[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia article on [[Santorum (neologism)]]

[Andreas Kolbe]

--- On Wed, 25/5/11, The Cunctator <cunctator at gmail.com> wrote:

> Let's just delete articles we don't
> like. It would simplify the wikilawyering.


You see, I question whether if fulfils any encyclopedic (rather than 
Googlebombing) purpose to list "santorum" in a nav template of 100 political neologisms, and you come back with quips like that, and accuse people of 
wikilawyering (while exhorting me to Assume Good Faith, in capital letters:
"You are ascribing motive to Cirt's activities. Assume Good Faith.").

Incidentally, I just noticed the following conversation on the political
neologisms template's talk page:


---o0o---

==Shouldn't this be a category?==

I'm not sure what the purpose of this is. Why would anyone looking at (say) 
Euroscepticism want to navigate to an article about Soccer mom? Surely, this 
is why categories were invented. Bastin 08:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

:It is most useful as a template. And yes, linguists and political scholars 
would indeed wish to navigate through these articles. -- Cirt (talk) 08:47, 
11 May 2011 (UTC)

::They're completely unrelated terms. Why would you have a template on 
'words invented since 1973'? Bastin 09:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Because they are of interest to those studying the subject matter from 
the perspective of many different varied fields. -- Cirt (talk) 15:27, 11 
May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Political_neologisms

---o0o---


"Most useful". A category doesn't add any in-bound links. And that was the 
end of that conversation.

Andreas



 
> On 5/25/11, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466 at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > --- On Wed, 25/5/11, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> wrote:
> >> From: Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net>
> >
> >> I don't want to get that clever, to the point that
> we take
> >> into account
> >> that even talking about the article on this list
> might
> >> affect ranking.
> >> What is needed is to improve the article; it is
> about a
> >> political act,
> >> not about lube.
> >
> >
> > If it's about the political act, it should be covered
> under [[Santorum
> > controversy regarding homosexuality]].
> >
> > Linguistically -- the term has been included in one
> dictionary, and in one
> > book on neologisms. Some erotic books have used it
> (and we have gleefully
> > included full quotes from each in the article's
> references:
> >
> > "She wads up the t-shirt, uses it to wipe a trickle of
> santorum from her
> > ass, and throws it under the cot."
> >
> > "Mark fucked his wife with slow, sure strokes that
> seemed to the panting
> > Valerie to penetrate her more deeply than ever before.
> At each descent of
> > the pouncing big prick into her sanctum santorum,
> Valerie thrust upward with
> > all her strength until the velvety surfaces of her
> rotund naked buttocks
> > swung clear of the bed"
> >
> > "Then, one of them broke ranks and rammed his
> blood-lubed fist straight up
> > my ass and twisted hard, pulled it out and licked the
> santorum clean.")
> >
> > Is that enough for linguistic notability? Perhaps
> enough for a Wiktionary
> > entry, but a whole article, on bona-fide *linguistic*,
> encyclopedic grounds?
> >
> > As for the template use:
> >
> > Including the term in *both* the sexual slang template
> and the political
> > neologisms template, both custom-created for the
> occasion, seems a stretch
> > to me.
> >
> > It is not a "political neologism", rightfully listed
> along with terms like
> >
> > Adopt a Highway • Afrocentrism • "And" theory of
> conservatism • Big
> > government • Chairman • Checkbook diplomacy •
> Children's interests •
> > Collaborationism • Conviction politics • Cordon
> sanitaire • Cricket test •
> > Democide • Dhimmitude • Eco-terrorism •
> Epistemocracy • Eurocentrism •
> > Eurorealism • Euroscepticism • Eurosphere •
> Failed state • etc.
> >
> > in a 100-term template, causing it to appear in all of
> those articles.
> >
> > Listing it in the sexual slang template, based on less
> than a dozen
> > appearances in print as an actual word -- as opposed
> to reporting about
> > Dan Savage's campaign -- is a closer call, but still
> debatable.
> >
> > I don't like Santorum either, and sorry to be a
> spoil-sport, but it's
> > unworthy of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>