Talk:Verbosity

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 April 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Philosophy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Linguistics: Applied Linguistics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Archives

Archive 1 (to 2011) Archive 2 (to 2012)

I claim that the author of this article completely fabricated the word "logorrhea" and everything it represents. Please cite some credible references or delete the section entirely.--JAC4 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's says it's been around since 1892. Mittinatten (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"He was led on ruthlessly, horrified by a growing facility, a veritable logorrhoea." - Burgess, Anthony (1968). "Enderby" p37 Wellset (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a reference to Callimachus' (310/305–240 BC) famous verse "Big book, big evil" (μέγα βιβλίον μέγα κακόν, mega biblion, mega kakon) would be a nice addition to the history section. Mittinatten (talk) 20:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Pokémon Fan (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing no objection, I merged the pages. I also reorganized the page by "Style advice", "Labels", and "Examples", rather than the previous scheme of sections for each label. I believe this is more in the spirit of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That is, the article should treat aspects of verbosity as a concept, not synonyms of verbosity as a word. Cnilep (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your changes appear to have been very much justified. I do not hold any objections. CrimsonFlames25 (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are authors who write verbose prose, and I'm sure there are people who advocate for it. This article takes a very hard line in favour of succinctness that I'm not entirely sure is (completely) justified: At the least, we should include a bit more balance. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Hohum and Adam Cuerden: as Hohum indicated, there has been no take-up on this discussion. I think the points that Adam Cuerden raises are valid, though, and should be addressed. I'll look for some sources, and flag possibly interested WikiProjects. I hope others will also contribute. Cnilep (talk) 02:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The Prose Epitome: Or, Extracts, Elegant, Instructive, and Entertaining, Abridged from the Larger Volumes: Intended to Assist in Introducing Scholars at Classical and Ornamental Knowledge. Messrs. Rivingtons, Longman. 1792. p. 94. I know of none, true or fictitious, that is equally wonderful, interesting, and affecting; or that is told in so short and simple a manner as this [the Old Testament], which is, of all histories, the most authentic.
• Adria Haley (2011). 2012 Novel & Short Story Writer's Market. Penguin Publishing Group. p. 31.
  ISBN 978-1-59963-242-1
  . [Sven Birketts argues,] 'There's a danger in being too lean, in losing readers by leaving out clarifying details, or losing the heart of the story by being too terse. There's no vivid world where every character speaks in one-line, three-word sentences.'
• Neil Andrews (2015). Contract Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 607.
  ISBN 978-1-107-06168-2
  . A balance must be struck between judgements which are inadequately reasoned and too terse, cryptic and formulaic, and decisions (especially when multiple judgements are given by an appellate court) which are too long and difficult to unravel.

Cnilep (talk) 03:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crilep, contrary to your edit note when reverting my removal of the template because this discussion was stale:

Per

WP:MTR

Neutrality-related templates such as {{COI}} (associated with the conflict of interest guideline) or {{POV}} (associated with the neutral point of view policy) strongly recommend that the tagging editor initiate a discussion (generally on the article's talk page) to support the placement of the tag. If the tagging editor failed to do so, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed;

I think six years qualifies as dormant. However, your engagement here does refresh the discussion, which is welcome. (Hohum ^@) 08:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Handroid7 added the {{essay}} tag with the edit summary, "Verbosity is described in a rather negative way here." Since this appears to be more or less the same issue raised by Adam Cuerden in 2014, and addressed with recent edits, I am removing the tag. If any editors think the article still has issues with personal tone or limited point of view, could you please specify what you think the are? Cnilep (talk) 02:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716025741/http://www.search.com/reference/Prolixity to http://www.search.com/reference/Prolixity

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.

Cheers.—

The

Logorrhea (rhetoric) uses the o-less spelling, I'm opting for that one. Cnilep (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

The redirect Gobshite has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 14 § Gobshite until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]