Template talk:Solution-inline
Text choice edit
Hello. I've just seen Template:Solution-inline. I agree that we could do with a way of tagging this silly marketing term, but I'm not sure that "chemistry term" is the best way of doing it, since there are also other legitimate uses of the word, as in the solution of a problem. I think there is likely to be a better wording to use, though at present I'm not sure what it might be. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- FWIW this particular wording (as well as the linked essay) were supposed to make use of this bit of satire to highlight the issue. I think that appropriate uses of the word "solution" just shouldn't be tagged. Eg.:
ABC, Inc. provides storage solutions[buzzword] for wealthy enterprises. Hard disk drives are known to wear out relatively quickly under heavy use; ABC's engineers found solution for this problem, which served the basis for ABC's Unwearable Disk Drive (UDD) product line. Consequently UDD solutions[buzzword] became the only choice for all sane tech staff.
— imaginary "ABC, Inc." article
- P.S.: I don't own this template any more (at least since I moved it from my userspace), so feel free to edit this as you find appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)How about "Marketing-speak buzzword", or just "Marketing buzzword"', or even just "Buzzword"? JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer
"marketing slang" or"PR slang" then. I clearly prefer the latter, as it is yet less neutral. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)- I hadn't thought to click on the link and see where it led to. I like it. "PR slang" is more appropriate, but loses some of the satire. One of the thing that never ceases to amaze me is how far people who work in marketing/PR can be completely blind to the unnatural nature of the language they use. Many of them seem to be genuinely unaware of the fact that the gobbledygook they spout is not natural English. I am inclined to go for "This is either a chemistry term or pretentious PR slang", but I suspect that would not be acceptable to that strange gang called the "Wikipedia community". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- May be "PR chemistry" then? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's quite good. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- That is particularly good for Russian editors, as the Russian word "химия" (chemistry) has an alternative meaning of "suspicious, possibly fraudulent activity". Unfortunately I couldn't find an analogy in English; may be you can? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's quite good. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- "PR dreg" or "PR turbidity"? (I used Google Translate for this, so copy edit might be required.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- May be "PR chemistry" then? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I hadn't thought to click on the link and see where it led to. I like it. "PR slang" is more appropriate, but loses some of the satire. One of the thing that never ceases to amaze me is how far people who work in marketing/PR can be completely blind to the unnatural nature of the language they use. Many of them seem to be genuinely unaware of the fact that the gobbledygook they spout is not natural English. I am inclined to go for "This is either a chemistry term or pretentious PR slang", but I suspect that would not be acceptable to that strange gang called the "Wikipedia community". JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- I would prefer
- (talk page stalker)How about "Marketing-speak buzzword", or just "Marketing buzzword"', or even just "Buzzword"? JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
- Another possible option would be "using PR solvent?" Indeed, the original product is dissolved in PR slang to produce a marketing department-friendly substance. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with something that simply says 'uninformative' or 'needs specifics' or 'does not describe a product or service', myself. While I'm all for more satire, I'm not sure it belongs in style-guide templates. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- My starting point was that such misuses of word "solution" are deliberate, and as such deserve some kind of slap. Given the scale of misuse, I still find the neutral wording acceptable, but at least it shouldn't be that general. We have {{clarify}} at our disposal for generalizations. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be happy with something that simply says 'uninformative' or 'needs specifics' or 'does not describe a product or service', myself. While I'm all for more satire, I'm not sure it belongs in style-guide templates. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Redirected edit
I redirected this to Template:Buzzword inline since targeting the one word solution in particular, especially with "features" to be extra-sarcastic, is pretty useless. Or perhaps I should say: It does not maximally utilize a user-oriented solution to proactively resolving a productivity investment in the Wikipedia enterprise environment, with a reliable ROI for its deployment requirements. :-) — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 15:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)