silly, but these are real words. Theknightwho (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'm confused about the status of the German law term. We already have Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz in mainspace, which is the second part of the law's name. It has four quotations, three of which include the full name. So why should we delete the full name? Is it because of SOP? 70.172.194.25 01:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'd disagree that it is SOP, as the definition given for Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz is that it's part of the title to the full term... so it's clearly a term in its own right. Not sure that the part needs its own entry, though. Theknightwho (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think Appendix:List of protologisms should've been deleted either. Binarystep (talk) 22:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
- Delete IMO this is not meaningfully different from the prior deletion of Appendix:List of protologisms (which should not be relitigated here) and should inevitably suffer the same fate. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
- Kept for no consensus Dunderdool (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)