Talk:Old Man Winter

Humanization of winter

 * So what's your beef with the verification's ? WritersCramp (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Apart from the fact there are only two of them, that they cite the first sense (which is unchallenged) and not the second sense (which is challenged). If you define humanization as a synonym of personification then the two senses are identical, which is why I removed the second one, but you've added it back. Quite simply, what distinction are you trying to make? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Humanize is the root word for Humanization. You requested citations and I gave them to you.  Humanization is a correct and accurate definition for "Old Man Winter".  Do you want to combine them both into one definition?  "Personification and humanization of winter".  I can live with that, otherwise the +tag comes down.  It is up to you.  WritersCramp (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You can't just de-tag it unilaterally without citations. Plus, when there are three citations we need to check which sense they support. Why do you think the rules do not apply to you? Have you read humanize or humanization? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you will find editing at Wiktionary much more fulfilling by doing your own research and adding the third-citation, rather than just +tag spamming! WritersCramp (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It comes back to which sense of humanize you are referring to, I note that you have so far refuse to answer this question. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Humanization: to represent as human and Personification: an imaginary person that represents a thing or idea; the practice of representing a thing or idea as a person in art, literature, etc.. Are you able to see the subtle differences between the words? WritersCramp (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You still shouldn't de-tag your own entries when the citations are being disputed. You could read WT:RFV where they're discussing it. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Having "humanize" in all three citations is bad. I hope some day someone will find better ones. Equinox ◑ 18:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

RFV discussion: November–December 2014
Rfv-sense: "humanization of winter". Humanization says act of humanizing. Humanize says: To make human, to give or cause to have the fundamental properties of a human. To convert into something human or belonging to humans. I'm very curious for a start to know which of these definitions WritersCramp is referring to. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Neither. Winter is not something which can be turned into a person, but it can be talked about as if it were a person. personification or anthropomorphization are correct. (And I wonder if anthropomorphization is what was meant in the contested sense.) --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd use . It's easier to spell and pronounce than . —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


 * To be clear, this sense is supposedly distinct from the "personification of winter" sense, which is also in the entry. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * And what's the difference? --WikiTiki89 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A personification is a fictional person which stands in for a non-person: The Grim Reaper is the personification of Death, Neptune is a personification of the sea, Uncle Sam is a personification of the United States of America.
 * An anthropomorphization is where you describe or treat a non-person as if it were a person. Describing a meteor as "punching" the ground, or a plant as "longing for sunlight". Or else ascribing human motivations: assuming that a cat is sitting on your lap "because she loves me", or a car as "it wants to go faster". In the case of Old Man Winter, I take it back: this is a personification, pure and simple. It ascribes a human persona to a phenomenon, without necessarily saying anything about motivation. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The way I learned it, the two things you describe are both personification anyway. --WikiTiki89 20:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Just make the change to personification. Pur ple back pack 89   00:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I did that and the user undid my edit. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think RfV was for settling content disputes... Pur ple back pack 89  16:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean. I'm disputing the existence of this sense. If you're saying it should be speedily deleted, I've already done that, if I do it again I'm in danger of edit warring. Let me put it another way; if RFV is not for disputing content, what is it for? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Attesting it. RfV answers the question, "can sources back up this being said?"  Content disputes answer the question, "what should be said?"  You can have a content dispute between two verifiable definitions. Just because both definitions can be verified doesn't mean both should be kept (meaning, in this case, that sourcing "humanization" will not end the content dispute, and may actually make it worse).  Notice the position I've taken on this entry.  My position is that "humanization" should be changed to "personification", regardless of whether or not humanization can be sourced.  I am saying that on the premise that humanization and personification are enough alike that we only need a definition that deals with one of them, and prefer that of personification. Pur ple back <font color="#CC33CC">pack <font color="FFBB00">89   19:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you look above, my initial concern was non-existence, not redundancy to definition #1. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the distinction WritersCramp is trying to go for is a distinction between Old Man Winter as a metaphor and Old Man Winter as an actual character in folklore. If so, humanization is not the right word to use. I couldn't find any entries where we make this distinction (so there's no separate sense at Cupid for "Personification of the act of falling in love", no sense at Mars for "Personification of war"), although perhaps we should. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how much value is added by having a distinction that most users would not grasp. But, if there are citations to support the distinction and if we can have usage examples that understandably illustrate the distinction, why not give it try? DCDuring TALK 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * WritersCramp has added two citations. I think they actually cite a sense of humanize that we lack, which is 'to personify', hence this would be the same as 'personification of winter', which we have and is not challenged. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Renard is a lazy +tag spammer. I have discussed the matter on the Old Man Winter discussion page. Thanks WritersCramp (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wanting something to be correct is lazy is it? Well I wish you were a bit lazier you might make some correct entries. Still not cited as the citations do not unambiguously support this definition. #3 seems like a mention not a use. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd say that personification is sufficient to cover all the cites, despite the (non-standard) usage of humanisation in two of them. We don't want to add second definitions to Mother Earth, Mother Nature etc. do we?    D <font color="#00ccff">b <font color="#44ffcc">f  i  r  s   14:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Is this going to RFD as redundant or are we still wanting to look for cites first? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * As Canard has been informed and the three quotations at the definition support using "personification" and "humanization" are not redundant. Thank you WritersCramp (talk) 11:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Your above post isn't grammatical, and I can't make sense of what you're trying to say.
 * Past that, the distinction between and, as used in the  entry, is completely unclear -- the two senses look entirely redundant.  Without any clear distinction, there is zero utility in having two senses listed.
 * I move to delete the second sense. Whether or not it's citable is entirely beside the point -- as illustrated in the entry, the "humanization" of winter and the "personification" of winter are the same thing.  &#8209;&#8209; Eiríkr Útlendi │ <small style="position: relative; top: -3px;">Tala við mig 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC


 * To attempt to reach a happy middle ground, I have combined the two definitions into one. Just to clarify how I see it the two definitions for Humanization: to represent as human and Personification: an imaginary person that represents a thing or idea; the practice of representing a thing or idea as a person in art, literature, etc. reflect the differences between the words, which supports the inclusion of both words in the definition. Thanks WritersCramp (talk) 12:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't see the difference, using those words, between a humanization of winter and a personification of winter; they both give winter human form, and winter is inherently a thing or idea.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * RFV failed: I see no quotations attesting a "humanization" sense as distinct from a "personification" sense. As per above, avoiding the word "humanization" in the definition and using "personification" seems to be supported by Renard Migrant, Angr, Purplebackpack89, Smurrayinchester, and Dbfirs; I also support this manner of closure. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)