User:Malpagaia

I am becoming gradually fascinated by the way some apparently experienced Wiki administrators are able to use neo or proto logisms such as wikispam to seek the deletion of PaGaian Cosmology for being a neologism... Maybe at 62 I have orbited the sun a few too many times... I wonder, when was it that the word Wikipedia graduated from being a mere neologism ?

That's a very interesting question, but I must point out that "Wikipedia" is in fact a

proper name

. Can a proper name be a neologism? I wouldn't bet the farm against it but I think the answer is probably "no". A proper name and a neologism are both "words" in the sense that each is a string of letters and each has a meaning; however, the "meaning" of a neologism is encapsulated by a predicate or set of predicates which may be matched or not matched, while the "meaning" of a proper name is simply one thing which it denotes. You cannot "define" Wikipedia any more than you can "define" New York, Bill Smith, or the Eiffel Tower. Describe all those things, yes; define, no.

As for your other "fascination", I must point out something there as well that I feel you have failed to take into account: namely, that Wikipedia administrators and users can use all the neologisms and protologisms that they want with perfect freedom -- except in the article namespace. The article namespace is subject to rules that the Wikipedia namespace (i.e., those pages whose titles begin with "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:") is not. I'm sure it must have appeared as if you'd uncovered "apparently experienced Wiki administrators" breaking their own rules, but I'm afraid that's not the case; one might as well complain about actors being inconsistent because they act differently on-stage and off. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)