Talk:Technical communication

message: One of the most important aspects of technical communication is the need for the information communicated to be useable, not just expository. As such, I felt it was important to add the word "useable" in front of "information." Likewise, collaboration factors into a lot of the work technical communicators do--enough so that it should be included here. --ISUengl314 11:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usability and Collaboration

message: This is my first edit, so I'm not quite sure what I'm doing here or how to use this page. (If I've added the comment incorrectly, please forgive me!) However, I've just added information about usability and collaboration to this page. This is important because technical communication isn't just about conveying information; it is about conveying information that people can use, thus information that is useable. Likewise, technical communicators often work collaboratively and anyone thinking about tech comm as a career (we have a job list here) needs to know that they should be good at teamwork. --ISUengl314 11:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Usability & Collaboration

message: I've just removed all this text, which is specifically about technical WRITING and really ought to be merged into technical writer or some other appropriate article. Need a more general description of **technical communication**, which is what this is about.  Elf | Talk 05:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuff removed from article

message: My university technical communication class has been given the task of improving this article as a class project.  Because of this expect there to be frequent (possibly anonymous) edits in the next week or so.  This is intended to be a heads-up to other editors and admins.  Ve4cib 02:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequent Changes 

message: There needs to be distinctions made in this article from non-technical communication. Oicumayberight 22:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Distinctions needed

message: On a related note--are there any citations in this article? I'll see what I can do to find some... New here, so I hope I go about it correctly. Derthy (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Content creation section reads like a wikibook

message: The history section is small. I know I have read papers on the history of the Tech Comm field and will dig through my piles of old material. Can others have a look and contribute as well? If you add information from verifiable or discoverable sources, please add citations in the references section and place in-text links in your contribution. Wolfraem (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: I suggest that the term technical publication be redirected to this page.  70.250.190.30 (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: This is a major field of study...why is there only one source? A layman might look at this entry and not realize just how significant and vital the subject is. I think there should be a community effort to beef up the sourcing before worrying about the content. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sourcing 

message: As it stands, the lead is poorly written. It contains a list, which is really unusual for Wikipedia entries, and likely isn't informative enough for readers unfamiliar with the subject. I think it needs to be cut down, which shouldn't be a problem considering that it's all unsourced. Some of the material in the lists and parentheses (which are too long and too frequent) could probably be moved elsewhere in the article as well. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead has been fixed, but now there's another issue. The content creation section really gives a lot of attention to technical writing, and none at all to other technical communication professions such as technical illustration or technical editing. Furthermore, it appears to be a repeat of the writing process article. Now, the material in this case is well-written and I'm sure somebody put a lot of time into it, but I really feel like it ought to just be deleted. What purpose does it serve? The writing process in technical writing differs very little from the general writing process. Are we going to include big long sections for what makes technical translating different from normal translating, for example? Part of the reason for inter-wiki links is that, if the reader wants to know more, they can click and open another window. If someone wants to know that much about technical writing specifically, then there's already an entry for that. I feel that this article ought to be kept only for what's relevant to technical communication as a whole...I will see if I can merge this content creation business somewhere else, though the sourcing for it is still a major issue. MezzoMezzo (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid WP:TLDR, I'll put it this way: I want to remove the "content creation" subsection, or merge it to the writing process and related articles. Hoping for a response from other editors. MezzoMezzo (talk) 10:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead is a mess 

message: I propose that relevant content from Technical communication tools be merged as a section here. Keep in mind that not all of the content there now is relevant. I just don't see a reason for a big long list of the tools which we use as a standalone entry. A short paragraph here mentioned our most common tools (only if it can be sourced!) might enhance this article, but it certainly doesn't require a separate one. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge