Wikipedia talk:Vague introductions

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia essays, a collaborative effort to organize and monitor the impact of Wikipedia essays. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion. For a listing of essays see the essay directory.Wikipedia essaysWikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysTemplate:WikiProject Wikipedia essaysWikiProject Wikipedia essays pages
Low	This page has been rated as Low-impact on the project's impact scale.
	The above rating was automatically assessed using data on pageviews, watchers, and incoming links.

This page was nominated for deletion on 26 September 2010. The result of the discussion was No Consensus.

Consider a rename?

May I please ask that the redirect for this essay and the title of it consider undergoing a rename? I am not sure how many editors here are aware, but the word Nonce is slang in the UK, generally found in prisons and refers to a child molester or pedophile. Having a redirect marked WP:NONCE is a bit shocking until you go to the article. Anyone want to step in for the sake of sanity? BarkingFish ^{Talk to me} | ^{My contributions} 17:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am considering deletion. The whole template and link give this an illusion of legitimacy. We have "nonce" meaning either "word for the now" or its slang meaning..and I fail to see how either are related to this essay on a vague introduction. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by all means file for deletion, or for move to the author's name space. This essays' very reason of existence (the template {{nonce}}) is about to get deleted anyway. DVdm (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vague essay

I get the feeling this essay was inspired by one or two specific articles, but since those aren't named it's rather vague. Granted, it appears focused on philosophical topics, where defining a concept is as hard as describing it. It eventually gives advice, but that advice seems ideosyncratic. Multiple leads in an article? I'd think that if a term covers topics so diverse that they can't be defined in a paragraph then maybe it'd be more appropriate to split it into two or more articles. Could we see examples of good articles with separate leads? Overall, this doesn't really seem like an "essay"—it's too short. Could the mainstream contents be merged into WP:LEAD? Will Beback talk 12:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I disagree with the point it is trying to make. I think there are several cases where a vague definition is not only preferablebut necessary.·Maunus·ƛ· 02:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]