Template talk:Technical

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Location of tag 2 Summary of placement issues 3 Check talk tag 4 Too technical template too technical 5 Check talk removed

[edit] Location of tag

I removed the template that complains if this template is not placed on the problem article's talk page instead of the article itself. Most cleanup tags are added to the top of the article. Doing so definitely increases the chance that the article will get fixed, and that the template will be removed when it is no longer necessary. It also lets readers know that we know that there is a problem, which improves the image the encyclopedia projects. -- Beland 09:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it back. See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible. As to your "image" point, I really don't think technical language in technical articles hurts the encyclopedia's image; intelligent readers understand that some things really are inherently technical, and they need to acquire some background if they want to understand them. --Trovatore 19:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• I put this tag on articles when there's actually something wrong with the article that prevents people from understanding it as well as they could be. Many articles are hard to understand even if you do have all the necessary background information. There are also many concepts that non-technical readers can get a general understanding but not the details, but bad writing prevents them from doing so. Certainly I don't expect everyone to understand the technical details even in the ideal article on a complex subject; that's not what this tag should be used to indicate, because that sort of thing can't be fixed. -- Beland 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

• I see that since the "make sure this template is on the talk page" code was restored, User:AzaToth removed it again. Then I got a note from User:Kjkolb that it's back, and he preferred the tag to be on article pages. It seems we don't have consensus to keep this tag on talk pages, so I put a note on Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible inviting people here to continue the discussion. I checked Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup, and this is actually the only general cleanup tag that says it should be put on talk pages, which is quite inconsistent. -- Beland 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the tag is widely abused. If it were used correctly, it wouldn't be such a problem on the article page. Unfortunately there are folks who will put it on any article they don't personally understand.

And therein lies the rub, because if you don't understand the subject matter, how do you actually know whether the article could be made more accessible? So I think it belongs on the talk page after all, where people who do know can discuss it. --Trovatore 21:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of placement issues

Let's see if we can't reach some agreement about tag placement. To get us started, below I've tried to summarize the points I've seen so far. Modify, add, discuss, consense... -- Beland 21:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally agreed:

• Editors using the tag should explain why they mean on the talk page

Arguments for talk page:

• Directed at editors, not readers
• Readers don't need to be warned that they might not understand something.
• Pastel boxes are distracting and ugly.
• Makes it easy to add tag and rationale to talk page in a single edit.

Arguments for article page:

• It's a cleanup tag, and cleanup tags go on article pages.
• Increases the chances that someone will actually fix it.
• Lets readers know we know there is a problem with the article.
• Greatly increases the chances that it will be removed when the article is fixed.

Another approach is to delete this tag completely. Arguments for doing so are: it is frequently misused; there is very little agreement on how and when it should be used, what it means or even where it should be placed; it overlaps with other, more specific, cleanup tags. Gandalf61 09:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Check talk tag

This is the only cleanup message template that has the {{check talk}} tag on it. I don't see any reason for it, but I see that people who have removed it have had it reverted. Why is this the only cleanup message that needs to go on talk pages, when every other cleanup message goes on article pages? --TreyHarris 19:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

See discussion above. --Trovatore 19:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw it, but that discussion seems to have ended ten days ago with only you and one other editor discussing it, and thus no consensus aside from status quo ante. You claim that {{technical}} is liable to be misused, but how is that different from any other cleanup message? What makes {{technical}} more likely to be abused, and do you have evidence that it is, or was until the {{check talk}} was added? Or do you think, by all rights, every cleanup message should be on talk pages only? --TreyHarris 20:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There's more discussion at Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible. Yes, I think the technical template is far and away the most abused of the cleanup tags. It's the only one for which the editor adding it can very rarely know whether it is appropriate or not, because it is not possible to know whether an article can be made more accessible without understanding the subject, and ordinarily the person adding it does so precisely because he doesn't understand it. See the examples from Wikipedia talk:Make technical articles accessible (for example, Analytic continuation.

No, I don't think most cleanup tags belong on talk pages. Things like bad spelling and grammar, unclear logical organization, or failure to conform to Wikipedia style, make the encyclopedia look bad and amateurish; there the argument that the reader should be informed that we know there's a problem is a strong one. Articles that are simply about subject matter too difficult for most people to understand do not have this problem. --Trovatore 20:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the only reason that I have not entered the discussion is because I completely agree with Trovatore's position. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

There may always be articles that many people are unable to understand, such as a topic in advanced quantum mechanics. The article probably won't be able to define every term or go over every concept necessary to understand the article. However, the number of articles like this is rather low. When I see a "too technical" tag, it's usually because someone has managed to make an article of medium difficulty nearly impossible to understand by outsiders with the constant use of unexplained jargon, and/or they've done a poor job of writing the article. -- Kjkolb 17:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• I just added this tag to Internet Fibre Channel Protocol. This is not quantum mechanics, it's just an article that is written in a jargon-heavy way that assumes you already mostly understand what it is talking about, and is missing some context and also technical details. I would like this tag to appear on the article page as an apology to readers that this article is in such bad shape, and to encourage others who see it to fix it up. It doesn't need a notice that says that the tag is misplaced, because is in this case, it's not. -- Beland 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • How about coming up with a new tag for this situation, maybe {{context-technical}} or similar? I'm concerned about a relapse towards random appearances of the tag on articles that simply have difficult subject matter. --Trovatore 21:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Why is a new tag necessary? Articles about complicated technical subjects that are well-written do not need any tags. Articles about complicated technical subjects that are poorly written generally need this tag. I don't see how placing the tag on the talk page vs. the article carries a different meaning. I also added this tag to a specific section of Superstructure, which is inconvenient to do on the talk page, and a note on the talk page is unlikely to get carried forward when the article is split, as recommended. -- Beland 07:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The one in the Superstructure article should have been {{context}}, not {{technical}}. Actually I think those two sentences are close to nonsense; it's not really a problem of excessively technical writing. --Trovatore 16:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
        • (Just to be clear: I mean the "two sentences" that comprise the text of the "Mathematical concept" section of the Superstructure article.) --Trovatore 16:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too technical template too technical

Guys, c'mon! In the last week or so the template has devolved into a mass of obfuscation. I'm going to try this zero reverts thing here and ask that you attempt to craft something with some elegance and/or simplicity. Obey 08:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the template should be shorter and more simple. – Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 06:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Check talk removed

In my opinion, the tag is widely abused. If it were used correctly, it wouldn't be such a problem on the article page. Unfortunately there are folks who will put it on any article they don't personally understand.

If the article is inappropriately tagged, then the tag should be removed, not "hidden" on the talk page. If it's on the article page, more people (especially those with the requisite expertise) will see it, and will be more likely to either improve the article or remove the tag, if appropriate.

I wanted to add this tag to a specific section of Sweet crude oil, but it complained that it was misplaced, so I removed the "check talk" subtemplate again. -- Beland 00:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have put back the check talk. It's a matter of practicality. The tag has been too often abused when check talk wasn't there. --Trovatore 00:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

And that isn't really the only thing. Even when the person who adds the tag has a good point–say at the article determinacy, largely written by me–the tag still has less reason than other cleanup tags to be on the article page itself. Many cleanup tags are added to articles that may be wrong or misleading, or that are written so poorly as to harm the reputation of WP. That isn't the case for determinacy; a reader who isn't a mathematician won't be misled, but simply won't understand it. He also won't think that it doesn't express a coherent narrative; at worst, he'll see that he doesn't have the background necessary to figure out whether it's coherent or not.

I don't want to remove the tag, because it does express a legitimate way in which the article could be improved. In the mean time, though, the article is not really deficient from the point of view of readers who can actually benefit much from it, and putting an ugly tag on it for that reason is inappropriate. --Trovatore 00:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I like this argument. The argument from abuse didn't make much sense to me -- in an open system like Wikipedia, anything that gets used is almost certain to be abused -- but this one does. I tend to agree that this tag addresses a different issue from most of the other cleanup messages, which is why it merits a different placement. Although I wonder whether we need it at all -- templates are a terrible way to start a discussion. Wouldn't it be far more constructive for users to write a short explanation of why they feel the article is too technical? -- Visviva 02:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)