Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:Scorpion0422 06:14, 22 June 2008 [1].

List of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year[edit]

I have worked on this list for quite a while now, and I feel that I have fulfilled the criteria for Featured Lists. Each word is provided with a definition so that readers wouldn't have to look up each word from a separate source or on another Wikipedia article. I applied for a Peer Review before, and I think that I have successfully addressed the concerns expressed during the review.--Dem393 (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)
{{{2}}}
Resolved stuff from Drewcifer

Comments I like what I see. Very good idea for a list! I do have a feww reservations, however:

  • The title should probably be "List of Merriam-Webster Words of the Year", per stand-alone list naming conventions.
  • "popular searches in its web site" should be "on its web site", I think?
  • "Since 2006 the list was determined" should be "has been determined".
  • I think Word of the Year should be wikilnked somewhere in the lead. Though not in the bolded first sentence. I see it's already in the See also section, why not elsewhere? This would also work well along with the renaming I suggested above.
  • The Colbert Report should be in italics. As should Newsweek in citation #2.
  • "When the Words of the Year was started in 2003" is a little awkward simply because of the tense/conjugation of the phrase "Words of the Year". Howabout just "Word" (singular)?
  • I'd recommend center aliging the rank column(s).
  • "The word w00t won the title of Word of the Year." seems very unnecessary after the table.
  • Why the complicated (ie irregular) table formatting?
Sorry if I wasn't clear enough: looking at the code, there's alot of unnecessary stuff that has the side effect of making it look and function differently then the majority of tables out there. For example:
"<onlyinclude> {| border="1" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" style="margin: 1em 1em 1em 0; font-size: 95%; text-align:left;" |-bgcolor="#EEEEEE" align="center""
Could easily be replaced with "{| class="wikitable"".
It would simplify the code a great deal and make the tables conform aesthetically and functionally to the majority of other tables in the encyclopedia.
  • Per all of your citations, definitions usually end with a period, no? In fact, the definitions don't seem to follow any normal definition-style as far as I can tell. For instance, why do they all start lower case? Why are different meanings in different cells (as opposed to numbered like most definitions I've seen). Why no pronunciation key or list of conjugations?
I guess I'm ok with ommitting certain parts of definition style, so I guess it looks fine now with the proper capitalization and periods. I would like to mentioned, however, that I disagree with some of the other opinions mentioned so far, that the definitions should be taken out complete. True WP is not a dictionary, but that doesn't mean we can't define stuff wherever it is helpful. Drewcifer (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2003 does not have a mini-summary like the others. Why not? Drewcifer (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, see what you can do. It looks a little out of place without. Drewcifer (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response Drewcifer3000, but I do have some questions. First of all could you please explain what you mean by complicated or irregular table formatting? I copied this table formatting from a table in a Democratic primary article a few months ago when my experiences with tables were very small. As for your other suggestions regarding dictionary formatting, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Because of this policy, Wikipedia articles should avoid getting too much obsessed with conventional formatting of a definition. Gonzo fan2007's comments above discourage too much focus on dictionary entries. Therefore, I will keep different meanings in different cells so that the table would look more organized, and I will not provide a pronunciation key or list of conjugations since those would be provided in Wiktionary. Finally, I couldn't find information to form a mini-summary for the 2003 table. I'll keep searching my databases, though. Again, thank you for your response.--Dem393 (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried my best to fix the problems you mentioned. I was able to find two sources that discussed the 2003 list, and I hope that I was able to write enough on that section. I'll keep looking for more stuff, though.--Dem393 (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely look better! I only have a few more minor suggestions/comments:

  • Getting back to the definition-style thing: I think it's alright to omit certain parts of it (like conjugations, pronunciation, etc), but what is there should still ideally conform at least stylistically to common format. So, I think it would be good to italicize the (noun)/(verb) stuff. In part to make it closer to the usual style, but to also differentiate it from the text of the definition, and also to emphasize what form of the word is being considered the word of the year.
  • Along those same lines,
  • I agree with whoever said it that all the links should probably go to wikitionary, not Wikipedia articles.
  • What does Terri Shiavo have to do with refugee, tsunami, pandemic, conclave, or levee? Drewcifer (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just have a questions about the first point above: should I also italicize the stuff that says "in biology" or "in math?" I already deleted the Schiavo reference because that clearly didn't make sense (although it somehow made sense in the source). Since 2 reviewers now agree that the words should link to Wiktionary articles, I will get to that shortly.--Dem393 (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I'd italicize the whole thing, but I'm no 100% on that. Drewcifer (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coincidentally, truthiness became the American Dialect Society's Word of the Year for 2005.[59]" Is this really a coincidence? Drewcifer (talk) 00:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There really is no way to prove it was a coincidence, is there? I took it out now, and I also finished taking care of your other concerns except for changing links to Wiktionary. I don't know if I can get that done in a timely manner because I'm a little busy now in real life.--Dem393 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary links are done now.--Dem393 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like it alot. Good stuff! Drewcifer (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I disagree with your peer reviewer that this should include word definitions. That isn't what Wikipedia is about. The definitions here seem to be sourced randomly, are incomplete and must either fall into the original research trap or be directly taken (i.e., stolen) from their dictionary sources. Our best lists should link to Wikipedia articles. This one really must link to Wiktionary entries. An article with the same name as a word isn't a appropriate link. For example, Quagmire is a dab page that doesn't link to any articles that deal with the actual word, and Slog is not the definition of slog most people have in mind. The prose isn't at a professional level and is often too close to the source phrasing for comfort (occasionally it is an exact copy). The citations of "Webster's Expanded Dictionary" should be a full book citation (ISBN, page, etc). Since it generally doesn't (and shouldn't) link Wikipedia articles, I don't think this could become a featured list. As an article about "Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year" it reads more like a collection of comments rather than a focussed discussion. Colin°Talk 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestions, Colin. I have already added isbn and page numbers to the book dictionary citations. In addition, I changed some of the article links to Wiktionary links. However, I strongly disagree with your claim that this list shouldn't include word definitions. "List of Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year" features words that received the majority of votes or the most page hits on the Merriam-Webster website. The words on these lists were chosen because people were looking up the words' definitions, the word had interesting origins (like truthiness), or the words had connections to current events. The definitions played a factor in choosing these words. Therefore, I believe that Ruhrfisch was right in recommending definitions during the peer review. What good is having a list of words if you don't have their definitions? Regarding randomly sourced definitions, my peer reviewer also mentioned that if I heavily depended on my primary source, then it would be seen as an advertisement. I extended this statement to include all sources; I avoided the heavy use of any one dictionary so that I can show that I'm using a variety of sources. Your statement that the definitions are incomplete is true. I tried not to violate WP:DICT by using really long definitions. So why do I stay as close to the sources as possible? Doing so makes sure that the information I present in Wikipedia is supported by my sources. I can't make any of my statements up because they couldn't be verified by the sources. As for your comment about my list not being a focused discussion, I really couldn't figure out how to fix this. Could you please give me some suggestions?--Dem393 (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but there used to be. Perhaps that change needs to be reconsidered. Links to Wiktionary are effectively external links. Colin°Talk 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I'm updating my review, which is still to oppose the list, because I'm concerned my oppose might be rejected on the "links to Wiktionary" issue not having consensus. So, I'm expanding on the other issues. The article is still short of featured status, mostly in the quality of the prose or the discussion. Some examples:
  • "Merriam-Webster's ... published by ... dictionary-publishing company Merriam-Webster" circular and repetitive.
    • "Merriam-Webster's Words of the Year, a list published annually by the American dictionary-publishing company Merriam-Webster, features the ten words of the year from the English language." What do you think?--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a list of the Words of the Year". This clause seems to serve no purpose other than to provide for a wikilink. It adds no new information to the article.
  • "most popular words... in a given twelve-month period". A year is a twelve-month period :-)
    • I know that, but I was just trying to look for some variation in my wording. I guess it didn't work too well. =( Anyway, the phrase has been completely removed. In place of that, I used the word "annually." Please see my first comment above.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 2003, two of" We already know the list started in 2003. In fact the wording needs to be the other way round. "As of 2008, only two of..."
  • "have not yet made it to official dictionaries" You can't say "yet". See WP:DATED. The source doesn't back up this claim--they're no such thing as "official dictionaries" in English. I think you mean WM's printed dictionary.
    • I fixed this issue by saying, "The words for 2006 and 2007, truthiness and w00t, respectively, have not made it to the traditional Merriam-Webster printed dictionary as of 2008."--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Words of the Year usually reflect events that happened during the years the lists were published" This is sourced to an article about the very first 2003 edition. So how can you generalise to all editions?
    • I really can't find a source in 2008, so I used a 2005 source.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition," redundant.
  • "blog, was looked up on the Online Dictionary several times" Several is a huge understatement.
    • I changed it to "the most times." --Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merriam Webster" the word is hyphenated. The article frequently forgets.
    • I only found it twice. Did I miss anything?--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between staying close to a source and just copying it:
"w00t" -- typically spelled with two zeros -- reflects a new direction in the American language led by a generation raised on video games and cell phone text-messaging.
Spelled with two zeros in leetspeak, w00t reflects a new direction in the English language led by a generation raised on video games and cell phone text messaging.
    • Ah, I see what you're saying now. I'll try to reword the text to make the prose flow better.--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with transforming this list from a collection of comments to a focussed discussion is that the subject is so insubstantial. It is really just a bit of marketing fun by a dictionary publisher, and has only been running five years. Nobody has written anything substantial about it, for you to source feature-level encyclopaedic prose. Even if we don't expect a featured list to comprehensively discuss its subject, we're left with 50 links to Wiktionary and some rather arbitrary dictionary definitions. Colin°Talk 17:00, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your very detailed comments. It's too bad that, as you said, there is no substantial commentary on the Words of the Year except for various newspaper articles. However, I feel that with enough sources and comments from various websites and newspapers, we can create a decent article with substantial information about the words of the year. Nobody else may have written much about this list, so why can't Wikipedia be the first to do so?--Dem393 (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks pretty good. I agree with a few of the concerns raised above, though, such as terms linking to wiktionary, but to me these are minor issues and may warrant their own discussions; but the list itself looks good to me, references, lead, prose, and all. Gary King (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support! I really appreciate it.--Dem393 (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • One dead link per this.
    • The link is dead because the Associated Press withdrew its article from Google News after a certain amount of time. Because of this, I have provided an access date, implying that the article existed on that date.-Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain what Merriam-Webster actually is briefly, even if it's just to say "American dictionary of the English language..." (or whatever...).
  • "web site" or "website".
  • "twelve month" probably should be hyphenated.
  • "...two of Merriam Webster's Words of the Year were already dictionary entries at the time..." - did I miss the bit where you said that the others weren't?
    • Yes you did. The other words that weren't dictionary entries at the time of receiving their status are mentioned in the following sentences.
  • "....the general public had an immense interest in defining this word amid ethics scandals in the American government, corporations, and sports." and "several times as blogs began to influence mainstream media." - prove it - unless you can cite this claim it's original research. Okay, so it's linked later in the main body. Problem comes from citing some claims in the lead and not others - be consistent.
    • The source is provided in the "2005" section. Do you want me to provide the source in the lead as well?
  • "...twenty words and phrases that were frequently looked-up on the site and submitted by readers." - words and phrases were looked up by all means but I'm unclear what you mean by "submitted by readers" - it implies that if I 'submitted' "jedifrequencyness" a billion times, it'd be in the running. Can you explain this a bit more?
    • Clarified; sorry about that!--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some definitions have citations, some don't, it's inconsistent.
    • Some words have definitions that span more than one row on the table. All (or both) rows sometimes use the same source, so I just sourced the last definition to indicate that the preceding entries use the same source.
  • The definitions appear, on the whole, to be sentence fragments and, as such, ought not to take periods at the end.
    • This contradicts Drewcifer's comments above. Do you strongly feel that I must remove the periods?--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • blog's (noun) isn't italicised.
  • {{convert}} 72 mph.
  • ""...blogs were becoming highly popular and began to influence mainstream media." - again, is this proved anywhere?
    • Yes, see citation at the end of the paragraph.--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...in a 5 to 1 majority.." - five-to-one?
  • Does Merriam-Webster really need a See also?

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking my list! I have resolved most of your comments, as indicated above.--Dem393 (talk) 18:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Merriam-Webster%27s_Words_of_the_Year&oldid=1126889453"