Wikipedia talk:On Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else

Happy to run across this, since I thought I might be lone voice crying the wilderness about this worrisome trend. My observation is that the "solution" term tends to be used by companies in early stages that are not sure yet if they are going to sell products vs. services, or hardware vs. software, or some other kind of positioning choice. This vague word covers up their indecision. Also used by companies that have made the decision, but want to obscure the distinction from customers (often to make it look like they are adding more value that they really are), between, say a monthly service fee or selling a "box" that can be used as much as the customer wishes. Often used along some other buzzword, now days for example cloud solutions where neither article really applies. The other meaningless phrase is "platform" - I always think of an oil drilling rig, while the company usually means "we did not really finish the product, that is up to you". Would also classify "infrastructure" in this class. It usually makes me think of water mains and streets, but each company applies it very different things. W Nowicki (talk) 17:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Platform

What I think the companies mean with "platform" is something like a concrete base platform for a house - a stable foundation you can build upon. However I believe the actual quality of commercial products nowadays is far from being stable, so its kinda misnomer, a wishful thinking or a goal.84.72.8.53 (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Co-oping

I agree, I like this essay. And I agree with others, that either more "honorable mentions" should be added, or more essays should be created. Because this co-oping of existing terms to be used by the "younger" computing/programming industry includes architecture, database architect and software engineer. Even the architectural style flamboyant has been co-opted, and maybe somewhere there are Latin scholars who cringe when Latin words are used for geographic features on other planets/satellites. Wiktionary does make a distinction between existing meanings and "modern/buzzword/scientific" meanings of these terms. Since we can't stop the trend, perhaps a bot can be created that is smart enough to only go through computing/programming articles and re-direct their solutions to a new "solution (computing)" article. Ivansevil (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like these buzzwords. But I think its clear a solution to a problem is meant, not a chemical solution. Its not true that solutions are mixtures and nothing else. Like "I found a solution to the problem how to store 10 million data entries of diverse types in a manageable way. Its a database of type XX."

I think its correct and meaningful to use the term solution in this context. But I think its still vague and abstract which may be a problem for Wikipedia.84.72.8.53 (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The essay is satirical and should not be taken literally:

"leading new page patrollers to believe that the page's creator had another definition of "solution" in mind, one that warrants considering the entire article promotional and, in the more extreme cases, tagging it for speedy deletion. This latter definition of "solution" is public relations slang that should be avoided in Wikipedia articles. "

The point being made is that this word is only used by the companies themselves, that is it would only appear in primary sources. And often those adding the primary source are the company themself. So the author is making a joke about one particular way to detect WP:Promotional edits.--TZubiri (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I add a section on "catering"? I've noticed companies that cater to you very often, and very few are delis.

It's surprising that nobody has mentioned the dictionary definition of solution. In the first two online dictionaries that I looked at (Merriam-Webster and Cambridge Dictionary, the first definition (implying that it is the most common one) is, essentially, "the answer to a problem".

While at one time I too chafed at the usage of solution in the context of describing a company's products, I now believe that it is perfectly acceptable, and preferred when the product offerings run the gamut from physical product to various services. Take, for example, a company that provides "solutions" to the problem of managing payroll. The company may provide software (arguably, "applications"), but also may provide services such as data entry or tax advice, as well as physical product such as paper stock for printing checks. When we say that the company offers "payroll solutions", it means that it addresses multiple aspects of the payroll management task. It's hard to find another word or simple phrase that communicates the notion that the company offers multiple products in that application area.

So in summary, I think that the use of "solution" that this article objects to is commonplace, consistent with the dictionary definition, and suitable. Leotohill (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It may be OK in an article's lead section to summarize the article by saying "the company offers payroll solutions", but what those solutions are should be detailed in the article body.

This essay makes some good points, but the idea that "on Wikipedia, solutions are mixtures and nothing else" simply isn't true. See Talk:Solution#Rename this article to Solution (chemistry). – wbm1058 (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an essay, not a guideline, so take it with a grain of salt (water). If you have a problem with wording in a specific article, please link to it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about Spescom Limited? It uses the word "solution" some 15 times, seems a bit much. Note my recent edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]