Template talk:Db-g1/Archive 1

Instructions

To add the message on an article you write {{msg:nonsense}} at the top.

Feedback

• How do you think about the "msg:nonsense" notice? Optim 18:07, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The text is currently:

This article in its present state is considered nonsense or incomprehensible by many. You may try to fix it by establishing context, fixing language expression and simplifying or adding more information.

It's Great!

• Optim: We can mark nonsense or inadequate articles easily and quickly and encourage people fix them. Some articles that are currently nonsense are, in fact, totally legitimate articles if we can establish context. For example: "Dwadf is the king of the northern kingdom in Planet X" reads like nonsense, but if we establish context by adding "In an RPG game named Dwadf Adventures, Dwadf is the king of..." then the article is ok.
• Perl: very good. I see many nonsense articles on Wikipedia and I will appreciate this tool!! Perl 19:48, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's OK.

• Dpbsmith Seems reasonable. I just wanted a choice other than "great." It has a good beat and you can dance to it... give it an 85. Dpbsmith 20:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

And by the way... I think Template:Nonsense should be edited so that the page does not appear to be self-referential :-) Dpbsmith 20:31, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• If used as Optim intends, it's great. But I think it will spark many edit wars/bad feelings when misused. If someone disputes the neutrality of what I just wrote....well, we can work on that. Even if someone wants it deleted, hey, maybe it's because I chose an unencyclopedic subject....I'll get miffed, I expect, but I'm interested in why they want it deleted. If someone calls it nonsense....I think I'll be pissed off. Just my thoughts. Jwrosenzweig 20:54, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • As an example of how language like "nonsense" is limiting....the only option on this page for disagreeing with this idea is to call it stupid. I don't think it's stupid, but I could easily have posted the above comments there because I think it a bad idea. But Optim, especially if he was new, might think that very insulting. Trying to clarify, Jwrosenzweig 20:56, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
    • I used the most easily recognisable and common word to describe the situation where an article fails to establish context or be understandable by readers with no or little familiarity with the article's subject. There is no way I could get insulted if there is no personal attack involved, so don't worry. I am here from 2003. and, hey, I expect from all of you to improve the "nonsense" message, either by changing its wording or even replacing the "nonsense" word with a better one, or even moving the message under a new title if you think this is good! I couldn't think of any better title than "nonsense", but I was considering "incomprehensible" as an alternative, which finally I decided it is probably hard or an unknown word for non-native English speakers. So I preferred the more common "nonsense" and I risked some possible future misunderstandings or bad feelings ("Hey mom! see! they call my new superb article a nonsense! they are crazy!") :) Optim 21:20, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I think the "nonsense" flag is good, just because it adds a grey area between "this should be deleted" and "this is a stub". If the article doesn't make enough sense for you to build off of it, but it seems possible that somebody knew what they were doing and you don't just want to throw it away, what else could you put there besides the proposed "nonsense" flag? Because I agree it may be somewhat insulting, but I think it's less insulting than a call for deletion. The difference is between saying "I don't understand your work" and "I don't value your work".--Skyfaller 02:41, 2004 Mar 2 (UTC)

It's Nonsense!

• Fix it, list it on Cleanup, stop adding silly tags to articles.—Eloquence
• I don't see what this is supposed to solve. I don't think adding a tag will encourage people to fix it, and the author of the page is likely to feel insulted by having their work branded as nonsense. Angela. 01:02, Mar 2, 2004 (UTC)
• I will remove this stupid tag from every article I see. List articles on clean-up if they have issues! --mav 01:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• If it's nonsense, it was probably intended to be nonsense, and should be gotten rid of. Ditto above sentiments too. Dysprosia 02:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• If something is nonsense, it should be deleted. If you're not sure, list it on cleanup. Maximus Rex 02:44, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• It seems POV to just slap a nonsense label on something and let it go. RickK 03:20, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I don't see how this tag could possibly improve the editing process. moink 22:32, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• I don't actually think it's nonsense, but I think it'd cause more harm than good for the reason of ambiguity outlined below by User:Dpbsmith. Have a look at my suggestions in the #Discussion section, too. Mr. Jones 08:55, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• The rewrite is much better than the original, but after following the discussion, I'm falling back into the camp of T'ain't needed; vfd/stub/cleanup msgs & pages already cover it. Elf 00:02, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Neutral / Don't care

• This seems similar, but more specific, than wikipedia:inclusion dispute (which is now withdrawn). An interesting idea, certainly. Martin 00:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• your name here

Discussion

• I think that we need something like this but the word "nonsense" is sure to be irritating. However, I'm brain dead this morning and so am not immediately coming up with something a little more NPOV. Elf 18:22, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Gibberish perhaps? ;) nonsense is fine with me. It isn't really NPOV to tell someone that their writing sucks, now is it? Perl 19:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

How about incomprehensible or meaning unclear? Mr. Jones 08:51, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• I suggest a slightly milder / more diplomatic formulation, like: This article in its present state does not seem to make much sense., etc. It should only be used in the case that it is such plain nonsense that more specific criticism is not possible. --Patrick 21:01, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep in mind I wrote "it is considered nonsense by many" and not "it is considered nonsense", hoping this will not make the authors angry. However, I still think many people may get insulted by calling their articles "nonsense" and there are many possible optimisations which can be made to prevent this. I introduced a new toy to the community and I expect Wikipedians to play with it, improve it and finally optimise it for Wikipedia's good. So, please improve the message in any way you can. :) Optim 21:20, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• The article namespace is not the place for making provactive comments like this. Commentary should be kept to the talk page, and should be more concillartory. I see this message having limited use - it is much more useful to state why you think an article is nonsense, or better yet fix it rather than rather lazily slap a non-descript nonsense of the article... well that's my opinion anyway... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 23:34, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

• NONSENSE:

1) Words or signs having no intelligible meaning: a message that was nonsense until decoded.

2) Subject matter, behavior, or language that is foolish or absurd...

The mischief in the word "nonsense" is that I think Optim means for the message to cover meaning #1, but it may be perceived as having meaning #2.

Specifically, I think Optim means it to be used on incoherent and irrational rambling that is, in fact, an obvious candidate for deletion unless clarified. In other words, "'Twas brillig and the slithy toves" is nonsense. "Timecubes are epiphenomenological manifestations of the intersection of orgone energy, also known as vibratory c'hi, with the ectoplasmic aura" is nonsense. "Bill Gates has more innovation in his little finger than FSF and OSDL put together" is not nonsense, merely the expression of a (warped) POV. Right? Dpbsmith 00:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thinking about what I just wrote, I went ahead and replaced the previous text with a whole 'nother version. Dpbsmith 00:43, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

If it's an obvious candidate for deletion, you might want to link in with wikipedia:speedy deletions.

• Posting msg:nonsense is too easy a gesture and also too all-inclusive. (Too often, what we really mean is "Utter rubbish!") Context and insertions (more explanation needed here) are two useful tools to attack opaque prose. Context sets the whole entry in context as in User:Optim's " "Dwadf is the king of the northern kingdom" example above. Most Wikientries need to begin "In Greek mythology" or "In Arianism" for statements to have objective reality. This extends to "In Catholic dogma" or "In American culture." Such context openings focus the article. The other tool is the insertion, cautiously used, which identifies the specific word or phrase that is not transmitting information (this needs a quote). I realize these few insertions are disfiguring, temporarily, to a handsome layout, like a Post-It on the Mona Lisa (is the mustache original?). Wetman 15:11, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)