Talk:Concision

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

Comments[edit]

Concision is the discipline to be concise in written and verbal communication. It is nothing more. It is not censorship. It is not gatekeeping.

- added as a comment - - - Healthy CONCISION is a strength to any culture. Long winded expressions dilute vitality, and cost us time. But there is a dark version too: everyday business goes awry by mis-understanding, and terms of agreement can be too complex OR TOO BRIEF. This hurts by unexpected or missed commitments and resulting disappointment and animosity; this is made worse by time pressures, debts, feuds, and other troubles. The classic "scam contract" contains obligations hidden by "CONCISION", and/or "PROFUSION" (lots of words) not quickly understood by a distracted mind. Even the bible warns "...beware of the concision ..." (part of Philippians 2:3 KJV, although this quote is not full context and not commonly taught application/interpretation)

"Texting" among mobile devices is a recent influence in our global community, which has brought an increase of dysfunctional concision. Not to lose any sleep vexed about the world (unless that's your calling); just be wise yourself and help anyone you can; we might need them someday.

How not to do it[edit]

>> When increasing concision ... it increases the effectiveness of communication by making it more efficient <<<

One has to laugh! A priceless example of how not to be concise. -- Picapica (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

How about this for an opening sentence replacing the current two: "Concision is the use of few words to convey an idea without omitting important information." Anyway brevity is a different thing. It is use of few words, no matter how much important information is obscured. And redundancy is not the only alternative to concision. Colin McLarty (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge and future directions[edit]

The decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concision was to keep this page and to carry out some form of recombination with Succinctness. As an initial step, I have merged the entire content of Succinctness into a new section of this page, and made Succinctness a redirect to here.

Per the AfD discussion, there is probably a lot more that needs to be done, but exactly what that should be has not really been decided. Other editors understand the source material for this subject better than I do, so I am leaving the future steps to others. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

As a rather strong suggestion, I think that editors should particularly make sure that the result of the next edits conforms to WP:NOT#DICTIONARY and WP:NOTHOWTO. Good luck! --Tryptofish (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)