Talk:malamanteau
RFV edit
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification.
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.
This has been speedied repeatedly as a protologism, but it seems to me that this word may have actually caught on in some way. So I think we should give it a proper treatment. The definitions probably need rewording though, especially the second. —CodeCat 23:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- The citations appear to be mentions. Note that the Wikipedia article is up for deletion; did this cause someone to create it here? Equinox ◑ 23:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- I deleted the citations page, so we'll need to start fresh. I don't think we can really look to Wikipedia when it comes to this... it's one of "those" topics. —CodeCat 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- Was the citations page improperly formatted? The sources that were listed there demonstrated usage of the term. Lexicographers have had different takes on the relevance/definition:
- McKean, Erin (2010 May 30) “One-Day Wonder”, in The Boston Globe[1]: “... the idea is that a malamanteau blends one or more not-quite-right words to create a completely new one. Examples include the classic misunderestimated, bewilderness (as in “lost in the bewilderness”), and insinuendos (innuendo + insinuation).”
- “Vocabulinks”, in Schott's Vocab[2], The New York Times, 2010 June 9
- Robert Lane Greene (2010 November 4) “Eggcorn, mashup, malamanteau or other?”, in The Economist[3]: “"malamanteau" could in fact be quite useful, if we reduced its meaning to simply "an erroneous and and unintentional portmanteau". This would cover "refudiate" and others like it.”
- As far as I can tell, the earliest known use of the term was in 2007 on the Ask MetaFilter forums, but it was later popularized in a 2010 xkcd comic strip. A formal definition was later proposed by Greene on his Economist blog. What sort of verification is needed? Gobonobo (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was formatted ok, but it didn't actually contain any citations of the term being used, just links to sites that talked about the word and its origins. We require verification that the word is being used by English speakers. —CodeCat 00:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- ... and, I might add, we require that the uses be durably archived: i.e. in books, magazines, journals, or oddly enough, on Usenet. (But websites in general are not durably archived, though that dead horse of a suggestion is trotted out and beaten with great regularity.) - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Although mentiony quotes don't count for attestation, they may still have value on Citations: pages for tracking usage over time and, particularly in the case of neologisms, for citing their initial coinages. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- I'd tend to say all three of these citations are invalid as they don't convey any sort of meaning, WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, all are mentions. Readded out of process and should be zapped. Equinox ◑ 09:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'd tend to say all three of these citations are invalid as they don't convey any sort of meaning, WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Although mentiony quotes don't count for attestation, they may still have value on Citations: pages for tracking usage over time and, particularly in the case of neologisms, for citing their initial coinages. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- ... and, I might add, we require that the uses be durably archived: i.e. in books, magazines, journals, or oddly enough, on Usenet. (But websites in general are not durably archived, though that dead horse of a suggestion is trotted out and beaten with great regularity.) - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- It was formatted ok, but it didn't actually contain any citations of the term being used, just links to sites that talked about the word and its origins. We require verification that the word is being used by English speakers. —CodeCat 00:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
- Was the citations page improperly formatted? The sources that were listed there demonstrated usage of the term. Lexicographers have had different takes on the relevance/definition:
- I deleted the citations page, so we'll need to start fresh. I don't think we can really look to Wikipedia when it comes to this... it's one of "those" topics. —CodeCat 23:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
- RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Time to reconsider? edit
I think it might be time to take another look at this. The citations I added, Coleman (2022) and Mayotte (2011), are clearly uses and not mentions. And there are no doubt uses on social media.
(Note: Patch is roughly an online equivalent to a local newspaper. If HuffPo and Vice are considered acceptable sources, I don't see why Patch shouldn't be.) 98.170.164.88 05:28, 18 November 2022 (UTC)