Talk:Analysis paralysis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sometimes it's needed[edit]

Sometimes a business unit requires over analysis and specific requirements gathering in order to just get a project approved by management. These situations happen in larger companies where roadmaps are created based on priority and necessity of a project. That being said, I don't think it's always a novice problem, but a problem with how an organization is structure. Or, even if that's not the problem, as in no problem at all, it's just the nature of things. Sometimes this anti-pattern is unavoidable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Analysis paralysis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

YesY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Preventing and overcoming section reads like a guidebook[edit]

The Preventing and overcoming section reads like an instruction set or guidebook. It might be possible to repair this section by removing imperative verbs and making other changes, but in its current state I think the section could simply be deleted.

You could make a case that this is an appropriate section to the article (after all, plenty of Wikipedia articles on medical topics do contain sections about treatment), but I do not think this article benefits quite as much from this section as other articles do from treatment sections. That being said, I am not 100% sold on deletion, curious to hear what others think. Tar-Elessar (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Don't delete it please. It does need improvement. I wanted some section on dealing with AP so I put in a bare-bones stub hoping others would add to it. I welcome suggestions on how to improve it. Removing the imperative subsection titles would help and just use paragraph form instead. Tar-Elessar, do you have a good example of a treatment section I can use as a model? I could try a rewrite, perhaps finding more scholarly sources. StrayBolt (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
No worries, I won't delete it. As for some suggestions as to whether or how you could convert this to paragraph form, the manual of style has some good information on converting to prose. I don't have any more granular advice than that, this is admittedly not my strong suit. However, if you would rather not attempt the edits yourself, you can alert other editors to the issue by adding the prose template to the section if you think it's appropriate. Tar-Elessar (talk) 03:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)