 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly 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] | ||
Too long; didn't read (abbreviatedTL;DR andtl;dr) is a shorthand to indicate that a passage is too long to invest the time to digest it.[2] Akin toWall of text. Please don't assume that editors who link to this essay are being overly critical, they are just conveying that they did not read a talk page or content post, and are alerting the writer that the intended information did not reach them.Wikipedia editors are volunteers, and may not be willing or able to devote the time needed to read and analyze long comments.
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.[3] It can also be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or astoop to ridicule. If a discussion is reasonably concise, it is best practice toread the entire discussion before commenting.
Many people edit Wikipedia because they enjoy writing; however, that passion can result in overlongcomposition. This reflects a lack of time or commitment to refine an effort through successively more concisedrafts. With some application, natural redundancies and digressions can often be eliminated. Recall the venerable paraphrase ofPascal: "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter."[1]
Also, writers can incorrectly believe that long sentences and big words make that writer appear learned.[4] Some inexperienced contributors over-avoidleaving any ambiguity by using more words (seeWP:NOTSTATUTE/GUIDE). Even capable authors recognize the risk of distortion through brevity.[5]
Some policies and procedures can encourage overlong prose due to imposing arbitrary limits. TheDid you know? process requires established articles to have a fivefold expansion of prose within a seven-day window to be considered for listing on the Main Page, which can encourage over-verbose writing togame the system.
A trustedaphorism states that "brevity is the soul of wit."[6] Similarly, "omit needless words."[7] 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 constitutionallyloquacious. 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.
Additionally, internal policy discussions on talk pages can often become long-winded, usually either because of the detailed nature ofWikipedia policies and guidelines (and their often complicated interaction with each other) or curt and questionable assertions of policy rationales (especially when many are made in series in a single post) may require a fairly detailed response. The cure for this problem is to make a clear statement and avoid citing more policy and guideline pages than necessary to get the point across. If you cite five such pages in vague terms for the same point, you open the door toWikilawyering about wording and interpretation – and may get five paragraphs of rebuttal in response instead of one sentence of agreement.
| “ | 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 theManual of Style, text in Wikipedia should be written succinctly; or, existing texts should be trimmed if it containsredundancy. The article should besplit into another article when appropriate. Be clear before excising copy that it can't be refined and kept. Tagging bloated plot summaries at movie, book, and play pages with the{{plot}} template is not as good as winnowing them yourself.
Some linguists (such asGeoffrey K. Pullum in posts atLanguage Log) criticizeStrunk & 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 thatconcision 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.
Being too quick topointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude. Preferably, create a section on theirtalk page and politely offer advice there.
Avoidad hominems. Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordialitystoops to ridicule and amounts tothought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannotprove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter initialism. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them.
A further option for both readers and writers is to structure the writing so it can beskimmed effectively. This means writing thefirst sentence of each paragraph as a summary of the paragraph, so the reader can quickly know which paragraphs or sections are of interest to read for more detail, in addition to the usual practice of putting a summary at the beginning of articles or sections.[8] This works even when the content is concise, or for some uses should be complete, but a reader wishes to skim for speed in a disciplined and more accurate way.
for your detailed long paragraphs |
|---|
|
The present letter is a very long one, simply because I had no leisure to make it shorter.Wikipedia article:Provincial LettersFrench source:"Seizième lettre aux révérends pères jésuites".Les provinciales : ou les Lettres écrites par Louis de Montalte à un provincial de ses amis et aux RR. PP. Jésuites (in French). eBooksFrance. January 2001. p. 116.Archived from the original on 2021-09-16. Retrieved7 November 2017.
Je n'ai fait celle−ci plus longue que parce que je n'ai pas eu le loisir de la faire plus courte.PDF at theWayback Machine (archived 2024-12-31). The document is an adaptation of an electronic text from theNational Library of France
