This template was considered for merging with Template:Overly detailed on 29 April 2012. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
Edit requests | ||||
|
This template adds articles to Category:Articles needing expert attention and Category:All articles needing expert attention. This is a hidden side effect and not appropriate: non-experts can look up the meaning of jargon too. I propose that the relevant parameters be removed. RockMagnetist ( talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove:
| cat2 = Articles needing expert attention | all2 = All articles needing expert attention
Debresser, RockMagnetist is correct. Experts willing to attend to articles that are too technical can address those articles in Category:All articles that are too technical, which this template populates. As indicated about, the "articles needing expert attention" require specific instructions to those experts as to the type of assistance required from the expert. – xeno talk 18:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Feel free to change the template back to |answered=no
once consensus has been reached. --
Ahecht (
TALKThere's a certain amount of overuse of this template, particularly in mathematics and other technical articles. Some subjects are intended to be technical - perhaps a word change to suggest that an article be made accessible to the widest possible audience, rather than people with no interest in the subject? Ray Talk 03:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I recently added emphasis to the phrase without removing the technical details. My thinking was "it's far too easy for people to miss this important qualifier".
Unfortunately, my change was reverted by Debresser (saying that wasn't the main point of the template -- which is obvious, but what does that have to do with anything anyway?), but after asking on IRC, I decided to let it lie. However, Trovatore thought this was actually important, so reverted the revert. So Debresser reverted again, claiming that this had something to do with WP:BRD, despite the fact that that page very clearly says that If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle. So, um, I'm a bit confused, both about Debresser's reasoning for thinking the change is detrimental, and why he's trying to invoke WP:BRD as he violates it. — SamB ( talk) 02:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no Talk parameter (or I can't find one that words). Is there a reason for this and can it be changed? Leaving out the reason for the flag or making the reader trawl through the Talk page for that reason seems a loss to the template. LookingGlass ( talk) 08:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to add the option of marking the introduction specifically as being too technical:
This article's lead section may be too technical for most readers to understand. |
Above it was suggested that {{ context}} could be used instead, but I believe {{ technical}} shows better what needs fixing. For highly technical articles, it's mainly the lead section that needs to limit its use of jargon, and this is a more limited call-to-action.
– Thjarkur (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
|sect=
parameter. Was your change here deliberate, and if so, did you verify no other pages are affected?
Izno (
talk) 17:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
sect
doesn't cause any other difference, going by the
testcases. But maybe "This introduction" isn't that bad and I was just overthinking it? –
Thjarkur
(talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)This template was considered for merging with Template:Overly detailed on 29 April 2012. The result of the discussion was "do not merge". |
Edit requests | ||||
|
This template adds articles to Category:Articles needing expert attention and Category:All articles needing expert attention. This is a hidden side effect and not appropriate: non-experts can look up the meaning of jargon too. I propose that the relevant parameters be removed. RockMagnetist ( talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Remove:
| cat2 = Articles needing expert attention | all2 = All articles needing expert attention
Debresser, RockMagnetist is correct. Experts willing to attend to articles that are too technical can address those articles in Category:All articles that are too technical, which this template populates. As indicated about, the "articles needing expert attention" require specific instructions to those experts as to the type of assistance required from the expert. – xeno talk 18:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Feel free to change the template back to |answered=no
once consensus has been reached. --
Ahecht (
TALKThere's a certain amount of overuse of this template, particularly in mathematics and other technical articles. Some subjects are intended to be technical - perhaps a word change to suggest that an article be made accessible to the widest possible audience, rather than people with no interest in the subject? Ray Talk 03:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I recently added emphasis to the phrase without removing the technical details. My thinking was "it's far too easy for people to miss this important qualifier".
Unfortunately, my change was reverted by Debresser (saying that wasn't the main point of the template -- which is obvious, but what does that have to do with anything anyway?), but after asking on IRC, I decided to let it lie. However, Trovatore thought this was actually important, so reverted the revert. So Debresser reverted again, claiming that this had something to do with WP:BRD, despite the fact that that page very clearly says that If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle. So, um, I'm a bit confused, both about Debresser's reasoning for thinking the change is detrimental, and why he's trying to invoke WP:BRD as he violates it. — SamB ( talk) 02:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no Talk parameter (or I can't find one that words). Is there a reason for this and can it be changed? Leaving out the reason for the flag or making the reader trawl through the Talk page for that reason seems a loss to the template. LookingGlass ( talk) 08:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I'd like to add the option of marking the introduction specifically as being too technical:
This article's lead section may be too technical for most readers to understand. |
Above it was suggested that {{ context}} could be used instead, but I believe {{ technical}} shows better what needs fixing. For highly technical articles, it's mainly the lead section that needs to limit its use of jargon, and this is a more limited call-to-action.
– Thjarkur (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
|sect=
parameter. Was your change here deliberate, and if so, did you verify no other pages are affected?
Izno (
talk) 17:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
sect
doesn't cause any other difference, going by the
testcases. But maybe "This introduction" isn't that bad and I was just overthinking it? –
Thjarkur
(talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)