Template talk:Overly detailed

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Template talk:Over detailed)
Jump to: navigation, search

Before calling shananigans[edit]

I'm not sure if this is exactly like the "previous" fancruft template that got TFD'd a long time ago, but notice the different wording (more in line with the Trivia template). I built this because of some articles (specifically Philippine Television and actor articles) I've seen with excessive fancrufty details and all that throughout. I realized that we needed a new template for this, cause the Trivia template is more for just "sections" of it, and not "cruft". If you wanna change the name of it or tweak the wording, you most certainly can. ViperSnake151 03:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

fancruft catagory[edit]

Any objections to adding a category to the template so that all articles that have this tag will be categorized?--Rtphokie (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This template had two categories now. I removed the one on trivia section because this is being put on articles for general issues not section issues and left Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing which is more appropriate anyways.--BirgitteSB 20:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not really a style issue though - it's a content issue. The usual remedy for excessive fancruft in an article is the delete key. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The articles I examined with this tags on them did not have trivia sections. The text of the tag itself has does not imply it is to be used to mark trivia sections. So why put the articles in Category:Articles with trivia sections? I can see how the degree of detail an article has is a style issue even if it one that is dealt with by removal. But I am not interested in defending the current category as perfect, it was simply greatly superior to the other category. If you know of a category superior to this one, please change it. I am not at all attached to Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing.--BirgitteSB 17:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This tag should not be used in the article space at all[edit]

Drive-by tagging is not a responsible or productive substitute for article editing and discussion on an article's talk page, and tags that comprise talk content should in any case never be allowed to blight an article, regardless of what problems the article may have, by being allowed to pile up at the top of an article. Please see links at the top of my user page for more discussion. Robert K S (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The thread linked to from your talk page makes it evident that this remains a minority position. I don't see that there is anything to discuss here. It appears that this is related to an ongoing dispute at the Jeopardy! article; bringing that dispute here when it is evidently not going to effect your desired change to WP's policy on cleanup tags doesn't seem productive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
This issue and my involvement with it predates the issues with the Jeopardy! article. Where template tags do not relate to the article subject, they should not be placed on the article page. It's really a matter of WP:V here. The threshold for inclusion in the article space is verifiability. An editor's opinion about the quality of an article, or whatever problems an article might have, does not constitute article content, it constitutes talk content. Piling up template tags as an expression of dissatisfaction about an article or as a way to urge improvement of the article is no more appropriate (and empirically no more productive) than inserting complainant text into the article, which I think everybody understands and agrees is unacceptable. Talk content belongs in the talk space, and article content belongs in the article space. Robert K S (talk) 18:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There is consensus that tags such as this are acceptable in articlespace. Attempts to discourage or reverse this have, as indicated in the thread you link in your userspace, been unsuccessful. Arguing for a reversal of such on individual template talks is not going to result in a change to the underlying consensus, and as such is unproductive. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Where are these other attempts? If other attempts exist, it sounds less like there is consensus on this issue than that the issue isn't getting proper attention. No one has ever been able to substantively address the points I made, namely, that the tags have not been shown to be effective motivators of article improvement (certainly not more than talk pages) and the case is probably quite the contrary. Kindly, if you will, point me to where else this perspective has been brought up in the past. Robert K S (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Old argument. Clean-up tagging is highly appropriate per long and widely held consensus. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Where is this consensus, precisely? Has this issue ever been appropriately discussed? Or did it instead just evolve and become common practice? Contrary to what Chris Cunningham says above, the majority of those who commented on my proposal agreed that template messages constitute talk content and belong on the talk page. (Convincingly, see excerpts which I just put up at the top of my user page.) I also note that User:Gavin.collins arrived at the same conclusions I did, independently, a few months later. So, please, humor me, and point me to this consensus establishment. Robert K S (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
If you are really as confident in there being general agreement on the project talk page in question as you profess then feel free to make further proposals on that project talk page in order to move this forward. Until that's been done, there's not much to discuss here, as you've no proof that there has been a change in consensus as to the general placement of cleanup templates on articlespace. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The points made against the discussion starter sound more like an excuse instead of valid reasons why this should be kept. This template is highly subjective and open to far too much interpretation. "Intricate detail" (as the template calls it) for a subject of which you are interested is why you go to an encyclopedia or other large information source to begin with (almanacs, ancestry websites, library card catalog, "The complete works of..." books, and so on), and it is always up for interpretation because of course the information is of interest to only a "specific audience": those who are visiting the topic hoping for information! If you only want the basics, then open a dictionary. Every plot summary, human being, tv character, tiny island on this planet or orbiting body in space, animal, vegetable, mineral, element, invention, game, or way of thinking that gives more than the very basics could be marked with this template by someone else who has no interest in the subject matter. Yet, there is a bit of irony in that if the intricate details were removed, someone else might come along marking the article to be expanded or ask for AfD because the lack of information makes the subject seen NN. Original intentions of this template aside, I see it as only a way of restricting people from contributing additional information while adding unnecessary focus on something that should be expected (detail) rather than not expected. — CobraWiki ( jabber | stuff ) 21:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

This template was originally closely linked with the WP:FANCRUFT essay, which explains the rationale in more detail. It was Bowdlerised as a result of this discussion. While in its new, generalised form it could theoretically be applied simply to articles which are too detailed in general, in practice it is still applied to such things as our ten-page-long examinations of individual Sopranos characters (which freely intermingle fact, fiction and utter speculation on the level of a high school essay). If it discourages people from getting into the mindset that Wikipedia is a willing dumping ground for that kind of thing then it's doing its job better than the essay does. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)