Talk:Technobabble

Strongly disagree
The current lede implies that technical jargon which is entirely consistent with some actual body of knowledge fits the term. This is wrong both factually and morally. Technobabble is literally meaningless made up dialog that is used in science fiction, classically Star Trek but most Sci Fi, and is literally babble although it may be plausible to the ignorant. The first sentence is the worst, but the whole lede fosters the impression that people conducting discourse in serious fields that may be incomprehensible to the vast majority of the ignorant and uneducated are also incomprehensible to people who are well informed generally about science and so forth without being necessarily experts in a particular field and are therefore subject to being bamboozled by babble with ill concocted language. This is, in general (transgressive hermeneutics, aside), manifestly not the case in the hard sciences, and the expression of this view is a moral evil I feel necessary to be clear about, the degree of progress to absolute truth in this or that legitimate field of study notwithstanding. Heartily concur with the existing tagging which isn't sufficient. Lycurgus (talk) 13:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I corrected the definition in the lead and also removed a large unreferenced section based entirely on original reaearch. Some properly sourced examples would be beneficial. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Merge from Turbo encabulator
Turbo encabulator seems like a classic example of technobabble (described as such in at least one source), of borderline notability for a stand-alone article. Mergign this here might be a good idea, this is a substub that should probably discuss some prime examples of technobabble. Thoughts? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 12:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * As per my reply in Talk:Turbo_encabulator, I would not merge as I believe the other article to be notable in itself. The Turbo Encabulator could be mentioned here though, as an example. --LordPeterII (talk) 10:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per LordPeterII. Urban Versis 32KB ⚡ (talk / contribs) 01:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The other end of the merge proposal has been removed as that article should stand alone. This article needs expanding in its own right. --Scott Davis Talk 12:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Big words" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Big words and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 20:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)