The 50,000 post*

By the way, I feel like this belongs here for posterity.

This afternoon we got word that a friend of Karen’s, who joined her barbershop chorus the same year Karen did, passed away in her sleep last night.

Second marriage, found her true love after an abusive one, multiple kids from both sides, awesome crazy blended family... great mom, always positive and happy, even with some health problems she took care of years ago... or so we all thought, I suppose.

Also believe she was a number of years younger than us. Early to mid 40s I think?

RIP Crystal, and Peace to her husband Scott and all their kiddos.

I know y’all don’t know them, but I’m completely shocked. As are the couple hundred chorus members her lives touched in Karen’s chorus. Almost unbelievable.
 
denverpilot said:
TL;DR started at Reddit, and it was by convention, always at the bottom. Catch the eye of someone smart enough to scroll down quickly, I guess.
Click to expand...
So wiki say this about that ...

Shortcuts
WP:TLDR
WP:TL;DR
WP:BECONCISE
WP:VERBIAGE
WP:SUCCINCT
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. ”
— Pascal[1][2]

Too long; didn't read (abbreviated TL;DR and tl;dr) is a shorthand notation added by an editor indicating that a passage appears too long to invest the time to digest it.[3] See the Wikipedia article TL;DR. Wikipedia:Wall of text is kindred.

The tl;dr label is often used to point out excessive verbosity or to signify the presence of and location of a short summary in case the reader doesn't want to take the time to read the entire detail, i.e. the article is too long and won't otherwise be read.[4] It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or a stoop to ridicule.

This essay examines tl;dr as used in Wikipedia discussions, offering insight into the cause of excessive length, suggestions on how to reduce it, and a reminder to always exercise civility with other editors when paring.

Reasons for length
Edit

Many people who edit Wikipedia do so because they enjoy writing; however, that passion can result in overlong composition. This reflects a lack of time or commitment to refine an effort through successively more concise drafts. With some application, natural redundancies and digressions can often be eliminated. Recall the venerable paraphrase of Pascal: "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter."[1][2]

A second contributing factor can be that a writer incorrectly believes long sentences and big words make them (the writer) appear learned.[5] Or an inexperienced contributor may fear they will not be clear enough with fewer words. Even capable authors recognize the risk of distorting what they're trying to express in too-brief passages.[6]

Some policies and procedures can encourage overlong prose due to imposing arbitrary limits. The Did 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. This can encourage over-verbose writing to game the system.

A trusted aphorism states that "brevity is the soul of wit."[7] Similarly, "omit needless words."[8] Editors are encouraged to write concisely and use plain vocabulary when possible, always keeping in mind 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 constitutionally loquacious. 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.

A further option for both readers and writers is to structure the writing so it can be skimmed effectively. This means writing the first 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.[9] 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.

Internal policy discussions on talk pages can often become long-winded, too, usually for two reasons: because of the detailed nature of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and their often complicated interaction with each other), and because 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, policy-related statement to begin with, and avoid citing more policy and guideline pages than are necessary to get the point across (many say the same thing in slightly different wording). If you cite five such pages in vague terms for the same point, you open the door to wikilawyering about wording and interpretation – you may get five paragraphs of rebuttal in response instead of one sentence of agreement.

Reducing wordiness
Edit

“ 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
Text should be trimmed if it contains redundancy. The article should be split into another article when appropriate. (See summary style and article spinoffs.) 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 as Geoffrey K. Pullum in posts at Language Log) criticize Strunk & 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 that concision 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.

Maintain civility
Edit

Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude. Preferably, create a section on their talk page and politely offer advice there.

Avoid ad hominems. Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter initialism. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them.

So, end of quote.

TL;DR - I stand corrected. Did I do it right? :D

I still say it should be at the top. Let’s see who reads all the way down here to see this.
 
denverpilot said:
By the way, I feel like this belongs here for posterity.

This afternoon we got word that a friend of Karen’s, who joined her barbershop chorus the same year Karen did, passed away in her sleep last night.

Second marriage, found her true love after an abusive one, multiple kids from both sides, awesome crazy blended family... great mom, always positive and happy, even with some health problems she took care of years ago... or so we all thought, I suppose.

Also believe she was a number of years younger than us. Early to mid 40s I think?

RIP Crystal, and Peace to her husband Scott and all their kiddos.

I know y’all don’t know them, but I’m completely shocked. As are the couple hundred chorus members her lives touched in Karen’s chorus. Almost unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Awe crap. So sorry to hear that. None of us are guaranteed tomorrow so live for today. Note to self.
 
gkainz said:
Awe crap. So sorry to hear that. None of us are guaranteed tomorrow so live for today. Note to self.
Click to expand...

Yep.

I had forgotten one of the reasons she had limited her chorus time in recent years. This was 2017... she and Scott had this little guy and he was having a hard time medically...

The chorus and friends made this fundraiser close out quick.

https://www.gofundme.com/f/austins-genetic-test

So sad.
 
denverpilot said:
We all do. He might have to skip some golf if not. LOL.

It’s cool. He earned his golf. Or whatever.

As long as he does whatever is in the memo, we’ll keep our chit working for him. LOL.

If he doesn’t, all the memo is for is “I told you that chit would happen.” Hahaha.
Click to expand...


So true...
 
denverpilot said:
Unless positive is backward and it indicates how low this place will go...? ;)

We do need to revive the coleslaw thread. I had some weird coleslaw that I’m definitely not sure about. Has red and green pepper in it. Not sure it’s allowed to be called coleslaw.
Click to expand...

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law on this thread, I actually made decent cole slaw last night. Mayo. Just a liiiiiitle bit of vinegar. And cole slaw. Perfect.
 
denverpilot said:
That assumes I started this with a goal in mind, though. Hahahaha. Nope. :)
Click to expand...

Whenever they say "I want this or I want that" I usually say, "It's good to want things. What have you done to earn it?" Shuts em down pretty quick. 20 min later I see one of them raking leaves or picking up dog poo.
 
Unit74 said:
Whenever they say "I want this or I want that" I usually say, It's good to want things. What have you done to earn it?" Shuts em down pretty quick. 20 min later I see one of them raking leaves or picking up dog poo.
Click to expand...

Hahaha sounds like my dad, R.I.P. He would also just look at me and say, “That’s nice.” Awaiting me to say the next thing, how I would EARN those wants. :)
 
I used to use that line, "it's good to have goals" when my kids would set a record on Super Mario, or what ever video game they were playing. Fortunately they got it and didn't get absorbed into the basement with the games.

Nate, congrats on the posts, it is pretty impressive and I'm thinking if there were a word counter you would have an untouchable record, too bad there wasn't a way to count those too. I enjoy your posts, most of them anyway.
 
Ryanb said:
50,000 and counting! ;)

We’re all glad to have you around here, even if your posts require a TLDR section at the end!

:p
Click to expand...

I always prefer to have the TLDR at the top! So I know I can quit any time along the way.

Nate: Glad to have you here with all your insights, thoughts, humor and words. Thanks for being a great contributor.
 
Justin M said:
I always prefer to have the TLDR at the top! So I know I can quit any time along the way.
Click to expand...
I can usually tell when to quit early just by reading the username next to the top of the post :)

Nauga,
the sometimes-discerning reader
 
flhrci said:
@denverpilot What's with all the short posts today? You sick or somethin"? LOL Working on 51000 maybe?
Click to expand...

Technically yes.

Had a big pile of chit to move out of the garage into the Yukon.

Neuro pain makes that significantly un-fun.

About the only way to get thru it is to go back to my 100 lb soaking wet days working on s farm, and just get unreasonably angry at the job to get the adrenaline flowing.

Figured not a good time to post anywhere.

On the way to Goodwill now. Some other moron can buy this stuff and store it unused for 30 years.
 
:(
gkainz said:
So wiki say this about that ...

Shortcuts
WP:TLDR
WP:TL;DR
WP:BECONCISE
WP:VERBIAGE
WP:SUCCINCT
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. ”
— Pascal[1][2]

Too long; didn't read (abbreviated TL;DR and tl;dr) is a shorthand notation added by an editor indicating that a passage appears too long to invest the time to digest it.[3] See the Wikipedia article TL;DR. Wikipedia:Wall of text is kindred.

The tl;dr label is often used to point out excessive verbosity or to signify the presence of and location of a short summary in case the reader doesn't want to take the time to read the entire detail, i.e. the article is too long and won't otherwise be read.[4] It can be misused as a tactic to thwart collaborative editing or a stoop to ridicule.

This essay examines tl;dr as used in Wikipedia discussions, offering insight into the cause of excessive length, suggestions on how to reduce it, and a reminder to always exercise civility with other editors when paring.

Reasons for length
Edit

Many people who edit Wikipedia do so because they enjoy writing; however, that passion can result in overlong composition. This reflects a lack of time or commitment to refine an effort through successively more concise drafts. With some application, natural redundancies and digressions can often be eliminated. Recall the venerable paraphrase of Pascal: "I made this so long because I did not have time to make it shorter."[1][2]

A second contributing factor can be that a writer incorrectly believes long sentences and big words make them (the writer) appear learned.[5] Or an inexperienced contributor may fear they will not be clear enough with fewer words. Even capable authors recognize the risk of distorting what they're trying to express in too-brief passages.[6]

Some policies and procedures can encourage overlong prose due to imposing arbitrary limits. The Did 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. This can encourage over-verbose writing to game the system.

A trusted aphorism states that "brevity is the soul of wit."[7] Similarly, "omit needless words."[8] Editors are encouraged to write concisely and use plain vocabulary when possible, always keeping in mind 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 constitutionally loquacious. 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.

A further option for both readers and writers is to structure the writing so it can be skimmed effectively. This means writing the first 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.[9] 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.

Internal policy discussions on talk pages can often become long-winded, too, usually for two reasons: because of the detailed nature of Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and their often complicated interaction with each other), and because 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, policy-related statement to begin with, and avoid citing more policy and guideline pages than are necessary to get the point across (many say the same thing in slightly different wording). If you cite five such pages in vague terms for the same point, you open the door to wikilawyering about wording and interpretation – you may get five paragraphs of rebuttal in response instead of one sentence of agreement.

Reducing wordiness
Edit

“ 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
Text should be trimmed if it contains redundancy. The article should be split into another article when appropriate. (See summary style and article spinoffs.) 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 as Geoffrey K. Pullum in posts at Language Log) criticize Strunk & 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 that concision 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.

Maintain civility
Edit

Being too quick to pointedly mention this essay may come across as dismissive and rude. Preferably, create a section on their talk page and politely offer advice there.

Avoid ad hominems. Substituting a flippant "tl;dr" for reasoned response and cordiality stoops to ridicule and amounts to thought-terminating cliché. Just as one cannot prove through verbosity, neither can one prove by wielding a four letter initialism. When illumination, patience, and wisdom are called for, answer with them.

So, end of quote.

TL;DR - I stand corrected. Did I do it right? :D

I still say it should be at the top. Let’s see who reads all the way down here to see this.
Click to expand...
I did! I did!:goofy: I've been a member more than a year, and I still haven't broken 500 posts.:(
 

Attachments

  • goofy[1].gif
    goofy[1].gif
    2.8 KB · Views: 3
  • clear[1].png
    clear[1].png
    137 bytes · Views: 3
Gone flying when you started this thread Nate, so just saw for the first time.
Belated congratulations on the 50k milestone! And great to have you back. :thumbsup:

However, I must confess I am reading as fast as I can and just working through post number 32,158. ;) :D
 
Skip Miller said:
You count ‘em. Report back when you are done.
Click to expand...

Looks like a bazillion.

If you are talking about post word counts..it is not measurable.

If you are talking about gunshots at the end of your cul de sac....its closer to 38.
 
Fiveslide said:
I do not! It's unfathomable, without fathom I say, that in 50,000+ posts that you haven't posted one that was deleted by management council for crossing a line.
Click to expand...
I’ve crossed the line twice. Once, pots were deleted and the once they were kept. Dunno what happened to the post counter. Doesn’t matter. At my rate, it’ll take more than a century to hit the 50K was post mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top