Wikipedia talk:Long stories made short
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This page was nominated for deletion on 6 October 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
Comparison with nutshell template
edit | This page in a nutshell: what does LSMS accomplish that isn't covered by Nutshell? |
I like the concept, which is why I occasionally use the nutshell template. I prorbably ought to use it more often. I see it mostly used as an extremely concise summary of a page, placed at the top, while I think LSMS is expected to be a bit less extreme, e.g. summarize a 500 word post in 50 words whereas nutshell might try to summarize it in 10. However I am describing my observed usage; I don't see any technical reason why summarizing a 500 word post in 50 words couldn't be done with nutshell. Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:07, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- The nutshell template is designed for entire pages, with one such template per page. It states "This page in a nutshell". LSMS is designed for talk page posts, and can be used more than once in a talk page section, if that section has more than one long post. To my knowledge, there is not a template stating "This post in a nutshell".
- —Wavelength (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- While the default usage suggest it was developed to summarize an entire page, it is trivial to use for a specific comment or specific section:
This comment in a nutshell: can be concisely summarized thusly -
This section in a nutshell: says blah blah
--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC) This post in a nutshell: - Outlines one option
- and explains another
- I see your point, and I am interested in seeing any of these usages illustrated by you on User talk:Jimbo Wales. (I anticipate that a long post will come soon.) However, there is another aspect where LSMS does accomplish something not covered by the nutshell template. It allows editors to respond either to the long post or to the shortened version. Please note the times of day.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah.—User:Wordy (talk) 01:00, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)
This is my reply to User:Wordy.—User:Readmuch (talk) 01:30, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)
This is my reply to User:Wordy.—User:Readalot (talk) 03:00, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)
WP:LSMS: Blah blah blah.—User:Wordy (talk) 01:00, 1 July, 2015 (UTC), shortened by User:Terse (talk) 02:00, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)
This is my reply to User:Wordy.—User:Readlittle (talk) 02:30, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)
This is my reply to User:Wordy.—User:Readabit (talk) 03:30, 1 July, 2015 (UTC)
- —Wavelength (talk) 19:19, 23 June 2015 (UTC) and 23:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Won't that mean discussions may fork in two different directions based on the response to each version? Subsequent posters may need to repeat themselves in each versionto make sure all participants see their opinion. Another serious issue I see is the risk of passive-aggressive summaries that was raised by someone on Jimmy Wales' talk page. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)