Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles understandable

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

U.S. Government guide on plain language[edit]

This document is sometimes delightful. It's not exactly what we are trying to do here. Nor will everyone agree with everything in there. I don't want contractions creeping in, for one. But it's good stuff. I smiled when they made the comment about not being scared of having lots of periods. Some of the comments on paragraphs really resonated as well. See: [1].

Importance of "Introduction to " articles[edit]

What level of importance should be given to "Introduction to" artciles? Should the level of importance be automatically related to the importance level of the parent artcile? If so, the same level, or a lower level? Martinvl (talk) 09:16, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this about the WP:1.0 team's assessments? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Prerequisites Project[edit]

Please express your opinion on the Prerequisites Project suggestion. Editingeddie (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

God awful definitions of terms[edit]

As wikipedia becomes more and more popular and respected, the introduction and writing style of articles becomes more and more convulted and difficult to understand. Examples include Domain name (my edit and Phoneme.(my edit) Zeddocument (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Quantity of locutions impels me to consult a serviceable thesaurus[edit]

Why does a page describing the need for more understandable writing feature strained verbiage like "do not provide such a quantity of locutions as to impel those who aspire to derive serviceable information from the article to consult a dictionary or thesaurus"? Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably this "irony" thing I keep hearing about. (On a more serious note: occasional light-hearted injections probably do contribute to better readability.) Markus Pössel (talk) 08:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
I fail to see how. Switching mid-paragraph from a formal, just-the-facts tone—as expected on Wikipedia—to a jocular one is just confusing. If indeed the passage cited is meant as a joke, then it falls flat. I consulted this page for help with editing articles, and the irony is not helpful. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC)