Talk:Transcreation

To whom it may concern,

We wrote this scholarly article about the concept 'transcreation'. However, three days ago, another article was published on Wikipedia under the name 'the little book of Transcreation'. Therefore, our choice of the title 'transcreation' is being blocked.

The page 'the little book of transcreation' seems to be promoting a company rather than providing appropriate information on the term. Our article is objective and well referenced. It gives a clear outline on what the term 'transcreation' is and how this service is used.

We chose the title 'cultural adaptation' as it is a synonym for transcreation. However, there seems to be a problem because we do not refer to 'cultural adaptation' enough in the article and this therefore makes it rather unclear.

Could you kindly advice us on how we should proceed in order to submit the article under 'transcreation'?

Yours sincerely,

Sarah Abery

 Done - I have renamed it. JohnCD (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Cultural Anthropology

The term "Cultural Adaptation" has been widely used in cultural anthropology for over a century, and in particular since the 1950s. A disambiguation page is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.48.250 (talk) 20:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Article has been included in Wikipedia

The article was deemed worthy for inclusion in Wikipedia: the result of the AfD was to keep it, because it's functional and appropriate as a Wikipedia article per Wikipedia notability guidelines, and its inclusion is congruent with building Wikipedia. Northamerica1000 (talk) 09:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Very sceptical about WP:N

I got an email saying "We're proud to announce that Textappeal has launched the first official Wikipedia entry on the definition of transcreation.8>< Read the full article by clicking on the following link:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcreation. 8><" I'm sorry but really don't think that commercial companies should be launching wikipedia articles about neologisms they have created for commercial purposes. NBeale (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

What happened to this article?

Will someone please explain why this article was redirected to Wiktionary?

Skeptiktb (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but not in this form - spammy

I am not against the existence of the article, ie it is good to have the word explained. However, Wikipedia is not a place for advertisment/spam, and many of the refs lead one way or another to textappeal.com. Also, the article is way too verbose, not of encyclopedic style. All the other style issues, and there is quite a few, are of lesser importance in comparison (structure, wikification). So, yeah, Wikipedia is not for SEO. Littledogboy (talk) 14:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

On reflection, i suggest immediate and merciless deletion of all the refs that link to particular marketing companies, directly or indirectly. If there is no dissent (not counting the creator/s or his/her boss), I will proceed in a week's time. Littledogboy (talk) 14:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed direct and indirect links to textappeal (3), trademarken.co.uk (2), kwintessential.co.uk, mothertongue.com, brandrants.com. Left some of the others (not sure I should have), as some even quote sources! Dont’t add – self promo, company websites, blogs, collections of anecdotes, hidden pr and advertising. Please do add reliable independent sources of information. Overall, the article needs a radical cull, as the simple concept it covers could be explained in about three sentences. Personaly, I'd go for one sentence: transcreation is a term that only slightly overextends good quality translation, mainly used for localization in marketing. Littledogboy (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Transcreation

Man 103.100.4.188 (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2022 (UTC)