Talk:genrelization

Discussions moved from rfd

Spam/vandalism. --hao2lian

• rm81dragon What is spam/vandalism about this word? There was time and effort taken to correctly define the word, and give examples of what it means. If there is concern in regards to cleaning it up, what would those concerns be? This entry can be fixed if needed, but I don't think it needs to be deleted because it actually sounds, is defined, and is useable as an actual functional word. Please declare your reasons for feeling that it is spam/vandelism.
• It was just a spelling mistake. A definition of the word is at generalisation. SemperBlotto 07:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
• rm81dragon No, it wasn't a spelling mistake. I created the word, and put time into defining it. I took the word genre and generalization and combined them. I heard to many times, people make generalizations about certain people who were involved in certain types of cultural and artistic genres. Genrelization is my way of explaining those generalizations that people make. I'm amazed that you guys didn't get this after reading the examples and definition. I was very excited about the idea of wiktionary, after reading about a college proffessor encouraging his students to create useable and functional words in the english language. It seems as though this is not as free of a place as I had thought. I just put that word up there late last night, and have woken up early this morning only to find that it has already been deleted, not even 12 hours. If I wanted a bridged dictionary, I could go to Mirriam-Webster. Please, take another look at my word, and understand that it isn't "spam/vandalism", where that idea came from I won't ever know, and that if you actually take the time to read the definition and the example's, the word actually makes sense.
• 1) It appeared to be spam and vandalism at the time I posted the rfd. The examples weren't NPOV, the formatting was bad, the word didn't appear to be credible, and the author signatuare resembled something a spammer would do. Of course, I can't access the deleted edit, so take it with a grain of salt. 2) Google turns up 182 results for me (might vary). Similarly, Yahoo only turns up about 27, and Google Print turns up none. With such limited usage, the word article is more of a creation of a word than it is writing down a new word that has been used many times. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genrelization for more discussion. I retract my spam and vandalism accusation since it wasn't actually spam or vandalism, and the article has since been cleaned up. I propose that further discussion be moved to #Genrelization below since it has more useful comments.

Generalization

No, it wasn't a spelling mistake. I created the word, and put time into defining it. I took the word genre and generalization and combined them. I heard to many times, people make generalizations about certain people who were involved in certain types of cultural and artistic genres. Genrelization is my way of explaining those generalizations that people make. I'm amazed that you guys didn't get this after reading the examples and definition. I was very excited about the idea of wiktionary, after reading about a college proffessor encouraging his students to create useable and functional words in the english language. It seems as though this is not as free of a place as I had thought. I just put that word up there late last night, and have woken up early this morning only to find that it has already been deleted, not even 12 hours. If I wanted a bridged dictionary, I could go to Mirriam-Webster. Please, take another look at my word, and understand that it isn't "spam/vandalism", where that idea came from I won't ever know, and that if you actually take the time to read the definition and the example's, the word actually makes sense. -- rm81dragon 9:3, 15 Septmeber 2005 (EDT)

Sorry to disappoint you, but newly created words are not really what we attempt to record here in Wiktionary. Rather, we try to record all the words already in common useage out there in the "real world". I mean, it wouldn't make sense to include my newly invented "word" qrfxy - and although the border line of "sensibility" lies somewhere between these two words, I don't think it is a dictionary's task to choose exactly where that line is, nor that a dictionary ever *can* make such a decision for itself. Never mind if it is Webster or if it is Wiktionary. Hence, I think that an objective proof always will be needed to decide when a word should be included - I think that the present manner of requiring attestations if contested does a fairly good job in that respect. \Mike 15:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

To follow up on the above comment, please see Appendix:List of protologisms. "Spam/vandalism" was regretably an inappropriate label. Davilla 17:10, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand what your saying Mike. I guess, to generate the correct attestation, I would need to be able to reach a broad audience and convey the word to them. Much like how the rapper Lil' John created the fictional word "Krunk" that is now in common use within the urban community. From what I'm getting from you, even though the definition and creation of my word makes sense, due to the fact that I do not have the status or means to pass it on to broader audience it is not an applicable word nor do I have the attestation of proof that the word is in use....correct? My question is this, how do you explain "Wiktionary" as being a word? I am not aware that this word has the confirmation of proof that it is a wildy used word, and futhormore "precieved" as a word. "Wikipedia" would fall into the same catagory as well, wouldn't it? rm81dragon 12:57, 15 September 2005 (EDT)

Genrelization

Although my entry has been deleted, mind you not even 12 hours after I posted it, it is prudent to note that if one just takes the time to type the word into google you will find that it is in use. I had initially, by mistake, posted this word on wikipedia. The discussions there, led to this:

Genrelization Protologism, on Appendix:List of protologisms#GZeimusu | Talk page 01:46, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

What does this mean? And if "Protologism" can be a word, why can't "genrelization" be a word. Neither are wildy used or accepted as words, however, I'm sure both have equally strong and well iterated definitions. rm81dragon 13:14, 15 September 2005 (EDT) Comment see Wiktionary:Protologisms. Google suggests the word has been independently created many times, with various meanings. Still wikipedia is not a dictionary. Zeimusu | Talk page 00:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I was not even aware myself that this word was in as much use as it was. I know that I personally use it and created it without any prior knowledge of the word, however it seems like minded individuals have also felt the need for a word like genrelization and have put it into use in approximatly 175 documents on google. I would like some more research conducted on this word, because it seems as though it deserves a place in Wiktionary.

First, 175 google hits is not a lot. Google indexes billions of documents. For example, I picked a random six digit number, 468105, and got 526 hits on the web and one in print. Second, "genrelization" is an easy misspelling of "generalization", which gets 11 million hits. It's not surprising that there would be dozens of hits for the misspelling, as indeed there are. Interestingly, another one of the hits appears to be a misspelling of the album title "Genrealization," itself an altered spelling.

However, I see these promising hits: [1], which coins the word to describe the tendency of music to be pigeonholed into genres; the reference listed in [2] and elsewhere is the title of a chapter in →ISBN — unfortunately I the text doesn't seem to be searchable online so I am unable to tell the exact context, but from the author's pages online it's clearly a deliberate reference to issues of genre. In any case, if you're after "academic rigour", I would think the work of a professor of English appearing in a published book would qualify; [3], which also uses the term to refer to pigeonholing in music.

Given that the second item above is published in print, it would be hard to argue against some sort of an entry. I'm not convinced that the sense intended in the published article is quite the same as the other two (for one thing, the article in question deals with doctor-patient relationships, not music), though there's clearly a common thread. The two web hits indicate that there is also a bona fide case for the music-pigeonholing sense. Clearly the common thread through all of them is the basic human tendency to compartmentalize. I suppose that some will dismiss the web hits as the unverifiable ravings of half-mad drooling illiterates, but so what? My concern here is more one of indpendence. Several of the web hits are just copies of the first reference above. The third appears to be by a different author, but there's no way to tell for sure.

In short, keep. Um, actually, keep under the uncapitalized spelling -dmh 18:32, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I have recreated genrelization with a couple of simpler definitions and a pointer to a couple of supporting citations. Keep - feel free to improve. SemperBlotto 10:38, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I removed one of them. When I went to the site and searched the page, the word was not there. Eclecticology 23:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Citations

The second two citations aren't valid links.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)