Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
var |
Tryptofish (talk | contribs) good-faith but potentially offensive without really adding anything |
||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
::{{tq|Schumer previously supported civil unions. At a private <s>[[risotto]]</s> dinner with gay leaders at the Gramercy Tavern on March 22, 2009{{nbsp}}...}} |
::{{tq|Schumer previously supported civil unions. At a private <s>[[risotto]]</s> dinner with gay leaders at the Gramercy Tavern on March 22, 2009{{nbsp}}...}} |
||
:Comment: This actually illustrates the opposite of the Principle of Some Astonishment{{snd}}we'll call it the '''Principle of Complete Puzzlement''' i.e. some details don't belong because, though neither obvious nor even predictable, they have no hope of adding to the reader's understanding of the subject because they're completely random and even uninterpretable. What in the world does the risotto have to do with anything |
:Comment: This actually illustrates the opposite of the Principle of Some Astonishment{{snd}}we'll call it the '''Principle of Complete Puzzlement''' i.e. some details don't belong because, though neither obvious nor even predictable, they have no hope of adding to the reader's understanding of the subject because they're completely random and even uninterpretable. What in the world does the risotto have to do with anything? Why aren't you telling us what wine was served? |
||
Revision as of 00:17, 28 February 2017
This is an essay on selection of article content. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
This page in a nutshell: The Principle of least astonishment notwithstanding, consider omitting obvious details from articles. |
Concision makes for good writing. Sometimes editors clutter their prose with pedestrian details that the reader likely knows already or would naturally assume. Far from making the page more informative, this wastes the reader's time and brainpower. If it doesn't convey useful information, omit it!
Here are some examples of articles belaboring the painfully obvious:
- In the article Pick-up sticks:
-
At the end of play, points are tallied up and the pieces can be thrown again or stored in a container for another use.
- Comment: Of course the points are tallied up at the end of the game. Of course players can either play again or put the game away "in a container". (If the rules said to ignore the score sheet at the end, then called for players to burn the game pieces or use them to commit ritual suicide, THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.)
- In the article US Airways Flight 1549:
- Comment: The word quickly is superfluous, because our readers' innate cunning will inform them that controllers generally act with dispatch in such situations. (Had they instead been lackadaisical, THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.)
- Comment: The part from "signalling his intention ..." on is probably unnecessary, because our readers aren't mentally defective. They will conclude without being told that when Sullenberger said "We can't do it ... We're gonna be in the Hudson", he's hinting that (a) he's going to land on the Hudson and (b) he's taking this unconventional step because more orthodox landing sites are out of reach. (Had he instead done it because he wanted a bath, THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.)
- Comment: The immediately bit seems unnecessary. (Had the captain made a cup of tea before ordering "Evacuate!", THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.)
- Comment: If the fire chief, seeing people crowded onto the wings of a sinking airliner, had radioed, "False alarm – no big deal", THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.
- In the article University_of_Texas_Tower_Shooting:
-
He then drove to a hardware store, where he purchased a Universal M1 carbine, two additional ammunition magazines and eight boxes of ammunition, telling the cashier he planned to hunt wild hogs. At a gun shop he purchased four further carbine magazines, six additional boxes of ammunition, and a can of gun cleaning solvent. He then drove to Sears, where he purchased a Sears Model 60 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun before returning home
with his purchases.
- Comment: If he'd bought all that stuff and then left it at the store, THAT would be worth mentioning in the article.
- In the article Charles Whitman:
-
Whitman was reportedly the youngest person
in the worldever to become an Eagle Scout at that time.
- Comment: Are people becoming Eagle Scouts elsewhere than "in the world"? Perhaps on Mars?
- In the article Donald Trump:
Comment: The reader will know without being told that this is a "view".
Comment: We're safe in assuming that the reader will intuit that this "view" shows a "crowd".
- In the article Harry Elkins Widener:
|
Comment: Did I mention that it's Harry Elkins Widener? (Contrary to popular opinion, not every image needs a caption, and that's certainly true when the image is in an infobox adorned with a title that already provides an adequate description. Alternatively, the caption might be changed to Widener in 1910, or even more simply, In 1910.) |
- In the article Chuck Shumer:
Schumer previously supported civil unions. At a private
risottodinner with gay leaders at the Gramercy Tavern on March 22, 2009 ...
- Comment: This actually illustrates the opposite of the Principle of Some Astonishment – we'll call it the Principle of Complete Puzzlement i.e. some details don't belong because, though neither obvious nor even predictable, they have no hope of adding to the reader's understanding of the subject because they're completely random and even uninterpretable. What in the world does the risotto have to do with anything? Why aren't you telling us what wine was served?