Content deleted Content added
Line 69:
== Is this article "too technical?" ==
{{reply to|Humphrey Tribble}} Which concepts in this article are [[Special:Diff/1194058269|"too technical"]] for readers to understand? [[User:Jarble|Jarble]] ([[User talk:Jarble|talk]]) 18:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
:Firstly, {{user|Jarble}}, I apologise for leaving a a flippant comment instead of a more helpful explanation at the outset.
:The template's purpose is to flag "excessive jargon, without enough explanation of concepts and too difficult for readers to understand without a background in the field." So it can suggest an article could be improved or simply alert readers that it will be heavy going.
:[[Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Technical language]] governs. MOS recommends that the introduction, especially, should be understandable by educated people without having to follow links. But the introduction of [[Nim (programming language)]] has 21 links in only two sentences. That second sentence is also very long. It sounds rather like a manufacturer's description.
: [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal]] adds to MOS. The inclusion of numerous programming examples in Nim is certainly like a manual or textbook.
:Nevertheless, [[Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable]] has practical suggestions for dealing with complex subjects.
:Let me know if I haven't explained it adequately. [[User:Humphrey Tribble|Humpster]] ([[User talk:Humphrey Tribble|talk]]) 22:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
| |||