Talk:entitlement generation

entitlement generation
A messy new article which I have not cleaned up, because I reckon it ought to get deleted anyway, being a generation with entitlement (the years given in the definition are by no means standard, and I have seen the dates range considerably more than that). --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 00:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This might be a wording issue and an RfV issue. If some print subculture uses this, it might be real enough. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I must admit that I deleted it on sight. However, if it can be attested, and somebody can provide a better definition then it could be re-added. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are nearly 300 bgc hits (with preview) in what may be an appropriate sense (as well as clearly SoP usage) that corresponds to this. Some writers seem to be referring to those also referred to as "Gen Y" or "Millennials". It seems to me to be an uncapitalized proper noun. The alternative reading is that this is just an epithet for a loose grouping or for those referred to more widely as "Gen Y" etc. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Please don't re-add it; in the UK the Prime Minister talks about a culture of entitlement, clearly we need to get the right definition of entitlement, that is, if we don't already have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not? It seems at least as meritorious as some of the recent compound-noun entries that have survived RfD. Is there any reason not to include it other than a possibly unpleasant-to-some political association? "All words [broadly defined] in all languages". DCDuring TALK 13:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One question that arises in my mind is whether a term is lexicographically distinct enough that a separate entry makes sense. I'm not sure this phrase clears that bar; just for my part, I've heard this phrase used to describe the baby boomers instead of the Gen Y or millenial generations.  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I favor the operationalization of any objective criteria that would enable us to get beyond sloganeering when it comes to inclusion. Can we make visible the bar that this must clear. At one time we actually considered the Pawley criteria for idiomaticity, which would scarcely exclude anything. The consensus seemed to step back from that precipice. This is not a bad test case. I'm not too happy leaving all decisions to a vote without reference to particular criteria. We don't actually have to adhere to any linguist's definition of idiomaticity. We would need something more tailored to the needs of users conditioned by lexicographic practice. Mostly we would need to make a decision on appropriate criteria for the near future (a year?), not for all time. DCDuring TALK 17:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I confess I'm not familiar with Pawley, but your description makes me glad that route was not taken. One concern this particular phrase ("entitlement generation") brings to mind is that three citations of a specific meaning and that meet the WT:CFI dating requirements can still produce entries that are misleading at best.  One could presumably find enough citations of  to meet CFI for a meaning of "the generating of entitlements".  Perhaps that's what the Pawley criterion describes?  So yes, I'd be happy to have something a bit more concrete to go by than the current community consensus.  How best would we hit upon something like that?  -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:46, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See User:DCDuring/Pawley. —Ruakh TALK 20:59, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As you can see there are many criteria and many, many terms would be included. This term would meet criteria 11 (inseperability of the component words), 19 (use of definite article on first mention), 20 (use of quotes to enclose the term), and 22 (arbitrary selection of one meaning). Criterion 22 is my bete noire as it would allow all phrases in which at least one word is polysemic but one sense of the polysemic word is much more common in the phrase. In general I dislike those criteria that completely eliminate the role of context in decoding the meaning of the term, such as the idea that bullet hole (hole made BY bullet) and button hole (hole FOR button) should both be included. DCDuring TALK 23:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Deleted by SemperBlotto. — T AKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)