Wording
editIsn't "abstract general subject" redundant, not to mention a bit clunky? Most Wikipedia articles describe a person, a place, a thing, etc., rather than thoughts or qualities separate from concrete reality. Therefore, "abstract" doesn't really apply in most instances where this template would be used.
The message box suggests using secondary sources for general statements about the subject, and those are sources that provide analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. I propose changing the wording to something more like:
This article focuses too much on specific examples without explaining their importance to its main subject [...] Please help improve the article with evaluation and analysis from reliable, secondary sources to place these or similar examples in their proper context.
Alternatively, the last sentence could read:
Please help improve the article by citing reliable, secondary sources that evaluate and synthesize these or similar examples within a broader context.
—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
- I like the second one better than the first. I might like a much shorter one even better: This article focuses too much on specific examples without explaining their importance to its main subject – full stop.
- I also note that this is only used on 83 pages, so trying to get the perfect wording may not be the most efficient use of your time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nearly all the templates listed at Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup contain some kind of suggestion for improving the quality of articles, beginning with "please help", "please improve", etc. I don't think that eliminating that part of this template will help users address the problems mentioned. I think it's important to connect the problem of undue focus on examples to its likely solution – finding reliable, secondary sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Since there have been no serious objections to the proposal, I have changed the wording of the template, using the second option for the last sentence. I think also that a link to WP:NOTEVERYTHING could be useful, but I'm not be sure where. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)