Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: Be concise. |
“ | The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter. | ” |
— Blaise Pascal[1][2] |
Too long; didn't read (abbreviated TL;DR and tl;dr) is a shorthand to indicate that a passage is too long to invest the time to digest it.[3] Akin to Wall of text.
The label is often used to point out excessive verbosity or to signify the presence of and location of a short summary in case the page is too long and won't otherwise be read.[4] It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or a stoop to ridicule. If a discussion is reasonably concise, it is best practice to read it before commenting.
Reasons for length
Many people edit Wikipedia because they enjoy writing; however, that passion can result in overlong composition. This reflects a lack of time or commitment to refine an effort through successively more concise drafts. With some application, natural redundancies and digressions can often be eliminated. Recall the venerable paraphrase of Pascal: "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter."[1][2]
Also writers can incorrectly believe that long sentences and big words make that writer appear learned.
Some policies and procedures can encourage overlong prose due to imposing arbitrary limits. The
A trusted aphorism states that "brevity is the soul of wit."[7] Similarly, "omit needless words."[8] Editors are encouraged to write concisely and to use plain vocabulary when possible. Remember that English may not be a reader's native tongue. If length is essential, a short summary is advised.
While bloated composition may reflect the emotions of an editor, it should be noted that some people are constitutionally loquacious. It is impossible for you, as an editor, to affect either of these before the fact. When editing, always respect Wikipedia policies and editors' feelings. Take the time to distill your thoughts for better communication and rapport.
Internal policy discussions on talk pages can often become long-winded, too, usually for two reasons: because of the detailed nature of
Reducing wordiness
“ | Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away | ” |
— Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, French writer and aviator |
Per the
Some linguists (such as Geoffrey K. Pullum in posts at Language Log) criticize Strunk & White's advice "omit needless words" in the fear that unskilled editors may mistake even necessary length for dross and delete it. Strunk and White, however, were unambiguous that concision does not require "the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell." Deleting is not always equivalent to improving, and intelligently differentiating the cases deserves care.
Maintain civility
Being too quick to
Avoid
Some quick tips
- Provide summary/ synopsis
A further option for both readers and writers is to structure the writing so it can be
- If any talk page discussion is too long:
- First best try to trim your response yourself. May be you can write response first in your own sandbox before posting on the talk page. Remember don't edit other user's responses.
- <u> Underline important sentences </u> in your response can help readers in quick browsing.
- Use collapse template
for your detailed long paragraphs
|
---|
|
- Provide mid discussion synopsis and discussion end synopsis. Always remember Wikipedia is collaborative project and synopsis helps other users to understand main points of on going discussion.
- If one wants to dot down through response for record sake can write in own user space sub-page and a link in the discussion.
- In Nutshell: Be concise.
See also
- Wikipedia:Article size
- Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep: Wikipedia's rules and guidelines should not become excessively complicated
- Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process
- Wikipedia:Germane
- Wikipedia:Hold the pepper
- Wikipedia:Keep it concise
- Wikipedia:Manual of Style
- Wikipedia:It should be noted
- Wikipedia:Read before commenting, which advocates familiarizing yourself with a discussion before participating in it
- Wikipedia:Too much detail
- Wikipedia:Wall of text
- User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing
- Template:Policy in a nutshell
- {{TLDR}} – adds (tl;dr); for use in discussions
- {{Very long}} – Template used to flag articles or sections that need trimming.
- Hypergraphia
- Logorrhea
- Self-reference
References
- ^ M'Crie, Thomas. University of Adelaide. Retrieved 7 November 2017.
(Letter 16) ... The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.
- ^ Bibliothèque Nationale de France)
- ISBN 978-1-62365-165-7.
- ^ Soonmme (2008-07-14). "Urban Dictionary, definition #7". UrbanDictionary.com. Retrieved 2014-08-18.
- ^ "Study: Simple Writing Makes You Look Smart". Livescience.com. 2005-10-31. Retrieved 2012-04-13.
- ^ http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/02/03/270680304/this-could-have-been-shorter "... writers may err towards wordiness out of concern that short prose which is not carefully edited (at high time cost) would oversimplify, to the point of distorting or omitting, or carry a higher risk of being misunderstood"
- ^ Shakespeare, William (1992). Hamlet. New York: Washington Square Press. p. 89. Act 2, Scene 2, line 90: "Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit ..."
- ^ Strunk, William (1918). "Elementary Principles of Composition". The Elements of Style. Bartleby.com. Retrieved 2008-05-13.
- ^ "Paragraphs and Topic Sentences". Retrieved 2017-08-11.
External links
- Tim Dowling, "Wikipedia too long-winded for you? Try the simple version," The Guardian,14 January 2008.