Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Nonce introductions

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  No consensus There appears to be little consensus between three or four camps here, with some people calling for outright deletion, some calling for a move to the userspace, and some calling for keep as it is, with a possible rename to avoid WP:ENGVAR issues, as it appears the word "Nonce" is offensive in some dialects. It looks like the move has been done, so that issue has been taken care of. However, there are arguements on all sides of this which indicate that there is not widespread support for any one position. Status quo to remain. Jayron  32  05:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonce introductions
This is offensive. In the UK, nonce is slang for pedophile, and is often used as an epithet against gay men. Of slightly less importance, this is a neologism with no use. And the template which this essay exists to 'support' is about to get deleted anyhow. Please note that I, for one, am explicitly aiming for deletion. Userfication doesn't deal with the sheer offensiveness of this page. → ROUX  ₪  18:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) The essay refers to a valid editorial concept - that of article introductions with nonsensical or pointless form. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative? The word "nonce" has usage in linguistics (nonce word), cryptograpy (cryptographic nonce) and architecture (nonce orders). Do these also achieve a level of "sheer offensiveness" with you? Shouldn't you also nominate those for renaming according to some language that's less offensive to your delicate sensibilities? Note that the UK slang meaning of the term has zero resonance with us here in the states. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 19:38, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay offensiveness aside, it is still a neologism - none of the other examples you give have anything to do with whatever concept you are attaching to "nonce" on this essay  - if anything you've derived the term as, what, contraction of nonsense? Actually can you tell us why you chose the word? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (cutting in) Ah. So at least Ive dealt away with the main issue which was its claimed offensiveness. Now I guess I have to deal with the issue of a "neologism." Its not a formal term, nor is it promoted as one, hence its not a "neologism." Its no different than any of the other terms we Wikipedians have crafted over the years to point to a specific idea or problem with editing (WP:WP). Maybe there's some other name for the concept that would work better, but the editorial problem it points to certainly is real, and needs to be countered. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (To Steve) nuh uh, it is quasiformal if the page has it for a title, I'm sorry. You could have chosen vague, nebulous or guff or even linked it to using weasel words in some way. I wouldn't see it as such a problem except for the frequency with which guidelines and essays are interchanged and the similarity of the layout (apart from the template at the top). Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * All three of those--two, actually, as 'nonce orders' is derived from 'nonce words' (and, one notes, entirely unreferenced)--have very specific etymologies. Neither of which applies here. So no, those are not offensive. This is, and it beggars belief that you were completely unaware of such a usage. In fact, the very use of it indicates that you do know, as 'nonsense' would have been a much clearer and more useful word to use. → ROUX   ₪  20:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * (cutting in) Are you going to do something about that unreferenced artice? I did not know of "nonce"'s pejorative usage in the UK until someone told me just a few weeks ago. In the US, the term has no such connotation, as it simply refers to a "zero" or a "null value". -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 23:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * → ROUX   ₪  23:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The slang term is in the OED - I just looked it up while looking (unsuccessfully) for a meaning somewhat even vaguely approximating this essay. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The slang term which SV claims is in use in the USA? Any notation of how frequent it is? My father's edition of the unabridged OED contained plenty of words no longer in currant usage, or in extremely narrow usage. → ROUX   ₪  00:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was the Longer Oxford (the one with the magnifying glass), it was really late and I couldn't be arsed getting out the magnifying glass and hunt around for some AA batteries, so my eyes were a bit screwy reading the tiny print and I probably missed an (arch.) if there was one there, which is possible. I will look again later today unless someone else has a hankering to do so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The slang term is in the OED Online, but it's labeled as "Brit. Criminals' slang." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * tending delete too (though not so strongly as the template). While I believe in the freedom of self-expression, I do worry about the similarity leading to confusion for new editors between personal essays and other essay-like pages of a more official nature. Thus on the balance, I feel this detracts more than it adds to the 'pedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * delete. Misleading vehicle for inserting one particular contributor's POV into articles through soon to be recently deleted  template. DVdm (talk) 19:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - I think a certain amount of leeway should be given to essays, and if it's not linked to articles via a tag, then there's little chance of anyone being fooled into thinking it's policy, or even widely accepted. Also, a reminder to all that the essay is only one editor's opinion at this time because I don't believe anyone else has contributed anything substantive to it. Is there the possibility that it can be turned into something useful, perhaps with a rename to something that isn't a new meaning for an old word? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus its' template uses a trout for an icon: Hardly something one could take too seriously. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy - After further thought, the arguments for userfication make more sense to me than keeping it as a mainspace essay, where it could be mistaken for policy or a widely accepted view. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to Vague introductions or something like that. This article doesn't clearly relate to the more established, non-offensive meaning of the word "nonce" (meaning something like "a one-time use"), much less any sexual meaning of the word. I have no objection to the main content of the essay, just the title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to some other name such as Vague introductions or whatever. My inclination is to keep essays; they're just essays. I don't necessarily agree with with the essay and would feel free to ignore it if cited. I don't think its a good essay and I don't believe that it has the support or gravitas to live in Wikipedia space, and I would ask the essay creator to show some humility and move it user space, and he can cite it from there. But if he doesn't want to, let it stay. But it must be renamed. Herostratus (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about this - is there anything in this essay which is not covered at Manual of Style (words to watch)? In which cae is it adding anything unique that is worth keeping? I guess I'd be happy to userfy if Stevertigo had some plans to make it somehow more than just a rehash of an existing page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes Userfy would be OK with me too. The main value of essays (I guess) is so that editors can say "per WP:NAME-OF-ESSAY" rather than having to type the same argument out over and over. But this is only really useful if more than one editor is citing the essay, and/or it gets cited more than occasionally. So if neither of these apply, then Userfy is maybe best. If more than one editor starts to use it, it can be moved back to Wikipedia space.Herostratus (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Userfy (or weak keep or rename) the essay, delete the template. I've never heard of that British slang usage.  I'm used to a US(?) idiom "for the nonce" (i.e. "for the moment"), plus the term "nonce" in programming (a unique number generated for some purpose, such as in some security protocols).  (Added note: there is a WP dab page nonce and a dicdef wikt:nonce.  The sexual connotation is in fact mentioned.  I learn new things on Wikipedia all the time.)  67.119.2.101 (talk) 04:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I like Casliber's suggestion of just mentioning the issue in the manual of style. 67.119.2.101 (talk) 05:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfy The opinion expressed in the essay is not patently unreasonable/unacceptable and is within the boundaries of leeway accorded to Wikipedia essays. Being unintentionally poorly titled (cf. aforecited similar non-vulgar uses of "nonce") is merely an editorial issue which can be dealt with through other standard editorial processes (e.g. WP:RM). I personally would endorse a move to Vague introductions. If consensus ends up being for such a move and Stevertigo refuses, Userfication would be merited. --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Userfly However it must be renamed to reflect the content. "Vague introductions" is a suitable name, or even "Nonsense introductions" (since it is merely an opinion). The premise almost sounds like WP:WEASEL (Weasel words)  Steve Quinn (talk) 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I have had second thoughts. I am looking at the big picture here. Steve-tigo has, in essence, created his own Wikipedia with these essays. He has referenced these essays to shore up his own opinions on talk pages, and to rationalize placing WP:OR into articles. In other words, he, himself, has given these essays equal weight to WP guidelines and policies. I admit I haven't seen it done frequently, and not since the Time in physics article. I can tell you this is a confusing experience, when first encountering Stevertigo. When he is an unknown, the other editor is unaware of his preference for WP:OR. Also, if he uses a Wikipedia-like shortcut WP:XYZ, then this adds to the confusion. For me personally, I cannot sanction him having essays on Wikipedia. I'm thinking there must be a guideline or policy about this. In any case, this is only my logic. Antoher editor did mention something to the effect that Stevertigo should be accountable for his string of essays. I didn't understand what this person meant at the time. Now I do. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * By accountable in this case, I mean I prefer that this string of essays be deleted. Nothing more than that. (My own personal logic). Steve Quinn (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Seems itself to be vague clutter which should be pruned per WP:CREEP. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CREEP: "Instruction creep occurs when Wikipedia guideline or policy pages..."; but we're talking about an essay here. --Cyber cobra (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Essays of this kind hope to be guidelines when they grow up. It seems best to catch them early before they become vested and ossified.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that "nonse" is offensive in the UK is not a grounds for deletion. The term nonce word is of long standing and directly parallel to the "nonce introduction" usage. "Neologism" does not properly apply to "nonce" (in the sense of "ad hoc") despite what its homonym might imply (I see no sexual nature whatsoever to the article for anyone to take offense at, by the way). Collect (talk) 10:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * How on earth is it parallel? Nonce word is derived from 'for the nonce', meaning 'for now.' It is used here as a weird contraction of 'nonsense.'→ ROUX   ₪  19:23, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked at it as being "this introduction is using this phrasing 'for the moment'" that is "a case which is not likely to recur (in other articles)"  hence allowing "nonce" which is substantially different from the Britishism "nonse" to be sure.   "Nonsense" means "conveying nothing" which is not what those introductions do.  Collect (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well you're looking wrong. Re-read what has been said by Stevertigo on the actual page listed here. It's being used as a shortform for 'nonsense', and not 'this is the introduction we're using for now.' → ROUX   ₪  20:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Per suggestions by Casliber and others, moved to WP:VAI.-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I believe that the consensus was settling in to either delete it or userify it, but your pre-emptive move won't make any difference in the meantime. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I scanned all the comments and they support move. AGF. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, the MfD will continue, and will be closed as normal, and if the closer's assessment of the consensus is different from your "scan", it won't matter a wit that you moved it. And, please, you've eroded my GF bit by bit with your constant evasions, pre-emptive moves, tactical maneuvres, muddying of the waters, attempts to sidetrack the conversation to personalities, and, most of all, your apparent unwillingness or inability to just be straight with us. Congratulations, you've managed to convert me from someone who thought you just got caught in a time warp, and should be banned as a way to get your attention, to someone who thinks that you're basically not suited to edit here at all. No one else did that, you did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Essays are a routinely acceptable format for reasonable discussion of editorial issues. The move to Vague introductions moots any potential concerns relating to the connotations of "nonce". Peter Karlsen (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to User space - I find 2 relevant guidelines for this case
 * Category:User essays says "Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author."
 * Wikipedia essays (WP:NOESSAY) says "The Wikipedia community has historically tolerated a wide range of subjects and viewpoints on essay pages. However, there are a handful of "essay" pages that tend to get deleted or transferred to user space. These include:... Writings that overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus), especially if they are intended to undermine, not just disagree with, those pages. Such oppositional views are, however, generally tolerated within user essays."


 * Stevertigo has written numerous essays for which the content is solely his:
 * Conceptualization
 * Explanationism
 * Articles must be written
 * Cohesion
 * Paradoxes
 * Concept cloud
 * Concept limit
 * Nonce introductions
 * plus one that was significantly altered from Stevertigo's POV, and is now no longer expresses opposition to WP:OR
 * Be a reliable source


 * Besides the nonce template he created to "enforce" his NONCE essay, Stevertigo has created numerous shortcuts to his own essays:
 * WP:CONLIM
 * WP:CONCEPT
 * WP:ABSTRACT
 * WP:EXPLAIN
 * WP:AMW
 * WP:VAI
 * WP:NONCE
 * WP:BARS
 * Templates and shortcuts convey to most readers (and editors) that these have community endorsement, and Stevertigo's employment of these methods indicates he has taken advantage of this. All shortcuts to his single editor essays should be removed. Without endorsement that his essays are a  to WP guidelines & policies, his single editor essays should be moved to user space. I also think we should consider creation & usage of  for any future similar cases. --JimWae (talk) 21:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Shortcuts do not convey community endorsement. Nonce introductions does not appear to "overtly contradict policy (or other pages with established consensus)". Stevertigo's other essays on the other hand... --Cyber cobra  (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strange, just a week ago Jim and I were collaborating on the punishment article - Steve was the one who knocked the board over and published his memoirs at the ANI (3-4 pages). Is it now your mission, Jim, to overturn or undo anything I may have had a hand in creating? Start by taking a look at the early history of WP:CIVIL and WP:WP. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 05:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record. the credit for the original essay on civility goes to User:Anthere, which she created on wikimedia here. --Modocc (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * WHERE, Stevertigo, have I been the least bit incivil? This is about editing practices. I realize it could be hard to separate the two, but this is not a personal attack. --JimWae (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of the above was based on the term being sexually offensive. A new MfD ab initio is clearly called for if the new reasoning has nought to do with the word, but just with the author. Collect (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, very little of the above is about the term being sexually offensive, as the closing admin will see. That particular complaint is dealt with quite early in the conversation, and most of the ensuing conversation is about the qualities of the essay. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To repeat: Category:User essays says "Essays in Wikipedia namespace that are mostly written by a single person, and not frequently referenced, are generally moved to the userspace of their author."
 * Shortcuts do not officially convey community endorsement, but shortcuts and templates, as part of wp infrastructure, appear to convey community backing. The only one of Stevertigo's essays that is not solely his contribution is WP:BARS, which now no longer opposes WP:V. His WP:NONCE (essay under discussion here) narrowly focusses on philosophical topics. Is the upshot of the essay supposed to be that ledes are not the place to mention that there is dispute about a def or that philosophical issues can be dismissed (that would violate NPOV)? Does the essay contend that if a definition is contested by reliable sources, that the first sentence of the article still ought to present THE definition of the term and that no other definitions be included? (see: time, atheism, universe, republicanism -- even the definition of rectangle is undergoing some widening). In July, he applied the template to the Time article, even though it did began with A definition - just not the definition he liked. What application does this essay have that is not covered better elsewhere in wp guidelines?--JimWae (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to userspace. The title has been moved to "Vague introductions", but the page doesn't say anything or contribute to the project as written. It's a definition whose total content is: "a vague introduction is one that doesn't define the topic, here are 4 reasons why that might be". Doesn't provide any useful direction, information or content. Until it does, it's not really a Wikipedia essay nor useful to the wider project. FT2 (Talk 12:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Now has some content more than just a complaint about some introductions - it now offers a way to ameliorate the problems. Collect (talk) 13:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete  Sorry, even I thought it was somehow about sex criminals at first glance. Not a useful addition to the 'pedia even if it is renamed. I'd just bin it if I were me (wait...I am me!) Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.