Template talk:Technical

message: Remove:
| cat2  = Articles needing expert attention
| all2  = All articles needing expert attention
,  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. –xenotalk 18:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: You fell for a logical fallacy. It is true that  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)
replies: text: 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. –xenotalk 22:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  template in addition to this one. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. Double-templating would be fine as well. –xenotalk 12:33, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. Feel free to change the template back to  once consensus has been reached. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 13:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think we were pretty much in agreement, accept perhaps for Debresser — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I'll leave it up to your judgement. --Ahecht (TALKPAGE) 19:14, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There have been no further comments so I have made the change requested by xeno — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:44, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: 2019 follow-up

message: 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? RayTalk 03:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. RayTalk 15:39, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Certain subjects are technical 

message: I'd like to add the option of marking the introduction specifically as being too technical:
Diff from sandbox. 
Above it was suggested that  could be used instead, but I believe  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)
replies: text: Not done for now: The main template already uses  for the  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)
replies: text: @: 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)

text: Done With some adjustment from the sandbox. Please feel free to sync the sandbox. Izno (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add an option for marking the introduction as being too technical