Talk:Stunt word

Removal of Malamanteau
I highly disagree with the removal of the reference to malamanteau as it is a stunt word created by the author of XKCD to invoke a specific response. Now maybe the editor had a good and logical reason to do so (I assume good faith, and not bias) but until they can provide aforementioned hypothetical reason, I will reinclude the reference. 208.3.91.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC).

I see that the reference to malamanteau has once again been removed without any discussion here, by an "Egsan Bacon" with the rationale that it is not a word. I (believe) that malamanteau is in fact a neologism, which is indeed a word, albeit one which has yet to be found in common usage, so I am once again re-adding it. 208.3.91.194 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for pointing out my typo there Egsan, very helpful. Edit Reverted and referenced. Please engage in thoughtful discussion before vandalizing this article any further.208.3.91.194 (talk).


 * 208, are you continuing to maintain that including that thing (I can't actually call it a word, because, well, you know) in the article is beneficial to it? In general, people know what "brunch" means.  It's used all the time.  If someone was not familiar with it, they could click on the link.  But people who don't read xkcd (which is, after all, most people, regardless of how popular it is in your social circles) will have no idea what that string of characters means.  (I'd even go so far as to suggest that after a couple of months, many xkcd readers will have forgotten about it too - the casual ones, the largest part of any work's audience.)  If they click on the link, that won't clarify anything for them because it's just a redirect to xkcd.  It won't help them understand what it means, and thus won't help them understand what a stunt word is.  It makes the article worse by being there, as it would *even if it were a word*.


 * Additionally, that Boston Globe article doesn't back up the assertion that the non-word is a word. From the article: "True, for many English speakers, use in a Web comic and inclusion in a couple of online dictionaries are not enough to establish malamanteau as a “real” word."  The only case it makes for word status is that it appears in 2 online dictionaries, which can't even agree as to what the word means - Urban Dictionary has a different definition.  Webster's, the OED - these are dictionaries.  An online thing anyone can edit is not a reliable source of what is and is not a word.  The article also doesn't mention people, even people claiming word status for it, using it as people use words - in sentences - just a reference to UD and something called Wordnik.  If people don't actually use it, as you yourself admit, then it can't really be considered as even becoming a word one day, can it?


 * I am also curious about the "specific response" this collection of syllables was created to invoke, unless that response was "I can make up a word and my fans will vandalize Wikipedia to include it." And yes, it is vandalism.  The Wikipedia policy about not sticking pop culture references in every single article it might tangentially be related to is even *named* after xkcd, due to the high frequency with which its fans do so. (WP:XKCD) Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While I disagree with you that "malamanteau" is not a "word" you have made a convincing argument and I concede the point that it's inclusion (in it's present redirect form) does indeed cause the quality of this article to suffer. As to your question about the word's lack of use preventing it from "becoming" a word, the "cat clavier" is an instrument that has never been played, "Schrodinger's cat" is an experiment that has never been performed.  Maybe this is a new type of word whose purpose is to be practically unusable.  However it is possible that xkcd's author hadn't put that much thought into it and really just wanted to ellicit wikipolicy-centric nerd rage, but even if that was his intention, it's still a "stunt".  208.3.91.194 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.3.91.194 (talk) 22:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary reference to portmanteau
Is it really necessary to state that "some stunt words are portmanteau words". Yes some are, some aren't. Some begin with A. It's a wholly irrelevant inclusion unless stunt words are significantly more likely to be portmanteaus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.117.82 (talk) 15:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)