Template talk:Overly detailed

Before calling shananigans

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

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

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)

Without some indication of what the tagger considers excessive or overly detailed, this tag is unactionable and should be removed immediately. It would be a service to all content creators and maintainers to make it impossible to save without filling in the details of what the drive-by tagger actually means. I suggest a required parameter reason=, with the expectation that if no reason is given the template will give an error message. This will still mot prevent Randy in Boise from leaving incomprehensible, inappropriate, or unactionable reasons, but it might help reduce the number of instances. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Propose splitting into a new category

I propose that this template, which currently categorizes into Category:Wikipedia articles needing style editing, be split off into a new category, Category:Wikipedia articles with excessive detail. It is relatively distinct from the other templates for this category, for it is also somewhat a content issue. 107.77.218.116 (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New category

Realizing the scope and distinctiveness of the issue, I created a new maintenance category, Category:Wikipedia articles that are excessively detailed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

This template should be deleted

This template should be taken to TFD. It has no basis in policy or guideline. There is no such thing as "overly detailed". There's no consensus for information to be removed because someone finds it boring, which is what this thing seems to boil down to. [Note: It is possible for information to be unencyclopedic due to its nature (eg phone numbers) but never because of its quantity which is what this silly thing is suggesting.] James500 (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Either deleted, or required to give sufficient information to be actionable. Failure to explain what is perceived to be a problem is lazy and insulting, or indicates incompetence of the tagger. It is not helpful for building the encyclopedia, or to engage constructively with other editors. It is merely tagbombing. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Code review

While I could do this on my own, with over 2000 transclusions I want a second opinion before publishing the change in the sandbox (compare).

The change enables |nosplit= as used in Template:Very long.

If this looks okay, ping me and I'll change the code and the documentation at the same time.

This new parameter will be used in places like Imerys § Imerys Talc America worker lockout where a reduction is the goal and splitting or relocating information is not recommended. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 00:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

​Looks reasonable – Thjarkur (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Thanks. I'll push it and update the docs later tonight. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 🎄 00:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

usage guidance

Is there any established guidance on how this template should be used? If there's one applied at the article level, is it appropriate to apply additional ones at a section level? Argento Surfer (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Please help by spinning off or relocating any relevant information, and removing excessive detail that may be against Wikipedia's inclusion policy.

This part is editors' mistake. --5.43.73.144 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. Much like most cases where this template has been used. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Parameter should not be optional

The details = parameter should not be optional, to the extent that a warning should be displayed if it is not present. Please add this functionality, as when the details are not provided, the tag is generally unactionable and therefore of no use, while at the same time appearing offensive to the page editors who may perceive it as passive-aggressive and opinionated in the absence of sufficient detail to be useful. Please ping with reply. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 07:55, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, when there is no explanation, there is no way to identify when the original problem has been fixed, so the tag tends to either remain a fixture, or be summarily removed by an annoyed editor who has wasted time trying to work out what the problem might have been.· · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

When requested to explain their addition of the tag, it is unusual to get a useful reply from the tagger. Often they simply ignore the request, sometimes they respond, but have forgotten, which is not surprising when it is months or years later. This process is also a time-sink. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 08:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Redundant text

The words that may interest only a particular audience are redundant, as that is a normal characteristic of any reasonably complete encyclopedia article. It is potentially confusing or misleading to include them in this template as if this was part of a problem. I propose that this text be removed from the template. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 05:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Wording changes

@Jc37: On investigation, I find your assertion here is inaccurate: the wording change was not due to a merge, it was very likely the cause of it. You changed the wording at the beginning of an active merge proposal, meaning that subsequent commenters saw templates that you had edited to be substantially identical. This so egregiously impacts the validity of the discussion that I'm going to ask @ClydeFranklin: to consider relisting the discussion so this procedural error can be corrected. But in the interim, even if we take the consensus to merge as valid, it does not constitute a consensus for your preferred wording change. Please self-revert and, should you still wish to pursue a wording change, propose it properly. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Awaiting jc37's response before relisting. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 18:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Nikkimaria is incorrect. The change of wording was not the "cause" of the nom. This was a followup nom. And portions of the text were directly copied from the merged template. With links added to guidelines which specifically refer to the requested actions of the template.

The wording and the links in the updated text are all there for reasons. which I'd be happy to discuss. Not the least of which is the problems with redundant text, and the vague link to WP:NOT. As I think we've seen at TFD, templates like this have been deleted due to not being clear, precise, or neutral, all things that the old text failed at.

Anyway, I look forward to Nikkimaria explaining how the old text is better than the updated text. - jc37 22:35, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The nomination may have followed up from a suggestion in a previous TfD, but the fact remains that you changed the wording early in the merge discussion, and subsequent commenters (most of whom hadn't participated in the previous TfD) based their !votes on the fact that the templates they saw after that action had text which was substantially identical. Thus it is far more accurate to say the text change caused the merge than to argue that the text change was due to a merge that postdated it. And as already noted, even if we accept that these actions did not procedurally invalidate the discussion, the text changes you propose are not a requirement of a template merge.

The wording and the links in the updated text are all there for reasons. which I'd be happy to discuss Great! Do that, get consensus for your proposal, and then implement the change. In the meantime, leave the original in place. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That's what's happens in a "merge".

Anyway, I did mention several points above. I'm still waiting for you to support your assertion that the old text isn't problematic/is better.

You reverted because you stated that the "changes don't make sense". Please explain your assertion. - jc37 23:05, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

What is supposed to happen in a merge is that you get consensus for a merge and then you implement it. What you did instead was implement it badly first. And while you may have provided vague reasoning here, you still haven't obtained consensus for that implementation. What you've done instead is edit-war over making this template redundant with a completely different one while obscuring the issues for which this template exists in the first place. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

And you still have not explained your reasons for the revert, per WP:CON. - jc37 23:22, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

(1) Your edit was procedurally improper. (2) Your edit was procedurally unnecessary. (3) Your edit worsened the problem the merge discussion was intended to resolve - having redundant templates. (4) Your edit changed the scope of an in-use template, and eliminated a useful template. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

So essentially, you're opposed to the merge. k - jc37 23:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I am opposed to merging at the beginning of a merge discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

ClydeFranklin - Let's go with the relist. I think that that is likely more productive use of time than what I'm seeing above. - jc37 23:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} 23:56, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Alternative for too verbose

Is there a variant of this for articles that are long but somehow manage to not have enough detail anyways? e.g. repetitive articles. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

{{repetition}} redirects to {{copyedit}} - you could use the latter with |reason=. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)