Forum:Too Long, Didn't Read (article length)


 * Moved from Wowpedia talk:Village pump

I'd like to suggest creating a template flagging articles that are overly long, similar if not identical to Wikipedia's. Many articles on Wowwiki nowadays could be written much more concisely, contain redundant information, or IMO are better off broken into sub-pages.

On a similar topic, has anyone considered implementing a "theory" tab to contain speculation, as Lostpedia does? -- 22:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would support such a designation. IMO, there are 3 categories of long articles:
 * Listing based, which can be managed with ajax to improve usefulness and load time
 * Wordy articles, just need skilled editing to be more concise
 * Information overkill, for a lack terminology, like Northrend gems table. I'm sure the intentions were good, but this article is way past useful, in my opinion. I doubt it is the only one.


 * -Howbizr (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a copy of at Article size as a start for a guideline proposal. I fixed most of the links and made it a little more WoWWiki friendly, but it could use tons of editing and chopping down before it goes to a vote. --  Fandyllic  (talk &middot; contr) 11:08 AM PST 20 Apr 2009


 * The irony... The Article size might be a candidate for being downsized. Thanks for the import! -Howbizr (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees a need for this. It looks like a rainbow threw up on that gem page. -- 21:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I too have referenced barf when viewing this page. There is a very lengthy discussion (again, the irony, "too long, didn't read") about the fate of the plethora of jewelcrafting articles, if you want to dive in. -Howbizr (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL it does. I do not disagree, but I would like to know more examples of what Tyrsenus thinks is too long.-- 21:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * History of the Horde is a good example, and I suspect there's some Fair Use issues with that article as well. -- 03:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just thought I would throw this out there. There is a special page that lists long articles based on file size, Special:LongPages. This might give a good starting point for finding candidates for shortening. -- 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)