Talk:Ideation (creative process)
 | This page was proposed for deletion by 2604:2000:F8A0:8C00:B40B:25D8:D496:D316 (talk · contribs) in the past with the comment: "This article covers a dictionary term in ways that does not add encyclopedic knowledge but instead is an article designed for self-promotion of academic publications to gain credibility." It was contested by Samuel J. Howard (talk · contribs) with the comment: This is a substantial topic in psychology and needs to be covered. There are citations. The emphasis on particular sources could be adjusted, but I'm not convinced it's merely a WP:COATRACK for the sources. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
i am not an expert but this is a term used also in suicide prevention
the article is in first person....?
Ideational disturbance
editCan somebody please define ideational disturbance for me?
Which professions actually use this phrase, or has it fallen into disuse lately?
When, exactly, was this term first used?
Is it a neologism, presumably coined in the 1980s or 1990s?
Though new in use since the 80s/90s, it's orign is actually surprisingly old: It dates back to 1610.
Here's a discussion about it on a German dictionary website, partly in English: discussion aboute "ideate" on leo.org
Concerning the profession and use: As far as I know it's primarily used amongst innovation managers and creativity professionals in the sense of: generating ideas/ coming up with ideas. --Matchtime (talk) 14:03, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Notable?
editIs this topic even notable enough for it's own article? --Ronz 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.236.104 (talk) 01:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
- No, agreed. This is no more than marketing pixie-dust lloking for validation with this entry… pseudo branding of what is essentially "problem-solving" has no place in wikipedia. This neologism belongs in urbandictionary.com at best. --Davidb soca (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
- I also lean towards no. I'm not convinced that this is a separate topic from Creativity broadly, and various stages such as Innovation, Design, etc. Currently the lead says "Ideation comprises all stages of a thought cycle, from innovation, to development, to actualization.". Heck, that makes it an amorphous topic about 'thinking' generally, requiring very different types of thinking to encompass that. To me, it feels like this article is currently mostly about one approach/methodology to encouraging innovation in an organisation, but with little bits of other similar methodologies added to pretend it is a real viable Wikipedia topic. Maybe there is an article here about a 'business process', rather than a creative process. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- No. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article consists of a dictionary-like definition; an irrelevant section on types of innovation has no express connection to the topic; and criticism of the word as meaningless jargon.Mrgilbe1 (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Moved from article
edit"There exist category of specialised consulting companies working inside a field of creativity or concept development. These companies use various ideation techniques."
It's unsourced, promotional in nature, and doesn't fit with the current content. --Ronz 16:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the creative consultants are a vital part of the current ideation process, because they are often hired to fill ideation needs. This is due to the fact that a limited amount of literature exists on ideation practices which makes companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.35.3 (talk) 23:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
ideation
editIDEATION - an absolutely awful American English description for a creative thought process. WHY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.231.162 (talk) 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Says who? I think it is pretty smart! Besides opinions on words do not negate their acceptance into modern English. I disliked the word Cynergy, but it is now part of modern English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.35.3 (talk) 23:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Ideational change
editOn page 13 of the EEA technicl report Global governance-the rise of non-state actors, there is a section on Ideational change.213.7.161.118 (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC) When you say "Cynergy" are you talking about the energy of Cygnet's? Or do you mean "synergy"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.130.17 (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't a long list of "methods of innovation" be in innovation instead of here?
editWhat do you think? -- 92.226.0.237 (talk) 23:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)