Edit requests
This page is the within the scope of WikiProject Edit requests, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's edit request process and reduce the number of edit requests in the edit request queue.Edit requestsWikipedia:WikiProject Edit requestsTemplate:WikiProject Edit requestsEdit requests articles

This template adds articles to Category:Articles needing expert attention and Category:All articles needing expert attention. This is a hidden side effect and not appropriate: non-experts can look up the meaning of jargon too. I propose that the relevant parameters be removed. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was put here, and for which I do think this is appropriate, is that if an article is too technical it is the job of experts first of all to make it easier to understand. Not all non-experts would be able to do so. Especially since the "technical" template is not only for "jargon", but also for articles whose whole content is too technical, even if it doesn't use jargon. Debresser (talk)

The documentation for the Expert-subject tag makes it clear that expert help should only be requested for specific problems. Otherwise it could be added to just about anything. There just aren't that many real experts contributing to Wikipedia, and too many requests will reduce the chance that they will go where they are really needed. The same considerations should apply here. If someone tries to make the article more accessible and is unable to interpret some of the content, that is the time to explicitly tag the problem and seek help at a wikiproject. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is incorrect. Expert help can also be sought for sections and even whole articles. I have seen such articles, which in their entirety were technical. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not denying that such articles exist, but do all technical articles with the technical tag need experts? And if so, is a hidden category the best way to attract their attention? RockMagnetist (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they do not need expert attention, but expert attention would definitely be of help. :) Debresser (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the views of the people editing {{Expert-subject}} should be considered. I have left a note on their talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2019 follow-up[edit]

Remove:

| cat2  = Articles needing expert attention
| all2  = All articles needing expert attention

Debresser, RockMagnetist is correct. Experts willing to attend to articles that are too technical can address those articles in Category:All articles that are too technical, which this template populates. As indicated about, the "articles needing expert attention" require specific instructions to those experts as to the type of assistance required from the expert. –xeno^talk 18:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You fell for a logical fallacy. It is true that {{Expert needed}} is used when there is a specific issue, and it is also true that it populates Category:Articles needing expert attention, however that does not mean that other articles can't be in need of expert attention as well. Like, for example, article that are too technical. This template populates Category:All articles that are too technical, where all editors (read: not experts) can find articles, and also populates Category:Articles needing expert attention, where experts can find it. This is because articles that are too technical can likely benefit from both expert and non-expert editors (in which I indeed agree with RockMagnetist). Debresser (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case it would make more sense for the “too technical” category to be a subcategory of the Expert needed category. As it stands now, it pollutes the experts category such that experts who do not wish to address overly technical writing have to sift through these plus the articles directly populated by “Expert needed” template. –xeno^talk 22:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that an article which is too technical requires the attention of an expert? Discussion above suggests not, so it would not be logical for the “too technical” category to be a subcategory of the Expert needed category. Perhaps some overly technical articles would need an expert, in which case they can use the {{expert needed}} template in addition to this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Double-templating would be fine as well. –xeno^talk 12:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit template-protected}} template. Feel free to change the template back to |answered=no once consensus has been reached. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ahecht: I think we were pretty much in agreement, accept perhaps for Debresser — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: Okay, I'll leave it up to your judgement. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There have been no further comments so I have made the change requested by xeno — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a certain amount of overuse of this template, particularly in mathematics and other technical articles. Some subjects are intended to be technical - perhaps a word change to suggest that an article be made accessible to the widest possible audience, rather than people with no interest in the subject? Ray^Talk 03:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the wording suggests to me that we're trying to make articles accessible to "people with no interest in the subject." I'm not sure where you're getting that from. -- Fyrael (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's that whole bit about "accessible to non-experts." A lot of Wikipedia math pages are about subjects where, to even broach the definitions, the reader is most likely a graduate student focusing on the area or greater. I come across a fair number of "technical" tags on these articles, which are, honestly, somewhat silly. Ray^Talk 15:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely a problem with how the template is used. As Ray says, this template is often added to advanced mathematics articles. Undoubtedly, these articles are sometimes unnecessarily technical and can be improved, and as somebody with the knowledge to do that (for some articles) I am interested in doing this. Unfortunately, often the template is added without any explanation, perhaps with an automatic tool like Twinkle or by people doing some kind of page patrol. This leaves me (and other subject experts) puzzled about what the problem is and thus unable to fix it. From my point of view, a {{technical}} added without explanation is impossible to address and thus useless. I therefore edited the description of the template to urge editors to add an explanation when adding this template. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:15, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added emphasis to the phrase without removing the technical details. My thinking was "it's far too easy for people to miss this important qualifier".

Unfortunately, my change was reverted by Debresser (saying that wasn't the main point of the template -- which is obvious, but what does that have to do with anything anyway?), but after asking on IRC, I decided to let it lie. However, Trovatore thought this was actually important, so reverted the revert. So Debresser reverted again, claiming that this had something to do with WP:BRD, despite the fact that that page very clearly says that If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle. So, um, I'm a bit confused, both about Debresser's reasoning for thinking the change is detrimental, and why he's trying to invoke WP:BRD as he violates it. —SamB (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, another approach would be to make the template explicitly say that the way to fix this is by explaining (possibly by link) any necessary terminology/notation. —SamB (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural points aside, templates have specific purposes, and should focus on those. The text in maintenance templates is usually already packed with information, links and bolds, and stressing secondary points is the last thing that should be done. I say this based on years of work in the area of maintenance templates. Debresser (talk) 06:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This template has issues not shared by the general run of maintenance templates. The problem, as always with this template, is its misuse by editors who think that anything they personally don't have the background to follow is "too technical".

That said, I'm not interested in fighting over the italics. When I think the tag has been misapplied I simply remove it, or sometimes move it to the talk page. The important issue is really whether the tag is correctly applied. But on balance, I would prefer the italics, because they could be a harm-reduction strategy in certain cases. --Trovatore (talk) 08:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Italics or bolds? I don't think we usually use italics in template text. But better italics than bolds. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Talk parameter (or I can't find one that words). Is there a reason for this and can it be changed? Leaving out the reason for the flag or making the reader trawl through the Talk page for that reason seems a loss to the template. LookingGlass (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LookingGlass: Using the talk parameter works. It's possible you tried "Talk" with an upper case "T" rather than "talk". For example, this will link to the "Certain subjects are technical" section that's above if it were used on this article.

{{technical|date=October 2017|talk=Certain subjects are technical}}

However, there is an issue in that the result of using talk= creates a slightly confusing result as it inserts a sentence into the hat notice that about "Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" that links to the talk page section but leaves the "The talk page may contain suggestions" in place that links to the talk page in general. Here's the wording without and then with the talk parameter.

• This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions.
• This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. The talk page may contain suggestions.

I believe it would be better that using the talk= parameter does not change the wording but would change the link for "The talk page may contain suggestions" to refer to the indicated section. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:41, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the parameter works then it should be documented. Right now the template is too vague by itself, and it needs supplemental information on the talk page. Otherwise editors might not relate to your concern. Praemonitus (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add the option of marking the introduction specifically as being too technical:

Diff from sandbox.

Above it was suggested that {{context}} could be used instead, but I believe {{technical}} shows better what needs fixing. For highly technical articles, it's mainly the lead section that needs to limit its use of jargon, and this is a more limited call-to-action.

– Thjarkur (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: The main template already uses {{{1|}}} for the |sect= parameter. Was your change here deliberate, and if so, did you verify no other pages are affected? Izno (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: My change was deliberate, as I was trying to make it say "The introduction of this article" instead of "This introduction" and to remove the last sentence. Changing sect doesn't cause any other difference, going by the testcases. But maybe "This introduction" isn't that bad and I was just overthinking it? – Thjarkur (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done With some adjustment from the sandbox. Please feel free to sync the sandbox. Izno (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]