| Revision as of 16:21, 2 May 2006 editHornplease (talk | contribs)9,260 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:03, 3 May 2006 edit undoHeather (talk | contribs)1,539 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :::That depends. Is it mandatory for me to state a reason? --] 15:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | :::That depends. Is it mandatory for me to state a reason? --] 15:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::::If not mandatory, then at least customary, so that other users have access to a broader set of viewpoints. ] 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | ::::If not mandatory, then at least customary, so that other users have access to a broader set of viewpoints. ] 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. The site quoted as a source describes this as a neologism, one of three being proposed in that blog. Actually, "protologism" might be the correct term, since (as far as I can tell) this term is only being used on one blog and, now, wikipedia. ] 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:03, 3 May 2006
Pseudo-variety
Possibly a neologism. Single link to blog entry, no other ghits other than for an unrelated term in group theory. Created by a user putting up lots of new pages with what appears to be OR. Hornplease 05:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as currently written. Although with some good addition and sourcing, it might be demonstrated to not be a neologism. Kukini 05:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as covert linkspam. (Article title is the title of the linked blog post.) We do not need another word to describe oligopoly. Kimchi.sg 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - though it needs to be rewritten, the idea is real. - Richardcavell 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem. Not to make too big a deal of it, but even if the idea is real, WP isnt the place to coin new words describing it. As kimchi says, there's a well-written article on oligopoly already. Hornplease 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- That article on oligopoly doesn't mention the concept being discussed in pseudo-variety. The term 'pseudo-variety' is probably grammatically incorrect (should be pseudovariety or False abundance of product choice or something like that) - Richardcavell 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Actually you're right, the oligopoly article is pretty basic. I've just rewritten a bit of it and put in the appropriate link to the product differentiation article. But the above thing is still a neologism. Hornplease 06:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- That article on oligopoly doesn't mention the concept being discussed in pseudo-variety. The term 'pseudo-variety' is probably grammatically incorrect (should be pseudovariety or False abundance of product choice or something like that) - Richardcavell 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ahem. Not to make too big a deal of it, but even if the idea is real, WP isnt the place to coin new words describing it. As kimchi says, there's a well-written article on oligopoly already. Hornplease 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Could we have a reason? Thanks. Hornplease
- That depends. Is it mandatory for me to state a reason? --TheMadTim 15:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- If not mandatory, then at least customary, so that other users have access to a broader set of viewpoints. Hornplease 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- That depends. Is it mandatory for me to state a reason? --TheMadTim 15:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Could we have a reason? Thanks. Hornplease
- Delete. The site quoted as a source describes this as a neologism, one of three being proposed in that blog. Actually, "protologism" might be the correct term, since (as far as I can tell) this term is only being used on one blog and, now, wikipedia. ergot 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)