Wiktionary talk:Interesting new entries

Should this list be in alphabetical order or in the order that entries are added? — Hippietrail 04:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd've kept it in the chronological order, for archiving reasons. Sorry Uncle G. But I'm gonna put it back to chrono --Wonderfool

Another question. In this case does "new" mean "recently added to Wiktionary" or "recently coined"? — Hippietrail 12:56, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I add in recently added words to Wiktionary. --Wonderfool

Why do new words go at the end of the list? Is this counter logical, or an oxymoron of the word new words list? --211.30.190.44 20:20, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

archive

I reckon a month is a good enuff time to keep words here before they aren't new anymore --Expurgator t(c)

Main Page

This is once again linked from the main page (I'm pretty sure it was not, for quite some time.) Is anyone actively maintaining it? --Connel MacKenzie T C 19:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Wiktionary:Interesting new entries

Pointless nowadays. Hasn't been updated for years, and honestly not a good use of anyone's time. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:41, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Very delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Delete. Indeed not a good use of time. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 20:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Delete. Title is wrong on both counts. —Angr 18:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. bd2412 T 20:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
•  Delete per Metaknowledge. Particularly interesting new entries would better be nominated for WotD. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
• RFD-failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)