User talk:Timpaa

The article on the (Z-word) effect was deleted because, frankly, "(Z-word) Effect" is still just a neologism. Who uses the term? Well, um... R.W., the guy who takes credit for coining the word. And... you. It's just an example of the gestalt effect, right? Closure, reification, illusory contours, etc etc. These are all already named.

So, basically, the (Z-Word) Effect is "when advertising exploits the gestalt effect, linguistically".

Your sources: a documentary in which this guy used the term, and an article by that one guy. You've also supplied a source for the concept of the gestalt effect, and a link to a university whose promotional material is, in your opinion, an example of the (Z-word) effect.

This is worthless. This does not give any credence to the idea that people actually use this phrase, that anyone other than that one guy has ever used this phrase to describe this phenomenon. Google for that word (you'll notice that I'm not saying it in full, so as to avoid having this discussion page turn up in Google hits) and see what you get.

"My professor coined (the Z-word) several years back to describe 'a compulsion to get things done'."

"I shall be ingesting you over four hundred (Z-word) days. I believe you are from a planet called Earth in the Solar System."

"The 2003 album by (musician) is an interesting oeuvre; I particularly like his song '(Z-word) effect' with its Latin rhythms.

One mention on SFWLondon. One mention on an MLM training forum. And both of these explain the phrase. They don't assume people already know it. It's not in common parlance.

(You'll note that I'm not using the name in full; this is to avoid having this discussion page turn up in Google searches.)

Perhaps someday, people will use the term "(Z-word) effect" to describe this phenomenon. And when that happens, we will document it. But so far, it seems (to me) that it's just another neologism struggling for brainspace with all the other neologisms. If it's anything more than that, you'll have to prove it.

As for your request that the article be put back until after you can use it to do a presentation: no. If you can't find enough information on this subject to make a Wikipedia article that's even half-decent, then why would you think you have enough information to do a presentation on it? DS (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for the comprehensive - and quick - response. That's really helpful in understanding what is and isn't allowed on Wikipedia and how the system works. (I did try looking for an explanation of 'neologism' as a problem when I saw the word on the deletion note, but was unable to find any information which is probably more down to me needing to learn more about wiki-editing than anything else. (One of the other goals of attempting to write an article).

I was also intrigued by your use of "z-word" to avoid creating instances of the word! (Although it does remind that one thought that arose while reading your response was that if we *can't* create entries like this, neologisms really will have a hard time becoming established!)

Given the explanation I can see that wanting the article put back temporarily is a non-starter although if I were of a sensitive nature I might take exception at being told what I can and can't talk about in academic setting. (Where I thought exploration of the new was something to aim for). But then I've already learned some of the limits that Wikipedia imposes. :-)

Thank you again for your time and patience with a wiki-newbie. It's good to see that my defence of Wikipedia amongst many academics here isn't misplaced. It's clearly not the free-for-all some people think it is!

cheers

The point is that Wikipedia exists to document knowledge, not to create it (for instance, see our guideline on original research). How can neologisms become established if they can't be promoted in Wikipedia, you ask? The same way they always do. If they're successful neologisms, people will use them regardless of whether they're on Wikipedia. DS (talk) 20:20, 19 November 2009 (UTC)