Wikipedia talk:Too long; didn't read

Redirects and content length
WP:TLDR used to link to the GFDL text. There were no links to the shortcut at the time, but it is a good example. ←Ben B4 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't read this page :)  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  12:20, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * so tru tho lol Glitchood101 (talk) 05:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree with Radiant, in particular, the following sentence is too long: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences [we get it already], for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines [dubious analogy] and a machine no unnecessary parts [Tell that to car-manufacturers]. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but [I don't care about what is not required!] that every word tell." Merzul (talk) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Too long; didn't read page is a good example of TL;DR. Shorten it up please User  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.72.242 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I get that this page is meant to be unnecessarily wordy, but I don't think that self-demonstrating articles are good protocal on wikipedia. A part of me can't help but try to edit it down, though I know that would defeat the purpose. On the other hand it propably shouldn't be that way in the first place. AnkhAnanku 22:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

GFDL???
That's not a policy. Merzul (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Increasingly, it's being treated as if it were one.Skookum1 (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Too many words?
I would not have thought this would be a reasonable venue for posting the following draft, but maybe I'm missing the point a little bit? My personal focus has been informed by WP:NPOV; and because of this fundamental stance, I wouldn't have thought this would be a likely venue to invite constructive criticism of the writing style and content below -- but maybe I've been simply wrong. I hope this becomes a step in the right direction as I learn how to better edit my writing to make it more succinct, less wordy -- more effective. If the following does not properly belong here, then where? --Tenmei (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hesitate to add this to the talk page at Hyūga class helicopter destroyer for fear that someone will complain that it has "too many words." In a context which arises before I posted my initial edit to that article's second paragraph, it becomes possible to begin to appreciate what's gone so very wrong as the result of an unthinking reliance on Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org.  An unmindful insistence on what is published in a reference book without giving due weight to consequences which flow from the Japanese context leads inexorably to mistakes in some instances.


 * Wikipedia's current treatment of JDS Hyūga implicates deep-rooted paradigms based on premises which effectively function to exclude or excise crucial issues from the body of the article; and this becomes a defect when it affects significant content which remains otherwise inextricable in reality.  Relying solely on English-language naval ship catalogs, the edit history reveals how otherwise credible edits and edits have thwarted, deleted or blocked, thus stunting this subject's development -- see Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer


 * Personally, of course, I don't care what the article about JDS Hyūga is named, nor do I care about the terminology used to describe this vessel -- but I'm persuaded that WP:NPOV expects us all to care very much about the "why" which informs whatever name or terminology is selected.


 * Although generally valued as highly credible resources, Jane's Fighting Ships and Global Security.org promote systemic bias in at least this one instance because their congruent terminology derives from primary sources bearing the imprimatur of the Japanese government. As such, reliance on this "gold standard" for descriptive terminology relating to Japanese naval ships is defensible, and any reasoned consensus based on such standards is also defensible; however, neither can be considered determinative.  There is an inherent caveat in reliance on the imprimatur of the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force and the newly formed Ministry of Defense (Japan).  When the  logical progeny of such reliance produce deleterious effects in Wikipedia, this subtle cancer mandates giving more than lip-service to WP:V and WP:NPOV.


 * As you may know, the Constitution of Japan prohibits "aircraft carriers"; and therefore the Japanese quite sensibly identify the JDS Hyūga with a unique, non-aircraft carrier name. In Japan, if ducks were prohibited by the Japanese Constitution, then something which waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, and behaves like a duck would be sensibly given a unique non-duck name.  As it  relates to use of the term "aircraft carrier," this unique bias is informed by the constitution which was imposed during the post-war occupation by the Americans; and it, along with many other salutatory aspects of the Constitution, has been embraced by subsequent generations of Japanese.


 * Among the Japanese, the practical decision-making which sometimes calls for a prudent substitution of flexible notions of "fiction" for "fact" is recorded across the span of centuries. This aspect of Japanese history and culture need not intrude into this Wikipedia article about the Hyūga except when an otherwise useful fiction is proffered as sufficient rationale for devaluing, denying, and deleting edits and citations (consistent with WP:V) which state that JDS Hyūga is an aircraft carrier with another name.


 * Sdsds construes the phenomenon in terms of a familiar line from Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet -- in that passage in which Juliet muses about "that which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet". In my view, this specific quotation does capture the essence of a very important aspect of this somewhat complicated issue.


 * Perhaps a more apt illustrative exchange is to be found in Shakespeare's The Taming of the Shrew in that scene in which Petruccio looks at the sun and defies his new wife to disagree when he identifies it as the moon -- especially in that passage which begins, "I say it is the moon ...


 * In that Wikipedia article about the first of the Hyūga-class vessels, I would hope to make a constructive contribution by re-casting this controversy using medical terminolgy:


 * In oncology, the metastasis of cancer is conventionally described as insidious or "developing so gradually as to be well-established before becoming apparent." It is also well-known to be pernicious or "highly injurious or destructive."  It is unfortunate that criticism of Wikipedia has not yet encompassed the oncological model, but it is arguably true that the metastasis of systemic bias, like cultural bias elsewhere, is insidious, pernicious and sometimes invasive.


 * Prior to this, the non-NPOV problems in Hyūga class helicopter destroyer have escaped a thorough examination. The thin record of postings in the initial section of the talk page suggests a nascent pattern of thwarting discussion and inquiry; and the subsequent record on that talk page confirms this unwanted hypothesis.


 * Across the arc of talk page exchanges amongst potential contributors  and others, the consequences of intense, concerted resistance made it impossible even to reach a threshold from which to begin parsing aspects of this non-NPOV cancer. Such illustrative "consensus" becomes a powerful element of proof -- a multi-faceted demonstration of an undetected, highly persistent, insidious and pernicious problem.


 * Initial examination of this suspect article included a complete review of the edit history, including scrutiny of relevant external links which were deleted without any efforts to incorporate plausibly useful data.


 * An ameliorative edit was initiated. This involved one sentence only, supported by an in-line citation with an external link to a credible source. The talk page record reveals that this precisely-targeted intervention was reverted twice without substantive discussion.  The edit encountered further resistance which blocked access to any threshold from which to begin to address the unacknowledged bias which remains the article's pervasive flaw. --Tenmei (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * tl;dr 75.39.255.20 (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Tenmei, I'm *way* too late to this talk thread (&gt;2 y) to offer you any timely consolation, but I'll post it here anyway for the record. The answer to the above is this: You're the smartest guy in that particular room. And you have bumped up against the limit of what you can teach the others therein without them tuning you out. Such is life on earth among Homo sapiens. Have yourself a treat (food, beverage, good book) and leave them to their fate, which is a freight train that's not within your power to steer or brake anyway. Tomorrow's another day, and you can once again drag your feet from the caboose, to make as much of a positive difference as you can. In terms of absolute coordinates (with reference to the origin), it will look disspiritingly insignificant; but in terms of incremental (relative) coordinates, you'll at least have something approaching self-actualization; and that's something. — ¾-10 15:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: 75.39.255.20: Thanks for the ass-clown antic. Humor duly noted. But do try to make some earnest contributions as well. — ¾-10 15:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict] It just occurred to me to acknowledge the other side of this coin, after which point I can leave well enough alone. There are two sides to being among the smartest guys in any particular room, which are usually closely intertwined in human follies: There is the arrogant, selfish side, where you inaccurately consider yourself superior, and you inaccurately discount the insights of the others; and there is the objective, depressing side, where you simply duly acknowledge the freight-train problem and maintain your true place in the grand scheme of life—ie, mostly spectator, slightly participant. If one wishes to be truly smart, one must stick to the latter and guard against the former. Not even innocent self-amusing word-play in an edit summary must be suffered to stand, lest it appear to others to be arrogance. — ¾-10 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact you feel compelled to reply to threads that have been idle for two years is interesting in the present context. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, your point is entirely taken, yet my contributions still stand for any few future readers who will care. — ¾-10 16:12, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

TL;DR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.72.242 (talk) 15:40, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Manager philosophy
before running their company into a technical sinkhole. I think managers either should consider reading Leo Tolstoy as an exercise (or the modern alternative Robert Jordan), in order to get into the Wikipedia culture accordingly. "Too long; didn't read" can only be defended if the text is larger than 200 kb (or maybe 1 Mb). By nature an encyclopedia contains lots of texts, and so do the talk pages. ... said: Rursus ( m bork³ ) 08:06, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, Rursus, I'm 1.5 years late to this talk thread, but amen, brother, amen. I agree with your quantitative threshold value, and I *definitely* agree about being pushed down into sinkholes from above by PHBs. Who even cares, as long as it's quick enough, right? But the worst version is the slow-motion-nightmare variant. The variant where the bad is what you're swimming in—been ubiquitous for years—and the worst can be constantly seen waiting on the horizon, in all its splendid inevitability and darkness. Except by the blind, who don't see no evil; whatchu talkin bout, egghead? I speak from experience. The answer is the ejection seat, which removes one from a context and places one in another. The only complication is when the ejection seat isn't available ready-made and thus must be cobbled together in-flight from scarce spare parts. It takes so fuckin long. But keep your chin above the sewage; for at the flight's destination, greater darkness awaits. — ¾-10 15:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Eschew Obfuscation
Just thought this little bit of wisdom would fit nicely in this essay. What does it mean? "Be clear!" Hires an editor (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Noting changes
Various improvements made on 03:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC); no changes to overall content direction. 75.139.208.94 (talk)

Meta moment
I can't help but smile for the fact that this page's "nutshell" abstract is simply "This page in a nutshell: Be concise." Now I'm having a meta moment. I'm sure it's superfluous to point this out (y'all noticed it too, probably), but I just couldn't help sharing my amusement. — ¾-10 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

length due not to content but to bloat
Sometimes, for a talk page post, I write at length but concisely. Sometimes, I get TLDR back. I think there's a misunderstanding about TLDR that should be addressed or clarified in the essay. It's now only subtly hinted at and evidently it gets missed.

This is an example that would be appropriate for TLDR if it were much longer:

The edits were bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, and bad.

But this should be okay even if proportionate for length:

The edits were bad because they were ungrammatical, POV, copyright infringement, a personal attack, and out of context.

The second example is 18 words long and the first example is only 17 words long, but, if both were a thousand times longer, the first one likely would deserve TLDR but the second one likely would not because it's proportionately informative.

Before marking a post as TLDR, consider whether it's long or it's long but still informative relative to its length.

Also consider that taking on a subject may require reading long texts, including hardcopy books. If someone doesn't want to read that much on the subject, perhaps the subject is not an appropriate choice for that person.

Thoughts on addressing or clarifying this in the essay? Nick Levinson (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (Corrected the formatting of boxes in my previous edit (time omitted by error) and added "much" this time: 07:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC))


 * I didn't see this talk thread until today, about 6 weeks after Nick posted. But all I can say is, "Amen, Nick—amen." Today I just said about the same thing in my reply nearby below in another thread. One corollary is that the people you have to explain this to are the people who were not capable of figuring it out on their own, which may or may not say anything about whether they're capable of having it explained to them. And there's always going to be more of them. So don't let it get you down too much. But anyway, you're right—the better we can handle this topic in the essay, the better off we'll be. Doing it concisely is a challenge (how meta). — ¾-10 18:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Any debate from any editors? If not, I'll probably edit the page soon. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Extensive babbling on brain functioning
"The latter is a common cognitive problem for all human minds, which are faced with the task of sensing the many facets of a complex reality and modeling it in a way simple enough for the consciousness to understand and easily manipulate in interrelation with yet other topics. This leads humans toward certain analytical weaknesses that have been explored through observations both an.......... . . . . . .as selectively as each one may wish." Seriously, TLDR. 84.159.81.31 (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Was this a prank? A very good example of TLDR. There was actually some content in it. I read it and wrote a summary and deleted the original. --Kvng (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient brain functioning to qualify for debate
Seriously, many of the people who say "TLDR" are either not smart enough or too impatient to be competently/credibly debating the factors underlying the observed behavior. An analogy: Someone complains that their surgeon didn't resect certain bits of the margins of their tumor adequately. The surgeon then explains the variables and limitations involved in deciding how many hundredths of a millimeter to extend the excision in any particular area. The patient then says, "well, that's all too long for me to absorb, but I still pass a judgment on your work, which I claim is a valid judgment, that you screwed up." Some parts of reality are sufficiently multivariate that they can't be accurately reduced to 140 characters. The 140-char version is a distortion; often it's an acceptable distortion ("close enough for government work", as the saying goes); but whether it's an acceptable distortion depends on the instance, and whether the data loss matters or not. But people who can't handle adequate discussion length aren't qualified, logically, to make that determination accurately. See also User:Three-quarter-ten/Ponderings. — ¾-10 17:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not qualified for much at all, IMO, least of all writing an encyclopedia. That such people have commandeered/presumed to authority in the writing of an encyclopedia is a joke.  The 140-character limit is post-modern, post-literate "Twitter think"...and we all know what the root of "twitter" is (and I don't mean "tweet").  That "editors" find it offensive when confronted by more than seven sentences at a time has made countless RMs and CfDs derailed; by TLDR, WoT or whatever, or even outright derision and unpunished personal attacks in closing statements; hypocrisy is rife, another trait of not being qualified to take part in serious debate; IMO there should be a 'knowledge test' and 'logic test' for admins and not just a protracted exercise in passive-aggressive "wikiquette".Skookum1 (talk) 11:13, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought of another way to explain the idea, perhaps clearer. Consider domestic violence, for example, "wifebeating". Why are a nonnegligible fraction of human males mentally defective enough to beat their wives? And what practical steps can the rest of us take to effectively prevent wifebeating in future? Telling the idiot "Don't do that" is a simple answer, but it's not effective. It turns out that to fully understand and influence/control the phenomenon of wifebeating, which on the surface is an "obviously simple topic" (i.e., "fist hit skull, mouth say 'ouch', me drink more beer" sums it up), you need things like sociology, psychology, psychiatry, public health/epidemiology, law enforcement science, and so on. Now go look at a good textbook in any of those fields, and slap a label on the cover that says "TL;DR". Is the label-slapping person qualified to analyze the topic of wifebeating? Should other people substantially value the things he has to say on the topic? Many discussions that happen in life are microcosms of this general theme. — ¾-10 17:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I have seen evidence that some people read part of a passage, maybe all of it, then stamp TLDR, apparently so they don't have to explain what they disagree with. Perhaps they don't have an acceptable explanation and don't want to admit it. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of feeding the trolls a crumb or two, I just have to acknowledge one anon's intentionally meta-trollish edit: "You should continue posting well thought out text walls. You are in no way wasting your time. Everybody on the internet cares about your opinion." (192.133.84.6) When I read that, I was [literally] LOL, because I totally get the point (and the joke), and in this case I was the one who had posted a response to (what turned out to be) a trolling talk page comment. So I was able to laugh in self-deprecating fashion. But the thing is, I'm actually glad in this case that it took a trolling comment to elicit the time and effort needed to formulate the response. I'm glad because this topic is perennially taken up in non-trolling fashion by people who are quite earnest as they (arrogantly) totally miss the point that the "Reasons for length" part of the project page explicates. These are the people who hypercorrect in extrapolation from Strunk and White, earning the disgust of linguistic scientists (e.g., Pullum) and of people who actually have writing and editing talent (as opposed to people who erroneously pride themselves on having pedantry that they mistakenly believe equals writing and editing talent). And we need to develop the knowledge base that analyzes their attacks and clearly explicates the ways in which they're stupid. Thus subsequent generations of thinkers and communicators are less likely to swallow that form of miseducation (which ran rampant and unchecked in the 19th and 20th centuries), because there will be resources available to help debunk it. It won't go away (because it's part of human nature), but it'll be discredited among the bulk of average minds, whereas for a number of generations it's been held up above that bulk as "what you should aspire to," and they didn't know any better in the absence of an effectively countervailing educational force (which is hopefully now being built up in the era of crowdsourcing). In other words, pedantry, which for a long time reigned supreme in many corners of the epistemological landscape, is newly endangered by the rise of the internet. Which is why I don't find it surprising that many a retirement-age pedant is privately disgusted by the existence of Wikipedia. Their brains can smell the existential threat to the pedant lifestyle (registering deep in the fear centers), even if the conscious mind isn't fully aware of (or actively misjudges) why the viscera are feeling the revulsion. The idea that there may come a time when it's no longer possible to score social-pecking-order-rank points by being a pedant really rains on their self-image. — ¾-10 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * tl;dr. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk)
 * And that's OK. The world still turns regardless of what any one person hasn't read. — ¾-10 17:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Various facets on both sides of same stone; and differentiating cases (b/c cases not lump-able)
Short Brigade Harvester Boris, I know you hate reading more than 2 or 3 lines, but I would hope that you'll read the following, which is as short as possible to communicate the ideas. I saw your recent addition at "...and intelligently differentiating the cases is seldom a facile affair (or as Strunk and White would recommend, "...is not always easy") . You're right that that's an acceptable alternative thing to say, but note that it doesn't say the *same* thing, either connotatively or even denotatively (although it's acceptably similar). But there *are* [some] cases in life where maximum precision is needed to dig down to the whole truth. You're right that loquaciousness is probably more often *not* positively correlated to reading comprehension, compared statistically to the cases where it is. But it is equally true that procrustean terseness is most often *not* positively correlated to reading comprehension either—in my experience, including in my day job, it's much the opposite; although the procrustean operators themselves are oblivious to what it is among the connotative and denotative details that they're missing or inappropriately devaluing/deemphasizing. In other words, they're improving the text *as far as *they* can tell*, where "as far as they can tell" = sometimes not far enough. I admit, though, that it is fair (and necessary, though time-consuming) to ask oneself whether, in each unique case, a *little* sacrificing of fine shades of distinction is "worth it" because the accessibility of the communication has been improved *a lot*. That's where *I* could find improvement, I think (in *some* cases—although not as many as procrusteans think). I empathize with Pascal's comment in that respect—the fine shades of distinction aren't lost on me, so I tend to underappreciate the extent to which they're "clogging up the communication" for others (who they probably *are* lost on). It doesn't mean that those shades are nonsense; it doesn't mean that they aren't necessary to the *whole* truth; it just means that most readers would have to spend too much time and effort to absorb them. In other words, humans most often don't have time for the whole truth, and an acceptable approximation is better for practical purposes. But I speak from business-world experience when I say that in a context where author and reader are equals in terms of what their time is worth, it can easily be said that in a case where the details have turned out (usually on postmortem) *not* to have been negligible after all, it is the *reader* who was, and is, being too lazy. (Compare contexts in which we say that the author is being too lazy.) I spend my days explaining to people at the postmortem stage the exact, analyzed details of how they didn't bring enough intelligence or knowledge or attention or diligence to the table, and the work that they were working on is scrap because of it. I think the big difference, which I will try to keep in mind on WP, is that in a context like an encyclopedia, nearly all of the responsibility for time and effort is on the author, not the reader. And I can only hope that you've been gracious enough to have read this far, because there's some important truth herein that is missed if not. But "oh well" either way; the world keeps turning regardless of what any one person hasn't read. — ¾-10 14:44, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the difference between "...is seldom a facile affair" and "...is not always easy," other than the first being stilted and the second being direct. While arguing for verbosity and complex constructions you may want to consider this. Regards, Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:35, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The following is not an insult, just a part of reality: the fact that you can't see the difference reveals a flaw in you, not me. I'm truly not being facetious or snippy. If you'd like me to explicate the difference so that you can see it, I will do so, but I'll refrain unless you ask, because I do realize that you probably don't want to read that explication. Not everyone who goes around WP slashing others' writing adequately understands that which they are slashing. That's not a comment about you (I haven't studied your contributions history enough to know), it's just a comment about anyone who misapplies or overcorrects on the ONW or TLDR front. — ¾-10 16:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The link is good in various ways, and I do appreciate the ONW principle when it's properly applied. I just find that many of the people who angrily or snarkily harp on it (overemphasize it) have an emotional axe to grind that often seems to boil down to "you're not as smart as you're trying to seem, and I'm very smart (in fact, smarter than you) and you should explicitly acknowledge how smart I am." In fact, if you read that link again through those eyes, you see that the whole thing, emotively, is not so much about how smart anyone actually is, as about dos and donts for displaying how smart you are, or trying to highlight how smart you are, or trying to look smart, or to avoid inaccurately looking less smart than you actually are. The whole thing reeks of insecurity (of the type that lashes out maliciously to tear others down in order to achieve apparent relative height) when smelled through those nostrils. This type of insecurity seems to me to be on a different (parallel, simultaneous, meta) channel from the content being discussed, itself. It's on an alternate frequency that's more about positioning and elbowing for social pecking order than it is about the ideas being discussed. But some of us are honestly not worrying about how smart we can manage to seem, or about failing to showcase our smartness. In some cases we're just trying to dig down to truths in a complex world where half-truths are prevalent. — ¾-10 16:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I surrender. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

TL;DR
tl;dr —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.198.16.211 (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC) tl;dr - Article needs distilling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.225.81.1 (talk) 15:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

TL;DR claims too prevalent.
It is true that a lot of writing is overly wordy (before it gets cleaned up), but I believe it is also very common for something long to be that long for good reasons, yet still result in someone seeing it and feeling intimidated, replying with "TL;DR." I.E. I agree that it is often a failure on the reader's part.

I believe the article does currently mention the importance of determining the difference, which is fortunate, but I see a lot of immaturity going on here on the talk page. And I think it's unfortunate and perhaps ironic that the user making some of the best points on this talk page happens to type only in giant walls of redundant text (as you'll probably see, I'm not much better, but I break things up into paragraphs at least, damn it). I'm referring of course to the person with a fraction in their username.

That person, regarding TL;DR claims and an article stating that simple writing makes an author seem more intelligent to the reader:

"But some of us are honestly not worrying about how smart we can manage to seem, or about failing to showcase our smartness. In some cases we're just trying to dig down to truths in a complex world where half-truths are prevalent."

This pretty much sums it up.

It also kind of sums up why I have some issues with the whole NOR and verifiability thing: The pages outlining these guidelines make sense, but have you seen some of the sources being cited? I had to delete a book excerpt from the Bohemian Rhapsody article because the author had no idea what she was talking about. In doing this I suppose I was invoking iAR, but I feel justified in doing so since A) (Although authentic "sureness" is rare) I -do- know that the quote, at least as transcribed, was false, based on my musical history, which leads us to B) I do have expert training in music theory, particularly ear training (the quote inaccurately described a change in chords/harmony). It was quite a while ago, and nobody seems to have contested it.

I guess my point HERE (down at the bottom) is that I do think statements on Wikipedia should be, on average, as verifiable as possible, but secondary and tertiary sources are far from automatically correct. This is why the guidelines suggest using sources known for reliability and fact-checking.

A random book about popular music by a random scholar is not automatically infallible.

And a small related point, which has less to do with this overall theme and more specifically to do with music, at least (as it's the one thing that I know really, really, REALLY well) is that even if the listening to and analyzing of music might be considered OR, any learned musician, or any non-musician with a keyboard with labeled keys, can verify it for themselves. That's not a good way of putting it... how would one explain it to non-musicians? How about this: When you see red, you recognize it as red. When a musician with perfect pitch, or an external reference such as a piano hears B-flat, they recognize it as B-flat with the same level of certainty that you recognize red.

Of course, this is regarding, like I said, my removal of false information.

The idea of adding such musical analysis to an article.. from what I've seen here so far.. falls under the guideline of "If it's important enough to mention, some reliable publication will have published the detail in question."

This is absolute nonsense when it comes to the finer details of many things. "If it's worth mentioning, a secondary source will have already or soon will mention it?" Screw that. If it's verifiable fact, what gives random authors and other publications the authority to decide "what's worth mentioning" about a topic? I just say, thank Wikipedia for iAR (and yes, I know it's not a trump card), because not everything worth mentioning has been published, and it's not all that unlikely that not everything worth mentioning will EVER be published.

I've ranted long enough.

And here, I'll do it for you:

TL;DR

Don't care. If you didn't read it, it means the post would not have affected your opinion of anything. The idea of the TL;DR principle relates to articles so that they can be readily understandable. The act of replying with "TL;DR" on a talk page seems to, most of the time, be generally nothing more than a human ego defense mechanism.

Like that crazy but insightful person said, the world keeps on turning regardless of what any one person didn't read.

TL;DR

tehmikuji (talk) 20:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts, tehmikuji. FWIW, I agree with all of them. BTW, I'm not crazy; just afflicted with an adequate attention span, which puts me in outlier territory among humans. I recognize that I have a weakness for saying the same idea 2 or 3 times in different words, but the biggest reason I ended up that way is just the frustration of dealing with people who don't get it the first 2 ways, and sometimes the third way sinks through their skulls a little bit. It's kind of like, "Here, if you didn't understand what I just said, then try it this way. Better?" I have a hard time refraining because of how often people fail to understand, even when the idea being imparted is really not that complicated. This is not just on Wikipedia (in fact on Wikipedia I often encounter a lot of smarter-than-average people, which is nice even when they disagree with me); it's in my day job, too. In fact, frustration from my day job is what has driven me so far into "wordiness overdrive" in recent years. I probably would be containing my wordy excesses a lot better if I could get into a mentally healthier environment to spend my waking days in. Workin on it.


 * What you said about the information gaps in the published corpus is entirely correct, although Dunning–Kruger afflicted people tend to be unaware of that fact. Wikipedia is in fact the biggest help in fighting that wall of ignorance (speaking of walls) that humans have come up with in a long time. Unfortunately, Wikipedia by itself is turning out to be not quite enough to correct this [glaringly obvious to me] epistemological problem that's pandemic among humans. In fact, having bumped up against that very problem before (i.e., the limits on the mitigation that Wikipedia can offer by itself), I recorded some thoughts on what people have come up with so far by way of solutions and workarounds. They're available at User:Three-quarter-ten/Ponderings. It's only brainstorming at this point, of course; but it's better than a big heap of nothing and vacant stares, which seems empirically to be the default human contribution to most epistemological or systems engineering challenges.


 * Reading my comment here you might take me for the bitterest misanthrope imaginable. In fact I'm considered a very nice guy by those who know me F2F. (I'm even quite good at being taciturn F2F. It doesn't show on Wikipedia because in this medium one is only "visible" to others when one has come across a topic badly needing explication.) My problem with humans is an epidemiological one, not a clinical one. I don't hate individuals for having human flaws (it's not their fault, and I have human flaws too, try as I might); I just feel the need to be honest on Wikipedia about the spots in life where humans in aggregate aren't cutting the mustard cognitively. In many cases they're quite capable; they just clip their own wings by allowing their cognition to be led by the nose by their short-term interests and their COIs. Part of that is the thing you mentioned, where they claim "TL;DR" not because it's actually true but because they're trying to score some points / stroke their fragile egos / protect themselves from having to do boring cognitive legwork or to face unpleasant reality.


 * I've already typed for too long. TL;DR, of course. One thing that's cute about people is that they'll sit and watch a 3-hour movie that contains X thousand *spoken* words and never complain that their brains were taxed by the number of words; yet type X hundred *written* words, and their little heads explode. Go figure. Just another charming quirk of humans.


 * Best regards. — ¾-10 04:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, ¾-10. You and I seem to think somewhat similarly.  I kind of definitely -am- a misanthrope, though.  It doesn't mean I hate everyone though, just that I think the vast majority of the human race is a spectacular failure so far.


 * By the way, I meant no offense when I called you crazy. I'm just light-heartedly teasing, because you use a lot of fancy words outside of their normal context (which, though I sometimes find myself doing it too, you might wanna keep in mind that to a lot of people, it may make you look like a pedant (the very people you don't like)).  Not saying you are one, though, or that you necessarily even care. =)


 * Anyway, I don't really have anything more to say right now. "Big heap of nothing and vacant stares" for now.  I'm still a bit new to Wikipedia, and I'm off to go see if there's something I can contribute too.  Bye for now!


 * tehmikuji (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * :-) — ¾-10 03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Whoops.. I made approximately 1.5 grammatical errors at the end there (the first was a shameful misspelling / typographical error (too/to), and the second (ending sentences with prepositions) is up to some debate.


 * Well, I'm off to go see if there's something to which I can contribute. Bye for now!


 * tehmikuji (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree as well that TLDR, as well as its possibly even less civil ( because it fails to assume good faith since it calls long posts a "disruptive tactic" meant to "shut down discussion ) cousin WP:WALLS are used too frequently. What the people who tend to use these should rightly be citing is the as-yet-unwritten essay WP:Nah Nah Nah I have my fingers in my ears and can't hear you, because usually people who are citing these essays are just using them as tactics to belittle the viewpoint of someone they disagree with. If someone is actually being too verbose, it is better to just politely tell them in your own words that the length of their post is getting in the way of its readability rather than citing an essay, which will always come across as flippant and dismissive. "TLDR" and "Wall of Text" are both largely unnecessary essays that are insulting and uncivil. They should probably be AFDed, but I know that they are much-loved and many who like to use them would flock to support them, plus the bar for deleting essays is pretty high. However, essays which encourage incivility in their very use like these do should ideally meet that bar. Mmyers1976 (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The Shakespeare Quote
I take issue with this. Shakespeare didn't say "Brevity is the soul of wit." Polonius said it. You can't prop up somebody (in this case Shakespeare) as an authority on something and assume that the opinions of his characters are the same as his own. Doing that makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.1.147.76 (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You're right; the aphorism (or saying) is venerable, but it shouldn't be mentioned in a way that seems like an appeal to authority with Shakespeare as the focus. I'm going to rephrase that spot. Thanks for the suggestion. — ¾-10 21:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

A sentence in need of refining

 * ...if you're hasty and harsh enough, you could end up earning a reputation for yourself as someone with incompetent reading comprehension, which you may know is an unfair reputation, but which your actions will speciously make seem like the truth.
 * I feel this sentence is too wordy, and with too many big words ("speciously" being the worst offender) for this particular essay. 86.41.46.205 (talk) 08:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Good critique. I refined it as follows: I split the one long sentence into two related short ones, and I gave the wiktionary link for the [relatively] big word. Thus it now reads: "[…] if you're hasty and harsh enough, you could end up earning a reputation for yourself as someone with incompetent reading comprehension. You may know that this is an unfair reputation, but your actions may speciously make it seem true to others." — ¾-10 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Propose Deletion

 * 1) The essay has little to no community consensus.
 * 2) The essay is contrary to encyclopedic values and civility and amounts to shouting "shut up" at someone when quoted.
 * 3) The essay is poorly written and unnecessarily vague.
 * 4) The essay is easily used as a bludgeon to WP:BITE new editors who make formatting mistakes.
 * 5) Finally, WP:NOT 4chan. We are not the ADD generation, our reading skills should at least be enough to handle a paragraph or two.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.33.212.171 (talk) 12:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the disclaimer. It was put there for a reason. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I'm in agreement with this Deletion Proposal. I don't care about the disclaimer it has no weight in this matter. This is not an encyclaepedic article and really just appears to be the WP editors self-agrandising. 114.111.151.60 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this proposal, having been WP:BLUDGEONed in very uncivil fashion with it repeatedly as a means to derail discussion or NPA/AGF me.... as noted above by various others; quoting Mmyers above:
 * from Mmyers "I agree as well that TLDR, as well as its possibly even less civil (because it fails to assume good faith since it calls long posts a "disruptive tactic" meant to "shut down discussion) cousin WP:WALLS are used too frequently. What the people who tend to use these should rightly be citing is the as-yet-unwritten essay WP:Nah Nah Nah I have my fingers in my ears and can't hear you, because usually people who are citing these essays are just using them as tactics to belittle the viewpoint of someone they disagree with. If someone is actually being too verbose, it is better to just politely tell them in your own words that the length of their post is getting in the way of its readability rather than citing an essay, which will always come across as flippant and dismissive. "TLDR" and "Wall of Text" are both largely unnecessary essays that are insulting and uncivil. They should probably be AFDed, but I know that they are much-loved and many who like to use them would flock to support them, plus the bar for deleting essays is pretty high. However, essays which encourage incivility in their very use like these do should ideally meet that bar."
 * And oh yeah, the uncivility with which this has been wielded as if it were a policy and also to avoid acknowledging valid points/responses, to the point of derailing RMs and CfDs based on an editor's alleged personality and not on the issues raised is getting in the way of accurate content and proper titling......notions fielded in terse one-liners often require many more than one line to refute......those incapable of reading longer passages should, as I have said elsewhere (and been ANI'd for saying it), take remedial reading or just butt out of RMs and CfDs where they are unwilling to read the issues concerned, or as one closer put it, they don't have the time to read. Don't have the time?  Then don't close or vote on such an RM or CfD, it's that simple.Skookum1 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Moved
Per the thoughts expressed above in "Propose Deletion" I have boldly renamed this "Please be concise" and added a (hopefully) more gentle lede. The intent is to convey the same message in friendlier terms. In addition (ironically?) I found opportunities to tighten up the writing a bit. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 18:25, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see your reasons as good enough to justify the page move without any discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. I've undone the move.  I also undid some (but not all) of the other changes; in particular restored the more gentle (!) earlier version of the "maintain civility" section.  I like the addition of the Pascal quotation. Jowa fan (talk) 10:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

move request

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move this essay. Renaming will not prevent its abuse. Mike Cline (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Too long; didn& → Please be concise –  Please deletion discusion above; in practice, the previous section on how to refer to this essay civility  was often ignored and a bare WP:TLDR simply dropped into discussions. While appropriate for some internet forums, it is not the best formulation for a site whose five key pillars principles include "civility." "Please be concise" conveys essentially the same meaning with a less curt and dismissive connotation. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 10:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I took the liberty of adding "Wikipedia:" to the destination. Pretty sure that's what you meant. Favonian (talk) 11:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Yes, thanks. Nobody Ent (Gerardw)  11:03, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. It is of course important that the redirects from Too long; didn't read and similar remain in place for many reasons. One of these is that while on occasions it may be counterproductive to let off steam on Wikipedia, on others it's essential to provide ways to do it. Linking to this page as TLDR or similar may be terse but is not necessarily a personal attack. However I think the neutral name will help here too, so the move is all plus and no minus. The essay will need some minor rewriting following the move but it's already had a many authors, so no big deal. Note that this RM is a a formal request to reinstate a previously undiscussed move that was reverted. Andrewa (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Support. The TLDR meme has spread beyond tedious to tendentious. I'm in favour of names and shortcuts that support appropriately sized contributions in discussion, and against anything that would have talkpages reduced to mere twitterfests. N oetica Tea? 23:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Okay, it's a controversial topic, but Wikipedia essays exist partly to air such viewpoints.  We don't delete or substantially alter an essay just because some people disagree with it.  Most of the text of the page concerns the usage and various connotations of the phrase abbreviated TLDR.  If the title is changed, then the point is spoiled.  If we move the page and then rewrite it to suit the new title, then what we have is an entirely different essay.  Why not just create a new page and go ahead and write that other essay, while leaving this one in place? Jowa fan (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not really a controversial topic -- where I've seen it applied is generally under walls of text which are too long. It's that it's currently being used as a quick slam instead of a politely referenced guiding principle. Duplicating the essay wouldn't address that -- folks who use WP:TLDR will still use that. I'm suggesting a refactor to keep the current meaning but in a more civil way. By structurally change things so TLDR redirects to a "Please be concise" we keep message/meaning the same while transparently improving civility. If we split the essay than someone would have to start bitching at folks who use the existing TLDR to use the new one, and that in itself is counterproductive to civility. Nobody Ent (Gerardw) 12:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. While I like the motivating sentiments, the change really marks a significant rewrite and change in thrust.  Doing this is too much like changing history after the fact.  The page is well used as a link to state that a wall of text has not been read by this poster, and therefore is probably not read by a vast majority, and subsequent comments should be read in that light. Please be concise should be written as a new. separate document.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose People will still link to it as WP:TLDR; so the supposed benefit in civility will not happen. JCScaliger (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose This essay is about not reading too-long texts, and is directly related to the "TL;DR" expression. Someone linking to WP:TL;DR wants people to read an essay about TL;DR. As SmokeyJoe says, the move changes the meaning of the essay. If you want a civil essay about brevity, your best bet is starting yourself a separate essay. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Citing TLDR in a discussion is an unnecessarily flippant way to say that someone's post length detracts from their point - and too often it is just used as a slam to belittle the opinion of someone you disagree with. The usage of TLDR essay is counterproductive to Wikipedia's principle of civility, and so its existence is as well. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Upgrade
Does anyone think its a good ida to upgrade this essay into a guideline? I have run into two editors who think its okay to reply to simple statements with 10-20 lines. These editors actually expect you to read such large blocks of text. A lot of the time such lengfthy responses go off-topic or if they are on-topic they make superfluous or redundant comments. At time such editors disrupt constructive conversations by placing their humongous paragraphs in the middle of a thread.

I also don't mind a new guidelie from scratch which would deal with such a problem. Any thoughts? Pass a Method  talk  09:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it would cause more problems that it would solve; specifically it would give editors something else to fight about. NE Ent 10:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case we could word it more lenient. Pass a Method   talk  11:25, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This should never be any kind of guideline, it would be arbitrarily restrictive and slanted to the pov of lazy or slower readers. Article talk pages are for discussions on improving the article, and as such can get quite involved with many paragraphs of input required at a time. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:21, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are, and will continue to be, pages which have "multiple issues". I think we even have article improvement templates specifically designed for that eventuality. It would be unreasonable in the extreme I believe to attempt to make any sort of general guideline regarding talk page discussion which does not specifically make allowances for situations of multiple issues, because those "multiple issues" would have to be pointed out on the article talk page, and that would very likely exceed the arbitrary guidelines proposed here.
 * Also, honestly, such a restriction would be a problematic inhibition to article development in other ways. I could, and recently have, placed several short quotations on an article talk page for the specific purpose of providing independent reliable sources for content related to those quotations. Other editors have rather regularly added much longer single quotations for the purposes of article improvement as well. Such efforts can be one of the more useful ways of developing articles, and I cannot see any good reason to make them impossible or not permitted by some sort of inherently arbitrary guideline as this one.
 * And, of course, the suggestion regarding "leniency" above is more than a little problematic itself. Who would determine in which cases "leniency" would be permitted, and who would not be allowed to do so? That issues would have to be decided, in such a way that it does not seem to violate WP:OWN and other extant policies and guidelines.
 * Some sort of statement to the effect of "not unduly long" might be useful, but I cannot see any way to make it a firm guideline, given the variety of situations we encounter.
 * Finally, I find it amusing that other editors seem to object to reading comments which are nowhere near as long as the articles themselves. If a person can't read comments much shorter than the article itself, it can, reasonably, raise concerns in the eyes of others whether they have read the article they added to either. Creating such questions in the minds of others is probably not a good idea in and of itself. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Til and John. One problem is that there's no way to make it objectively enforceable; and another is that sometimes multiple paragraphs are simply necessary to explicate a multivariate topic. The TLDR response is sometimes just a dick move by someone who doesn't want to admit that there are multiple facets to the topic at hand. Although there are valid cases of the problem that Pass a Method mentioned—that is, filibuster-style comments that are clearly intentionally bloated for the purpose of filibustering or obfuscating—they are rare, and most long comments are not examples of them. It's not practical to prevent them simply by declaring that long comments are outlawed. An analogy might be outlawing all matches because arsonists exist, or outlawing all kitchen knives because deaths by stabbing occasionally occur. Matches and kitchen knives are tools with valid purposes that people sometimes need in the course of normal life; and so are long conversations. One last thought—sometimes a reader perceives obfuscation where none actually exists, simply because he's not able to quickly understand the multivariate explication. For example, if he asked a physicist why the sky is blue, he might come away thinking that all those resultant big words were an act of obfuscation—but they weren't; they were only a technically accurate explanation that lacked enough pedagogical prowess to explain physics to a non-physicist. I personally am convinced that people big on "TLDR" replies are well represented in that sample of "misperceivers of phantom obfuscation". — ¾-10 22:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. It is all very well having the essay explain a slightly wry, but often cruel put-down (TL;DR,) but making it policy simply encourages poor behaviour.
 * If an entry really does drag on too long, perhaps it should be addressed via existing policies regarding potential vandalism and/or the writer suitably (gently!) enlightened. MODCHK (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another "no" here. Sometimes long posts are necessary. Sometimes editors write long posts to relieve their feelings, or to be sure they have explained themselves properly, or because they are writing as thoughts occur to them, not producing a pre-planned essay. If you want to limit what people write and how they write it on your own talk page, go ahead (as long as you are civil about it). But trying to restrict how people write on talk pages elsewhere in Wikipedia is a non-starter. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another NO. Please, if you can't read something long, what makes anyone believe you can write anything of length. This essay is overrated. This is an encyclopedia that we write and this essay is used to basicly just insult writers from those not even capable of reading. Perhaps a better title for this is somthing....like "No attention span, don't care to read it" or "I don't like reading what you wrote so shut up" because that is exactly what this essay is always used for, to insult those that take the time to use this project for what it is meant for....to wrtie at length!--Amadscientist (talk) 09:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Per Amadscientist and Gandalf61 and others farther up the talkage in other sections, this essay has been abused against me in exactly the ways described. It is being treated as a policy and is core to the rants and rails against me in the current ANI seeking to permanently ban me - why? Because discussing all the dissembling and mis-quotations of guidelines re TITLEs is what a certain group want to silence...even though the RMs I have filed have 90% gone in "my" favour, i.e. with respect to guidelines, not those who use TLDR to shut down discussion or actually deluge it with TLDR-coated personal attacks so that the proponent's responses to same and the guidelines and issues laid out can be claimed to be unintelligible, and the RM or CfD derailed thereby; which is contrary to guidelines that say content is what should be discussed, not an editor (unless, as has been seen in many guidelines, a certain pattern of behaviour including persistent refusal to acknowledge guidelines needs pointing out....for doing that I get screams of NPA and AGF, even though my own good faith is being called into question by the persistence of "oppose" votes that have no real substance.....hounding literate writers over not writing in terser form on behalf of this essay and its WoT counterpart is not creating a better encyclopedia; it is inhibiting it, and at present is in the process of being used to even demand I silence my replies at said ANI. For TLDR alone I was blocked for two days, without the ability to edit even my own talkpage or to use wiki-mail; no ANI was filed, the block came out of the blue..... well, I was warned, but TLDR was the reason for the threat; it's supposed to be only an essay, not an Iron Law or HOLYWRIT.Skookum1 (talk) 17:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Verbosity
From the article: "Sometimes the writer is an academic whose occupation requires obscure, genre-specific jargon to impress his or her peers and justify additional funding. They don't necessarily know how to turn it off on Wikipedia, or even that they should."

I love this! I was reading a medical article a few months ago that was part jargon-speak and part plain speech. I looked at the Talk page where I found a message from someone complaining that the most recent revision had dumbed down the article to the level of a "layman's encyclopedia." Well, duh.... Rissa, copy editor (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of the text...
Many editors still redirect users whenever possible to this page claiming that their time is "too valuable" and that they have "other things to do" rather than attempting to debunk any arguments presented to them if the body of text is too large, in fact I even wonder if such an essay should exist as despite warning against editors not to use this for ridicule, it's almost exclusively used for ridicule. Ahoy, --42.114.33.55 (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is too looooooog
(JUST KIDDING. Please do not take it seriously.)

The article saying avoiding to be too long is too long. So let's see the Chinese version:

I have made this letter longer than usual, because I lack the time to make it short.
 * The article is longer, the number of readers who are willing to read will be smaller, despite articles, policies, essays or talks. So:
 * It's not suitable to make the article too long; (Notice that a new long article may be suspected to be a copyright violation.)
 * Shorten policies and essays for reading easily;
 * Don't put lengthy speeches (Sometimes someone may disrupt the discussion on purpose). It will make others confusing, or be off topic.


 * If it's necessary to write long texts, you should:
 * Divide texts into several paragraphs properly in articles. Add proper links, pictures and tables in order to lighten the feeling of boredom.
 * Use special formats such as bullets or bold fonts in policies, essays or talks to make Wikipedians understand faster and more clearly.


 * Example
 * The English version is too long.
 * The Portuguese version is much shorter.

--逆襲的天邪鬼 (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Shakespeare Citation
Shakespeare, William (1992), Hamlet, ... New York

Is that really the right way to cite Shakespeare on Wikipedia? Mhkay (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Does a companion essay exist advising to read a discussion before commenting?
It'd be helpful to have an essay that says something along the lines of "if it's not excessively long, you have some responsibility to read a discussion to familiarize yourself with the context before voicing your opinion (and if you don't have anything to add or the requisite expertise, sometimes it's better to stay silent)". Does an essay along those lines exist? (Please ping me if you reply. It'd be helpful to hear nos, not just yeses, since if there are nos I'll write it myself.) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 19:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: I've written it at Read before commenting. Feel free to take a look/improve it! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Some suggestions
1) I had seen reasons of couple of users that they write detail response because the want to be wish to be thorough or at times define keep the record straight. Can that position be acknowledged in the section "Reasons for length"?

2) Can we have a separate section to provide tips where we can shift present paragraph "..A further option for both readers and writers is to structure the writing so it can be skimmed effectively. This means writing.." and also add tips about collapse template, underlining sentences for quick reading in own comment, providing mid discussion synopsis. If one wants to dot down through response for record sake can write in own user space sub-page and a link in the discussion.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 11:42, 27 February 2024 (UTC)