Talk:creative

As Used in Advertising

I'm no expert, but I thought I'd improve the definition. I hope an expert will review the update to make sure it's accurate. 74.125.59.1 22:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I just had an idea: an illustration would be really nice here. 74.125.59.1 22:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

SemperBlotto, Wholesale reverting a legitimate change is against Wiktionary's revert policy. If you think the new definition is inaccurate, please correct the part that's inaccurate.

Can you elaborate on this: a person directly involved in a creative marketing process. Does creative marketing mean all kinds of marketing that is creative or marketing of arts?90.190.225.121 13:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

+1 Using the word "creative" in the definition for "creative" seems wrong. I don't want to say that using a word in its definition violates a hard an fast rule, but a definition that doesn't do that is almost certainly better. 74.125.59.1 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Using "creative" as a noun strikes me as barbaric. Couldn't we at least make note in the entry that it is not standard, except in the semi-literate world of advertising?

Greg

I agree in sofar as it just sounds wrong to my ears; however, within advertising, it seems to be a legitimate use. 74.125.59.1 21:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Split definition?

Currently these are the two first definitions (with my interpretation):

1. Tending to create things, or having the ability to create. (about a person who creates things that aren't necessarily imaginative)
2. Original, expressive and imaginative. (about a person or a solution/idea/thought)

If possible, I'd like to split the second definition in two, in order to clarify that there are two definitions concerning a person (the Swedish translation of the first definition is incorrect because of this confusion, and we also have (some) different words for ). Here's my suggestion:

1. Tending to create (not necessarily imaginative) things, or having the ability to create.
2. Tending to create original, expressive and imaginative things, as opposed to imitating.
3. Original, expressive and imaginative.

How does this sound? Skalman (talk) 07:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the two main senses would be 1 (of a person) creating, and 2 (of a created thing) having creativeness.

I don’t know if there is a clear distinction between your proposed senses 1 and 2: a person creating much or creating imaginatively. I suspect there is a continuous spectrum of shades of meaning. Creative means creating, or creating often, habitually, constantly, prodigiously, in novel fashion, skillfully, excellently, or any or all of these. It’s a question of defining style whether we put these on a single line or in subsenses. —Michael Z. 2014-01-16 22:00 z

Would it be possible to include some/many of the qualities you suggest in the definition (being any or all of ...)? And it'd also be nice to make it more explicit that the second definition is about a created thing.

Is there a good way to indicate that a translation lies in a certain area of that spectrum? Skalman (talk) 10:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the qualities should be mentioned. The part that’s like work is sitting down and coming up with the smallest list that seems to cover all options.

A definition can start with “Of a created thing, . . .” Or if you deem this to be a matter of usage of a sense rather than part of the definition, use a label {{cx|of a created thing|lang=en}} = (of a created thing).

I don’t enter translations very much. Someone else might be better at answering that one. —Michael Z. 2014-01-17 16:30 z

@Mzajac Thanks for the help. Of your examples I feel that "habitually" and "constantly" could be merged into "often" and that "prodigiously" and "skillfully" into "excellently". Here's a new set of suggestions (though I'm unsure about how to indicate the "any or all" clause):

1. Tending to create things, or having the ability to create often, excellently, in a novel fashion, or any or all of these.
2. (of a created thing) Original, expressive and imaginative.

Is that understandable, or can you rephrase it? Skalman (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That would improve the entry. —Michael Z. 2014-01-19 17:32 z

Thanks for your help. I've updated the entry. Skalman (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)